Rec Room Renovation

[GO-NAD!]

I think there are multiple solutions, but the only method I use is with base station with IR blaster. It receives RF, and sends along these extremely thin black wires (10ft long are what was included), which then just stick right at the IR sensor of the component. It's actually a lot more discrete than it sounds. I run the wires under most components.

Then there are "hardwired" IR emitters too, but you have to research which base stations can do that, and with which remotes they are compatible with from there. There was a thread that AVRat started with some input on inputs, dumb pun intended. I guess YMMV. Hard wire would look nicer a bit, but really all I need are IR stickon emitters. Now, once you get to fool proof control stuff, yeah it's best to have RS232, but it gets up there in price, and believe it or not, there are a lot lot of components which just don't have that to begin with.

Ok, I found it, here ya go . . .

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65973

Thanks for the link. More options to consider.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I have recently been having cold feet about the projector, because of my concerns with the room being too bright and remote control issues. So, I went to the dealer's showroom to get a bit more intimate with the AE4000 (which is the model I would have gone with). I had a long chat with one of the guys there, who was very helpful and quite knowledgable.

We varied the lighting conditions in the HT room where they have this model installed and I'm quite confident that there won't be a problem with PQ from that standpoint. Their room, though painted with subdued colours, is by no means dark. But the image quality is still fantastic.

As for remote control, he just said to run some CAT 5 for them and they can install an IR receiver/transmitter.

After spending more time there, I'm much more confident that this is the best option (rather than going with a plasma). It just looks fantastic!

I'm getting ready to put up drywall this weekend. It's a relatively simple job - except for having to cut holes for the 18 recessed light fixtures that are already installed and getting my measurements right, before cutting them. I really should start a new thread - either in DIY or Members Systems....

 

[jostenmeat]

How bright is too bright? You are going to watch with all 18 lights on? Serious question.

I suppose with lights on viewing, it will be more for TV. I haven't made a separate cal for TV because it is extremely rare when I watch it. However, the overall brightness levels as a source are much brighter than my BDs, if it makes you feel better there.

I forget your targeted screen size, but IIRC it's not very big, so that is another important factor that this can work. What was the size?

If you want to use a bunch of lights or have terrible light control, I would seriously consider the Dalite High Power screen material. If anything, it is the best there is at shedding offaxis light. On axis light, you are totally scrooed. (edit: do not make the mistake of having any of the 18 lights very close to screen; keep them away as far as aesthetics will allow you.)

There is the SI Black Diamond stuff too, but I'm pretty sure it's very expensive.

Of course AT is the only way to fly with the majority of AUDIOholics, but I would consider your options here.

Pana seems to get the nod over Epson, its main competitor, for reliability and feature set, but if it was me I'd be very curious as for the new/improved LCD implementations that Epson is coming out with. Epson gets the nod for contrast/blacks. Epson has awesome CS, but sometimes they need to because of numerous issues like dust blobs. They just give you a new one I think!

Of course if you have the money, JVC will be more reliable than both if only for the fact that your odds of suffering dust blobs will be tremendously* reduced. (It comes down to unsealed light paths of 3LCD, vs sealed light paths of 3LCOS). Of course, JVC offers better on/off contrast and black levels. It will do all that too while being brighter, when calibrated. The LCDs can sometimes be brighter than JVC, but only as uncalibrated. I believe the Pana 4000's lumens was rated mid-low 400s in lumens by Feierman. And, I can't recall specifically, but he usually measures in what he recognizes as best mode, and that means video first: brightest lamp mode. Which means louder PJ for us audio people. OTOH, 3LCDs are probably the quietest running PJs there are. It goes hand in hand though; the brighter your PJ, the louder it will be. DLPs are brightest, and the loudest, for example.

 

[GO-NAD!]

How bright is too bright? You are going to watch with all 18 lights on? Serious question.

I suppose with lights on viewing, it will be more for TV. I haven't made a separate cal for TV because it is extremely rare when I watch it. However, the overall brightness levels as a source are much brighter than my BDs, if it makes you feel better there.

I forget your targeted screen size, but IIRC it's not very big, so that is another important factor that this can work. What was the size?

If you want to use a bunch of lights or have terrible light control, I would seriously consider the Dalite High Power screen material. If anything, it is the best there is at shedding offaxis light. On axis light, you are totally scrooed. (edit: do not make the mistake of having any of the 18 lights very close to screen; keep them away as far as aesthetics will allow you.)

There is the SI Black Diamond stuff too, but I'm pretty sure it's very expensive.

Of course AT is the only way to fly with the majority of AUDIOholics, but I would consider your options here.

Pana seems to get the nod over Epson, its main competitor, for reliability and feature set, but if it was me I'd be very curious as for the new/improved LCD implementations that Epson is coming out with. Epson gets the nod for contrast/blacks. Epson has awesome CS, but sometimes they need to because of numerous issues like dust blobs. They just give you a new one I think!

Of course if you have the money, JVC will be more reliable than both if only for the fact that your odds of suffering dust blobs will be tremendously* reduced. (It comes down to unsealed light paths of 3LCD, vs sealed light paths of 3LCOS). Of course, JVC offers better on/off contrast and black levels. It will do all that too while being brighter, when calibrated. The LCDs can sometimes be brighter than JVC, but only as uncalibrated. I believe the Pana 4000's lumens was rated mid-low 400s in lumens by Feierman. And, I can't recall specifically, but he usually measures in what he recognizes as best mode, and that means video first: brightest lamp mode. Which means louder PJ for us audio people. OTOH, 3LCDs are probably the quietest running PJs there are. It goes hand in hand though; the brighter your PJ, the louder it will be. DLPs are brightest, and the loudest, for example.

