Your Universal Remote Control Center
RemoteCentral.com
Custom Installers' Lounge Forum - View Post
Previous section Next section Previous page Next page Up level
Up level
The following page was printed from RemoteCentral.com:

Login:
Pass:
 
 

Page 2 of 4
Topic:
Budget 4K Projectors?
This thread has 45 replies. Displaying posts 16 through 30.
OP | Post 16 made on Tuesday February 28, 2023 at 14:07
Daniel Tonks
Wrangler of Remotes
Joined:
Posts:
October 1998
28,779
Yeah, I'm probably trying to do "too much" in too small a room, but... I'm okay with the compromises, considering the compromises I've been living with up to now.

I've always wanted a 2.35:1 setup. Without an automated matte or something, how are the unused sides when viewing 16x9?

I'm guessing a projector with a motorized lens is a definite must.

I'll keep my standalone subs and rears for now (but will need new in-ceiling Atmos), but any recommendations on decent in-wall L/C/R options with strong dialogue?
Post 17 made on Tuesday February 28, 2023 at 18:08
BobL
Founding Member
Joined:
Posts:
March 2002
1,351
I don't have a problem watching 16:9 material with black bars on the sides with my 2.35 screen. I find most people it doesn't bother but there are some bothered by it. Some people who it bothers either use masking or a lens to stretch the picture to fill it in. We actually have a number of customers with an anamorphic lens that leave it in place all the time even though 16:9 material is stretched. I guess a lot people did that with 4:3 material when high def first came out. A lens adds a good chunk to the cost but can be found used very reasonably.

As far as speakers. You don't have to go in wall with an AT screen if you don't want. You just have to makes sure the second row can see the speakers and that they are aimed at the listeners. Often that means mounting speakers above the screen angled down because mounting below the screen the speakers are often obscured by the front row. AT screens trade off a little picture quality for much better audio quality by having 3 matching speakers at the correct placement. It also gives correct sight lines.

As far as models go. There are a ton of good speakers out there but here are some features I look for. Ideally, you want identical speakers everywhere but that is rarely practical so try to at least match the series to get that seamless bubble of sound. Mis-matching speakers never gives as good audio immersion. Budget is also a big factor.

In walls - Look for ones in their own box/enclosure or a manufacturer that knows the ideal volume of the cavity for their open back models (you have to call most to find this out). That way you can make a cavity slightly larger and use extra insulation fill to get desired response. So, open back in walls can work and even if you can't get the ideal cavity, they still sound decent.

LCR If you decide to go with free standing speakers just get 3 identical speakers and don't use a dedicated center speaker. Most centers are not great and are a compromise to fit a horizontal space. Good horizontals centers use either a coaxial design or 3 way design with tweeter mounted above a midrange. You don't want a couple woofers flanking each side of a tweeter, especially for your room.

In Ceiling - I'll take a little tradeoff here if you can't get them with in an enclosure. But for Atmos you really need angled in ceiling speakers. You want them to angle 30-45 degrees. The ones that only angle 15 degrees are not angled enough. Dolby spec is to put the speakers ~45 degrees in front/back of listeners. For 2 rows I would probably only go 30 degrees or slightly less to get coverage for both rows. Doing Atmos right in small rooms is tougher because of the typically shorter ceilings than a theater.

Surrounds - For two rows without doing 2 sets of surrounds, one set for each row than get a decent bi-pole speaker placed between the rows. While 2 sets of surrounds are the best way, it not only adds cost for another pair of speakers, but you also need a processor that can handle it. It is easy to blow the budget if you go this route. A bi-pole is a good compromise so everyone gets good surround effects.

Subs - 2 or more. If using 2 one in the front left of the room and one in the right rear (or vice versa) to help with room modes. Subs don't have to match the same brand/series as the speakers.

Brands that meet many of these qualifications. We use Paradigm where I work quite a bit so I'll mention them first. Triad is another one we use with good options for various applications. Focal, Revel, Golden ear, Monoprice, Klipsch, B&W, Elac, Martin Logan, JBL, Totem, Definitive Technology.

