ender21

The only problem with Hell Freezes Over is that it was shot in Video, so it is and will always be Standard Def. No blu-ray for that title. However, they could always put it on blu-ray anyway and re-encode the master audio in DTSHD or Dolby TrueHD. I wouldn't mind that at all! :-) The Melbourne disc(s) also rock. But two different types. One is a bit more acoustic/unplugged, and the other with the full ensemble. Both are great! I also love Dave & Tim, and was never a fan of DMB before I watched that video. It's fantastic. Does anyone have the David Gilmour blu-ray? I've heard it's great too but I keep forgetting to pick it up. Rick

It's vaguely similar to my room's dimensions. Conventional HT thinking would of course say the short wall is where the screen should go. That way you have the option to add viewing spaces behind the primary row of seating if necessary. If you do it on the long wall then you're reliant on off-axis viewing for any additional seating should you require it. On the other hand, with only 4 seats, that's a lot of empty space behind them. Room for a poker table or air hockey maybe? ;-)

Definitely. They've become must-see football on Sundays. I'm a Broncos fan but I make sure I have the Sunday Ticket tuned to a Saints game just because they're so exciting. But 16-0? I haven't looked at their remaining schedule but 16-0 for anybody is a longshot.

While nothing will replace a hands-on calibration by a professional, the settings they may have on hand for your display may get you in the ball park. These guys know what they're doing. Kevin Miller, David Abrams and Jim Doolittle represent a who's who in the HT calibration world. I believe Jim Doolittle was part of the ISF crew that trained me in Vegas a few years back. Looks like an interesting business model that might work out for them. Go them! Rick

Thanks. It's in the fireplace. Nice![]

Holy cow those things are huge! For a second I thought they were dressers or some type of bookcase! Rick

I couldn't have said it better myself! If it wasn't for having purchased much of the equipment over the past few years, having a few deals to make with a contractor here and there, and doing a fair percentage of the work myself, there's no way this would have gotten done. There were still budget busters though. Initially I wasn't anticipating buying a new screen *or* projector, but the 137% fixed offset for my Optoma HD80 made a new PJ a requirement, and I got the Stewart inexpensively enough that it was better to have spent a few extra dollars on that than to have spent the money on electrical work that my Electriscreen Firehawk would have required to put into place. But as DownUnder said, a speaker here, an amp there... Rick

Hi guys! The mains are indeed RF7s with an RC7 center. I'm sure the lens I used messed with their appearance! The RF82s I sold were used as surrounds in my 5.1 setup I had prior to this HT buildout. They replaced the RS42s which I had boxed up a while back. The thinking there was a: we listen to a lot of music too, including DVDA/SACD, so full range surrounds were a nice complement for that despite their directionality for HT use, and b: I had an opportunity to screen a pre-release blu-ray of a film my company was working on at Joe Kane's screening room and his setup was 7.1 with the 5 mains identical full range floorstanding, and it sounded incredible, so I decided to try it out with the closest match I could find to the RF7. I have a wife who's very patient with my mucking around with things! Here's a list of gear in the new HT: RF7s, RC7, KS7800-THX (4), SVS PC20-39+ (2), Integra DHC9.9, Emotiva XPA5 & XPA2, Oppo BDP83, Sonos, Planar PD8150 projector. Rick

Thanks Budman. I haven't actually measured from eye level in the second row, but I think it's looking at approximately the midway point up the screen. I know spec is ~33% up from bottom, but the screen is already few inches too high for my taste when I sit in the 1st row, so that's a compromise between the two rows is one I had to make. Rick

Thanks James, The last 5% is the case molding around the door and the rack opening, a few throw pillows made from the same fabric that the columns are made from, and a counter/bar behind the 2nd row seating. Oh, and getting a taller center channel stand. It's rough finding a tiltable stand that's ~13" tall. I may just make a black felt-wrapped box or something for the current stand to sit on. Approx 13x27. I used an ultra-wide angle lens to fit as much of the room in-frame as possible, so it exaggerates the narrowness of the room a bit, especially in a couple of the pictures. Thanks! It's actually a bit browner than it appears in the images. Long exposure times + the lighting really brings the red out! So far it exceeds my expectations. I didn't do everything myself of course, but did a fair amount, including rack install, all the components, the screen, wire terminations, part of the acoustic treatments, ISF'ing the PJ and Audyssey Pro'ing the room. Thanks again guys! Rick

Here are some pictures of my 95% completed HT.

Great diagram. Any early returns on their contribution to the soundfield?

Wuzzzer I agree with the animation issue. It seems like in the first movie they knew they were doing CG robots so they were careful to make the animation and especially the fights between robots precise and calculated... i.e.,, they didn't do too much. But in TF2, they just went overboard to the point where some of the action sequences were hard to follow, and much of the robot animation looked too fluid to be robots. The sound was OK. Again, less is more. I loved the LFE use in the first movie, and in this one it seemed they bloated it a bit and used it a lot more often. It gave my subs a workout to be sure, but didn't add to my enjoyment of the film. All in all I liked TF better than TF2. Rick

Thanks Pete. Unfortunately my subs and RF7s occupy the space I have available on the sides, so that idea's a no-go as well. For closure's sake I've decided to leave the RC7 below the screen, but I do have ~5 inches of room to move it up, so I'll be looking for a stand or some other solution that allows that at some point. It looks like I need a 13" stand and I haven't found any with adjustable tilt at that height yet. Thanks for all the advice guys! Rick

Looks like the RS42s would be too tall to fit at the bottom of the vault. You'd have to shift the speaker a few inches closer to center, or as Wuzzzer suggested, shift them to the sides. Rick