I just wanted to know that I would be able to have some lights on while watching TV (as you correctly surmised). I have the lights and dimmers set up so that all lights between the PJ and the screen are on the same dimmer. I'm very confident that I won't have issues in that area.

I was figuring on a 96" screen, so that I could place the floorstanders outside the screen. But now, I'm wondering about going to 108"-110" and placing them inside the screen. My biggest concern with that, is the bottom screen frame cross-member may have an adverse effect on the SQ, due to reflections from the lower drivers. The bottom driver is about 18" from the floor.

Of course, I could place them on short stands, in order to raise them above the frame a bit, but that would raise the tweeters above ear height accordingly. I'll be in a compromised SQ situation regardless, as the speakers will be quite close to the screen side frames, whether placed inside the screen, or outside. I'm really in a quandry as to what to do. Perhaps, I should just accept that SQ will be adversely affected and move them inside the screen. Any advise there?

 

[jostenmeat]

Good that you're comfortable with the lighting. I can't help you here anyways, but if it's little work, I'd consider doing multiple zones of lighting control. Especially for the bank of lights that are closest to the screen.

If short stands help the drivers clear the framing, I definitely would do it, and I am going to use cinder blocks after STRONGBAD's genius recommendation.

What you can do from there is simply tilt the speakers downward. Perhaps only using the rear feet as attached, or whatever else will work. My HT mains right now only have the front spikes I think right now, to help tilt them upward just barely. I'll probably put them as flush/level after raising. I know with my line of speakers, raising tweeter height above ear level changes the response, but it is not necessarily for the worse, depending on personal preference and room issues. But, you can just tilt them anyhow to be on axis. I don't think raising them say 8" from a distance of say 10' is all that huge of a difference.

For the spread between the speakers, that's a more complex subject I think. Ok, I opened your doc again. My guess is that I would prefer outside the screen, but that is because I like having significant spread with aggressive toe in, at least with conventional speakers.

I wouldn't worry about the screen's adverse effects. Just have them pretty close to flush to frame, and give them whatever space you can away from them, even if just a couple of inches.

I would be more worried about shoving them too far into the corners, or too close to the sidewalls. The closer you are to either, the more concerned I would be in treating them extensively with broadband absorption.

I think the best way to know, once absolutely certain about screen size, is to simply try both. Listen to them with speakers inside and outside. No issues I can foresee in trying that out, atm.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Good that you're comfortable with the lighting. I can't help you here anyways, but if it's little work, I'd consider doing multiple zones of lighting control. Especially for the bank of lights that are closest to the screen.

If short stands help the drivers clear the framing, I definitely would do it, and I am going to use cinder blocks after STRONGBAD's genius recommendation.

What you can do from there is simply tilt the speakers downward. Perhaps only using the rear feet as attached, or whatever else will work. My HT mains right now only have the front spikes I think right now, to help tilt them upward just barely. I'll probably put them as flush/level after raising. I know with my line of speakers, raising tweeter height above ear level changes the response, but it is not necessarily for the worse, depending on personal preference and room issues. But, you can just tilt them anyhow to be on axis. I don't think raising them say 8" from a distance of say 10' is all that huge of a difference.

For the spread between the speakers, that's a more complex subject I think. Ok, I opened your doc again. My guess is that I would prefer outside the screen, but that is because I like having significant spread with aggressive toe in, at least with conventional speakers.

I wouldn't worry about the screen's adverse effects. Just have them pretty close to flush to frame, and give them whatever space you can away from them, even if just a couple of inches.

I would be more worried about shoving them too far into the corners, or too close to the sidewalls. The closer you are to either, the more concerned I would be in treating them extensively with broadband absorption.

I think the best way to know, once absolutely certain about screen size, is to simply try both. Listen to them with speakers inside and outside. No issues I can foresee in trying that out, atm.

Hey, I never thought about tilting them downwards! Great suggestion! If I do place them inside the screen, it would involve pulling them away from the sidewalls a bit, so that may be a benefit as well. With a 108" - 110" screen, they would be about 87" apart, centre to centre. I think there would be sufficient channel separation with that distance and they'd be about 5" - 6" further from the sidewalls. I'm leaning more towards the larger screen now.

With a 7' 2" ceiling however, I'm going to bring the top of the screen to about 6" from the ceiling with a screen that size. Should I be concerned about that? Before you suggest it, painting the ceiling black will be a non-starter. I suppose, if there is too much reflection from the ceiling, I could persuade her to go a bit darker, at least.

Thanks again, for all the advise!

 

[BMXTRIX]

It's good you have the lights on dimmers, but you really have to zone them up.

Take a look at what you can do with zoned lighting right here:

http://www.avintegrated.com/lighting.html

The importance of properly zoning lighting is as much an oversight of builders as it is theater guys. And the result, when it is done, is frustrating. You can't turn the lights on AT ALL if there are any lights near the screen. Not 10 watts - it will destroy the image.

But, if you have lights over the seating, you can crank them at 60+ watts (per light!) and you will have almost zero impact on the image quality. Or, at leave, minimal impact leaving a phenomenally viewable image.

Like everything else, this is the time to do it, and if the drywall is exposed, this is a very easy thing to correct. Takes a few hours of work, yes, but very easy.

 

[GO-NAD!]

It's good you have the lights on dimmers, but you really have to zone them up.

