# Will Eight Inches Make a Difference?



## Osage_Winter

We (that is, the wife and I) have been contemplating upsizing the display in our main living room/home theater from a 50" rear projection to something bigger given our seating distance (the display comes from a previous apartment install in which we were around eight or so feet away from the screen; we are now 13 feet from the same screen in our new house) but the problem is, it must be a screen that fits within the limits of the wall unit/entertainment center we have now because it was a rather big investment and we're not getting rid of it.

The wall unit can hold, at maximum, a 58-inch screen (give or take) so my question is...will the eight inches make a visible impact difference between what we see now on the 50-inch? Will the impact for film watching (the majority of what this room is used for) definitely be increased even though it's merely an eight-inch increase in screen size? I've heard both arguments regarding this, and just wanted to hear from some fellow Shacksters and get some of your opinions...

Thanks! :T


----------



## Mike P.

You will notice a difference in screen size going from a 50" to a 58". The type of screen will also make a difference, especially if you choose LCD over a rear projection. What is the resolution of your current 50"?


----------



## Osage_Winter

Mike P. said:


> You will notice a difference in screen size going from a 50" to a 58". The type of screen will also make a difference, especially if you choose LCD over a rear projection. What is the resolution of your current 50"?


Thank you very much for the reply, Mike. You are making me feel better about this possible upgrade!

My 50" Sony, a rear projection SXRD, is a native 1080p set. Any incoming 1080p signals (like from a BD player) are displayed as-is, while any lower resolutions are automatically upconverted to 1080p (this is what the TV is supposedly doing when fed a 1080i cable signal from our high def cable box)...

Can you give me a bit more detail as to why you feel the jump to this bigger size will be significant? Will the impact of films be greater and a bit more "film-like" at the bigger size? As for the screen type, we would most likely be looking at a plasma or LCD at the 58" size...I happen to love the look of Sony's MotionFlow refresh feature which makes film material look like surreal, floaty video -- you know, the "Soap Opera Look." :T


----------



## Mike P.

The SXRD is probably 4 or 5 years old, all RP TVs loose their brightness with use. A new LCD will have a much better picture. As for screen size, go to a store and compare a 50 to a 58 and see if the difference in screen size is significant enough for you. I have compared them and find a big difference.


----------



## lcaillo

IME the difference in size will be significant.


----------



## Osage_Winter

Mike P. said:


> The SXRD is probably 4 or 5 years old, all RP TVs loose their brightness with use. A new LCD will have a much better picture.


Yes, I understand this; of course, a new bulb would rectify the brightness situation, but we haven't required one yet...

Still, the vividness/brightness issue really isn't the problem with the set; it's the size, which I will address below...



> As for screen size, go to a store and compare a 50 to a 58 and see if the difference in screen size is significant enough for you. I have compared them and find a big difference.


Have you compared them in your own viewing environment at home, or in a store? It's hard to judge the differences in a store with a plethora of sets all around you...

But I am more interested in your sentiments regarding the larger screen making a "big difference;" can you give me some more insight here, as I think this is touching on more of what I wanted to know? Did the impact of viewed material just seem more dramatic and tactile? Did the image appear "larger" and more "in your face" and theatrical on the bigger screen?


----------



## Osage_Winter

lcaillo said:


> IME the difference in size will be significant.


Thank you for your opinion here; in what way do you think the jump in eight inches would be significant? Can you give me some more insight, lcaillo?


----------



## lcaillo

It is enough bigger to result in a significantly better viewing experience, IME. At that distance 50" is somewhat small, in my opinion.


----------



## Osage_Winter

lcaillo said:


> It is enough bigger to result in a significantly better viewing experience, IME.


Should I get a more "immersive" or "cinematic" experience with widescreen films/media? 



> At that distance 50" is somewhat small, in my opinion.


Indeed; hence the reason we were considering upsizing the display...

