edwinr

Youthman, that's like camping out with HT. Maybe you're going to start a new trend...

Maybe the 3rd lens memory is for 4:3, although that should still be covered by the 16:9 option.

It's the hiss. Using horn speakers with around 103 to 105 db sensitivity, every cheap tube amp I've tried makes noise that I can hear from my listening position. I don't know whether it's a result of crappy transformers, poor wiring or whatever, they just make noise. On really quite pieces of music with the volume ramped up, the noise intrudes on the music. Now my current amplifer, the Audio Note Soro SE may not be the most dynmaic and detailed tube amplifier in the world, but man it's quiet. Even from a foot away I can barely hear anything. I've come to the conclusion that rather than buy cheap tube stuff just so they can say they have tubes, music lovers on a budget are better off buying the best horn speakers they can afford and skimp on amplification. Buy a good solid state integrated amplifer instead and save, save, save... I was thinking Creek, Cambridge Audio, NAD etc... Or Rotel. Or Musical Fidelity:

Hmmmm... Probably the Avangarde Duo, followed closely by the Klipschorn. Bearing in mind the Klipschorn is around 40% less expensive than the Duo and is better value for money. Here's a pic of a Duo standing guard over a Harbeth Monitor 30...

Batman's Robin... Are you going somewhere??? "Say goodbye to Batmans Robin leaving. Then say goodbye to Batmans Robin lost."

I've had some missing CD front and back inserts. Try going to Amazon.com select the CD title on larger image and print the album picture for the front insert. Cut the print to size and slot it into the CD case. It's much better than having a generic front insert and it doesn't take too long...

Absolutely But anytime you can hit the ideal or come real close is one less compromise to be made... Hey, Mike. It would have to be so hard to be a loudspeaker designer. I know you're going for the theoretical best scenario, but how can you possibly accomodate for every possible room variation? I reckon it would be relatively easy to design a speaker with known room characteristics... But real life siituations... I reckon near field/studio monitor designs work so well because they are 'tuned' in such a fashion that they don't really need to take into account room interactions.

Is that lens distortion? Or is the room not perfectly square or rectangle? I'll tell you what I do find distracting, and that's the big white projection screen. My current one is a pulldown. My next screen will be fixed, but I'll rig a curtain or something so that it doesn't irritate me when I'm listening to music... BTW Batman's Robin, for those that seem to have trouble hitting you with their pot-shots, I thought I'd make it a little easier for them. They can't miss you now! LOL!

Thanks, Youthman. I read your other thread plus the link to the pics. Very impressive. The Panasonic has become my preferred option, particularly with the lens memory. I do like the idea of the anamorphics lens arrangement, but that is something I might look into a little later. Number one priority is to buy the cinemascope screen. Thanks for your comments about the size of the screen. I will now consider a larger screen size than I first thought - at least 120 inch. I should imagine my current Panasonic 720p projector will be okay at first until I shop around for a good price for the 1080p model. Regarding that guy that posted the pics allegedly directly on to a black wall - I too have some doubts that the results are as he suggests. In saying that, I've never tried doing that, so I can''t really say for sure whether it would work or not... [*-)]

I was kinda thinking that to be polite I should congratulate you on your new projector. But frankly I'm too jealous, so I won't congratulate you at all... [^o)]

What speakers does he own? LOL!!! That's a really good question. He doesn't own a hi-fi system as such. He's got one of those 3 in 1 kiitchen stereo type units, a Denon I think from memory. He often stays at my place when he visits town. Being a World War II veteran he's a big fan of movies from that era, the old musicals and stuff like that. Whenever he comes I hire a bunch of old widescreen movies and we have a ball watching the likes of John Wayne, Burt Lancaster, Henry Fonda, and probably his favorite actor of all time, James Stewart. He loves my system and he's a big fan of Paul Klipsch and his horn speakers. My friend remembers when Klipschorns used to be the ultimate hi-fi speaker in the world. I have great pleasure in telling him that they still are...

I guess that makes some kind of sense. My martial arts master is 82 years young. He's 30 years older than me and a very close friend. I think I'm pretty good. But he's better. Everytime I go to take him down, he does something unexpected and the next thing I'm flat on my back (ouch!). How does he do this? I've asked him and he always says; "...I can see what you're going to do before before YOU know what you're going to do!" This has to be years and years of experience coming to the fore. He's learned to compensate for his age and loss of speed and flexibility...