Take a look at what you can do with zoned lighting right here:

http://www.avintegrated.com/lighting.html

The importance of properly zoning lighting is as much an oversight of builders as it is theater guys. And the result, when it is done, is frustrating. You can't turn the lights on AT ALL if there are any lights near the screen. Not 10 watts - it will destroy the image.

But, if you have lights over the seating, you can crank them at 60+ watts (per light!) and you will have almost zero impact on the image quality. Or, at leave, minimal impact leaving a phenomenally viewable image.

Like everything else, this is the time to do it, and if the drywall is exposed, this is a very easy thing to correct. Takes a few hours of work, yes, but very easy.

Oh, I have three zones in the room. Every light between the PJ and the screen, is on one dimmer and there are two more zones behind the PJ location. With one or both of the rear zones on, there will be sufficient light spilling into the front zone to avoid tripping over things and the two lights over the main seat are on the middle zone dimmer. I figure that should work pretty well. Does it make sense to you?

Thanks for the input!

 

[BMXTRIX]

Oh, I have three zones in the room. Every light between the PJ and the screen, is on one dimmer and there are two more zones behind the PJ location. With one or both of the rear zones on, there will be sufficient light spilling into the front zone to avoid tripping over things and the two lights over the main seat are on the middle zone dimmer. I figure that should work pretty well. Does it make sense to you?

It sounds like you really have that covered. It's always one of my biggest gripes, that I can't do a thing about when I walk into a theater space and they have like 4 lights total in the room. I'm like "WTF is this???" and they always say "It's a theater, it's supposed to be dark!"

No, theaters get dark when you turn the lights out. If there are ten thousand lights in the room, and you turn them all off, it's just as dark as if there are 2 lights in the room and you turn them all off. But, with two lights, you can NEVER get the room bright enough, where you want/need light, and you are stuck living with it. But, with a lot of lights, especially in a dark colored room, with dark walls/ceiling/carpet, and a lot of zoned lighting (key word: zoned!) you can deliver just enough light, almost exactly where you need it at any time and still have the perfect theater setting.

Sounds like you invested the time that so few actually do to get the lighting right, and the final result will really be stellar it sounds like. Well, at least for the lighting

 

[GO-NAD!]

It sounds like you really have that covered. It's always one of my biggest gripes, that I can't do a thing about when I walk into a theater space and they have like 4 lights total in the room. I'm like "WTF is this???" and they always say "It's a theater, it's supposed to be dark!"

No, theaters get dark when you turn the lights out. If there are ten thousand lights in the room, and you turn them all off, it's just as dark as if there are 2 lights in the room and you turn them all off. But, with two lights, you can NEVER get the room bright enough, where you want/need light, and you are stuck living with it. But, with a lot of lights, especially in a dark colored room, with dark walls/ceiling/carpet, and a lot of zoned lighting (key word: zoned!) you can deliver just enough light, almost exactly where you need it at any time and still have the perfect theater setting.

Sounds like you invested the time that so few actually do to get the lighting right, and the final result will really be stellar it sounds like. Well, at least for the lighting

Well, I'm glad you think I got the lights right. I had already used the link you provided a few weeks ago, when planning the room lighting.

I think I'm gonna go with a 102" screen. That's where I'm leaning today anyway. I figure that if I go with a 96" screen, I'm stuck with it. I was figuring that I would have to place the mains outside the screen and a 96-incher would be all I could squeeze into the space while maintaining some clearance from the side walls for those mains. I then thought about going 108" and place the mains inside the screen, but then the drivers would be firing through the bottom screen frame. Plus, I think that it would be to large for the space, which is 129" wide by 86" high. Then JM suggested mounting the mains higher and tilting them down a bit. If I go with a 102" screen, I can experiment with placement inside or outside the screen and make a final placement decision. Plus, that size would be at about the maximum suitable for the space. I can always place some acoustic treatment and bass traps behind the false wall, if necessary, without being an eyesore for my wife. If, in the end, the 102" screen is just to big, I can cut it smaller.

 

[jostenmeat]

Something came across my mind for you to research and report back on with angling speaker, and that is if there is any increased audible comb filtering issue. The very high intensity of smaller holes with this weave is designed to move comb filtering into much higher frequencies where we won't notice. My guess is it it will be totally fine, but always better to know for sure. Here's a small portion from the Seymour site:

"For example, any fabric with holes will comb filter to a measureable degree, but in order for it not to have an audible effect the lobing needs to be as closely spaced as possible (our hearing will average frequency/special response) and at the highest frequencies".

However, like I said before, maybe even multiple times, I don't think even a foot higher for your speaker will create much audible issue at your double digit feet distance. I mean, I don't complain when I'm one foot off-center from center speaker in the horizontal sense from double digit feet away, and that's with the ubiquitous mtm.

As for the arguments for placing speakers outside vs inside screen. One argument would be the following, and I'll quote the Seymour site again (and out of order on purpose):

"If you have a very large screen and a narrow spacing between your left and right speakers you can get all three behind the screen. The advantages of this include better concealment (e.g. high WAF factor), and the minimal sonic effect that the screen imparts will be identical across your (hopefully) identical front speakers."

"What is the real world result from placing your speakers behind a Center Stage screen? If only your center channel is behind the screen, you will need to increase the volume of the center channel one to two decibels. If you have all three front speakers behind the screen, you will only need to trim your surround channels one to two decibels to match your slightly attenuated front soundstage. The qualitative effects of having a fabric in front of your speakers is that you will notice that brighter recordings are tamed down a little, with a slight loss of sparkle and air, because the attenuation is higher in the top octave."