It's funny -- depending on the type of film being viewed, or the aspect ratio it's exhibited in, the experience is satisfactory with dim to no lighting on this SXRD screen...for example, if the film is in a 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 ratio, or a full screen transfer, the image fills the screen completely and during bright sequences, the experience is, as I said, satisfactory. If we're watching something in a 2.35: or 2.40:1 ratio with letterboxing, the image looks much more "squished" and dim -- especially during very dark sequences where the image gets so small, in my view, that it's difficult to even make out what's going on during the scene...


----------



## bambino

From going TV shopping several times in the past even with all the other sets around you will see that 8" is significant.:T Have fun TV shopping.:sn:


----------



## Osage_Winter

bambino said:


> From going TV shopping several times in the past even with all the other sets around you will see that 8" is significant.:T Have fun TV shopping.:sn:


Thanks, Bambino!

Do you think that even at 13 feet the eight inch difference will be significant?


----------



## bambino

I really do think you will notice a great differance.:T


----------



## Osage_Winter

Thanks for your input again regarding your feelings on the jump to a 58" screen -- can you tell me a bit more about why you feel this would be a substantial improvement over the 50?


----------



## bambino

My suggestion would be to go take a look at some at the store and the differance between the two will speak for themselves.


----------



## Osage_Winter

> My suggestion would be to go take a look at some at the store and the differance between the two will speak for themselves.


Well, in a store it wouldn't be a good comparison (I've tried this already) because of all the walls of sets surrounding you; I need to ascertain if the eight-inch jump will be significant in my own viewing space, as directly compared to the 50...:bigsmile:


----------



## bambino

I hear what your saying but the only advice i can give has been allready. I remember years ago when i use to look at the Crutchfield catalog they use to have a chart for size and viewing distance not sure if it's still available but worth a shot to check out. 
I would say if you are tottally not sure then go real big say 60" or 65" then there will be no question to weather or not you'll notice a differance.:devil: I know when i finish my setup in the back room that is what i'm gonna do, right now i have a 52" and i can tell from it's size that if i move it back there i'll wish i had more being that it is a bigger room.


----------



## Osage_Winter

bambino said:


> I hear what your saying but the only advice i can give has been allready. I remember years ago when i use to look at the Crutchfield catalog they use to have a chart for size and viewing distance not sure if it's still available but worth a shot to check out.
> I would say if you are tottally not sure then go real big say 60" or 65" then there will be no question to weather or not you'll notice a differance.:devil: I know when i finish my setup in the back room that is what i'm gonna do, right now i have a 52" and i can tell from it's size that if i move it back there i'll wish i had more being that it is a bigger room.


Bambino, if you would have read my original post carefully, you would have seen where I mentioned that the wall unit we are placing the new TV in cannot accommodate anything beyond a 58" and we cannot do the home theater in any other room, nor can we re-arrange the room; the screen _must_ be a 58 inch...

So, the suggestion of going "even bigger" is not suitable in this particular case.


----------



## bambino

Osage_Winter said:


> Bambino, if you would have read my original post carefully, you would have seen where I mentioned that the wall unit we are placing the new TV in cannot accommodate anything beyond a 58" and we cannot do the home theater in any other room, nor can we re-arrange the room; the screen _must_ be a 58 inch...
> 
> So, the suggestion of going "even bigger" is not suitable in this particular case.


I did read your origional post.
On that note, your best to bring a measureing tape with you while shopping because all TV's regardless of size very in outer diameter.
Good day, Bambino.


----------



## Osage_Winter

bambino said:


> I did read your origional post.


Then why the suggestion of going even bigger in this particular room? 



> On that note, your best to bring a measureing tape with you while shopping because all TV's regardless of size very in outer diameter.


Indeed; this I am aware of -- seems the outer trim bezels make all the difference. I will be taking more measurements of the space we have to work with and bringing those to the stores...



> Good day, Bambino.


