Any of you smokers have a Home Theater?

[Inscrutable]

Yes and no. Until most recent move have had HT’s.
2000-2005 vintage was 500sf with 10’ screen, with half a Volkswagen (aka big CRT) hanging on ceiling driven with HTPC.
2006-2017 was 900 sf with 11’screen and digital PJ.

Both had stadium seating and high end audio. Latter also had pool table and bar.

Sadly, more limited here .. working on a successor ... if can ever get the &$%£ house fixed from flood.

 

[johnmeyer]

Before coming to this forum, most of my online contributions were in video editing and restoration forums. The subject of 3D came up a lot a dozen years ago when the fourth incarnation of this technology came to us in the form of 3D TV sets and projectors. My outspoken prediction at the time was that, like the previous three incarnations, this too would fall flat on its face. The lake movie critic, Roger Ebert, wrote a long piece back around that same time, explaining why he too thought it was destined, once again, to fail.

The basic problem isn't the technology, direction, or even the glasses, but rather that the effect turns the movie viewing experience into a thrill ride. This is great for "Avatar" and the Avenger movies, but actually detracts from connecting to characters and getting emotionally involved in what is going on in the make believe up on the screen.

Watching "Streetcar Name Desire" in 3D would not be better than watching the original.

The opposite of this effect is the original black and white experience. The combination of no color and 24 frame per second both impart an unreal, once-removed-from-reality quality to the experience which makes watching a B&W movie more like reading a book, both of which can more easily touch your soul. My favorite movie was shot in B&W.

The projector that I mentioned previously does support 3D using RF-controlled shutter glasses. These provide far better 3D than what you get with the cheap polarizing glasses used in theaters. I got a pair, just to try it out, and downloaded some 3D content to watch. Technologically it is absolutely amazing, but after having the fun of goofing around with it, I had no desire to seek out more content. Obviously a lot of other people had the same experience because, despite a huge push from TV set manufacturers and content producers (the studios), 3D faded away and I don't think there is even one 3D set still on the market, although some projectors still support it.

I have also been pretty negative on 4K as a delivery and viewing format for most people because until you get to a theater like the OP has, you won't see one bit of difference. I realized this immediately because I spent five years in the desktop publishing business where I dealt with dots-per-inch (DPI) and learned that the total number of dots on the page is not what matters and instead it is the dots per inch and the viewing distance. For home theater what this means is that on a typical 55" display, viewed from 10 feet, you probably will never see any difference between standard 1920x1080 HD, and the higher-resolution 4K. As a result, I have so far not been tempted.

But, if you get yourself a 10-15 foot screen, or if you operate a real movie theater, 4K (or more) will definitely improve the experience. For the OP, 4K makes a lot of sense.

4K is a great acquisition format, and all my cameras are, or will be 4K. It gives you great freedom to re-compose in post, if you are going to deliver in HD.

My advice for everyone who considers home theater is to get a decent TV or projector, but spend the real money on good sound. Having that soundstage in front of you, and the ambience at your side and behind you, really puts you "in the picture" in a way that the two tinny speakers found in most flat-screen TV sets won't do at all. A subwoofer is a nice addition, if you watch a lot of action films.

 

[Inscrutable]

Before coming to this forum, most of my online contributions were in video editing and restoration forums. The subject of 3D came up a lot a dozen years ago when the fourth incarnation of this technology came to us in the form of 3D TV sets and projectors. My outspoken prediction at the time was that, like the previous three incarnations, this too would fall flat on its face. The lake movie critic, Roger Ebert, wrote a long piece back around that same time, explaining why he too thought it was destined, once again, to fail.

The basic problem isn't the technology, direction, or even the glasses, but rather that the effect turns the movie viewing experience into a thrill ride. This is great for "Avatar" and the Avenger movies, but actually detracts from connecting to characters and getting emotionally involved in what is going on in the make believe up on the screen.

Watching "Streetcar Name Desire" in 3D would not be better than watching the original.