I run Audyssey every time I change anything with my audio. Typically, the default curve is the "House" curve, and this has a rolloff of the HF. Therefore with this screen, I expect that it will already do for Audyssey what it was going to for itself. So, In my case, I'm really not worried about this.

For you, if there is lack of "higher end" calibration going on, it may behoove you more to have all three behind the screen. OTOH, I fully expect that the difference will be minimal, if even audible (outside of level, but that's easy anyways), and more importantly, I think the benefits of a vertically arrayed center speaker placed as it should be, all drivers on the same plane, best possible acoustic match, best horiz dispersion, yada yada, will all far outweigh the aforementioned issue.

Paint. Whatever color you pick, even white for example, you will have to research online and hopefully choose the correct people to trust (don't ask me how I know), or for best due diligence, you get a variety of paints, and put them all side by side on a board. After drying, just look at all the samples under a light source, and you will see which are the most reflective, and which are the least. Otherwise, the darker the better, but you already know that.

What you might not know is that it is the ceiling that is generally referred to as the most important boundary of all to treat for light. However, while this is said in the general sense, it is assuming the type of screen which is generally used, and that is angular reflective. If OTOH it was the Dalite HP I mentioned before, it would instead be the back wall, generally speaking.

Back to speaker placement, and viewing angle, I'm glad to see that Seymour pretty much advises what I have found to work best on my own. Greater spread, with more extreme toe in (he advises even more toe in than I use), and well I'll leave the viewing angle alone for the moment, but mine pretty much is in line with his recs, topping his max rec by a couple degrees, but you'll see him say that is more workable when sources are HD, or with stricter light control, and mine has both.

Crap, I almost skipped it, but the 6" from ceiling, no I don't think it's an issue at all, except possibly* if you have a bright colored ceiling. I dunno. Mine as white wasn't too bad, but that's also because it is unlike 99% of the screens used in HTs with its reflective properties. You'll probably be just fine, and I don't even need to repeat this, but you should figure out a darker paint that the wife will like, that is also the most matte/flattest possible. I might even myself take a lighter colored paint that is less reflective, than a significantly darker paint that is more reflective.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Something came across my mind for you to research and report back on with angling speaker, and that is if there is any increased audible comb filtering issue. The very high intensity of smaller holes with this weave is designed to move comb filtering into much higher frequencies where we won't notice. My guess is it it will be totally fine, but always better to know for sure. Here's a small portion from the Seymour site:

"For example, any fabric with holes will comb filter to a measureable degree, but in order for it not to have an audible effect the lobing needs to be as closely spaced as possible (our hearing will average frequency/special response) and at the highest frequencies".

However, like I said before, maybe even multiple times, I don't think even a foot higher for your speaker will create much audible issue at your double digit feet distance. I mean, I don't complain when I'm one foot off-center from center speaker in the horizontal sense from double digit feet away, and that's with the ubiquitous mtm.

As for the arguments for placing speakers outside vs inside screen. One argument would be the following, and I'll quote the Seymour site again (and out of order on purpose):

"If you have a very large screen and a narrow spacing between your left and right speakers you can get all three behind the screen. The advantages of this include better concealment (e.g. high WAF factor), and the minimal sonic effect that the screen imparts will be identical across your (hopefully) identical front speakers."

"What is the real world result from placing your speakers behind a Center Stage screen? If only your center channel is behind the screen, you will need to increase the volume of the center channel one to two decibels. If you have all three front speakers behind the screen, you will only need to trim your surround channels one to two decibels to match your slightly attenuated front soundstage. The qualitative effects of having a fabric in front of your speakers is that you will notice that brighter recordings are tamed down a little, with a slight loss of sparkle and air, because the attenuation is higher in the top octave."

I run Audyssey every time I change anything with my audio. Typically, the default curve is the "House" curve, and this has a rolloff of the HF. Therefore with this screen, I expect that it will already do for Audyssey what it was going to for itself. So, In my case, I'm really not worried about this.

For you, if there is lack of "higher end" calibration going on, it may behoove you more to have all three behind the screen. OTOH, I fully expect that the difference will be minimal, if even audible (outside of level, but that's easy anyways), and more importantly, I think the benefits of a vertically arrayed center speaker placed as it should be, all drivers on the same plane, best possible acoustic match, best horiz dispersion, yada yada, will all far outweigh the aforementioned issue.

Paint. Whatever color you pick, even white for example, you will have to research online and hopefully choose the correct people to trust (don't ask me how I know), or for best due diligence, you get a variety of paints, and put them all side by side on a board. After drying, just look at all the samples under a light source, and you will see which are the most reflective, and which are the least. Otherwise, the darker the better, but you already know that.

What you might not know is that it is the ceiling that is generally referred to as the most important boundary of all to treat for light. However, while this is said in the general sense, it is assuming the type of screen which is generally used, and that is angular reflective. If OTOH it was the Dalite HP I mentioned before, it would instead be the back wall, generally speaking.

Back to speaker placement, and viewing angle, I'm glad to see that Seymour pretty much advises what I have found to work best on my own. Greater spread, with more extreme toe in (he advises even more toe in than I use), and well I'll leave the viewing angle alone for the moment, but mine pretty much is in line with his recs, topping his max rec by a couple degrees, but you'll see him say that is more workable when sources are HD, or with stricter light control, and mine has both.