To you, as well. :T


----------



## spartanstew

Osage_Winter said:


> Thanks for your input again regarding your feelings on the jump to a 58" screen -- can you tell me a bit more about why you feel this would be a substantial improvement over the 50?


It would be substantial because a 58" display is 35% larger than a 50" display. That's significant.


----------



## Osage_Winter

spartanstew said:


> It would be substantial because a 58" display is 35% larger than a 50" display. That's significant.


Thank you very much for your sentiments and input here, spartan; I appreciate it. 

You're making me feel better about the possible purchase!

In your opinion, do you believe that beyond the percentage factor, the impact of film will be a bit greater on the 58" as opposed to the 50?


----------



## nholmes1

Its all about immersion, if you can fit a larger screen absolutely go with it especially for movies, only time not to go larger is budget or if the unit would be so large as to cause neck/eye strain from having to look back and forth to see the entire screen.


----------



## Osage_Winter

nholmes1 said:


> Its all about immersion, if you can fit a larger screen absolutely go with it especially for movies, only time not to go larger is budget or if the unit would be so large as to cause neck/eye strain from having to look back and forth to see the entire screen.


Thanks for your input, holmes.

I am totally in the camp which believes any amount of bigger is better -- the situation is this, though: We definitely can't fit anything larger (even by one inch if my judgement is correct) than a 58" screen in this space -- but will this make us feel more "immersed" as you put it as compared to the 50" it would be replacing? At least _somewhat?_

We definitely wouldn't be struggling with the neck/eye strain as you mention (and which I understand) because the screen would never be that big that we would have to do that. 

Again, thanks.


----------



## nholmes1

Yes I do think it will be worth the upgrade, as was stated earlier that is a 35% increase in viewing area. It is all about getting a higher Field of View aka FOV, depending on which group you want to adhere to you should have a FOV of between 40%-60%.


----------



## Osage_Winter

nholmes1 said:


> Yes I do think it will be worth the upgrade, as was stated earlier that is a 35% increase in viewing area. It is all about getting a higher Field of View aka FOV, depending on which group you want to adhere to you should have a FOV of between 40%-60%.


I didn't mean to disregard the previous suggestion regarding the viewing area percentage -- I was just interested in your thoughts in a more detailed sense; I apologize for that.

Can you explain to me a bit more about this "FOV" and how it relates to the distance one sits from the screen?

BTW -- I didn't know there was a Beverly Hills, Florida! Where exactly is that in the state?


----------



## nholmes1

No need for any apologies, was just trying to give credit to the earlier poster who was correct.

FOV basically means if looking straight forward how much of your vision is filled by the screen. What's the best percentage is different depending on who you ask, THX recommends 40%, SMPTE used to recommend 30% for SD and 45-60% for HD but I believe they are changing this again. This again relates to the eye/neck strain I commented on earlier, which unless you were sitting <4-5ft from a 58" won't be a factor as you said.

Beverly Hills, FL is on the gulf coast of central florida and basically heavens waiting room, it is in citrus county and half way between Tampa and Gainesville.


----------



## lsiberian

I'd suggest taking a look at a panny plasma at 58" if they are still making them. The difference it big, but I'm not sure I'd pay the cash to make the change. I'm the guy who normally lets stuff break before replacing it though. 

I will say if you ever want a truly big picture there is nothing like a projector. They can be royal pains, but size really does matter most to most folks I've talked too.


----------



## nholmes1

Definitely recommend projectors when it can work, you could always use a drop down screen in front of the cabinet and have it drop down when you really want to have full immersion though it does take a little more work to keep both the current unit and add the projector.


----------



## eugovector

Try going to Bestbuy or something similar, find a 58", stand 13 feet away, and see if you think the difference is worth it.


----------



## Osage_Winter

nholmes1 said:


> No need for any apologies, was just trying to give credit to the earlier poster who was correct.


Oh, okay; I was just apologizing because I didn't want you to think that I was disregarding the suggestion given by that member...hence, the response to your "as has already been stated" sentiment...just didn't want you to think the piece of advice was being disregarded. 

