Meridian Unplugged - Powered by MrTechGuy.co.uk Forums Discussion Meridian - Systems Theatre Design Help...

From my recent experience, in a 19 x 12 room, you will not be too disappointed with the recent JVC projectors (350/750 and replacements) for a couple of years until the "next big step forward" comes along.

You only need to pay, say $5000 for a lower range model as these have pretty much the same performance as the more expensive ones. Just get it calibrated after running the lamp in for a few hours.

In the context of what you have spent on your room this seems not unreasonable and as for new technology...

- LED is not going to be around for a bit yet and may be no better than halide lamps;
- 3D? Need I say more than the thread on here;
- 4K? there is no super-HD software and is the Meridian 810 really much more impressive than my JVC?

IMO, the Runco and high-end SIM2 are expensive for the performance you get.

Ian, appreciate the response noting the following:

1. The room will be built/completed in 8 to 10 weeks from me giving the green light which means -- assuming I give the green light in the next few days -- mid March at the latest which means there will likely be no new projectors to choose from and any new projectors would have been shown at CES.

2. The final projector choice will be made when the room is near complete noting that because the projector will be on a shelf in separate room behind the home theatre room any projector with sufficient brightest and the proper throw distance is a viable candidate.

3. The suggestinn -- something cheaper for now with a high resale value to tide me over -- is precisely my thinking wrt JVC projectors.

Thanks...

Exactly my thinking but wanted to bounce / comfirm it with thise here and, in particualr, those who have first hand experiecne with the new JVC offerings, the PD, Runco, Sim and other like offerings.

Truly a shame that my Marantz does not have the lumens at that throw distance because at a throw distance of 15 feet -- where it currently is -- it is, in my opinion, particularly when matched with my Lumagen for colour correction -- spectacular...

You need to check the JVC projector specs. on throw distance vs. screen width to ensure this will be OK with your projector in the next room. I didn't realise you intended to do this from the previous posts and the maximum throw is about 6m IIRC. 19ft plus the wall thickness may be too long.

I shouldn't worry about projector noise. The JVCs are very quiet.

I have checked...the exact throw distance is 19'8" and the screen is 90" wide which puts it in the "workable range" resulting 21 ftL noting that the throw distance range for this size screen per Projector Central is to 10'2" to 20'9"

Joel,

sorry for not reading through all of your previous posts, but I hope you allow me to add my 2 cents...

Have you ever considered using a 21:9 screen in conjunction with an anamorphic lens for the projector?

In case you are not familiar with that: Blu-Ray has a standardized screen ratio of 16:9 which gives you black bars on top/bottom for quite a lot of movies that are put on disc in the 21:9 ratio they were shown in the cinemas. Often (like in my HT) you use the maximum possible height for your (16:9) screen, but there may still be some more space at the sides so that you could also fit in a 21:9 screen. So when you watch 16:9 you don't lose anything, but when you watch a 21:9 movie you activate the anamorpic lens and use the full width of the 21:9 screen without the black bars.

The lens should cost around 5,000$ and the screen will cost a bit more than the 16:9 one. A variable masking is recommended which might already be included in your setup (sorry, I didn't go through all the details).

Feel free to ask if you like to know more...

NutFlush

@NutFlush:

Appreciate the feedback and, in point of fact, I do to the point that I own a NIB Panamorph lens w/i an autosled...anyone want to purhcase it...

After much discussion with both the theatre designer and the integrator we decided to go with a 16:9 screen with top / bottom masking in order i) obtain the most optimal viewing angles given the room size and ii) 50% of my viewing is HDTV / sports with the result that a 2.40:1 screen would leave too small of a viewing area for 1.78 material.

Just to make sure they didn't inform you wrong: if you have 2 screens (one 16:9 other 21:9) that have the same HEIGHT then the 1.78 material occupies the exact same area on BOTH screens. The 21:9 screen does NOT "leave too small of a viewing area for 1.78 material".

If on the other hand both screens have the same WIDTH (i.e. from wall to wall) then it is true that the 16:9 screen is larger in HEIGHT and thus offers more area for the 1.78 material.

I don't know if you really are limited in width, but unless you have a very high ceiling or rather narrow walls you should be able to fit in a 21:9 screen with the same height as the planned 16:9 screen.

Maybe they recommended a screen with a high gain (like silver screens etc.)? This could explain why they don't want you to have a wide screen, but a high gain screen is not good anyhow, because it gives you a "hot spot" in the middle and less brightness for viewers watching from an angle. What gain did they recommend (what screen exactly if they already decided)?

NutFlush

@NutFlush

The recommended screen material is an acoustically transparent studiotek 100 which has a screen gain of 1.0.

The room will have only 1 screen with the limiting factors being i) the dimensions / size of the room in terms of optimal viewing angles and seating positions and ii) the width in that both screens would have the same width...although I can physically fit a larger screen I have been told by those that supposedly know much more than me that such a screen size would be too large based on where the seating will be and, to this end, I tested this on my current setup and can confirm that the viewing experience was NOT pleasant...