Get Free, Friendly, Expert Advice
Call 1-866-244-8796 or email

Designed and Manufactured in Canada Since 1980


AxiomAudio Blog

Positioning Floorstanding Speakers

Our Newest Flagship Model: The M100

Why We Make Our Own Drivers

Wall'O'Fame
"Serenity Cinema", now with 40% extra Serenity!
Updated as requested.
Who's Online
0 registered (), 93 Guests and 18 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Financing
Forum Stats
12709 Members
11 Forums
22685 Topics
400508 Posts

Max Online: 378 @ 02/24/13 04:33 PM
Top Posters
Ken.C 17696
pmbuko 16225
SirQuack 13311
CV 11062
MarkSJohnson 10678
Meanwhile On Facebook

8| Don't miss Andrew Welker's post on our message boards about the new subwoofer...

󾓲 The April Newsletter is out! Did you get your copy? http://www.axiomaudio.co...

Double-take! :O How well do you know our line? First one to spot the surprise...

Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#366740 - 02/15/12 04:47 PM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: Nick B]
nickbuol Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 09/16/04
Posts: 4333
Loc: Marion, IA
Originally Posted By: Nick B
...quite reasonable at $1500 to $2000.




Nah... Too rich for my blood. I went with a nice screen last time. Cost me a bit of dollars despite being more economical than a lot of other options. It was out-done by the casual DIYer. I have seen screens costing 20% of what I paid that were just as good because they were DIY. I am going to be building the whole false wall and the whole thing will be AT, so it will be a DIY screen for me. I want it to look clean from edge to edge. Once you add in a motorized masking system (which is super cool) it ends up adding "depth" to the front of the clean screen wall.

Maybe I could just create a few additional AT panels (in black of course) and stick them up over top of the screen areas that I want to mask. They wouldn't be "clean" since they would sit on top of the wall/screen, but they would be a lot cheaper than some motorized setup.

I am also blessed with a system that does "inky blacks" so maybe the masking won't even be a problem. That is one of the really nice things about getting away from LCD technology.

The "best of both worlds" from a flexibility point of view would seem to be the huge 1.78:1 screen, but as mentioned already, there is a proven psychological effect of a movie being "less impressive" than a TV show with a 1.78:1 screen since the projected amount of image is reduced.

Crap, keep voting people. I've read a ton over at AVS and there seems to be no right/wrong way depending on who you talk to. Then again, hearing about people making "sleds" to move their speakers around is a bit excessive.
_________________________
http://ht.buol.us
M60s, VP180, VP150, QS8s, SVS 20-39PCi, HTPC, JVC RS45, Onkyo TX-NR709, Shakers

Top
#366752 - 02/15/12 05:14 PM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: nickbuol]
Nick B Offline
devotee

Registered: 08/05/06
Posts: 490
Originally Posted By: nickbuol

The problem comes back to needing to mask off the screen. I can't use curtains since I will be going with an acoustically transparent wall for the screen with the speakers behind it. So I would need to make some rigid panels if I wanted to block off the extra screen height (or width for that matter).


So you don't think that the speakers in the 16:9 area of the screen will be fine? Perhaps also doing width speakers would help. Then you may need to get a new receiver to do this if you don't have one already.

Also, what about making curtains out of speaker black grill material.

Top
#366779 - 02/15/12 07:16 PM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: nickbuol]
nickbuol Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 09/16/04
Posts: 4333
Loc: Marion, IA
I think that they will work in the magical 16:9 window that is often referenced over at AVS. My concern is that if the material is too thick (I wonder if something could be created like you mention with the speaker grill material could be done and look nice) that you can get sound waves bouncing around between the false screen wall and the real wall behind the speakers (even with acoustical treatment of the whole wall).

I also really don't want to do anything about wide speakers. I've invested so much in equipment (including more speakers, new projector, new receiver) that I can't see going that route financially or within the plan of what I've already wired up, etc... If I could keep the whole front acoustically transparent, then I can place the speakers beside the screen (like people would do if they didn't have an AT screen) for the wider front sound stage.
_________________________
http://ht.buol.us
M60s, VP180, VP150, QS8s, SVS 20-39PCi, HTPC, JVC RS45, Onkyo TX-NR709, Shakers

Top
#366785 - 02/15/12 08:04 PM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: nickbuol]
michael_d Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 07/23/04
Posts: 3822
Loc: Up yonder
I can't see the sides of my screen when the lights are out if I'm watching 1.78, but it is a grey screen. Masking systems are fine if all you plan to do is use the HT for movie nights. But if you bounce around from TV, to movie and channels surf, I wouldn't bother with it much. I love the 2.35 experience, but you pay for it. The zoom / lens memory option seam like a PITA to me. I have yet to hear of a projector that gets it right. With an HE lens, it makes life pretty simple. Well, that is if you use an external VP anyway. My vote is for CIH, but only if you swing the VP and lens, which is pretty spendy.
_________________________


Top
#366801 - 02/15/12 10:12 PM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: michael_d]
Nick B Offline
devotee

Registered: 08/05/06
Posts: 490
Originally Posted By: michael_d
I love the 2.35 experience, but you pay for it. The zoom / lens memory option seam like a PITA to me. I have yet to hear of a projector that gets it right. ... My vote is for CIH, but only if you swing the VP and lens, which is pretty spendy.


The problem is, it is really difficult to know how much to spend on an anamorphic lens. There are entry level options for $1000, or so, midrange for $2000 to $3000, and then they go up into ridiculous prices. If one was to have a $2000 to $4000 projector, what would be a reasonable price to spend on a lens to go with it? There doesn't seem to be professional reviews for anamorphic lenses. Yet some print magazines like "Home Theater" will review a set of $60,000 speakers once or twice a year.