Thank you for the understanding here. 



> FOV basically means if looking straight forward how much of your vision is filled by the screen. What's the best percentage is different depending on who you ask, THX recommends 40%, SMPTE used to recommend 30% for SD and 45-60% for HD but I believe they are changing this again. This again relates to the eye/neck strain I commented on earlier, which unless you were sitting <4-5ft from a 58" won't be a factor as you said.


No, this would definitely not be a factor (the neck/eye strain)! 



> Beverly Hills, FL is on the gulf coast of central florida and basically heavens waiting room, it is in citrus county and half way between Tampa and Gainesville.


LOL -- what do you mean heaven's waiting room...the old folks? 

Are you a Buccaneers fan?


----------



## Osage_Winter

lsiberian said:


> I'd suggest taking a look at a panny plasma at 58" if they are still making them. The difference it big, but I'm not sure I'd pay the cash to make the change. I'm the guy who normally lets stuff break before replacing it though.


I am definitely considering the Panny 58" Plasma, and although I really want an LCD for the 240Hz-plus refresh features (for that "soap opera" video look from film -- just a personal preference), I don't believe there are any 58-inch LCDs on the market (I could be way off here though). 

I understand what you're saying, totally, about not changing or fixing something until it's broke, and we have definitely taken this into consideration with this SXRD, as we're STILL on the FIRST bulb for this rear projection set, and there appears to be no signs of dimming or weakness...there is truly NOTHING wrong with the set, and it even has all its original "FULL HD" and EnergyStar stickers on the front! The thing is, I would like to get as big a display as I can into the wall unit cabinet, based on our increased seating distance in this new house, and that seems to be around a 58...



> I will say if you ever want a truly big picture there is nothing like a projector. They can be royal pains, but size really does matter most to most folks I've talked too.


Believe me, I really want a projector -- but the way in which we would have to have it installed, and the way I would want it, we simply could not afford it in the least bit, and I am going to get into this next in response to the member who suggested this...


----------



## Osage_Winter

nholmes1 said:


> Definitely recommend projectors when it can work, you could always use a drop down screen in front of the cabinet and have it drop down when you really want to have full immersion though it does take a little more work to keep both the current unit and add the projector.


You know something, holmes? This is the route we wanted to take with the room -- well, the angle I wanted to take at least...that is, dropping a screen in front of the wall unit for film watching. The thing is, I would want this to all be automated and powered so it really didn't interfere with everyday room asthetics and such, and THAT adds up, big time...

In other words, what I was thinking was, have a screen installed into a custom made soffit in the ceiling above the wall unit cabinet...then, have a projector mounted on the other end of the room which would drop down (motorized) just when the screen drops...but then, there is the work of the motorization and the cabling which would have to do into the ceiling to run to the equipment in the wall unit...

This puts it out of budget for us...but what a thought! :bigsmile:


----------



## Osage_Winter

eugovector said:


> Try going to Bestbuy or something similar, find a 58", stand 13 feet away, and see if you think the difference is worth it.


The thing is, I've tried this before, and with all the sets in the store going at the same time around you, it's hard to judge -- in a store, a 50-inch or so screen doesn't seem to look at all as big as it may be when you get it home or in a different room, and I've experienced this multiple times.


----------



## gdstupak

View your current tv from 8 feet and then view it from 13 feet. At 13 feet, is the picture size adequate for you, or would you want a bigger picture?
After getting used to watching a 50" screen at 8 feet, you probably won't want to go to a smaller FOV when viewed from 13 feet. Obviously the bigger 58" screen will be better (I would get a plasma unless your viewing room will be very bright). Is it worth spending more money? Only you can decide that.
I would get the bigger screen if money permitted.