Well considering what a lot of screens cost it's worth a shot, right? I've built two screens by myself with blackout cloth from Jo-Ann's fabrics. One was 92" diagonal and the other was about 100" diagonal, both 16:9. With materials, each one cost between $60 - $85 to make. So this is about $100 over that amount. That's not *too* bad a premium to pay to have someone else do the work with potentially better results. It'll be interesting to see how the screen gets pulled taut since it requires only screws and a screwdriver. Rick

Denon's website doesn't show the rear of the 3310 but in any case it's almost twice as much as the 2310. The Onkyo 707 has pre outs and pretty much everything Audyssey can throw at it and msrp is similar to the Denon 2310. I've had both the Integra 9.8 and 9.9 (made by Onkyo) and have been very happy with them, but you can't argue with Denon if you wished to stay with that brand. Rick

Not sure why the returns aren't working, but as for your 16x9 vs 2.35 question: It depends. I've seen several great anamorphic setups, some with ultra expensive ISCO III lenses, and others with pretty good but still on the pricey side Panamorph lenses. For a 2.35, 2.39, 2.40 or greater aspect ratio, a decent setup looks great. Wide screen entirely taken up by picture. But to play devils' advocate, since I also work for a post-production studio I see all sorts of aspect ratios all the time. 1.66, 1.78, 1.85, 1.89, 2.20 (65mm 5perf, like Baraka, Oklahoma, South Pacific, and more), 2.35, 2.39 and 2.40, not to mention wild formats like Ben Hur, How the West Was Won, etc.. So which to choose? To add to the confusion, you have movies like Dark Knight and Transformers 2 with their open matte format to mimic the native aspect ratio of IMAX for the scenes shot in that format, but then switching back to 2.40 for the rest of the movie, all on the same disc. That's why I stuck with 16x9. If money were no object and I could have some sort of large solution that provided me with the option to keep 16x9 at a decent field of view plus open the screen up to 2.35 or 2.40 when I projected that maybe I'd try it out (think Stewart CineCurve with electricmasking on an ultrahuge screen). Then the only problem would be those discs like Dark Knight and Trans 2. But for now those are few and far between. Bottom line: Go with what you think will make you happiest.

Well at first glance I'd have to say the Mains vs Center issue will be a problem. You want as close a match as possible and while the KG-4s would indeed be meaty enough to use as your mains, using the quintet center with them would result in drastically uneven sound field as well as anemic dialogue. It's best to keep in mind that greater than 75% of your sound can come from the center channel. Between the two Denons I would choose the 2310 if you can get one in stock. It has 5 HDMI inputs vs 4 in the 1910, and 135wpc instead of just 90, which even on Klipsch speakers, may not be enough. It's always better to have the headroom if you can get it! But it seems as if the 1910 is no slouch if you get impatient (I know I do!), but at some point may want to add-in a separate amplifier and run the pre-outs to it instead of using the on-board amp. Rick

Hi Mike, This is just my personal opinion (I'm an ISF Calibrator and HT consultant), but leaving 8" on either side of the screen could be a mistake. Unless you plan on getting an acoustiperf or microperf screen and getting in-wall speakers, I'd give yourself at least 12"-16" for floorstanding mains on either side. This would obviously encroach upon the desired 2.35 screen width, but you may need to prioritize and compromise your desires somewhere (ie., in-walls behind the screen or narrower screen). I ran into a similar issue when designing my HT, but since I didn't plan on doing away with my RF7s, I stuck with a 110" diagonal 16x9 screen, which gave me ample room for my mains. Turns out it's the perfect size for my first row seating as well.

Thanks Bill, That'd be great except it's too tall. My current Lovan M2 is about 7.5" at its tallest point, plus ~9" for the RC7 is 16.5". I have ~5" to spare which means the tallest point of the new stand should be ~12.5". I'm hoping for an adjustable tilting head like the Lovan M2 if I can find it. Rick

Thanks for the insights guys! I'm going to be leaving the RC7 below-screen. I'll be purchasing a taller stand than my current Lovan, and this will bring the center speaker awfully close to within 18" of the RF7s adjacent to it. However, it still won't have a direct path to the second row of seating, unfortunately, but appears to be the best-case scenario for now.

And that's where the compromises of a mount like this come into play. I'm not sure if 10 degrees will be enough, but in addition to tilt being limited, it's also a fixed distance from the wall as well. Suppose I need it to be closer to the wall or further away? I think I may look into having a few painted 2x4s and a piece of plywood mounted to the ceiling at exactly the specifications needed, both distance from wall and angle to seating. Unfortunately having the height of the tweeters across all 3 mains be within 18" isn't doable unless I have an AT screen. I neither have that, nor do I really want it. But having said that, the tweeters would be closer to that rule of thumb if I kept the RC7 below the screen. Rick

I have a 110" fixed mount screen and the center channel currently hits my first row of seating just fine, but the second row will be a bit compromised. Does anything think this would work to mount the RC7 *above* the screen? Thanks! Rick

As a general rule use HDMI when possible when your source is digital. If you're using, say, a blu-ray player with component cables, then your blu-ray player is converting from digital to analog, then your projector is converting from analog to digital. Those steps are unnecessary and can result in image degradation that wouldn't occur if you were using HDMI the whole way. Additionally, analog cables over a long run will usually show artifacts from interference easier than HDMI cables will. You can also get HDMI cables relatively inexpensively from places like monoprice.com and bluejeanscable.com. I have a 30+ft HDMI cable from bluejeans that I'm no longer using if you're interested in a cheap pick up. The only other product I'm selling is an Integra DTC-9.8 pre. PM me if you're interested. :-) Rick