New HT Layout Question

[mness4]

I'm beginning to plan the layout of my new HT, and I have a fundamental question about my layout. I've attached a crude sketch of my basement (hopefully it attached correctly...if not I'll re-post). The dashed line shows the portion of the basement I would like to dedicate to my HT. My preference would be to build walls where the dashed lines are, but we would like to keep the basement as open as possible for times when we're not watching movies. If I delineate the HT room using curtains, isn't it true that the "acoustical dimensions" of my HT would be those of the entire basement? If so, that should actually be preferable, right? Of course, this effect would not be as significant in the other direction since only about half of that side would would be curtains. FWIW, ceilings are 8'.

I thought about using the space on the other side of the stairs, but the screen wall would only be 10' and I'm looking for at least 120" diagonal screen (Goo painted wall.) The 13' wall would better accommodate this size screen plus fronts.

Any suggestions? This is probably the first of many posts...found some interesting stuff in Youthman's thread on his build. I also started reading Eric Winer's site to learn about acoustics. Cool stuff. And I thought it was a simple matter of equipment.

Thanks,

Mike

HT layout 1.pdf

[mness4]

Ok, obviously the upload didn't work. I clicked "options" then "add/update", selected the file, and clicked save.

Mike

[Rich_Guy]

The link worked, people just need to click on HT layout 1.pdf at the top of your post. I think it will work fine, depending on the accoustics of the room you may need to do some accoustical treatments.

[Youthman]

Your room is very close to my dimensions. Mine is 13' x 19' with 10' ceilings. I don't see a problem with your dimensions. Not sure about using curtains for the walls though. As you mentioned, they really won't contain the sound so your room acoustics would possibly be the entire basement. Not sure if that is good or bad.

[mness4]

Thanks for the replies...I didn't see that the link was included. I guess I was expecting the image to show. Cut and paste didn't work. Anyway...

Regarding the curtain issue, it seems from Eric Winer's site that the larger the room (from an acoustical perspective), the more uniform the response. So this seems to be saying that the acoustics of my HT should be better without the wall reflections provided I'm willing to sacrifice the lack of structure and live with the imposition on the remainder of my basement. It should also be easier to make further improvements with acoustical treatments. But I get the feeling that there must be a tradeoff I'm missing.

There is one other possibility. The area on the other side of my stairs is ~10.5x18. If I want a 120" screen (2.35:1), the width would require 110", leaving 8" per side to the wall. Youthman, I read how you were concerned about space for your fronts. I haven't settled on a long-term speaker solution, so I don't that constraint yet. Also, I don't plan on putting in any custom cabinets...all screen. However, that would mean my fronts would have to be smaller wall-mounted units rather than something like the rf-7. Is this a mistake? Would my fronts have to be something more substantial? Any recommendations?

Thanks,

Mike

[ender21]

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.

[mness4]

Yeah, it didn't seem like 8" spacing would be enough to me either. I'm going to stick with my original layout on the other side of the stairs...13' wide rather than 10'. This leaves me with 22" per side assuming a 120" diagonal 2.35:1 (110" width). I sketched it out on my vapor barrier and the proportions look good. It looks like I'll settle for an intermediate speaker/avr solution while I decide what I like. I currently have a 5.1 quintet surround system and a H-K 220 avr. I don't expect to have any of that equipment in a couple years, but I haven't a clue what I want. In the mean time, I'm bringing my KG-4s down from upstairs to serve as my fronts and the 4 quintet speakers will be my surrounds and rears. I'm afraid the KG-4s will eat the others for breakfast. In particular, I think the center will be a problem. I read a post stating that, particularly for movies, it's best to have the center be a comparable speaker to the fronts...preferably the same. As for the avr, I'm trying to decide between the Denon 1910 and 2130CI. I have bids in at 6ave for these at $375 and $520, respectively. Others had some success at these prices, but the 2130s are temporarily out of stock. Any thoughts on these two avrs or my strange combo of speakers?

Mike

[ender21]

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

[mness4]

Thanks, Rick.