----------



## spartanstew

Osage_Winter said:


> Thank you very much for your sentiments and input here, spartan; I appreciate it.
> 
> You're making me feel better about the possible purchase!
> 
> In your opinion, do you believe that beyond the percentage factor, the impact of film will be a bit greater on the 58" as opposed to the 50?


Yes, the impact will be greater.

Here's another way to look at it:

If you get the 58", you'll never say to yourself "should have stuck with the 50 inch". If you don't get the 58", you'll constantly be saying "I should have got the 58 inch".

So, just do it.


----------



## gdstupak

spartanstew said:


> If you get the 58", you'll never say to yourself "should have stuck with the 50 inch". If you don't get the 58", you'll constantly be saying "I should have got the 58 inch".
> So, just do it.


+1!


----------



## gsmollin

Yes, it is hard to get any immersive effect at 156 in. from a 50 in. display. I'm afraid you won't become immersed with a 58 inch display either. Not to say it won't improve your viewing, since it is 35% more viewing area. It's just to say that to get back to what you were experiencing at 8 feet viewing distance requires a rather large screen, 81 inches to be exact.

When TV shopping, be careful about the contrast ratio of your set. SXRD was uncommonly good at native contrast, even rear projection, so you may not be happy with some of the LCD sets, which show a lot a muddy blacks by comparison. Contrast ratio cannot be viewed in a TV store, since the pictures are calibrated for strong, bright, green pictures in a fully lit room.

You may want to do some homework on this, and be sure to consider plasma too.


----------



## nholmes1

Osage_Winter said:


> You know something, holmes? This is the route we wanted to take with the room -- well, the angle I wanted to take at least...that is, dropping a screen in front of the wall unit for film watching. The thing is, I would want this to all be automated and powered so it really didn't interfere with everyday room asthetics and such, and THAT adds up, big time...
> 
> In other words, what I was thinking was, have a screen installed into a custom made soffit in the ceiling above the wall unit cabinet...then, have a projector mounted on the other end of the room which would drop down (motorized) just when the screen drops...but then, there is the work of the motorization and the cabling which would have to do into the ceiling to run to the equipment in the wall unit...
> 
> This puts it out of budget for us...but what a thought! :bigsmile:


I've installed a few media rooms like this and you are right it does add very quickly...:yikes:

That said, if you could custom build a soffit to hide the projector with a port hole for the projector it would greatly reduce the cost of such a system. Projector lifts are ridiculously expensive until you factor in the cost of the equipment they are lowering/lifting, and the liability the manufacturer has if something goes wrong.

Motorized screens have dropped in cost as more manufacturers get into the game for the home market, but still the cost of a good motorized and possibly acoustically transparent screen is probably the same as a 58" TV.

We all have to make compromises due to budget, WAF and other things, finding what works for you and makes you happy is the key.


----------



## nholmes1

Oh and yes citrus county is a haven for the retiree, and I do like to watch the bucs when they aren't blacked out but I haven't been to game in over 12 years now.


----------



## Osage_Winter

gdstupak said:


> View your current tv from 8 feet and then view it from 13 feet. At 13 feet, is the picture size adequate for you, or would you want a bigger picture?
> After getting used to watching a 50" screen at 8 feet, you probably won't want to go to a smaller FOV when viewed from 13 feet. Obviously the bigger 58" screen will be better (I would get a plasma unless your viewing room will be very bright). Is it worth spending more money? Only you can decide that.
> I would get the bigger screen if money permitted.


Thanks for your opinions. I know what I see when we sit, currently, at 13 feet away from the 50", and it seems like it could use more screen...

Is this what you were suggesting?


----------



## Osage_Winter

spartanstew said:


> Yes, the impact will be greater.
> 
> Here's another way to look at it:
> 
> If you get the 58", you'll never say to yourself "should have stuck with the 50 inch". If you don't get the 58", you'll constantly be saying "I should have got the 58 inch".
> 
> So, just do it.


LOL; I understand what you're saying here...but before I "just do it" I need to make sure we can really afford it, so that's why I'm asking opinions regarding the impact differences.


