New Home Theater Design (1 Viewer)

[ManW_TheUncool]

Well we are slowly making progress . Here is sketch do the design

As some of us pointed out early on, looks like you're setting the seats too far away (at 17ft) from the screen and could likely also use a bit more space behind the back row (for likely better acoustics). For a 140" screen (even if, or maybe especially if, 2.4:1 for CIH), I'd probably suggest somewhere around 12-14ft viewing distance for the front row -- that means having that row of seats be ~10-12ft away from the screen. Personally, I'd go for the shorter distance, especially if going 2.4:1 for CIH, which will have a substantially smaller image for a majority of content that aren't 2.4:1 (or wider)... unless you really only intend to watch wider AR content for the vast majority of viewings -- even if you do that, I'd still prefer the shorter distance myself, especially for the front row...

And also realize that the viewing distance will be another 5ft-plus farther for the back row w/ how you have it -- that's pretty substantial... unlike in a real theater where everything else is much bigger (and 1 or 2 extra feet isn't a big deal)...

_Man_

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

So I got a quote back from one of the vendors w recommendations. Here is what they suggested:
Marantz SR6015 Receiver
Marantz MM7055 amp
Sony VPLVW715ES projector
Stewart screen - 140 inch
Focal 100IWLCR5 for fronts
Focal 100IW6 for side/ rear
Focal 100ICW8 for ceiling
SVS sub

I like Focals but will likely go w free standing for the fronts. I have to compare these vs the Paradigms. They seam to be what everyone is carrying. I’m hoping to have speaker placement and some recommendations from the 3rd vendor later this week.

Hope you're sticking w/ the idea of free standing speakers at least for the front LCRs.

Also, you should probably check out the newly announced Epson flagship laser-based PJ, especially if you're not going for a much shorter viewing distance -- even the 12ft viewing distance I suggested most likely wouldn't yield noticeable diff in res/sharpness (unless you have "eagle eyes") between the new Epson's improved faux-K vs that much more expensive Sony's true 4K... Spend some of that saved $$$ on a proper ISF calibration (and whatever else) instead me thinks...

_Man_

 

[door whore]

This is a great opportunity you have. But making all those decisions is very hard. looking forward to following along.
Good luck

 

[DaveF]

Don’t go in-wall in the front.

I’m very surprised by this advice for a multi-row dedicated theater. Enthusiasts generally recommend behind-the screen speakers for a dedicated theater, for best audio and imaging.

Is anyone using a Kaleidescape? I’m trying to understand how practical they are. We usually watch DVDs or streaming.

The Ultimate Movie Platform - Kaleidescape

Kaleidescape elevates every component of your media system with lossless audio and reference quality video for the ultimate cinematic experience.

www.kaleidescape.com

It’s for people who find streaming too low quality audio video experience. If that’s you, get it. If not, probably pass given its expense.

If you’re unsure, get a demo and look at the costs and your movie-watching interests.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Don’t go in-wall in the front.

I’m very surprised by this advice for a multi-row dedicated theater. Enthusiasts generally recommend behind-the screen speakers for a dedicated theater, for best audio and imaging.

He just meant enclosure-less in-wall speakers, not what you're probably thinking/suggesting.

_Man_

 

[DaveF]

He just meant enclosure-less in-wall speakers, not what you're probably thinking/suggesting.

_Man_

Unclear. Full size speakers behind a screen is ideal. But short of that, there’s a case for in-wall behind the AT screen over full-size in front of and below the screen as the OP’s sketch suggests.

 

[DaveF]

Well we are slowly making progress . Here is sketch do the design

I don’t recommend this. For a dedicated theater, you should take advantage of it and put speakers behind the screen and level with the surrounds, rather than below and aimed up.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Enclosure-less in-wall speakers are almost certainly going to be inferior (sound quality-wise... perhaps w/ great variance) to good, enclosed speakers, particularly if the latter are well placed/setup. Of course, that will likely matter less for less critical channels that do less of the heavy-lifting... so in-ceiling for Atmos height speakers would make sense as might additional rear surrounds (or maybe even the primary/side surrounds), especially given the usual constraints...

_Man_

 

[John Dirk]

So I got a quote back from one of the vendors w recommendations. Here is what they suggested:
Marantz SR6015 Receiver
Marantz MM7055 amp
Sony VPLVW715ES projector
Stewart screen - 140 inch
Focal 100IWLCR5 for fronts
Focal 100IW6 for side/ rear
Focal 100ICW8 for ceiling
SVS sub

I like Focals but will likely go w free standing for the fronts. I have to compare these vs the Paradigms. They seam to be what everyone is carrying. I’m hoping to have speaker placement and some recommendations from the 3rd vendor later this week.