I had a new thought about the center, along with some other rambling questions. I wandered over to a thread where some lucky SOBs are pondering the best centers for their KHorn fronts...easy soln: "buy another $4K Horn for the center." Oh, to be in that league! But if I'm going to use my KG-4s as fronts (at least the same era at the KHorns...maybe my KGs shared a bucket of stain with a Horn), I could find another for a center. They're all over ebay. I could lay it horizontally and maybe build a false wall with a frame and acoustic material a bit like Youthman considered in his HT build thread. That would solve my center vs fronts issue, but a couple other questions if not problems would arise: 1. Is there a recommended distance from the wall for KG-4s? That could have implications on my setup, especially for the center; 2. In the near term, I will have either a Denon 1910 (90W/ch) or 2310CI (105W/ch). I'm leaning toward your advice and going with the 2310...only for the extra watts, since my only sources will be my Comcast HD tuner and a blu ray DVD player feeding my Panny PT-4000U. Maybe a game system in the future. So the extra HDMI input would not be a huge consideration in choosing the 2310 over the 1910. I'm primariliy interested in sound quality, Audyssey incorporation, and the ability to calibrate the various disparate speakers. Given my setup, do you still agree with the 2310 over the 1910? BTW, 6ave countered my bid prices for these avrs at $419 (1910) and $549 (2310). Will I NEED a separate amp for the front three KG-4s? How much penalty specifically in the sound quality should I expect without adding an amp? I should point out that my KG-4s had been running happily along side an NAD 7240pe 20W/ch stereo receiver for years; 3. The surrounds and rears. I'm left with the quintets for these four. Not so worried about the surrounds, since I'm told they're not nearly as dominant as the F/C. I'm concerned about the rears though. Would the quintets be enough? Incidently, how much are you asking for your RS-42s? I assume they would not be recommended as rears, which should (?) be directionals.

Thanks,

Mike

[mness4]

...by the way, how did you choose between 2.35:1 and 1.77:1? Any idea about the relative number of movies formatted in these two ratios? Were you happy with your choice?

Mike

[wuzzzer]

Thanks, Rick.

I had a new thought about the center, along with some other rambling questions. I wandered over to a thread where some lucky SOBs are pondering the best centers for their KHorn fronts...easy soln: "buy another $4K Horn for the center." Oh, to be in that league! But if I'm going to use my KG-4s as fronts (at least the same era at the KHorns...maybe my KGs shared a bucket of stain with a Horn), I could find another for a center. They're all over ebay. I could lay it horizontally and maybe build a false wall with a frame and acoustic material a bit like Youthman considered in his HT build thread. That would solve my center vs fronts issue, but a couple other questions if not problems would arise: 1. Is there a recommended distance from the wall for KG-4s? That could have implications on my setup, especially for the center; 2. In the near term, I will have either a Denon 1910 (90W/ch) or 2310CI (105W/ch). I'm leaning toward your advice and going with the 2310...only for the extra watts, since my only sources will be my Comcast HD tuner and a blu ray DVD player feeding my Panny PT-4000U. Maybe a game system in the future. So the extra HDMI input would not be a huge consideration in choosing the 2310 over the 1910. I'm primariliy interested in sound quality, Audyssey incorporation, and the ability to calibrate the various disparate speakers. Given my setup, do you still agree with the 2310 over the 1910? BTW, 6ave countered my bid prices for these avrs at $419 (1910) and $549 (2310). Will I NEED a separate amp for the front three KG-4s? How much penalty specifically in the sound quality should I expect without adding an amp? I should point out that my KG-4s had been running happily along side an NAD 7240pe 20W/ch stereo receiver for years; 3. The surrounds and rears. I'm left with the quintets for these four. Not so worried about the surrounds, since I'm told they're not nearly as dominant as the F/C. I'm concerned about the rears though. Would the quintets be enough? Incidently, how much are you asking for your RS-42s? I assume they would not be recommended as rears, which should (?) be directionals.

Brick of text = no read. The Enter key is your friend! []

[Cpt_John]

I will have either a Denon 1910 (90W/ch) or 2310CI (105W/ch). I'm leaning toward your advice and going with the 2310...only for the extra watts

Save your money if you are only going with the 2310 for the extra watts. 15W/ch will make little to no difference in sound with your KG4's. By the way those ratings are in 8 ohms. KG4's are 6 ohm speakers (I know many say 4 ohm) so the actually wattage output would be higher.