Hope this helps.
OP | Post 18 made on Wednesday March 1, 2023 at 16:03
Daniel Tonks
Wrangler of Remotes
Joined:
Posts:
October 1998
28,779
Thanks so much for ALL the information. It's a lot to digest - especially being basically dumped into the middle of an unfinished house project and trying to think of everything I want done everywhere, all at once.

So, I'm thinking I'm liking a 2.35:1 AT screen, and in-wall fronts. I've been doing some calculations on speaker placement for 7.2.4 in my room space, and have a pretty good rough guide (until it's framed and I can get accurate measurements). Just need to find some 45 degree in-ceilings... and good in-wall fronts. Might replace my surrounds, although I do have 4 on-wall bipoles I might consider reusing (yeah yeah) and 2 or 3 subwoofers without new locations I could put into the space.
Post 19 made on Wednesday March 1, 2023 at 19:09
BobL
Founding Member
Joined:
Posts:
March 2002
1,351
Always a lot to consider especially when you have so much else going on. Whoever makes your 4 bi-poles do they also make in wall or angled in ceiling speakers? Make use of them if you can.

A note if doing in wall speakers and going by guidelines. Most guidelines will tell you to place the left and right speakers at ~30 degrees off center. Generally, this is good advice but with inwall speakers you probably want to be closer to 20 degrees and not have as much separation. You want to make sure you have good coverage for all the listeners. With free standing speakers you can "toe in" or angle the left and right speakers towards the listeners. That is not possible with in walls unless you angle the wall, which is what they do in pro applications like recording studios as well as dedicated home theaters.

Here is an article by the home acoustic alliance that shows it better than i can explain.

[Link: homeacoustics.org]

BTW, I know you probably know a lot of what i covered but I try to explain things for other people that might be following that don't have much experience.
OP | Post 20 made on Thursday March 2, 2023 at 20:15
Daniel Tonks
Wrangler of Remotes
Joined:
Posts:
October 1998
28,779
My bipoles are older Energy RC-Rs… and they don’t really offer much in the range of in-walls.

So, for sourcing purposes I’m thinking I’m going to try to stay within the Masimo product stack (so, Definitive Tech, Polk, B&W). Definitive seems to be the closest match, and their in-wall bipole surround looks interesting, but I don’t see what I could use for Atmos angled in-ceiling. Polk does have an angled in-ceiling. B&W is likely prohibitively priced?
Post 21 made on Thursday March 2, 2023 at 20:28
buzz
Super Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2003
4,366
“In-wall bipole” seems like an oxymoron.
Post 22 made on Thursday March 2, 2023 at 21:27
BobL
Founding Member
Joined:
Posts:
March 2002
1,351
Deftech makes some angled in ceilings that would work. They are rectangular so you can't aim or toe them in. So, that means place them withing the width of the seating. They have a couple models. These are the least expensive.
[Link: definitivetechnology.com]

I think Deftech has good options for surrounds as well as in walls for the LCR and backs if needed, just make sure you mount them vertically and not like a center channel like they show on their website.
Post 23 made on Tuesday March 7, 2023 at 15:55
rlustig
Advanced Member
Joined:
Posts:
June 2004
915
We were just discussing the merits of 2:40 screens vs 16:9 screens. It seems that now, with so many movies either doing IMAX aspect, 2.0, 1.85 etc and especially movies that switch aspect ratios, getting the widest 16:9 screen that will fit would be a better solution than a straight scope screen. Yes, wide content will have black bars, but you end up with the largest image possible for all aspect ratios. (as long as you can get the width from your projectors throw) The only drawback I can see is sightlines to the lowest part of a 16:9 image. But that can be somewhat mitigated by raising the screen to the highest you can get.
Using a scope screen it seems you give up a lot of size for IMAX enhanced, 2.0, 16:9 etc. Thoughts?
Post 24 made on Tuesday March 7, 2023 at 17:20
BobL
Founding Member
Joined:
Posts:
March 2002
1,351
Typically, one of the biggest limitations of screens is the ceiling height and viewing angles for multiple rows. If using a 16:9 screen you simply cannot go as big in many rooms as you run out of vertical space. For example let's say you screen is 6 feet tall it would be 128" wide. For a 2.35 screen it would be the same height but would 169" wide. That's over 3 feet more screen. A 2.0 picture if you use lens memory preset would be 144" wide, so the black bars on the sides of the picture would be not as big as when watching 16:9 material.