The opposite of this effect is the original black and white experience. The combination of no color and 24 frame per second both impart an unreal, once-removed-from-reality quality to the experience which makes watching a B&W movie more like reading a book, both of which can more easily touch your soul. My favorite movie was shot in B&W.

The projector that I mentioned previously does support 3D using RF-controlled shutter glasses. These provide far better 3D than what you get with the cheap polarizing glasses used in theaters. I got a pair, just to try it out, and downloaded some 3D content to watch. Technologically it is absolutely amazing, but after having the fun of goofing around with it, I had no desire to seek out more content. Obviously a lot of other people had the same experience because, despite a huge push from TV set manufacturers and content producers (the studios), 3D faded away and I don't think there is even one 3D set still on the market, although some projectors still support it.

I have also been pretty negative on 4K as a delivery and viewing format for most people because until you get to a theater like the OP has, you won't see one bit of difference. I realized this immediately because I spent five years in the desktop publishing business where I dealt with dots-per-inch (DPI) and learned that the total number of dots on the page is not what matters and instead it is the dots per inch and the viewing distance. For home theater what this means is that on a typical 55" display, viewed from 10 feet, you probably will never see any difference between standard 1920x1080 HD, and the higher-resolution 4K. As a result, I have so far not been tempted.

But, if you get yourself a 10-15 foot screen, or if you operate a real movie theater, 4K (or more) will definitely improve the experience. For the OP, 4K makes a lot of sense.

4K is a great acquisition format, and all my cameras are, or will be 4K. It give you great freedom to re-compose in post, if you are going to deliver in HD.

My advice for everyone who considers home theater is to get a decent TV or projector, but spend the real money on good sound. Having that soundstage in front of you, and the ambience at your side and behind you, really puts you "in the picture" in a way that the two tinny speakers found in most flat-screen TV sets won't do at all. A subwoofer is a nice addition, if you watch a lot of action films.

I couldn’t agree more with all of this, being an AV junkie for 50 years. Particularly the part about audio. And I don’t mean big booms and sizzle ... realistically reproducing the subtlety of a raindrop hitting a puddle is both challenging and impactful in allowing the viewer to suspend disbelief and be immersed.

 

[johnmeyer]

I couldn’t agree more with all of this, being an AV junkie for 50 years. Particularly the part about audio. And I don’t mean big booms and sizzle ... realistically reproducing the subtlety of a raindrop hitting a puddle is both challenging and impactful in allowing the viewer to suspend disbelief and be immersed.

Exactly!

There was a local laser disc store here back in the mid-90s. Around 1997, when the DVD was being introduced, that format also introduced 5.1 surround which replaced Dolby surround. The newer format provided full fidelity for the center channel and also gave true stereo for the two back speakers. The owner demonstrated the very first scene in "Twister" where the winds were building up and the house started creaking. With the old format, with mono in the back speakers, you certainly got a sense of things, but with the full fidelity all around, and stereo in the back speakers, you could actually here the wind spiraling around you, providing an audible "twister" to go with what came on screen one minute later.

As my English wife would say, "brilliant!"

 

[retfr8flyr]

As I stated I am really into audio and I agree completely about the sound being just as important as the video, I miss my laser disc collection and wish I had never sold my player. This is one of the reasons I am upgrading to the Atmos overhead speakers, to increase the sound envelopment for the movies. I have high quality electronics and speakers with a great sound stage now, so the Atmos speakers should make it perfect.

 

[Inscrutable]

Ahhh ... grasshopper ... there is no perfect, only the pursuit of it

 

[johnmeyer]

... I miss my laser disc collection and wish I had never sold my player.

I still have all my laserdiscs and my Pioneer player. I use the player mostly to transfer discs for other people who can no longer play theirs. Quite frankly, the quality of laserdiscs is pretty bad compared to the same material in almost any other format. They were great for their era, but so were 78 rpm records.

You shouldn't feel too bad about ditching your collection, even though you probably spent a fortune collecting them (at over $30/disc).