Will I NEED a separate amp for the front three KG-4s

First or all, if you think you will an amp at sometime in the future, then do not get the 1910 or 2310 as I believe they do not have pre-amp outs. An amp will bring out the best of the speakers and provide "headroom", but it is probably not a true "need" with KG4's.

I could find another for a center

If you can find a 3rd or more KG4 (they are often found around $200/pr) I believe that would work well and be fairly inexpensive. You should have the room due to a projector setup.

[Cpt_John]

Do you watch primarily movies off of DVD/BR or do you watch a mix of HDTV, Movies, Games, etc.? If you plan on using your theater for almost all movies off of DVD/BR then the 2.35:1 is probably the best. If you plan it as a multipurpose home theater then go with 16:9.

One thing I noted last weekend is that when I ordered a PPV movie in 1080p DirecTV broadcasts last weekend (did not have the BR rental I wanted) it came through already cropped in 16:9. I am not sure if your cable provider does that, but it may also be a consideration.

[Cpt_John]

...by the way, how did you choose between 2.35:1 and 1.77:1? Any idea about the relative number of movies formatted in these two ratios? Were you happy with your choice?

Mike

Most movies are made in the wider formats unless they are a "made for TV" type ( movie.

I went 16:9 in my home theater and for my viewing prefernces and theater layout I am very happy with my choice. Cinemascope is increasingly popular among some HT owners and is often favored by more of the "purists". I believe 16:9 screens significantly outsell 1.77:1 screen.

One other thing to keep in mind is that most home theater projectors are native 16:9 format. You will not get any additional image quality with out going with very expensive anamorphic lenses/scalers. Even though the Blu ray disks have 1080P resolution, most people are only using 7-800 lines of resolution from movies due to scaling issues (cinemascope movies broadcast with a 16:9 projector).

[mness4]

Ok, stupid question but how? I enter text as 3 or 4 paragraphs and in shows a one...brick...of text.

Mike

[mness4]

Capt_John,

Thanks for your replies. Very helpful. The Denon 1910/2310 would be (I think) a temporary solution unless they are sufficiently powerful and I am happy with the speaker setup. So maybe the 1910 would be best. After checking ebay and Clist, I will try for the following setup: fronts: KG5.2; center: KG-4; surrounds: KG1; rears: KG3.5; sub: KSW12 (from my quintet system...just because I have it) all driven by the 1910.

As for the screen size, I primarily watch DVD (blu ray when I get one), Comcast HDTV...mostly movies and sports. Probably 50-50 DVD-HDTV. My projector will be a Panasonic PT-4000U, which is unique in that it has a built-in anamorphic scaling. So I want to take advantage of that. But to be honest, I'm a bit ignorant and don't know if/how that should affect my screen aspect ratio decision. I just don't want to offset any advantage the 4000 might otherwise provide. However, if most content will be 16:9, then that makes the decision easier.

Mike.

Holy carp...this brick text IS very annoying. Why aren't my returns working???!!!

[ender21]

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.

[Cpt_John]

My projector will be a Panasonic PT-4000U, which is unique in that it has a built-in anamorphic scaling.

The Panny has a "zoom" feature to fill a cinemascope screen. Do not confuse this with a true anamorphic lens and scaler. They are in a completely different price range. The Panny will still be projecting in 16:9, but the remainder of the projected letterbox will be above and below the cinemascope screen.

[Cpt_John]

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)

Now that would be incredible! [Y]

It would be even better if you could get Elite or some other company to produce it an econmical cost.....(I know in my dreams for now)

[Youthman]

The Panny has a "zoom" feature to fill a cinemascope screen. Do not confuse this with a true anamorphic lens and scaler. They are in a completely different price range. The Panny will still be projecting in 16:9, but the remainder of the projected letterbox will be above and below the cinemascope screen.

Cpt is correct. I have the AE3000u. I went with it because it's what I call the "Poor Man's Anamorphic Setup" [] I don't have the coin to invest in an anamorphic lens and motorized sled so the panny fits the bill for me. To me, it's still amazing. As stated, it projects a 16:9 image which has grey bars on top and bottom. You then zoom to where the image width fits the width of your scope screen and the grey bars on top and bottom are then pushed above and below your screen. It's still the same amount of lines of resolution (which is technically less than 1080p) but still looks absolutely stunning IMO.