|
As this forum is rarely used anymore, we've locked it. Feel free to browse and read. Questions? Please reach out to us directly. Cheers! |
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Spanky Ham wrote: | Could the test be done with a CRT?  |
You know, I think I bark more when the discussion is CRT vs digital. Thats what gets my goat. They are 2 different technologies. And they both have a particular need. The comparison issue has to be put to rest.
Want to compare digitals, fine. Thats a discussion. Want to compare CRTs, fine also. But lets stop comparing the 2. Its a dead issue. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| macgyver655 wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | | macgyver655 wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | | I completely agree that there's much more that comes into play with respect to perceived PQ than just the display resolution. |
I'm curious as to what these things would be. And I'm being serious here. My bashing the Greek thing was only because it is flawed. But I'd like to know what the perceptions are. |
Some of the things I discussed earlier - quality of the optics, quality of the display chip, as well as ANSI and on/off contrast, image brightness, image uniformity, screen quality/uniformity...there's probably more I'm forgetting. Not to mention the type of material you're showing - i.e., high-contrast material with abrupt transitions between light and dark (white text on a dark screen, a ship in space, etc) will show pixel structure (which is related to display resolution) more readily than high IRE material.
That being said, I could make out pixel structure on my RS50 on a 84" wide screen sitting at 7' (depending on the material), so there is certainly room for improvement in display resolution depending upon the setup parameters, quality of projector, and visual acuity of the person watching. Plus 4K displays have other benefits (which don't require 4K material to be realized) for even flat panel TV owners (full-resolution 1080p PIP, passive full resolution 3D without higher display refresh rates, etc). |
So pretty much it's a dollar and cents thing. For the higher quality options you have to spend more money. So your comment on the perceived PQ was based on a parts quality thing more so then a resolution thing. However on a dollar for dollar issue the resolution is would play more into it. Correct? |
No, not really - in fact just about the only thing that I listed where the cost always increases with better performance is optics. Most of the other qualities are found to varying degrees in different projectors (depending on light engine design and underlying tech), regardless of price. Speaking in generalities, sure you get more the more you pay, but it's not an all-or-nothing proposition for all of those display qualities. This is what is responsible for the different "looks" of each tech, or even specific projector models.
_________________
| ecrabb wrote: | | Curt Palme wrote: | | Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure. |
He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.
SC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| macgyver655 wrote: | | Spanky Ham wrote: | | Could the test be done with a CRT? |
You know, I think I bark more when the discussion is CRT vs digital. Thats what gets my goat. They are 2 different technologies. And they both have a particular need. The comparison issue has to be put to rest.
Want to compare digitals, fine. Thats a discussion. Want to compare CRTs, fine also. But lets stop comparing the 2. Its a dead issue. |
Mac, I was getting at the fact that CRT can display both resolutions on the same pj, which would negate any projector variances. Based on your issues with the test, this may be the easiest way to do the comparison.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Spanky Ham wrote: | | macgyver655 wrote: | | Spanky Ham wrote: | | Could the test be done with a CRT? |
You know, I think I bark more when the discussion is CRT vs digital. Thats what gets my goat. They are 2 different technologies. And they both have a particular need. The comparison issue has to be put to rest.
Want to compare digitals, fine. Thats a discussion. Want to compare CRTs, fine also. But lets stop comparing the 2. Its a dead issue. |
Mac, I was getting at the fact that CRT can display both resolutions on the same pj, which would negate any projector variances. Based on your issues with the test, this may be the easiest way to do the comparison. |
Oh yes, I agree CRT can display all various resolutions and without manipulating the resolutions. The difference between fixed pixel and non fixed pixel technology.
The whole point behind my blathering here is that if you want to do a comparison, between digitals then the parameters must be better maintained.
For example, if you want to compare a 720p and 1080p digital then you must carefully feed each projector the resolution, native to it, all the way back to the source material. Otherwise your just comparing scaling, and not even that to a precise degree.