Lots of great overall advice here from other well-regarded members. I'll only jump in to suggest you steer completely clear of Marantz, considering their recent ownership change.

 

[DaveF]

Enclosure-less in-wall speakers are almost certainly going to be inferior (sound quality-wise... perhaps w/ great variance) to good, enclosed speakers, particularly if the latter are well placed/setup. Of course, that will likely matter less for less critical channels that do less of the heavy-lifting... so in-ceiling for Atmos height speakers would make sense as might additional rear surrounds (or maybe even the primary/side surrounds), especially given the usual constraints...

_Man_

Putting the quality speakers in the wrong place also harms acoustic imaging and surround quality.

There are real compromises to be decided upon here. A blanket statement of putting full range speakers below the screen is too simplistic.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Putting the quality speakers in the wrong place also harms acoustic imaging and surround quality.

Of course. But having them enclosure-less essentially puts them in a rather "wrong" place to start off.

Nobody's suggesting for him to set up enclosed/traditional speakers in the wrong way or place at all. Some of us, including me, even already suggested using an AT screen since he seems to have just enough space for that, especially if he'd go w/ a IMO much better, shorter viewing distance.

There are real compromises to be decided upon here. A blanket statement of putting full range speakers below the screen is too simplistic.

And nobody here was completely ignoring that...

I even qualified my statements some (as usual) alluding to such and suggested in-wall might make sense for the surrounds in addition to in-ceiling ones...

_Man_

 

[JohnRice]

I am genuinely flummoxed why my comment that in-wall speakers are not the best solution is wrong, because full size speakers behind an AT screen is the way to go. Anyway, I'm just not in the frame of mind to argue a circular discussion.

 

[DaveF]

I'll leave the projection suggestions to others, since that's not my area. Still, I think the room might not be quite deep enough for an AT screen. It's something to consider, though.

I definitely would go with freestanding speakers, especially in the front. The overheads will most likely be recessed, but that's just fine.


Don't skimp on the speakers. Especially in the front.

Don’t go in-wall in the front.

I guess I misunderstood. I took it as recco to put speakers in front of non-AT screen, since room too small for AT.

And both sketches from OP show speakers in front of screen, which concerns me that he’s going that direction.

I’m saying explicitly that OP should use an AT screen with speakers behind them, and seriously consider in-wall if that’s the only way to get an AT screen with a multi-row theater.

And from the original CAD mockup, his room doesn’t look big enough for free-standing speakers and plenty deep enough for an AT screen with in-wall or behind-screen speakers.

 

[DaveF]

Of course. But having them enclosure-less essentially puts them in a rather "wrong" place to start off.

I don’t know what that means. In-wall speakers are put in the right place.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I don’t know what that means. In-wall speakers are put in the right place.

It means enclosure-less starts off w/ a set of compromises that's roughly equiv to "wrong place" in general.

There's no real reason (audio quality-wise) to choose enclosure-less speakers and start off w/ additional compromises baked in unless the more traditional option requires too much compromises to actually negate their benefits over enclosure-less.

It just seemed like you were couching the whole recommendation against enclosure-less in favor of "in-wall" on a premise/context that doesn't really apply at all in this case. IF the OP is willing to go w/ AT screen, there's enough space to hide better, traditional speakers behind the screen. IF he's not willing, well, then in-wall speakers won't likely benefit either.

Also, even w/ the non-AT setup the OP had been considering, there's likely nothing wrong w/ speakers under the screen since he's apparently choosing 2.4:1 CIH. There are plenty of good speakers that should readily fit fine under a 2.4:1 screen w/out being too low at all, especially if he also insists on such far viewing/listening distances -- of course, maybe the benefits of enclosed/traditional speakers would also be significantly diminished if he sticks w/ such far distances, especially if the speakers w/ just be up against the wall, which of course is not recommended for best results...

But I'll reiterate the recommendation that he seriously consider going w/ an AT screen w/ well-placed/setup, good speakers behind that AT screen... and have the screen be much closer to the seating, partly to allow better setup/acoustics for those speakers and partly to yield a truly better, big screen viewing experience w/ say 12-14ft actual viewing distance for the 1st row (at say 10-12ft screen-to-1st-row distance)...

And from the original CAD mockup, his room doesn’t look big enough for free-standing speakers and plenty deep enough for an AT screen with in-wall or behind-screen speakers.

I disagree w/ that assessment. I already proposed a setup that should likely work well... but whether he wants to consider it (or seemingly any recommendations involving AT screen) at all is another story... So far, he seems to completely ignore the suggestion -- doesn't even seem to acknowledge it at all despite being suggested/recommended by multiple people, including yourself...