The reason I keep the player is that there are still a few titles not available in any other format, the most famous being "Song of the South," a Disney classic ("Zip a Dee Doo Dah" won an Oscar for best song) that is considered offensive by many. Because of this it was never released to home video in this country, in any format, but there is a Japanese laserdisc that I acquired and transferred for a friend who wanted the movie. (I then sold it back on eBay because it goes for over $100). I watched it and can tell you that "Birth of a Nation" and "Gone With The Wind" are much more offensive, and in the same manner as this movie, yet are shown all the time on TCM. I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree, but only that I have a tough time understanding how these decisions get made so inconsistently.

 

[Inscrutable]

Agreed ... laserdisc, 8-track, VHS all formats I won’t miss. Keeping all the rest though

 

[fullborebbq]

Great setup retfr8flyr. Mine is a bit outdated. started it when Hi def first came out. The old Benq 6200 DLP still gets the job done. Although it is a 100" 4:3 setup with 5:1 sound.

 

[Jonok]

Mine certainly isn’t as pretty as the OPs, but it is really big and has phenomenal sound (as good as a guy is gonna do in a steel building)

I have a 50x70 foot hangar with a 24’ ceiling. I have an 18x12’ screen that rolls down automatically, 200w rms/channel 7.2 surround, Klipsch center, front, rear and surround speakers, and 500wx2 powered subs with a Sony preamp.
It’s popular with the local airport rats for movie nights. With it cranked up a little, we don’t have any trouble hearing dialogue when an airplane taxis by...

 

[zwiller]

I couldn’t agree more with all of this, being an AV junkie for 50 years. Particularly the part about audio. And I don’t mean big booms and sizzle ... realistically reproducing the subtlety of a raindrop hitting a puddle is both challenging and impactful in allowing the viewer to suspend disbelief and be immersed.

+1; You might be surprised by the number of people who have ACTUAL theater sound systems in their home. I basically do. These are huge horn driven speakers that are extremely sensitive. One of the most popular is the Altec Voice of the Theatre. Horn setups like these are well known for their realism.

NICE setup retfr8flyr ! Classy.

 

[johnmeyer]

+1; You might be surprised by the number of people who have ACTUAL theater sound systems in their home. I basically do. These are huge horn driven speakers that are extremely sensitive. One of the most popular is the Altec Voice of the Theatre. Horn setups like these are well known for their realism.

NICE setup retfr8flyr ! Classy.

When my dad died, nobody wanted his speakers. We were going to sell them until I went to www.audiogon.com and found that Altec 605s (the "Voice of the Theater") were fetching several thousand each, without an enclosure. These are housed in two very fine bass-reflex enclosures which he designed back in the 1950s for the first speaker, and then when we went to stereo in the 1960s he had a matching cabinet and a slightly later model 605 for the second one. I brought them from Chicago out here to CA, and I'm using the stereo amp he bought for them in 1965, which I restored (just needed new caps).

They are indeed very, very sensitive (high efficiency) and you can drive them nicely with a 10-20 watt amplifier, something unheard of a decade or two later when the low efficiency designs required ten times that per channel. Heck you can get pretty good sound by hooking your transistor radio into them.

I use them in the living room for listening, but liked the horn sound so well that when I built my own home theater in my family room I used Klipsch speakers. However, while I like them, I probably should have forgotten about the horn design and gone with B&W, which are about as nice as any speaker I've heard, unless you go to the ultra-high end designs.

 

[retfr8flyr]

John, if you ever get the chance you should listen to some Aerial speakers. I have a set of 10T(discontinued) for l&r main, two SW12 subs(discontinued), CC5 center, SR3 surround and Model 6 for rear surround. They are 20 years old and still perform the same as when new. Being a pilot I was able to go to Audio stores all over the country and listen to almost all the major brands available at that time. I never found anything I liked better than the Aerial's, well the Sound Lab A-1's but they were not practical for an H/T room. I think you would really appreciate the Aerial speakers.