Otherwise, you can't say that 720p is just as good as, or better, or worse then 1080p. Speaking strictly digital of course.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HogPilot wrote: | | macgyver655 wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | | macgyver655 wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | | I completely agree that there's much more that comes into play with respect to perceived PQ than just the display resolution. |
I'm curious as to what these things would be. And I'm being serious here. My bashing the Greek thing was only because it is flawed. But I'd like to know what the perceptions are. |
Some of the things I discussed earlier - quality of the optics, quality of the display chip, as well as ANSI and on/off contrast, image brightness, image uniformity, screen quality/uniformity...there's probably more I'm forgetting. Not to mention the type of material you're showing - i.e., high-contrast material with abrupt transitions between light and dark (white text on a dark screen, a ship in space, etc) will show pixel structure (which is related to display resolution) more readily than high IRE material.
That being said, I could make out pixel structure on my RS50 on a 84" wide screen sitting at 7' (depending on the material), so there is certainly room for improvement in display resolution depending upon the setup parameters, quality of projector, and visual acuity of the person watching. Plus 4K displays have other benefits (which don't require 4K material to be realized) for even flat panel TV owners (full-resolution 1080p PIP, passive full resolution 3D without higher display refresh rates, etc). |
So pretty much it's a dollar and cents thing. For the higher quality options you have to spend more money. So your comment on the perceived PQ was based on a parts quality thing more so then a resolution thing. However on a dollar for dollar issue the resolution is would play more into it. Correct? |
No, not really - in fact just about the only thing that I listed where the cost always increases with better performance is optics. Most of the other qualities are found to varying degrees in different projectors (depending on light engine design and underlying tech), regardless of price. Speaking in generalities, sure you get more the more you pay, but it's not an all-or-nothing proposition for all of those display qualities. This is what is responsible for the different "looks" of each tech, or even specific projector models. |
Well thats pretty much a given in any digital technology. So going back to your comment "I completely agree that there's much more that comes into play with respect to perceived PQ than just the display resolution" do you agree or disagree that giving a digital display of any technology a source resolution equal to the displays native resolution will yield a better PQ then giving it a scaled resolution?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| macgyver655 wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | | macgyver655 wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | | macgyver655 wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | | I completely agree that there's much more that comes into play with respect to perceived PQ than just the display resolution. |
I'm curious as to what these things would be. And I'm being serious here. My bashing the Greek thing was only because it is flawed. But I'd like to know what the perceptions are. |
Some of the things I discussed earlier - quality of the optics, quality of the display chip, as well as ANSI and on/off contrast, image brightness, image uniformity, screen quality/uniformity...there's probably more I'm forgetting. Not to mention the type of material you're showing - i.e., high-contrast material with abrupt transitions between light and dark (white text on a dark screen, a ship in space, etc) will show pixel structure (which is related to display resolution) more readily than high IRE material.
That being said, I could make out pixel structure on my RS50 on a 84" wide screen sitting at 7' (depending on the material), so there is certainly room for improvement in display resolution depending upon the setup parameters, quality of projector, and visual acuity of the person watching. Plus 4K displays have other benefits (which don't require 4K material to be realized) for even flat panel TV owners (full-resolution 1080p PIP, passive full resolution 3D without higher display refresh rates, etc). |
So pretty much it's a dollar and cents thing. For the higher quality options you have to spend more money. So your comment on the perceived PQ was based on a parts quality thing more so then a resolution thing. However on a dollar for dollar issue the resolution is would play more into it. Correct? |
No, not really - in fact just about the only thing that I listed where the cost always increases with better performance is optics. Most of the other qualities are found to varying degrees in different projectors (depending on light engine design and underlying tech), regardless of price. Speaking in generalities, sure you get more the more you pay, but it's not an all-or-nothing proposition for all of those display qualities. This is what is responsible for the different "looks" of each tech, or even specific projector models. |
Well thats pretty much a given in any digital technology. So going back to your comment "I completely agree that there's much more that comes into play with respect to perceived PQ than just the display resolution" do you agree or disagree that giving a digital display of any technology a source resolution equal to the displays native resolution will yield a better PQ then giving it a scaled resolution? |
Theoretically? The native resolution image could be better. With real life material, it depends on the quality of the scaling algorithm, the quality of the source, the type of material in the source, the difference in resolution between the source and display, the visual acuity of the viewer, and the viewer's seating distance as compared to screen size (ignoring all the projector-specific variables I listed above). If you read a couple pages into the greek shoot-out thread, they talk about nyquist frequency, and how scaling single pixel lines from 1080p to 720p will certainly cause artifacts, but scaling someone's face that takes up half the screen height won't. Quantifying the effect of scaling on a test pattern is very easy; doing it for real-world material is much more difficult as there is a spectrum of results based on each of the variables I mentioned earlier.