Crap, I almost skipped it, but the 6" from ceiling, no I don't think it's an issue at all, except possibly* if you have a bright colored ceiling. I dunno. Mine as white wasn't too bad, but that's also because it is unlike 99% of the screens used in HTs with its reflective properties. You'll probably be just fine, and I don't even need to repeat this, but you should figure out a darker paint that the wife will like, that is also the most matte/flattest possible. I might even myself take a lighter colored paint that is less reflective, than a significantly darker paint that is more reflective.

Well, that certainly makes the decision to place the mains inside the screen much easier. I'll just plan on doing that and work out the how to mount them when the time comes.

And, if close proximity to the ceiling isn't a problem, as long as the paint isn't too bright, I may even reconsider my screen size and go bigger than 102". Using this calculator...

http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

...the THX recommended screen size, based on a 13' viewing distance and a viewing angle of 36 degrees, would be 116". I guess I've been quite conservative in my screen size estimation. I wonder if the 36 degree angle is based on front row, or middle row seating?

 

[jostenmeat]

Well, that certainly makes the decision to place the mains inside the screen much easier. I'll just plan on doing that and work out the how to mount them when the time comes.

And, if close proximity to the ceiling isn't a problem, as long as the paint isn't too bright, I may even reconsider my screen size and go bigger than 102". Using this calculator...

http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

...the THX recommended screen size, based on a 13' viewing distance and a viewing angle of 36 degrees, would be 116". I guess I've been quite conservative in my screen size estimation. I wonder if the 36 degree angle is based on front row, or middle row seating?

I am not exactly sure how you figured having the speakers all behind the screen will be the best solution, but ok. Obviously, there are a lot of things going on.

For my comb filtering worry, I'm really no longer worried. If Seymour advises experimentation with extreme toe in, then I am sure he would have mentioned any issue if all 3 were behind screen.

The recommended min distance between speaker and screen is 1". Old version was 2". If you pull the speaker further back, your results on a graph will look superior since the combing bands will narrow and go further up in frequency, but the difference is still inaudible. I believe he stated you can only even see the difference with 1/24th resolution. At 1/3 or even 1/6, it won't even show up on graphs.

Viewing angle is from a single spot. Your question regarding multirow means that in-between compromises come into play, and if you're going this route, let us know. Speaker positions, listener positions, levels, screen size, everything all of a sudden could be considered a compromise. Two philosophies here: Either perfect for captain's seat, damn the rest to hell, or, compromise throughout the seating. AH has an article on level matching multi rows, and obviously it's with the second philosophy in mind, including the usage of bipolar side surrounds.

36 deg is great, the de facto starting point, but I hope you don't watch much, if any, standard def. Even TV in HD can be a bit much, IMO.

The issue with the Pana is the lack of lumens. 116" is on the outer limits for sure (some would say beyond), but you could probably do it in a *cave*, which you will not have. If you are ok with compromised color accuracy and blacks, you can have the brightness increased, however, as calibrated, it might be the lowest lumens for its class of PJ.

As I've mentioned on a number of occasions, it may be best to land the PJ when you are close to done with the rest of the room, outside of the screen wall. Buy PJ, fire it at a blank wall, throwing all sources on there.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I am not exactly sure how you figured having the speakers all behind the screen will be the best solution, but ok. Obviously, there are a lot of things going on.

For my comb filtering worry, I'm really no longer worried. If Seymour advises experimentation with extreme toe in, then I am sure he would have mentioned any issue if all 3 were behind screen.

The recommended min distance between speaker and screen is 1". Old version was 2". If you pull the speaker further back, your results on a graph will look superior since the combing bands will narrow and go further up in frequency, but the difference is still inaudible. I believe he stated you can only even see the difference with 1/24th resolution. At 1/3 or even 1/6, it won't even show up on graphs.

Viewing angle is from a single spot. Your question regarding multirow means that in-between compromises come into play, and if you're going this route, let us know. Speaker positions, listener positions, levels, screen size, everything all of a sudden could be considered a compromise. Two philosophies here: Either perfect for captain's seat, damn the rest to hell, or, compromise throughout the seating. AH has an article on level matching multi rows, and obviously it's with the second philosophy in mind, including the usage of bipolar side surrounds.

36 deg is great, the de facto starting point, but I hope you don't watch much, if any, standard def. Even TV in HD can be a bit much, IMO.

The issue with the Pana is the lack of lumens. 116" is on the outer limits for sure (some would say beyond), but you could probably do it in a *cave*, which you will not have. If you are ok with compromised color accuracy and blacks, you can have the brightness increased, however, as calibrated, it might be the lowest lumens for its class of PJ.

As I've mentioned on a number of occasions, it may be best to land the PJ when you are close to done with the rest of the room, outside of the screen wall. Buy PJ, fire it at a blank wall, throwing all sources on there.

Placing the speakers behind the screen isn't a goal, but just a way to increase screen size a bit. In order to maintain some distance between the speakers and the sidewalls, I would have to keep the screen a bit on the smaller side. Placing them inside* the screen would allow me to increase the screen size without pushing the mains towards the wall.

I had assumed that the screen viewing angle was based on a central postion, but I was just wondering what row the recommendation was based on. Maybe it isn't based on any particular row and that it's just the optimum viewing angle. I don't intend to set up multi-row seating. Any additional seating beyond a couch or loveseat will be temporary.

I'm going to aim for perfecting the setup, based on the "Captain's seat", as my wife and daughter won't be as fussy about it as I will.

I admit that in discovering the possibility of increasing my screen size, I forgot about the greater demands that will be placed on the projector. I guess I'll have to take that into account.