 

[zwiller]

When my dad died, nobody wanted his speakers. We were going to sell them until I went to www.audiogon.com and found that Altec 605s (the "Voice of the Theater") were fetching several thousand each, without an enclosure. These are housed in two very fine bass-reflex enclosures which he designed back in the 1950s for the first speaker, and then when we went to stereo in the 1960s he had a matching cabinet and a slightly later model 605 for the second one. I brought them from Chicago out here to CA, and I'm using the stereo amp he bought for them in 1965, which I restored (just needed new caps).

They are indeed very, very sensitive (high efficiency) and you can drive them nicely with a 10-20 watt amplifier, something unheard of a decade or two later when the low efficiency designs required ten times that per channel. Heck you can get pretty good sound by hooking your transistor radio into them.

I use them in the living room for listening, but liked the horn sound so well that when I built my own home theater in my family room I used Klipsch speakers. However, while I like them, I probably should have forgotten about the horn design and gone with B&W, which are about as nice as any speaker I've heard, unless you go to the ultra-high end designs.

Your Dad had nice taste! I am a builder as well. I consider the 605 basically the best of the best with it being a high efficiency coaxial. That speaker is still widely regarded in pro control rooms. I am still on my hifi journey but pretty sure I will stick with horns as they "do it" for me. Planning a build in the synergy style when time allows. This is probably the most famous: https://www.danleysoundlabs.com/products/loud-speakers/synergy-horn/sh50/

 

[johnmeyer]

Your Dad had nice taste! I am a builder as well. I consider the 605 basically the best of the best with it being a high efficiency coaxial. That speaker is still widely regarded in pro control rooms.

I was wrong: I have 604s, not 605s. I think the 604s were considered slightly better, but I just skimmed a few Google hits and opinions vary.

Here are a few pics of the enclosure, the crossover, and one of the speakers.

 

[forktender]

If I had the money I'd have something like your set up for sure.
But since I don't I'll have to live with my Denon AVR 2400H 7.2 and Polk Audio RTi front and center, Rti rears, rear surrounds and Atmos I also have 12'' Polk front sub and a 10'' rear sub.
We just got a 65'' Samsung UHD TV, wanted the QLED just couldn't swing it.
The only way I could swing this system is I shopped super hard for a year and bought closeout models.
It's awesome, we love it, movie nights on the Sony 4K U HD Blu Ray are amazing but it's not as nice as I would like of coarse......they never are.
The layout of our living room isn't optimal as far as speaker layout out goes but it sounds pretty damn good, at least 10x better really, compared to our old Onkyo home theater in a box that I bought as an open box/return at Best Buy, I think I paid $300 for the whole system......lol
I'd love to hear your system and watch a movie, care to tell us more about you sound system?
Make sure you post before and after pictures, please.

 

[forktender]

When my dad died, nobody wanted his speakers. We were going to sell them until I went to www.audiogon.com and found that Altec 605s (the "Voice of the Theater") were fetching several thousand each, without an enclosure. These are housed in two very fine bass-reflex enclosures which he designed back in the 1950s for the first speaker, and then when we went to stereo in the 1960s he had a matching cabinet and a slightly later model 605 for the second one. I brought them from Chicago out here to CA, and I'm using the stereo amp he bought for them in 1965, which I restored (just needed new caps).

They are indeed very, very sensitive (high efficiency) and you can drive them nicely with a 10-20 watt amplifier, something unheard of a decade or two later when the low efficiency designs required ten times that per channel. Heck you can get pretty good sound by hooking your transistor radio into them.

I use them in the living room for listening, but liked the horn sound so well that when I built my own home theater in my family room I used Klipsch speakers. However, while I like them, I probably should have forgotten about the horn design and gone with B&W, which are about as nice as any speaker I've heard, unless you go to the ultra-high end designs.

John, the first time I heard the B&W 800 diamond series Aretha Franklin was singing Pavarotti's Nessun Dorma. I literally teared up a little and got goosebumps on my arms and the back of my neck, I was so blown away by them. Damn, I knew that I should of been an pilot instead of a union pipefitter, maybe in my next life.