----------



## Osage_Winter

gsmollin said:


> Yes, it is hard to get any immersive effect at 156 in. from a 50 in. display. I'm afraid you won't become immersed with a 58 inch display either. Not to say it won't improve your viewing, since it is 35% more viewing area. It's just to say that to get back to what you were experiencing at 8 feet viewing distance requires a rather large screen, 81 inches to be exact.


Oh, well, it's not that we need to become "as immersed" as we were with the previous seating distance and this current screen -- just something a bit moreso than we're at now with the 50 in this larger room we're in.

But to be fair, I mean, we simply cannot fit nor afford (even if they were available) an 81-inch TV (taking projection screens out of the equation) and so herein lies the dilemma and core of this thread: If a 58" display -- the largest that will fit in the alocated area we have -- isn't going to immerse us in a satisfying experience during cinematic indulgences, what's the solution? Does it even make sense to go up to a 58" then? 



> When TV shopping, be careful about the contrast ratio of your set. SXRD was uncommonly good at native contrast, even rear projection, so you may not be happy with some of the LCD sets, which show a lot a muddy blacks by comparison. Contrast ratio cannot be viewed in a TV store, since the pictures are calibrated for strong, bright, green pictures in a fully lit room.
> 
> You may want to do some homework on this, and be sure to consider plasma too.


I understand what you're saying; indeed, the blacks on my SXRD are superb. The blacks on LCDs haven't been improved upon much? I indeed plan on doing a ton of homework here...would you consider a Plasma over an LCD? I'm asking because I happen to like those "refresh" features on the LCDs which, as a side effect, make film based sources look like superimposed video...

Plasma has no such features, correct, because of their frame interpolation solutions?


----------



## Osage_Winter

nholmes1 said:


> I've installed a few media rooms like this and you are right it does add very quickly...:yikes:


Indeed...:spend: :unbelievable:



> That said, if you could custom build a soffit to hide the projector with a port hole for the projector it would greatly reduce the cost of such a system. Projector lifts are ridiculously expensive until you factor in the cost of the equipment they are lowering/lifting, and the liability the manufacturer has if something goes wrong.
> 
> Motorized screens have dropped in cost as more manufacturers get into the game for the home market, but still the cost of a good motorized and possibly acoustically transparent screen is probably the same as a 58" TV.


Well, I couldn't personally custom build this, but with regard to the price of the screen vs. a TV -- would a screen and the motorization equipment really come out to the price of a 58" TV? If so, that wouldn't include the labor work for doing the screen, right? And then we would have to factor in the projector price? 



> We all have to make compromises due to budget, WAF and other things, finding what works for you and makes you happy is the key.


Indeed; I'm trying to discern that now...

Thanks for your input.


----------



## Osage_Winter

nholmes1 said:


> Oh and yes citrus county is a haven for the retiree, and I do like to watch the bucs when they aren't blacked out but I haven't been to game in over 12 years now.


Cool.

I was a big Bucs fan back when they had their original uniforms with Bucco Bruce on the helmet and they wore the red and orange -- remember Testaverde and what was his name...Salmon? 

And I'm not even from Florida!

I was actually a Patriots fan too, of the old team with the old uniforms...:T


----------



## eugovector

Sit 11.2 feet away from your 50" tv. This is what a 58" will look like from 13'. If you like what you see, buy it. If you don't, stick with what you have or go bigger.


----------



## Osage_Winter

I'll try this out when I can.

How did you come to that formula?


----------



## gdstupak

Osage_Winter said:


> I know what I see when we sit, currently, at 13 feet away from the 50"...
> Is this what you were suggesting?


Yes. I didn't realize you had already made the jump to the 13' seating distance.
We have a 12' seating distance with a 53" display. 8yrs ago I had the choice between the 53" or the 57" display. Although the 53" has been very adequate I have often wondered what it would have been like with the 57".
I do know that if my seating were to change, I wouldn't be satisfied with a smaller FOV, especially since I have very big sound in my room.