Who has 'golden ears' here? I used to think I had cloth ears, but I've been extensively listening to some really high quaility audio during the last 3 or 4 years. I now reckon I'm starting to pick up on the little nuances that the audiophool magazine reviewers constanty go on about. Little tweaks that I would never have picked up on a few years ago now just stand out. Moving my speakers around a little from the wall, or adjusting 'toe-in' by fractions has wrought dramatic changes in the sound from my listening position. I've even played around a little with speaker and interconnect cable. I bought some new Nordost ribbon speaker cable and matching interconnects and inserting these into my system has provided more focus and detail. Why? I don't know. I'm normally an agnostic when it comes to fancy bits of wire. The worst thing is that I reckon I've become somewhat of a hi-fi snob now. Listening to other people's hi-fi has really bought the worst out in me. They try and show off their systems to me, and frankly, most times I can't wait to escape from the torture and return to my own system...

The Ausiemorphic lens sells for around $1800 Australian which is around $1200 US. Check out this link: http://www.anamorphiclens.com.au/

LOL! The Brits later worked out that the driver and x-over sounded better when inserted into the speaker cabinet.... [] Batman's Robin, I owned an LS 3/5a for many years. I was stupid and sold it to a friend because he'd been pestering me for ages to sell them. I still regret the sale. To answer your question, the LS 3/5a is the very best speaker I have ever heard for reproducing vocals. Better than my Martin Logans, better than my expemsive headphones, better than anything. Maybe the reason they sound so good is because they don't go too loud. They don''t exite room resonances and stuff like that so that the room doesn't interfere so much with the sound coming from the speakers. The problem is... they just don't go loud enough in larger rooms. Now I suppose big horn speakers tend to beam the sound toward the listener and in doing so may in some small way avoid room interference (?) The upshot is that big horns can sound real good too. But is the Jubilee better than the LS 3/5a at the same listening levels? Whew, I wouldn't want to put money on that. Now this intermodulated distortion thing you're talking about... I know PWK was a big fan of less is better. But is this really the case? What's wrong with a little distortion? Aren't the the harmonics in music classed as a type of distortion? Without this distortion, music would sound flat and boring. Maybe that's another reason why the LS 3/5a sounds so darn good. They're throwing in a good dose of distortion to sweeten the sound. If that is really the case, all I can say is "Gimme some more suger, baby!". Here's a pic of an LS 3/5a clone, the beautiful 2009 Harbeth HL-P3 nursed by it's designer and Harbeth owner, Alan Shaw. The BBC sound lives on...

Thanks Parrot. The mighty feathered one has just sent me Rachmaninoff's 'For a Rainy Day'. On this disc is the stunning Op. 43 'Rhapsody On A Theme Of Paganini' played by Vladimir Askenazy'. This piece lasts for 23 minutes 40 seconds! I have heard excerpts in the past, but I had no idea this masterpiece existed in such an extended form. The Parrot has delivered again.

Zooming out is pretty much what I'm going to do. I may lose some resolution, and I'll have to contend with the top and bottom bars, but masking or a dark wall will help. I've checked out some web reviews of that new Panasonic projector. It looks like the best way to go for cinemascope on the cheap. The lens memory will enable me to view both cinemascope and standard 16:9 DVD's without heartache... That ProjectorCentral link posted by bhendrix says it all though. Zooming is the way to go...

Let the guys from Aussiemorphic who seem to know what they're talking about explain the use of an anamorphic lens... Step 1: We start here with a Cinemascope projection screen that has a ratio of 2.37:1 (21.33 X 9). All cinemascope movies will have grey bars at the top and bottom which make up a total of 25% of the image height. These grey bars are not black as digital projectors cannot project black, only shades of grey (which vary according to the projector being used). Looks rather ordinary don't you think? There are only 810 viewable lines of resolution for a 1080P Projector and only 540 viewable lines for a 720P Projector. Step 2: We then use a projector or an external scaler that can perform the electronic vertical stretch. This stretches the image vertically and utilises the active pixels that are wasted in the grey bars. The problem here is everyone will look tall and skinny. (In this particular shot it's the trees that look out of shape) We are now using the entire 1,080 lines of vertical resolution for a 1080P Projector and the entire 720 lines for a 720P Projector. Step 3: The 3rd step is to use an Anamorphic Lens. The Aussiemorphic Lens is a horizontal expansion lens that optically restores the geometry of the vertically stretch image. The result is deluxe cinemascope widescreen with no annoying grey bars top or bottom ever again. Take a look at the top shot (the letterboxed image) and compare it to the image on the left. When you measure the image sizes. What you have is 1.78 X 1 - less 25% for the black bars - so we end up with 1.78 X .75 = 1.335 squares. But for cinemascope we have 2.37 X 1 = 2.37 squares. 2.37 divided by 1.335 = 1.77. Which means your cinemascope movies, combined with a lens are now 1.77 times larger image than the original letterboxed viewable image. Not only do you end up with optimal 16:9 image size but you now have a very immersive cinemascope image with more resolution, more detail and higher brightness. This is how they do it at the movies. The ads finish, a lens slides into place and the curtains open up to the walls. Check out the original link in my first post for the accompanying pictures used to illustrate their argument...

