Dedicated Home Theater upgrade thoughts?[b][/b]

Current list of equipment...
m80's/vp150/qs8's/pb2 plus
in a (5.1 setup)
Yamaha rxv4800.....needs replacing
Panasonic AE8000U pj
120in. screen ...upgrade to AT screen so I can place front speakers behind screen(major waf).Room is 17'x15' with two rows of seats.

first question, what AVR should I be looking at to replace my failing (low audible buzz from all speakers)Yammy? I was looking at the Marantz 7007? Should I upgrade to 7.1 with two more qs8's behind seats or is that just a waste of money? Current sound is good but I want that wow factor. Any other tips or advice is much appreciated.

I'd be looking at the less expensive Denon vs the Marantz since they are for all intents and purposes, the same units, or look at a comparable Onkyo. Whether you go up to 7.1 depends a lot on the size of your room . There isn't so much info on those extra channels vs 5.1,...personally I think you'd get more benefit from upgrading your centre channel to a VP160 or 180, and maybe considering adding a second sub(later) if you have room, before adding more surrounds on the speaker side of things.

I agree with Adrian. It's one of my hobbies.

Unless you have significant space behind your seating position, going to 7.1 may not be the best bang for your buck (at least that was my experience).

I'd upgrade the center channel, and then look at room treatments, including light control if you need it.

Thanks for response....800 to upgrade what I consider a good center channel already doesn't seem like the way to go unless I can sell the vp150 to offset. Would rather spend the extra on a bigger amp....maybe bi amp the mains instead of 7.1 would be more effective since the back row is pretty much against the wall.

I hate to break this to you, but there are MANY forum regulars who upgraded from the VP150 to either the 160 or 180 and won't shut the hell up about how happy they are. And I think that the VP150 does not have high resale value now due to introduction of the others.

I really don't think that a bigger amp is going to make more audible difference than the other things that have been suggested. Your room isn't THAT big, and unless you are determined to cause hearing loss, I don't see how having more unused watts is going to help. I added an 200wpc Emotiva XPA-3 to my 130wpc Onkyo 805 and I really want to notice something besides the blue LED's, but I can't.

And I don't believe in the biwiring/biamping thing.

Is your system not loud enough?

System is plenty loud enough but seems to strain at reference levels (with the exception of the bass...blows the roof off the place). I pretty much have to replace the amp unless i can find the ground loop or what ever is causing the hissing/humm from system.
I am Starting with a clean canvas for the HT Room except for the speakers and sub. Looks Like I will be a busy boy for the next 6 months or so. Guess ill start by sound proofing the room first then test everything in its new home. I must admit..the vp180 looks bad ass.

BTW, I do have some hearing loss,lol...use to be a car stereo installer many years ago...won a state spl contest back in the late 80's....woohoo! wait...what do you say...speak up. lmao.

Hey Scott.

I could go into one of my detailed responses, but let me break it down for you:

VP150 has about $0 resale value. I know, I still have mine sitting in a closet on a shelf doing nothing because the VP180 is AWESOME!

I was a Pioneer Elite fan for a number of years, but switched to Onkyo and absolutely love it. Not a fan of Marantz. Not that they are crap, just better performance/price can be had with Onkyo/Denon.

If your room is only 17 feet deep, go 5.1. Sure, wire it up for 7.1 (or 7.2), but spend the bucks elsewhere.

I went 7.2 (as of today with the addition of my 2nd sub), but anyway, that was because my room is 24 feet deep and has 2 rows of seats with a few feet behind the back row even. I can't say that I am blown away with the extra 2 channels, but I am glad that they are there since my room is fairly deep.

If you really want some WOW factor, get a newer model center channel, new receiver, and then spend some money on acoustical treatments in the room (this is not soundproofing - two total different subjects). You will really like additions of bass traps and acoustical panels at 1st reflection points. Acoustical panels are next on my 'must do' list. In fact tonight I am going to find the 1st reflection points and tomorrow my fabric samples are arriving. I can't wait to get those done.