I would think that I/we will be watching primarily HD programming, but point taken. I won't go 116". Perhaps I should pick something in the 102" - 108" range. Or, do you think I should stick with the original 96" size?

Setting up the PJ before making the screen is good idea - I remember you mentioning it before. If I just painted the wall with white primer, would that be sufficient to make an accurate assessment of the best screen size? Or, maybe I should order screen fabric for a 108" screen, hang it on a temporary frame in the spot where the false wall will be set up and then see how large the projected image can be without compromising PQ. If I need to cut the screen to a smaller size, those few extra inches of fabric aren't going to be a huge amount of money down the drain if I can optimize the screen size. What do you think?

All of this added complication is the main reason I was second-guessing my decision to go with a PJ. But, after seeing how great such a set up can look, I don't have any more doubts. Still doesn't make this process any easier though...

*By "inside", I mean behind the screen, as opposed to "outside", or behind the false wall.

 

[jostenmeat]

OK, I'm going to save a congif/comparo of the various screen sizes, so that we both have quick access to the dimensions involved. Then I am going to take the liberty of posting your first attached image so that we all can figure it out more easily.

For reference to any helpful poster, the screen wall width is 129" wide (save you a moment of simple math, to compare with dimensions in link below).

96" vs 102" vs 108" vs 116"

Alrighty then, to jibber jabber some more. Yes, throwing the pic up without the actual screen is fine to find your viewing angle. I would personally not want to cut off any more material than you have to: what I mean is that you ought to look to maximize your "tilt" degrees to reduce the chance of moiré, and most particularly with an LCD PJ like the Pana. I forgot how much tilt I'll be putting in (though we figured it out at one point), even though I don't need it, because I might as well future proof just in case.

I had assumed that the screen viewing angle was based on a central postion, but I was just wondering what row the recommendation was based on. Maybe it isn't based on any particular row and that it's just the optimum viewing angle. I don't intend to set up multi-row seating. Any additional seating beyond a couch or loveseat will be temporary.

Ah right, yes it's the angle for the middle row indeed, in a movie theater, I think anyways. When I describe my setup to some AHers, they are shocked, but the reality is that I have had much* more immersive experiences in the theaters, of course depending on the seating.

I would think that I/we will be watching primarily HD programming, but point taken. I won't go 116". Perhaps I should pick something in the 102" - 108" range. Or, do you think I should stick with the original 96" size?

To replicate my current viewing angle, I would be making a 137" screen in your room. I am replicating the same viewing angle with my new screen. So, no, I'm not sure you want to be asking me*. I have a semi-cave (cave in front of viewers), I watch 99% BD as my source (and I'm finicky with even those), and I have a somewhat brighter unit in my JVC RS1.

When you say primarily HD programming, IMO, there can still be a big difference between some types of HD programming and others. Movies OTOH are very often in smaller ARs such as 2.35:1. If it was the case that all of my viewing was 1.78, I can guarantee you that I wouldn't go as big, but like I said, BDs are by far and away what I watch in the HT.

I will give myself more time to mull over your screen size. Could be days, I dunno. No comment yet . . .

 

[GO-NAD!]

I would personally not want to cut off any more material than you have to: what I mean is that you ought to look to maximize your "tilt" degrees to reduce the chance of moiré, and most particularly with an LCD PJ like the Pana. I forgot how much tilt I'll be putting in (though we figured it out at one point), even though I don't need it, because I might as well future proof just in case.

Ah right, yes it's the angle for the middle row indeed, in a movie theater, I think anyways. When I describe my setup to some AHers, they are shocked, but the reality is that I have had much* more immersive experiences in the theaters, of course depending on the seating.

To replicate my current viewing angle, I would be making a 137" screen in your room. I am replicating the same viewing angle with my new screen. So, no, I'm not sure you want to be asking me*. I have a semi-cave (cave in front of viewers), I watch 99% BD as my source (and I'm finicky with even those), and I have a somewhat brighter unit in my JVC RS1.

When you say primarily HD programming, IMO, there can still be a big difference between some types of HD programming and others. Movies OTOH are very often in smaller ARs such as 2.35:1. If it was the case that all of my viewing was 1.78, I can guarantee you that I wouldn't go as big, but like I said, BDs are by far and away what I watch in the HT.

I will give myself more time to mull over your screen size. Could be days, I dunno. No comment yet . . .

I figured I would get Seymour to cut it, including the tilt, so that I don't take the risk of mucking it up. I figured that if I ordered it for the largest conceivable size for my room, I can always cut it again to a smaller size. If I order a smaller screen, I can't add material to it. I dunno - maybe I should just pick a size and stick with it.

It is quite apparent to me, that your standards are quite high and you are loath to make compromises in you setup. That's not a criticism - you know what you want and you are striving to satisfy your requirements. I respect that. I, on the other hand, will probably be more easily pleased. I'm in a situation that requires plenty of compromise and I'm quite willing to make those compromises. That said, I still want to make the best of my situation, so I'd like to do a screen that will maintain the best possible PQ, while making the most of the big screen capabilities of a PJ.

I would expect that the vast majority of our viewing will be in the 1.78 AR. HD sports and other programming, and of course BD movies. Probably an even mix of said sources.

You've been taking a lot of time to address my situation. Much appreciated.

As for considering my screen size, take your time. I highly doubt that I'll be ready to work on that before Christmas. Having to redo about 75% of the basement wiring was not planned for and it set me back at least a couple of weeks. I'll be happy if the room is usable by the middle of December.