 

[retfr8flyr]

If I had the money I'd have something like your set up for sure.
But since I don't I'll have to live with my Denon AVR 2400H 7.2 and Polk Audio RTi front and center, Rti rears, rear surrounds and Atmos I also have 12'' Polk front sub and a 10'' rear sub.
We just got a 65'' Samsung UHD TV, wanted the QLED just couldn't swing it.
The only way I could swing this system is I shopped super hard for a year and bought closeout models.
It's awesome, we love it, movie nights on the Sony 4K U HD Blu Ray are amazing but it's not as nice as I would like of coarse......they never are.
The layout of our living room isn't optimal as far as speaker layout out goes but it sounds pretty damn good, at least 10x better really, compared to our old Onkyo home theater in a box that I bought as an open box/return at Best Buy, I think I paid $300 for the whole system......lol
I'd love to hear your system and watch a movie, care to tell us more about you sound system?
Make sure you post before and after pictures, please.

Is this directed at me? I have Aerial speakers, I have a set of 10T(discontinued) for l&r main, two SW12 subs(discontinued), CC5 center, SR3 surround and Model 6 for rear surround. I am adding RSL C34E ceiling speakers for my upgrade to Atmos. My amplifiers are all Classé. Cam-350 for front l,r and center, CAV 180's for the rest. My surround processor is an Integra DRC-R1/1. My Blu Ray player is an Panasonic DP-UB820.

 

[zwiller]

604/605 both in the same league and like all things debatable to the elite. Dad did a great job on the build! Thanks for pics.

Sorry I didn't make it clear but probably the coolest thing about horn speakers (beside how they look) is you can often pick them up pretty cheap. Most are in storage collecting dust because they are so big. There are likely some on Craigslist near you already. I would suggest trying to find some Klipsch Heresy to get your feet wet. They can be found under $500. Since I am band guy I went the way of using older PA gear and pieced mine together for near the same. Generally speaking, the bigger the horn the better.

 

[johnmeyer]

604/605 both in the same league and like all things debatable to the elite. Dad did a great job on the build! Thanks for pics.

Sorry I didn't make it clear but probably the coolest thing about horn speakers (beside how they look) is you can often pick them up pretty cheap. Most are in storage collecting dust because they are so big. There are likely some on Craigslist near you already. I would suggest trying to find some Klipsch Heresy to get your feet wet. They can be found under $500. Since I am band guy I went the way of using older PA gear and pieced mine together for near the same. Generally speaking, the bigger the horn the better.

I mentioned in one of my earlier posts that the Altec 604s led me to buy Klipsch for my family room home theater setup. Here's a picture of what they look like. Since they are not rear-firing, I put them into a cabinet, took off the grill, and then had the cabinet maker construct doors with white grill cloth. I was a little concerned that the doors might vibrate, but they don't. When the cabinet doors on the TV are closed, it makes a nice, finished look. When watching a movie, I pull down a screen in front of the TV, and we project onto that.


I built the TV stand with an opening specifically designed for the Klipsch center speaker. I also made the two side cubbyholes asymetric so that one of them is the standard opening size for audio gear. Most of the audio gear is in the cabinet above the speaker seen with the open door. Much of the remainder is up above everything on top of the cabinets, but out of sight. However, I keep adding more pieces, and some of these get put into the space under the TV. I may still add some small doors so we don't have to look at the clutter.

In addition to the Klipsch speakers, I have an absurdly over-priced Velodyne subwoofer which cost more than any other component in my system. I loaned some guy a bunch of money back in 1993, and he had problems paying me back. He was running his business off the float from a dozen credit cards, and had some money left of one of them. I figured I might never get back the money, so I had him buy me this ridiculously expensive subwoofer, so I'd get some of the money back. I auditioned it before I bought it, and it is actually remarkable at how much better-articulated the bass can be when playing music. Not much difference for explosions and earthquakes, but really nice for music.