Take any additional money left over and get bass shakers, a separate amp, and a popcorn machine. Those will really add some wow factor.

Ok, so it was a longer reply, but I need to run... Literally. Just 4 miles tonight. Then calibration time. YAY!

Thanks Nick...I will take all the advice I can get. Most of my time will definitely be spent on making the ROOM sound good first...then I will look into upgrading center speaker. Does anyone here have their speakers placed behind the screen...does it change the sound?

Nick's your man on that, too.

LOL. Yup. I do.

First up, I agree. Treat the room and then look at speaker upgrades. I simply stated that when you do upgrade, the VP150 doesn't have much resale value (not that it is a bad center channel).

Now on to the screen...

"Acoustically Transparent" screens are not made equal... This is actually a good thing.

Again, my research showed that "perforated" screens are OK (not great though) at visual brightness, but not great for sound transmission and a number of people can see the perforation holes.

So stay away from perf screens.

Go for a woven screen for the most audio transparency if you want to go AT. The absolute best bang for your buck would be Seymour Center Stage XD. You can do what I did and buy the material right from them and make your own frame, or do what a guy that I work with did and go to Jamestown Home Theater Screens and have them make the frame for you and bundle the Seymour screen with it.

Just be aware that the Seymour screen material is always in short supply, so there are long lead times for the bulk material from Seymour, and even longer at Jamestown, so plan ahead.

Here is there website:
Jamestown

Outside of going to a high end woven screen, that is one of the best out there. Even then, Seymour offers an even higher quality product, but not in a DIY version or price. They call it Enlightor 4K. It is a finer weave, but also less than 1.0 gain, so that could be a factor.

Seymour's main site is: Seymour AV

So now to your question. Does it change the sound? Absolutely. Anyone that says it doesn't is flat out lying. Now, is it a noticeable difference? Out of the box, yes again. I mean, you are still blocking the sound waves no matter how good the material is. So why would anyone use it? Why did I go with it? Well, lots of reasons. The main one being that my center channel is directly in the middle of the screen and not longer mounted above the screen near the ceiling (bad for acoustic output from the center channel), or on the floor in a less-than-idea location. It also made for a much cleaner looking screen area. Sure, it is a shame to hide the Axioms.

So, what do I think about the sound? It is great!

"Wait, what? I thought you said that it blocked sound, how could you possibly like it at all?"

Yes I do. The screen material will reduce the response at some certain higher frequencies (lower frequencies aren't impacted by the screen), but you just compensate for that manually, using an SPL meter and adjusting it on your receiver, or run something like Audyssey to compensate for it.

That is what I've done and I am going to do again today now that I have my 2nd sub installed. I learned a few "calibrations" ago, that you can't just put the Audyssey microphone anywhere you want. There is a method to it that doesn't make logic sense at first (you actually put the mic at two of the same spots twice each, and move from there for example).

Anyway, with that, I am getting the great sound that I am used to when I didn't have an AT screen, and still getting the benefits that I wanted.

So I am all for doing a full false front wall with an AT screen. Mine is about 2.5 feet deep from the real wall, and the false wall and AT screen hide my L/C/R speakers, both massive subs, front bass traps, and full front wall acoustical treatment.

Any other questions, just fire away.

Nick, you're awesome. Your explanation - including the concept of the Audyssey correction - makes SO much sense that I could actually consider a AT screen in good conscience for the first time. If I had the house for it. Which I don't.



Wait, what? I've been using an old Audyssey guide from AVS, and I definitely don't remember THAT drill. Can you tell me more or direct me somewhere?

Get this, I just learned something new too. Like minutes ago. It is related to AT screens. I was just told by someone (still asking for documented research to verify it) that if using an AT screen that you should remove the speaker grills. Something about it being a measurable difference in sound. Not sure I fully am convinced, but I might as well remove them since you can't see them anyway.