Top
#366803 - 02/15/12 10:30 PM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: nickbuol]
grunt Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 12/04/06
Posts: 3569
Loc: Nirvana
If you are width constrained IMO you should go with a 1.78:1 screen.

Since you are width constrained a 1.78:1 screen will give you the same size 2.35:1 image as the largest 2.35:1 screen you can fit. It will also give you the largest 1.78:1 image you can get, and also likely the largest 1.33:1 image you can get. Even if you don’t watch HDTV now you may decide to later or like you already mentioned you may want it for movies like Avatar or even the recent Batman movie which switches between ratios.

Whichever ratio you choose you will have bars unless you have a dark room and grey screen. As far as masking, if your projector has auto zoom and other adjustment features then for a 2.35:1 image you only need to mask the top or the bottom of the screen and not both since you can move the image up or down. If you mask the top of the screen it likely won’t affect your speakers and isn’t that hard to build. It’s likely curtains would even work since your speakers aren’t going to be at the top of the screen unless you are using dual over/under center speakers.

Even if you don’t want to deal with masking and unmasking the screen if you get a 1.78:1 you can mask the top down to a 2.35:1 and just leave the masking in place. Then some day if you wish you had gotten the 1.78:1 remove the masking and you have one without the need to buy another screen.

Unless you are height constrained, plan on always using a lens or plan on only watching 2.35:1 or similar ratios and just can’t deal with masking there is no good reason I can think of not to get a 1.78:1 screen.
_________________________
3M80 2M22 6QS8 2M2 1EP500 Sony BDP-S590 Panny-7000 Onkyo-3007 Carada-134 Xbox Buttkicker AS-EQ1

Top
#366805 - 02/15/12 11:24 PM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: Murph]
INANE Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 02/04/04
Posts: 1660
Loc: Omaha, Nebraska
Originally Posted By: Murph
In the end, I think it just comes down to whether you like horizontal bars or vertical bars. There seems to be no escaping the bars.


I vote for this
_________________________
-Ben
HT v2.0 !
HT v1.0

Top
#366807 - 02/15/12 11:27 PM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: nickbuol]
SirQuack Offline
shareholder in the making

Registered: 01/29/04
Posts: 13311
Loc: Iowa
I love my 2.35 120" wide screen, I don't even worry about masking the sides when watching HD stuff over DirecTV, forget the side black bars are there, especially with a projector that has good blacks. Watching cinemascope movies full screen is just awesome. Heck, I'm still using a Z2 and manually adjust the zoom. Just not a big fan of getting a smaller cinemascope image with top/bottom black bars on a 1.78 screen. Bigger is better, yeah, that is what she said. lol
_________________________
M80s-VP180-QS8s-EP600-2xEP350 Denon3808 Outlaw7700
M22-OWM22-VP100-Denon2805
Audio Nirvana

Top
#366812 - 02/15/12 11:36 PM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: nickbuol]
nickbuol Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 09/16/04
Posts: 4333
Loc: Marion, IA
Yeah, the projector has the full lens memory, and I figured that if I went with a 1.78:1 screen, I would mask just the bottom and shift the whole image "up"...

The width limitation is about 11 feet wide, and the height limitation is a 7'9" ceiling (with 2 rows of seats, the image should be fairly "high" to be easier to see in the second row. Obviously, once factoring in a front stage, and such, that ceiling height is lower, then factoring how high the screen should be from the ground, it limits the real screen height to something around 70" (factoring in 5" above the screen and 1'6" below it (where the stage would be)... I think that it would appear as a "wall of screen"... Could be cool, could be obnoxious. LOL

So the 1.78:1 would be the same width, but 17" taller than the 2.35:1. The 2.35:1 would be a little less "holy crap" than the 1.78:1... grin

_________________________
http://ht.buol.us
M60s, VP180, VP150, QS8s, SVS 20-39PCi, HTPC, JVC RS45, Onkyo TX-NR709, Shakers

Top
#366871 - 02/16/12 11:33 AM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: Nick B]
michael_d Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 07/23/04
Posts: 3822
Loc: Up yonder
Originally Posted By: Nick B
Originally Posted By: michael_d
I love the 2.35 experience, but you pay for it. The zoom / lens memory option seam like a PITA to me. I have yet to hear of a projector that gets it right. ... My vote is for CIH, but only if you swing the VP and lens, which is pretty spendy.


The problem is, it is really difficult to know how much to spend on an anamorphic lens. There are entry level options for $1000, or so, midrange for $2000 to $3000, and then they go up into ridiculous prices. If one was to have a $2000 to $4000 projector, what would be a reasonable price to spend on a lens to go with it? There doesn't seem to be professional reviews for anamorphic lenses. Yet some print magazines like "Home Theater" will review a set of $60,000 speakers once or twice a year.


Prismasonic is the best bang for the buck. They have a new lens out that is supposedly every bit as good as the Isco III. It is 3000, whereas the Isco runs about 8000. If you want the ability to expand the image with a lens instead of moving it into and away from the projector, you'll need one like I have that has knobs that rotates the elements to expand the image. It is an older Prismasonic 1400FE model. If you get serious about going with a HE lens, let me know. I've been eye-balling the new Prismasonic lens and if I do buy one, my lens will obviously go up for sale.

Top
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >



Moderator:  alan, Amie, Andrew, axiomadmin, Brent, Debbie, Ian, Jc 

Home  |  Corporate Info  |  Products  |  Message Board  |  FAQs  |  Warranty  |  Site Map  |  Privacy Statement   |  Contact Us

©2014 Colquhoun Audio Laboratories Limited
All Rights Reserved.