_Man_

 

[Jdsmoke]

I wasn’t looking to do an AT screen because I have read that the picture isn’t as good as a traditional screen. This is a better representation of where the speakers are going to be placed. As you can see the fronts are not in front of the screen, just the subs are. I was planning freestanding speakers for the front, center and main surround. Then in wall/ceiling for the rest. First row is about 16ft from the screen. The construction costs are a lot more for building in the speakers vs freestanding and I was trying to save where I can. I am looking to have some calibrate the system once it installed.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

IF you really don't want to go w/ AT screen setup, then I'd recommend moving the seats substantially forward/closer to the screen and front speakers than you have it.

Right now, you basically have viewing distance as ~16ft for the 1st row (and the speakers roughly ~14ft away)... and ~23ft for the 2nd row. Those are very long distances and kinda almost completely defeats the point of going 4K and FP. PLUS that setup will most likely not be optimal for the audio either.

I would move the seats at least another 2-4ft closer to the screen (and front LCR speakers) *and* probably also go for less spacing between the 2 rows unless you have some specific reason for what looks like >3ft legroom between rows.

After moving the seating (much) closer, I would probably also swap the front LR speakers w/ the subwoofers so the subwoofers would be the ones in the corners instead. Also, probably move the front LR speakers an extra foot or two away from that front wall (where the screen is). The front LR speakers will image better farther away from all walls while the subwoofers will likely benefit from the corners helping sub-bass, particularly for such a large room -- heck, you could probably even add another subwoofer or two along the rear wall...

_Man_

 

[JohnRice]

I completely agree with Man. Having the L&R speakers against the side wall is bad for imaging, but that's usually an ideal location for the subs. I would put the L&R speakers as close to the screen sides without blocking it.

AND...

I keep seeing designs with the seating too far from the screen and up against the back wall. This is also bad for immersion. You want to avoid being close to any speaker as much as possible. I would move the seating 4-6 feet forward and put the subs in opposing corners instead of both in the front. What I mean is have the subs in opposite corners of the room. Either front right and back left corners or front left and back right corners. This generally gives the most even distribution throughout the seating area and the fewest room interactions. When it's done properly with excellent subs, they will disappear into the room. I know all this seems counterintuitive, but it will yield the best results.

Also, the Atmos speakers should be further out into the room. They should be overhead, not high and off to the sides. I'd move the rear surrounds closer as well.

 

[Jdsmoke]

Thanks Man and John. So something more like this. I’m just using the Audio Advice tool to help w placement/visualization. It will not let me chose the sub locations or move the speakers. Wouldn’t moving the seats closer increase eye fatigue? I thought the benefit of being farther back was that you did get the tennis movement (moving head/eyes side to side to see the whole screen) in watching movies. I checked out the Kaleidescape. Looks cool and the picture is great. I just have to decide if we are moving away from physical media since we have a huge DVD/BR collection.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Where do you generally prefer to sit in a good theater w/ good large screen? All the way in the back row? Back 1/3? Front or rear of middle 1/3? Unless you generally like the back 1/3 instead of somewhere in the middle 1/3 (to get good immersion), that should not be a problem at all.

IF you're still concerned about eye fatigue from the "tennis movement" effect, I suggest you spend more time checking out similarly large (projected) screens from similar distance to help decide. And then, maybe just start w/ a smaller screen rather than have your seating farther away. It's probably much easier to upgrade to a larger screen later than reconfigure the whole rest of your atmos-capable HT setup (to move the seating, etc and still yield optimal sound). Just make sure the placement of the PJ will still allow going upto a 140" screen, ie. try to make sure it's set up to definitely be w/in the throw (and zoom) range (along w/ whatever needed lens shifting)... although that might not be possible for CIH setup, particularly if the screen size upgrade will be great enough (since you're already needing some of that zoom range to handle the CIH projection)... and of course, upgrading screen size w/out moving the PJ might not be optimal for other reasons (like optimal brightness)...

Also, if it feels a bit much at first, you'll likely adjust over time and could always start by watching from the back row first -- your back row is definitely still quite far from the screen w/ viewing distance of ~19ft w/ this new config.

Also remember you're going w/ a 2.4:1 CIH setup. All narrower content, which might be the (large) majority will look smaller.


Finally, move those rear surrounds a couple feet closer together away from those corners -- they should probably line up better w/ the front LR speakers. For the subs, if there's some problem w/ that software, I guess just make a note for yourself to place them differently in actual deployment -- and definitely consider John's recommendation re: sub placement (for one in the front and one in the rear)...

_Man_