All that being said, I think you may have misunderstood the thrust of my posts - I'm not saying that I don't think there's a difference between 720p and 1080p displays (or 1080p and 4K displays). I do, I've seen the differences with my own eyes in my own theaters. The biggest benefit is the reduction of the visibility of pixel structure in certain instances.
_________________
| ecrabb wrote: | | Curt Palme wrote: | | Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure. |
He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.
SC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dropzone7
Joined: 12 Jun 2007
Posts: 1069
Location: Charlotte, NC
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Will be following this thread...
_________________
"Coffee is for Closers."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HogPilot wrote: |
Theoretically? The native resolution image could be better. With real life material, it depends on the quality of the scaling algorithm, the quality of the source, the type of material in the source, the difference in resolution between the source and display, the visual acuity of the viewer, and the viewer's seating distance as compared to screen size (ignoring all the projector-specific variables I listed above). If you read a couple pages into the greek shoot-out thread, they talk about nyquist frequency, and how scaling single pixel lines from 1080p to 720p will certainly cause artifacts, but scaling someone's face that takes up half the screen height won't. Quantifying the effect of scaling on a test pattern is very easy; doing it for real-world material is much more difficult as there is a spectrum of results based on each of the variables I mentioned earlier.
All that being said, I think you may have misunderstood the thrust of my posts - I'm not saying that I don't think there's a difference between 720p and 1080p displays (or 1080p and 4K displays). I do, I've seen the differences with my own eyes in my own theaters. The biggest benefit is the reduction of the visibility of pixel structure in certain instances. |
I think this is what the Greek study did prove. Not that 720p looks just as good if not better then 1080p, but that you CAN make 1080p look worse then 720p......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kal, I'm not sure where you are on this, but this is a great deal for a very good lens:
http://cgi.videogon.com/cgi-bin/cl.pl?projmisc&1325869865&&&/Panamorph-UH480
I had an opportunity to test one against my Isco 3 (which is considered the best of the best) using both a DLP (BenQ W20000) and an LCoS (JVC RS35), and both my buddy and I found the UH480 to be 85-90% of what the Isco was for a fraction of a price.
_________________
| ecrabb wrote: | | Curt Palme wrote: | | Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure. |
He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.
SC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dropzone7
Joined: 12 Jun 2007
Posts: 1069
Location: Charlotte, NC
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HogPilot wrote: | Kal, I'm not sure where you are on this, but this is a great deal for a very good lens:
http://cgi.videogon.com/cgi-bin/cl.pl?projmisc&1325869865&&&/Panamorph-UH480
I had an opportunity to test one against my Isco 3 (which is considered the best of the best) using both a DLP (BenQ W20000) and an LCoS (JVC RS35), and both my buddy and I found the UH480 to be 85-90% of what the Isco was for a fraction of a price. |
FYI. I have contacted this seller and it seems that he may have a few of these lenses. Not sure how many but more than one. Also, I think he works or did work for Panamorph as the name he emailed me with came up on some searches regarding Panamorph where his signature listed the company name and address. I'm seriously considering one of these because it will work well with the short throw distance I have. The Prismasonic lens I have requires a 2.0 or greater throw which is going to be difficult in my room. I haven't even tried it yet but I'm thinking the Panamorph will be better either way.