 

[jostenmeat]

Now that I actually compared dimensions of screen and wall, I am much more acutely aware of your dilemma as for "inside" vs "outside". I didn't really compare until now because in my experiences, I typically spend the time for no reason, as my suggestions often get shot down after spending the time. As for me being loath to compromise, I don't know. Everything is a compromise. Your situation is proof of that. You said yourself you want the best pic you can get here, and yet you also seem pretty uncompromising with audio setup, whether that is tweeter height, space from boundaries, speaker spread, and going AT or bust for that matter with a modestly powered PJ in a room with modest light control.

Well, now that I've looked, the way I see it, you only want to do the speakers "inside". Even at the smallest considered size of 96", that only gives you a total of less than 23" or so on either side, but then you have to subtract speaker width, as well as the screen frame on each side. So, then the question becomes, if only for consideration of what can even work well for you and your uncompromising audio needs, what is the smallest you can go and still not compromise your audio? My suggestion here is to grab a few cinder blocks, a folding chair, and temporarily setup your three speakers on the wall once demo is over. Make notes of not only the best width, but the available play in speaker spread while maintaining excellent audio.

IMO, it's all about experimentation in front of your own eyes/ears, whether that's pic size with PJ in possession, eyeing paint's reflectivity, etc. I've shared a story here at least a couple of times, though it's now been a while, but I remember a fellow "predicting" everything, with plenty on online research. He custom built cabinetry around the screen frame himself. However, once he threw up the pic, he realized he just absolutely had to go bigger, and that was pretty immediately. Welp, he ripped out all of his hard work and started all over again. This is just a story to support the premise of my advice above.

OK, IMO, for extensive HDTV viewing, I think even 30 deg viewing angle is more than desired, IMO. It depends on the sport too. For instance, the Winter Games at 30 deg, or even closer, was freaking awesome. OTOH, NBA or Final Four basketball is a bit much. I assume hockey would be too (I don't get hockey since I only have OTA). Well, if this was the path you followed, your screen would now be less than 96".

Then all of a sudden this heavy and absurdly large can of worms struck me right upside the head, causing me some momentary pain. The Pana 4000 has, I believe, 6 presets for zoom/focus. Well, time to pick your poison, and I'm just typing away in a flurry, so I will very likely refine a poison or two, or even concoct another poison or two.

Poison #1 (death by small picture): Go significantly smaller than 96". Pros: you will not hurt for brightness, HDTV will no longer be overwhelming, with hopefully enough space between speakers/boundaries.

Poison #2 (death by black borders): Get a pic as big as you want for blurays (let's pretend 108"), and use another preset to reduce HDTV to a smaller size. Yep, you have black bars on every border. Full blown pic for critical movie watching, lights off.

Poison #3 (death by blowing your brain up with infinite considerations): Get a pic that is perfectly large enough for 2.35 AR. Use another preset to reduce the size of 1.78 to fit into the middle of your "scope" 2.35 screen. Pro: HDTV size will be reduced. Cons: Blowing brain up considering the following, screen frame bottom height vs speaker driver height, lack of light control on the screen wall itself where the "black bars" on the top and bottom are actually visible on your false wall, and just double the dimensions to now consider.


side notes: among the compromises of using "multiple presets", you will have to choose which AR to calibrate for (or must be willing to fiddle PJ menu to access multiple user/calibration settings if available). Also, it's been said that it's possible that one preset will be perfectly in focus and otherwise, but another might not quite be because of the gradations available with the mechanical/automated adjustments. However, I am guessing that this would be subtle at best.

Another consideration is what if your next PJ no longer had this preset ability? Well, either the screen now becomes too large for many of your sources, or you always suffer black bars, or you have to do all of the adjustments yourself every time, or you take out a seriously hefty loan to buy anamorphic glass with any necessary VP.

Lastly, if you have cable tv, I would honestly look into a Tivo or something as long as your cable card fees are very reasonable, and/or consider adding antenna if your stb or anything else has ATSC tuner. Then all you do is add antenna + and RG6 cable. I don't know how the programming is in CA, but here, if it's the Superbowl, or Olympics, etc, flip to OTA, and get the best signal you can possibly get it as it's not compressed once more by the provider. Fios is just as good, OTOH. Oh, I almost forgot, the charge for pre cutting/tilting the fabric is like $45 or so? Cheers.

 

[jostenmeat]

Ok, for now, I am voting for Poison #2. You won't always have to watch in reduced size; the choice is always there for you to depending on the material. Your screen will no longer be compromised for your uses as soon as you change your PJ. You get the "larger than life omg I can't freaking believe this amazin pic that blows away the theaters" image in your HT. Lastly, I've seen a RS25 fire up on a Draper with black bars on all four sides (long story), and while definitely not ideal by any means, it can still be enjoyable.

Might as well enjoy the unique feature set of the Pana, and it could possibly work very well for your diverse needs. Whaddya think?

 

[GO-NAD!]

Now that I actually compared dimensions of screen and wall, I am much more acutely aware of your dilemma as for "inside" vs "outside". I didn't really compare until now because in my experiences, I typically spend the time for no reason, as my suggestions often get shot down after spending the time. As for me being loath to compromise, I don't know. Everything is a compromise. Your situation is proof of that. You said yourself you want the best pic you can get here, and yet you also seem pretty uncompromising with audio setup, whether that is tweeter height, space from boundaries, speaker spread, and going AT or bust for that matter with a modestly powered PJ in a room with modest light control.

