Acoustically Transparent screen or not? (1 Viewer)

[DaveF]

I've got a fundamental question, which i'm realizing is more complicated than I first thought: Should I go for an acoustically transparent (AT) screen with in-wall speakers behind it, or conventional screen with Center channel below and L/R speakers to the sides?

I thought it was an easy answer: if budget and flexibility allows, go AT and hidden speakers. But as I've started reading more, I see there are trade-offs: acoustic impact, light level impact, possible ghost image degrading contrast and clarity, minimum viewing distance and 4k compatibility. With that there are two basic design options: perforated or woven.

And then there are speaker considerations: build a facade and use free standing speakers or minimize room impact and use in-wall speakers?

I appreciate any insights and recommendations

 

[Josh Steinberg]

For me, I'm much more of a visual guy than an aural one. I have no complaints about the sound quality with my center speaker below the screen and the left and right just to the side.

In the interest of full disclosure, an AT screen was never a consideration in my current setup. I'd be open to one if I was custom doing the entire room, but I wasn't doing a room. I'm perfectly satisfied with the sound quality I get as is. Some of the AT trade-offs concern me too.

For me, it's probably a lower priority item.

 

[DaveF]

Thanks Since I probably have to go in-wall for the surrounds, I became enamored with in-wall for the front too. Aesthetically, it's very attractive. But there are practical trade-offs. I may swing back to having the fronts be free standing. It will depend too on what I learn from installers when I start talking with them.

 

[Dr Griffin]

I've been planning an AT screen setup, I even have the cinema speakers already. You will probably end up spending more money for the AT screen to do it right, especially if you go with a woven screen. You need to get a higher end screen to avoid moire effect. You'll also get better sound from the woven vs perforated. The in-wall installation will be similar to a wall baffle if done right, which the best pro cinemas use. You will have better sound localization on screen too. If you decide to do it, I think it's the way to go, but no doubt it is extra cost and effort.

 

[DFurr]

I have no experience with a "woven" screen but for sure a perforated screen with cinema pro speakers fixed behind the screen IMO is the best "cinema" experience. I use a Harkness screen, mini/micro perforated (http://www.harkness-screens.com/cinema-screens.html#) And if you have room behind the screen, or can hide subs in the room, find you a pair of 18" pro cinema subs. All you need is 30 inches behind your screen and that allows enough room to walk behind your speaker array. My subs are at extreme left and right positions and my JBL left and right speakers sit on top of the subs. I built a shelf for the center channel speaker to sit on the exact height of the subs. Forget the butt shakers. If you power the two 18 inch subs properly, everything in the room will be shaking....lol

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

My AT screen is DIY (wooden frame, double layer of 4-way spandex - matte white over gray) and was the best upgrade since moving to 1080p. No visible weave, no moire, minimal treble loss (correctible via Audyssey).

 

[bigshot]

When I had my theater designed, I mentioned to the installer that I wanted the center channel on top of the fireplace mantle behind the screen and asked him if I needed an acoustically transparent screen. He told me that the trade off wasn't worth it. Since my mains were below the screen, going for a transparent screen for just the center channel wasn't worth it. He was right. The difference between the sound with screen down as opposed to up is very slight.

 

[DFurr]

Speaking of screens, I just received a note from a film collector friend of mine in SoCal. He has a brand new, in factory box, Harkness Micro perf screen. It's a 5X12 and he's selling it for $750.
If anyone has an interest let me know and I'll make the connection happen.

 

[DaveF]

Thanks all
We're leaning back towards AT. But local builders skew towards Stewart for those screens, which is $$$. I'll have to talk further about options, if I go that route. There may be good options that aren't so expensive, such as Seymour AV or Screen Innovations or other.

 

[Brian Dobbs]

AT screen highly recommended!

 

[NBPk402]

We went with a 195" 2.40 AT screen from SeymourAV. I think we have around $500 invested in the screen, plus making the frame...much cheaper doing it DIY than purchasing a ready made screen setup. We love it and even when sitting 12' from the screen we can't see the texture of the screen. In the past i have had Draper, and Dalite screens and we could see the screen texture. This is our first AT screen and I love the way it looks and sounds. IMO it is much better to have the speakers behind the screen vs to the sides, and above or below the screen. With the speakers behind the screen the sound is much better located IMO.

 

[DFurr]

With the speakers behind the screen the sound is much better located IMO.

I agree 100%.

 

[DaveF]

How did you get a $500 Seymour AV screen? Did you buy just the fabric? Their finished screens are ~$2000, especially for 195".

SeymourAV's marketing info certainly is appealing. Their XD line looks great, with a fine weave. But when I ask installers, they've not heard of them. They know the big names, Stewart and Screen Innovations.

I've read somewhere that Seymour induces visible blue coloration into the image. Did you notice anything like this, or have it calibrated out?

 

[schan1269]

Late to this party...

AT comes in 2 flavors. woven(preferred) and perf(avoid like the plague).

Woven cost more(Elite AcousticPro "bed sheet" notwithstanding). Woven are designed(and cut) to minimize moire. There is not a single woven cut not to minimize moire.

Perf screens are the ones that create moire and muffle your speakers.

Last I checked...which was a long time ago...as I ignore perf to begin with...

There is not a single ISF perf screen on the market(that I know of. If there is one...)

 

[schan1269]

How did you get a $500 Seymour AV screen? Did you buy just the fabric? Their finished screens are ~$2000, especially for 195".

SeymourAV's marketing info certainly is appealing. Their XD line looks great, with a fine weave. But when I ask installers, they've not heard of them. They know the big names, Stewart and Screen Innovations.

I've read somewhere that Seymour induces visible blue coloration into the image. Did you notice anything like this, or have it calibrated out?

XD is designed to be used where you are a minimum of 10ft away.

If closer...use UF.

 

[DaveF]

I'm think of going up to a 130" screen and 13' seating distance.

Are the woven screens suitable for 4k? This will be my screen for years and will be in place when I upgrade projectors in a few years.

 

[schan1269]

ClearPix*(arguably the best), XD and Maestro are all 4K...

And they did nothing different

*Technically not true in CP's case. I've seen standard white and 4K white in person(samples side by side) and I couldn't tell a difference.

 

[DaveF]

I've got an installer proposing Dragonfly. Every heard of that brand? Or its reputation?

Based on cost and apparent reputation, I'm attracted to the Seymour XD line. But local installers have never heard of the company.

 

[schan1269]

Installers hawking SnapAV should be treated with a grain of salt.

Same people that bring us Binary cables, Episode speakers and "anything but" Strong mounts.

 

[DaveF]

Installers hawking SnapAV should be treated with a grain of salt.

Huh? What's SnapAV?