----------



## eugovector

Osage_Winter said:


> I'll try this out when I can.
> 
> How did you come to that formula?


I finished 3rd in the Webster County, Iowa 6th grade math bee.

50/x=58/13
Solve for x.


----------



## nholmes1

Osage_Winter said:


> Indeed...:spend: :unbelievable:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I couldn't personally custom build this, but with regard to the price of the screen vs. a TV -- would a screen and the motorization equipment really come out to the price of a 58" TV? If so, that wouldn't include the labor work for doing the screen, right? And then we would have to factor in the projector price?
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed; I'm trying to discern that now...
> 
> Thanks for your input.


If the motorized screen needs to be acoustically transparent yes it can easily be the cost of a 58" LCD/Plasma for just the motorized screen. If it doesn't need to be A/T then no it would be anywhere from 1/3 the cost to over the cost depending on which manufacturer and screen material used.


----------



## Osage_Winter

gdstupak said:


> Yes. I didn't realize you had already made the jump to the 13' seating distance.


Yes, we made this jump when we moved into this new house; see, the situation is, we bought the 50" SXRD when we had our last place which was an apartment, and the seating distance was closer. We moved with the same display into a new house, and the seating distance became 13 feet in the new room. 



> We have a 12' seating distance with a 53" display. 8yrs ago I had the choice between the 53" or the 57" display. Although the 53" has been very adequate I have often wondered what it would have been like with the 57".
> I do know that if my seating were to change, I wouldn't be satisfied with a smaller FOV, especially since I have very big sound in my room.


How do you like your 53? Is this your primary theater viewing screen?


----------



## Osage_Winter

nholmes1 said:


> If the motorized screen needs to be acoustically transparent yes it can easily be the cost of a 58" LCD/Plasma for just the motorized screen. If it doesn't need to be A/T then no it would be anywhere from 1/3 the cost to over the cost depending on which manufacturer and screen material used.


Good information here...I didn't even take into consideration if the screen needed to be acoustically transparent or not! I think it would probably need to be, being that it would cover at least the center channel...not sure about the left and right mains...

Perhaps going with a projection screen isn't the way to go for this room after all; I suppose I'll have to keep dreaming, and stick with the plan of looking into a 58-inch TV...:crying::hissyfit:


----------



## lsiberian

Osage_Winter said:


> Believe me, I really want a projector -- but the way in which we would have to have it installed, and the way I would want it, we simply could not afford it in the least bit, and I am going to get into this next in response to the member who suggested this...


Just an FYI you only need a white wall(it can be textured and still look fine) and a rear shelf to use a projector. A screen can be a nice thing, but it's totally unnecessary in my experience. The biggest challenge with projectors is having to rearrange the furniture and put everything in the back. Nothing wrong with a TV though. If you like sports, I think LCDs are overly bright for them.


----------



## gsmollin

Osage_Winter said:


> ...I understand what you're saying; indeed, the blacks on my SXRD are superb. The blacks on LCDs haven't been improved upon much? I indeed plan on doing a ton of homework here...would you consider a Plasma over an LCD? I'm asking because I happen to like those "refresh" features on the LCDs which, as a side effect, make film based sources look like superimposed video...
> 
> Plasma has no such features, correct, because of their frame interpolation solutions?


Oh yes, "I" would consider a plasma over an LCD! I use an LCD front projector in my HT, and consider the contrast ratio to be its greatest limitation. The SXRD and LCOS PJ have the best contrast ratios in the industry, although LCD has come a long way.

Whether you should get a plasma or LCD is your decision. Plasmas have high power consumption, and I don't know if they will overheat in your entertainment center. Plasmas can have problems with ambient light that LCDs can overpower with screen brightness and anti-glare coatings. Plasmas have the best colors and contrast of all the big screen sets, excluding CRTs. Frame interpolation is not a priority to me, it's a gimmick, and it can look pretty bad.