_________________
"Coffee is for Closers."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg_mitch
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5320
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dropzone7 wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | Kal, I'm not sure where you are on this, but this is a great deal for a very good lens:
http://cgi.videogon.com/cgi-bin/cl.pl?projmisc&1325869865&&&/Panamorph-UH480
I had an opportunity to test one against my Isco 3 (which is considered the best of the best) using both a DLP (BenQ W20000) and an LCoS (JVC RS35), and both my buddy and I found the UH480 to be 85-90% of what the Isco was for a fraction of a price. |
FYI. I have contacted this seller and it seems that he may have a few of these lenses. Not sure how many but more than one. Also, I think he works or did work for Panamorph as the name he emailed me with came up on some searches regarding Panamorph where his signature listed the company name and address. I'm seriously considering one of these because it will work well with the short throw distance I have. The Prismasonic lens I have requires a 2.0 or greater throw which is going to be difficult in my room. I haven't even tried it yet but I'm thinking the Panamorph will be better either way. |
Those ads always seem misleading to me. You can't gain any resolution.
| videogon ad wrote: | | ...uses all 1080 rows of pixels with a 33% increase in resolution. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| greg_mitch wrote: | | Those ads always seem misleading to me. You can't gain any resolution. |
You don't gain source resolution, but you do gain display resolution and that can be useful depending upon your seating distance and visual acuity.
_________________
| ecrabb wrote: | | Curt Palme wrote: | | Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure. |
He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.
SC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10270
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
I do not think the world of panamorph users are trying to gain display resolution. First, its interpret, not native. And most importantly, they do it to gain lumens.
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WanMan wrote: | | I do not think the world of panamorph users are trying to gain display resolution. First, its interpret, not native. And most importantly, they do it to gain lumens. |
Actually increasing the vertical lines of resolution can allow closer seating distances without being able to detect pixel structure. Guys like Art over on AVS have an anamorphic lens for this exact reason - he has a 14' scope screen and didn't like the visibility of the pixels when he used zooming to achieve a CIH image. I had one for the same reason and will be using an Isco 3 in my new setup as well - I want my closest row of seating to be around 1.0 screen widths, and you just can't do that with zooming.
Obviously the gain in light on the screen is a significant benefit as well.
_________________
| ecrabb wrote: | | Curt Palme wrote: | | Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure. |
He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.
SC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg_mitch
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5320
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HogPilot wrote: | | WanMan wrote: | | I do not think the world of panamorph users are trying to gain display resolution. First, its interpret, not native. And most importantly, they do it to gain lumens. |
Actually increasing the vertical lines of resolution can allow closer seating distances without being able to detect pixel structure. Guys like Art over on AVS have an anamorphic lens for this exact reason - he has a 14' scope screen and didn't like the visibility of the pixels when he used zooming to achieve a CIH image. I had one for the same reason and will be using an Isco 3 in my new setup as well - I want my closest row of seating to be around 1.0 screen widths, and you just can't do that with zooming.
Obviously the gain in light on the screen is a significant benefit as well. |
You can...and I do. My first row is within 1.0 screen widths at 2.35 AR. We enjoy it. Granted that is mostly for the kiddies but it is perfectly functional and I have sat through many a movie without complaint.
It is still misleading. I know because I was mislead when I first started to look into the expense of a lens. You aren't gaining any resolution from the source so putting the same 810 pixels spread out over 1080 of course it will be brighter...you are using 1.3 pixels to show only 1 pixel of information.
But this post is pointless because you can find the exact same discussion all over the forums.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greg_mitch wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | | WanMan wrote: | | I do not think the world of panamorph users are trying to gain display resolution. First, its interpret, not native. And most importantly, they do it to gain lumens. |
Actually increasing the vertical lines of resolution can allow closer seating distances without being able to detect pixel structure. Guys like Art over on AVS have an anamorphic lens for this exact reason - he has a 14' scope screen and didn't like the visibility of the pixels when he used zooming to achieve a CIH image. I had one for the same reason and will be using an Isco 3 in my new setup as well - I want my closest row of seating to be around 1.0 screen widths, and you just can't do that with zooming.
Obviously the gain in light on the screen is a significant benefit as well. |
You can...and I do. My first row is within 1.0 screen widths at 2.35 AR. We enjoy it. Granted that is mostly for the kiddies but it is perfectly functional and I have sat through many a movie without complaint.
It is still misleading. I know because I was mislead when I first started to look into the expense of a lens. You aren't gaining any resolution from the source so putting the same 810 pixels spread out over 1080 of course it will be brighter...you are using 1.3 pixels to show only 1 pixel of information.