Now, for the Audyssey guide, ask and you shall receive:
Here is a link to the exact post. Go down to Step 11 and look at the pictures. Notice that some of the pictures have mic locations 3 and 4 marked in purple and duplicate locations 1 and 2. Some Audyssey setups only allow for 6 microphone locations, so those people would skip #3 and #4. I can do 8 locations, so I will do #3 and #4 which duplicate #1 and #2.
Audyssey Microphone Placements

Here is the whole guide:
Audyssey MultEQ FAQ and Setup Guide

ga-whuh?

Seems plausible. Consider the following. How many layers of acoustically transparent material could you add in front of a speaker before it made an audible difference. Maybe not two, but three? Four? When you start adding layers, you'll approach the realm of audibility.

Seems like prudent advice.

Thanks again, Nick.

Yeah, the grill thing makes a lot of sense.

So, removing each of those layers is like lifting a veil?

Nick, I've got a question, just to be philosophical (I'm LESS likely to have a screen than even Tom):

By how much are you talking when you say that you can just EQ the highs (or use Audyssey, if you prefer). I'm wondering if, for example, the highs need to be increased by 3dB there isn't a substantially increased danger of blowing / burning out the tweeters?

Or, are you just talking a tiny bit of an increased treble level to compensate?

Are you trying to say that Nick is overcompensating?

Fair question Mark.
Let me put it this way, if you didn't do an A/B test (with vs without screen material in front of a speaker) you probably wouldn't even notice. It is that little. I picked up on it back when I first make my screen frame and put the Seymour XD material on it. Before I mounted it on the wall, I listened to some music with just one M60 plugged in. I then had my daughter hold one end of the screen in front of the speaker, and then lift it out of the way.

Honestly, I may have been noticing it more since I could see the test (screen moving in front of and away from the speaker).

I just let Audyssey handle it. I don't have a SPL meter to test the actual frequency drop, and even if I did I have read several reviews that say that the drop is so small that it falls within the margin of error of the SPL meter, it is THAT little of a difference. The graphs online show that there is no drop until about 6KHz, and then the higher frequencies above that drop a little more the higher you go. Even so, the average dBA drop between the high range of 16KHz - 20Khz is 2dB. Overall average drop is just 0.7 dB. Most professional reviews say that you don't have to make any audio adjustments.

Hope that helps. I guess I am compensating when I don't need to, but why not. It doesn't take that long to do a calibration anyway.

Thanks, Nick. That makes sense.

I just found myself wondering if people all over were on their way to burning out their tweeters by bumping them up 3dB.


You know, if I ever DO have a room suitable for a projector, I'm going to ask you and your daughter to repeat this test, but ask you to close your eyes!

Nick, I was initially puzzled by your comment that some Audyssey measurements used the same position as another measurement. This wouldn't appear to be helpful, since each measurement has to be of at least a slightly different room environment. Dr. Kyriakakis has emphasized that the measurements shouldn't be widely separated in an attempt to "average" over a large listening area. He mentions positions clustered around the main listening spot, separated maybe a foot or two apart.


The study you link largely follows this pattern, but makes the basic setup with even less separation(e.g., 3-6"). Note though that all the positions are in fact different, being either to the side, the front or above(purple)the other positions.

Agreed. That is what I did. I didn't use the "exact" same spots, keeping in mind that I have 4 seats in a row and not 3 so I did the first few at the "middle crack" of the two middle seats in the front row.

#1 was against the back of the headrest, #2 was at the front of the seat, #3 was the middle of seat, #4 was just in front of the seat, #5 and #6 were on the outside edges of the two middle seats against the head rest, #7 and #8 were in the middle of each of the outside two seats in the rear row, against the head rest.

So the mic got moved each time, but focused on the middle two seats in the front row instead of me doing a measurement at just about every seat.

We are going to watch a movie tonight so it will be interesting to see if there is a difference.