I reckon the ideal situation is to have no x-over whatsoever. If you've got to have one, you would imagine the best x-over is the one with the least components. Yet some of the best speakers in the world for reproducing vocals appear to use the most complex looking x-overs I've ever seen. Probably my all-time favorite speaker for reproducing vocals is the BBC LS 3/5a. I's only a tiny two way bookshelf but it too employs quite a complex x-over network.

Now you have my mouth watering, Youthman. I run a PS3 as well. I can't believe the result screening on to a black wall!!!

Thanks bhendnrix. The Panasonic PT-AE3000 was recently reviewed by Smarthouse. In relation to the lens memory they said: By collaborating with leading Hollywood filmmakers, Panasonic has enhanced the unit's performance to ensure that it produces images that reflect the director's artistic vision and intent. Additionally, cinematic widescreen formats like 21:9 or 16:9 may be set at the touch of a button, thanks to the projector's Lens Memory feature, which allows easy adjustment of different aspect ratios by storing three different preset zoom/focus positions that correspond exactly to a user's favourite cinemascope and TV aspect ratio. The Panasonic's lens memory feature would possibly negate the need for an anamorphic lens (for me anyway). I'll check it out. The problem is, the Panasonic is expensive. But maybe not more than a standard projector, scaler and anamorphic lens... You'd still have the top and bottom bars, but a dark curtain or wall would fix that. And garyrc, thanks for your post. I take your point about future proofing. I should buy a screen for my new 1080p projector, not my current one which is getting a little old. I am eagerly awaiting 'Lawrence of Arabia' on bluray, one of all-time favorite movies. Some of the earlier movies offer stunning colors and definition. Later releases just 'pale' in comparison.

Here's a pic with the above image expanded using an anamorphic lens. I would get a similar effect (although not quite as sharp) just zooming my projector out. I have to say the cinemascope image looks stunning...

I reckon it's now time to upgrade to a cinemascope screen. I currently use a pulldown 16:9 92 inch screen. When playing DVD blockbuster 2.37:1 widescreen movies on a 16:9 screen, I get grey bars top and bottom, losing around 25% of the picture. Soooooo... I'm going to buy a cinemascope fixed screen - probably a 110 inch because sitting around 25 feet from the screen, any bigger will be tiresome to watch. Plus I may lost a little resolution and brightness with my Panasonic PT AE700 720p projector. I intend to upgrade my projector somethime this year to 1080p, but I'm in no hurry. There's a couple of ways to utilize a true cinemascope screen with a standard projector. The best way is to use an upscaler and an anamorphic lense. Check out this Australian website. They ship all over the world: http://www.anamorphiclens.com.au/ Using the upscaler and anamorphic lens you use all the projectiion resolution available. But, I don't want to splash out on an upscaler and anamorphic lens at the moment. So the elcheapo way to do it is as follows. Buy a cinemascope screen, set it up as per normal, then using a widescreen DVD, zoom the projejctor out until the top and bottom bars disappear. Viola, a cinemascope image. There are some drawbacks though. I may have to manually adjust the zoom on the projector for each movie. By zooming out, the pixels increase in size by around 33% - this is not a real big issue with HD and full HD projectors I suppose as long as I don't go too big with the screen. It has been suggested that darker walls or a dark curtain behind the cinemascope screen will absorb residual light from the top and bottom bars. Anyone else tried this??? The pic below depicts what a 2.37:1 widescreen movie would look like on a standard 16:9 screen with the top and bottom bars 'greyed out' by the projector. The white side panels depict the additonal screen size available using a cinemascope screen.

Maybe the passive crossovers are soaking up the power somehow. From my understanding, many SET amplifiers are happier driving simple horn speakers with even more simple crossovers, like the now defunct Loth-X designs using drivers similar to the popular Lowther transducers...

Check this link, Greg. I don't know whether the Fi X 2A3 amplifier's design bears any resemblance to yours, but the reviewer does make the comment that their 2A3 amplifier is best suited to higher impedance loads - this amplifier showing an intolerance for low impedance... http://www.tnt-audio.com/ampli/fi-x_e.html Still, we're talking about 103 db plus...