But this post is pointless because you can find the exact same discussion all over the forums. |
I think it could be misleading to an amateur who is unfamiliar with CIH or who - by no fault of their own - gets their information from bad sources. Assuming that "increase in resolution" refers only to the source or that the statement is meant to be misleading are poor assumptions. I've been doing the CIH thing since 2006, always with a lens (excluding the zooming tests I did with my 720p Optoma H79 and later with my 1080p JVC RS1), and once I read a little about what it was I don't think I was ever under the impression that the purpose of a lens was to utilize untapped source resolution.
That being said, there seem to be a lot of uneducated or perhaps misguided HT retailers out there who would possibly say such a thing out of ignorance or just to convince a client to spend more money, but that's a different story entirely. For someone who frequents forums such as this one or others and is more of a DIY-er, there's plenty of good info as to exactly what using a lens for CIH does and does not do for you. In all honesty, the "source resolution" argument tends to be used more by the "zoomer" crowd as a faulty argument against using a lens more than anything else.
_________________
| ecrabb wrote: | | Curt Palme wrote: | | Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure. |
He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.
SC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg_mitch
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5320
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I get it. I am ignorant. You have a lens. It is better. Thank you.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greg_mitch wrote: | | I get it. I am ignorant. You have a lens. It is better. Thank you. |
Um okay, not sure what prompted that response - I said none of those things.
_________________
| ecrabb wrote: | | Curt Palme wrote: | | Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure. |
He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.
SC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
benareeno
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 1614
Location: ottawa, canada
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'll throw in my 2 cents.
a 2.35:1 screen is a must...a no brainer. Most movies are this size and need to give the best experience.
So...avatar is 16:9...but I'll bet it was in the theater in scope. And as such...like other Cameron movies, you can simply play it on a scope screen (simply crop the top and bottom). For that matter...many, many 16:9 movies can easily be played scope. Do you want to compromise by not having scope? Or compromise on 16:9 material ? (and many times it's not that much of a compromise anyhow). I think the answer is easy.
I would suggest not ruling out a 3 chip dlp...they are better than LCOS in many ways. I also think resolution is overrated...so, you could even consider a 720p 3 chipper found on the used market. THese also tend to be light cannons and can light up a 10 ft wide screen where many others would have a serious struggle. If you can find a DC3 version of the INfocus 777 on ebay...take a shot at it, man!!
One other point..I recently got a seymour screen ( I think it's slightly older than the latest)...and the audio difference in my room is nothing short of huge! I mean...huge! 3 identical speakers up front..in a row with aligned tweeters. THis is a major upgrade for the theater. And, in your case the screen is better too. A win, win...but you should consider 3 identical speakers.
At any rate...I'm hoping for an invite whenever you come up with something!
Ben
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg_mitch
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5320
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| benareeno wrote: | I'll throw in my 2 cents.
a 2.35:1 screen is a must...a no brainer. Most movies are this size and need to give the best experience.
So...avatar is 16:9...but I'll bet it was in the theater in scope. And as such...like other Cameron movies, you can simply play it on a scope screen (simply crop the top and bottom). For that matter...many, many 16:9 movies can easily be played scope. Do you want to compromise by not having scope? Or compromise on 16:9 material ? (and many times it's not that much of a compromise anyhow). I think the answer is easy.
I would suggest not ruling out a 3 chip dlp...they are better than LCOS in many ways. I also think resolution is overrated...so, you could even consider a 720p 3 chipper found on the used market. THese also tend to be light cannons and can light up a 10 ft wide screen where many others would have a serious struggle. If you can find a DC3 version of the INfocus 777 on ebay...take a shot at it, man!!
One other point..I recently got a seymour screen ( I think it's slightly older than the latest)...and the audio difference in my room is nothing short of huge! I mean...huge! 3 identical speakers up front..in a row with aligned tweeters. THis is a major upgrade for the theater. And, in your case the screen is better too. A win, win...but you should consider 3 identical speakers.
At any rate...I'm hoping for an invite whenever you come up with something!
Ben |
I will second the acoustically transparent screen with identical front stage speakers. It is a major difference from speakers below or beside the screen. Night and day difference.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Forum powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
|
|