Well, now that I've looked, the way I see it, you only want to do the speakers "inside". Even at the smallest considered size of 96", that only gives you a total of less than 23" or so on either side, but then you have to subtract speaker width, as well as the screen frame on each side. So, then the question becomes, if only for consideration of what can even work well for you and your uncompromising audio needs, what is the smallest you can go and still not compromise your audio? My suggestion here is to grab a few cinder blocks, a folding chair, and temporarily setup your three speakers on the wall once demo is over. Make notes of not only the best width, but the available play in speaker spread while maintaining excellent audio.

IMO, it's all about experimentation in front of your own eyes/ears, whether that's pic size with PJ in possession, eyeing paint's reflectivity, etc. I've shared a story here at least a couple of times, though it's now been a while, but I remember a fellow "predicting" everything, with plenty on online research. He custom built cabinetry around the screen frame himself. However, once he threw up the pic, he realized he just absolutely had to go bigger, and that was pretty immediately. Welp, he ripped out all of his hard work and started all over again. This is just a story to support the premise of my advice above.

OK, IMO, for extensive HDTV viewing, I think even 30 deg viewing angle is more than desired, IMO. It depends on the sport too. For instance, the Winter Games at 30 deg, or even closer, was freaking awesome. OTOH, NBA or Final Four basketball is a bit much. I assume hockey would be too (I don't get hockey since I only have OTA). Well, if this was the path you followed, your screen would now be less than 96".

Then all of a sudden this heavy and absurdly large can of worms struck me right upside the head, causing me some momentary pain. The Pana 4000 has, I believe, 6 presets for zoom/focus. Well, time to pick your poison, and I'm just typing away in a flurry, so I will very likely refine a poison or two, or even concoct another poison or two.

Poison #1 (death by small picture): Go significantly smaller than 96". Pros: you will not hurt for brightness, HDTV will no longer be overwhelming, with hopefully enough space between speakers/boundaries.

Poison #2 (death by black borders): Get a pic as big as you want for blurays (let's pretend 108"), and use another preset to reduce HDTV to a smaller size. Yep, you have black bars on every border. Full blown pic for critical movie watching, lights off.

Poison #3 (death by blowing your brain up with infinite considerations): Get a pic that is perfectly large enough for 2.35 AR. Use another preset to reduce the size of 1.78 to fit into the middle of your "scope" 2.35 screen. Pro: HDTV size will be reduced. Cons: Blowing brain up considering the following, screen frame bottom height vs speaker driver height, lack of light control on the screen wall itself where the "black bars" on the top and bottom are actually visible on your false wall, and just double the dimensions to now consider.


side notes: among the compromises of using "multiple presets", you will have to choose which AR to calibrate for (or must be willing to fiddle PJ menu to access multiple user/calibration settings if available). Also, it's been said that it's possible that one preset will be perfectly in focus and otherwise, but another might not quite be because of the gradations available with the mechanical/automated adjustments. However, I am guessing that this would be subtle at best.

Another consideration is what if your next PJ no longer had this preset ability? Well, either the screen now becomes too large for many of your sources, or you always suffer black bars, or you have to do all of the adjustments yourself every time, or you take out a seriously hefty loan to buy anamorphic glass with any necessary VP.

Lastly, if you have cable tv, I would honestly look into a Tivo or something as long as your cable card fees are very reasonable, and/or consider adding antenna if your stb or anything else has ATSC tuner. Then all you do is add antenna + and RG6 cable. I don't know how the programming is in CA, but here, if it's the Superbowl, or Olympics, etc, flip to OTA, and get the best signal you can possibly get it as it's not compressed once more by the provider. Fios is just as good, OTOH. Oh, I almost forgot, the charge for pre cutting/tilting the fabric is like $45 or so? Cheers.

One thing I like about the 4000, is the "intelligent lens memory", where the PJ detects the AR and adjusts the lens to accomodate. I'm quite new to the PJ world, so I don't know if its a common feature - but I like it.

As for what features my next PJ might have, well, I can't see that far down the road. I'll just have to plan around this PJ. I can't say how OTA HD broadcasts compare to cable up here, as I haven't watched OTA for about 15 years. I don't even know who is still broadcasting OTA. We don't have cable card up here - don't nkow anything about it. If I understand correctly, TiVo requires cable card in order to use all of its features. Not certain about that. We have a motorola HD DVR for our bedroom and it works pretty well. Hard to appreciate HD on a 27" LCD though.

Hmmm, I had no idea that HD signals were compressed. Thanks for that tidbit.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Ok, for now, I am voting for Poison #2. You won't always have to watch in reduced size; the choice is always there for you to depending on the material. Your screen will no longer be compromised for your uses as soon as you change your PJ. You get the "larger than life omg I can't freaking believe this amazin pic that blows away the theaters" image in your HT. Lastly, I've seen a RS25 fire up on a Draper with black bars on all four sides (long story), and while definitely not ideal by any means, it can still be enjoyable.

Might as well enjoy the unique feature set of the Pana, and it could possibly work very well for your diverse needs. Whaddya think?

I was leaning towards No. 2 before I even read this post! The only light control issue I will have is paint reflectivity, since my wife doesn't want the room to look like a tomb, which I can fully appreciate. So, the paint can't be too dark. The windows are not very big and the only direct sun is early in the morning, on the two bottom windows, which face east. I'll have my wife make some blackout curtains anyway.

And, I think that screen size will allow the best combination of image size, PQ, and main speaker placement. That's what I will plan for anyway. Thanks again.