I think the ideal solution is an anamorphic lens. You can easily stretch 2.0 material to 2.4 without making people look too wide. But without an anamorphic lens there is no downside to going 2.35/2.4 screen. You still get the largest 16:9 picture you can get for that room. If the room is much taller than wide then you could go with a bigger 16:9 screen. For most rooms, I don't see a disadvantage of doing 2.35 except that you have black bars on the side when watching 16:9 material.
OP | Post 25 made on Wednesday March 8, 2023 at 00:50
Daniel Tonks
Wrangler of Remotes
Joined:
Posts:
October 1998
28,779
The builder told me today the basement should be fully framed this week, so I hope to get in and get some proper measurements. But it’s only a 9’ ceiling and the room’s only 15.5-ish feet deep, so I can’t go too big. But I do kinda want to max it out.
Post 26 made on Wednesday March 8, 2023 at 11:07
ceied
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
February 2002
5,749
On March 7, 2023 at 17:20, BobL said...

I think the ideal solution is an anamorphic lens. You can easily stretch 2.0 material to 2.4 without making people look too wide. But without an anamorphic lens there is no downside to going 2.35/2.4 screen. You still get the largest 16:9 picture you can get for that room. If the room is much taller than wide then you could go with a bigger 16:9 screen. For most rooms, I don't see a disadvantage of doing 2.35 except that you have black bars on the side when watching 16:9 material.

for me i would go biggest 2.35 i can fit realistically and then tolerate whatever 16x9 size im left with

and if the black bars bother someone too much a simple black velver drape to mask it
Ed will be known as the Tiger Woods of the integration business, followed closely with the renaming of his company to "Hotties A/V". The tag line will be "We like big racks and tight holes"...
Post 27 made on Wednesday March 8, 2023 at 12:02
internetraver
Advanced Member
Joined:
Posts:
April 2003
797
Audio Advice has a basic room designer tool.

[Link: audioadvice.com]
Post 28 made on Thursday March 9, 2023 at 09:09
BHuey1969
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
September 2016
198
On March 8, 2023 at 12:02, internetraver said...
Audio Advice has a basic room designer tool.

[Link: audioadvice.com]
Post 29 made on Thursday March 9, 2023 at 09:59
BHuey1969
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
September 2016
198
I just found out that Chris Deutsch has moved on from JVC after many, many years of service. JVC has definitely lost a great asset in Chris.

BTW, if JVC made a laser projector in the $5k-$6K msrp range, I probably wouldn't sell any more Sonys, unless specifically request by the customer.
OP | Post 30 made on Thursday March 9, 2023 at 15:25
Daniel Tonks
Wrangler of Remotes
Joined:
Posts:
October 1998
28,779
Hmm. So throw distance calculators are throwing some monkeys into this.

If I need minimum 28" from back wall to front of projector, and I've got a room with 190" depth, then I've got 162" to play with... let's say 160". And the absolute max for that with the NP5 is a 60" high 16x9 screen... so there's literally no range left to zoom in and make the 2.40:1 image any wider.

Is there a short throw lens for the NP5? I don't see one.
Find in this thread:
Page 2 of 4


Jump to


Protected Feature Before you can reply to a message...
You must first register for a Remote Central user account - it's fast and free! Or, if you already have an account, please login now.

Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.

Hosting Services by ipHouse