----------



## gdstupak

Osage_Winter said:


> How do you like your 53? Is this your primary theater viewing screen?


My Pioneer CRT RPTV has a great picture. The CRT RPTV's are a bugger to set up but it's worth it to me. The 53" screen size is decent, bigger would be better, but this is adequate for now. 
All my ignorant friends bug me about when am I going to dump the old set and get a great new digital display. I tell them mine is staying put 'til a better screen comes along. If I had to replace it, I would look for a Pioneer Kuro Plasma.
I don't have a separate screening room, just a great room. You can see it here:
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/home-theater-room-photos/31173-glenns-living-room.html


----------



## Osage_Winter

lsiberian said:


> Just an FYI you only need a white wall(it can be textured and still look fine) and a rear shelf to use a projector. A screen can be a nice thing, but it's totally unnecessary in my experience. The biggest challenge with projectors is having to rearrange the furniture and put everything in the back. Nothing wrong with a TV though. If you like sports, I think LCDs are overly bright for them.


Well, the way our room is arranged, the only place this screen could go for a front-projection setup would be right in front of the large entertainment cabinet/wall unit along the main wall; so, the idea of throwing the image onto a white wall without a screen can't work here. Plus, I'd be more comfortable putting an image on a screen instead of a wall anyway; if I'd do it, I'd do it right. 

This will be used for mainly film watching, not much broadcast stuff at all (whatever the wife watches, and that's it).


----------



## Osage_Winter

gsmollin said:


> Oh yes, "I" would consider a plasma over an LCD! I use an LCD front projector in my HT, and consider the contrast ratio to be its greatest limitation. The SXRD and LCOS PJ have the best contrast ratios in the industry, although LCD has come a long way.


Thanks. 



> Whether you should get a plasma or LCD is your decision. Plasmas have high power consumption, and I don't know if they will overheat in your entertainment center. Plasmas can have problems with ambient light that LCDs can overpower with screen brightness and anti-glare coatings. Plasmas have the best colors and contrast of all the big screen sets, excluding CRTs. Frame interpolation is not a priority to me, it's a gimmick, and it can look pretty bad.


Thanks for your input here. Indeed, it seems most are put off by the interpolation, and I totally get that -- I just happen to love that floaty, surreal "soap opera" look the feature gives film based material...


----------



## Osage_Winter

gdstupak said:


> My Pioneer CRT RPTV has a great picture. The CRT RPTV's are a bugger to set up but it's worth it to me. The 53" screen size is decent, bigger would be better, but this is adequate for now.
> All my ignorant friends bug me about when am I going to dump the old set and get a great new digital display. I tell them mine is staying put 'til a better screen comes along. If I had to replace it, I would look for a Pioneer Kuro Plasma.
> I don't have a separate screening room, just a great room. You can see it here:
> http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/home-theater-room-photos/31173-glenns-living-room.html


Thanks for the link! 

What model Onkyo is that in the right rack?


----------



## gdstupak

Onkyo TX-SR706
It works very well for me.


----------



## lsiberian

gdstupak said:


> Onkyo TX-SR706
> It works very well for me.


Those Onkyo 700s are among my favorite receivers. I had the 705 and that think was terrific with everything it even worked with hdmi for my tuner box.


----------



## Osage_Winter

gdstupak said:


> Onkyo TX-SR706
> It works very well for me.


Nice; I always kicked myself for not stepping up to the 700 series when I got my 605, for its THX certification and preamp outs...

You don't run any external amps on it? Just rely on the receiver's power? How do you feel it's powered -- plenty, could use some more, etc?


----------



## gdstupak

The Onkyo 706:
I don't care about THX certification or the THX listening modes very much, but do use the preamp outs.
For my front 3 speakers, I use an external amp, the ATI AT1506 that is located in the shelf under the AVR. The 4 surround sound speakers are powered by the Onkyo.
I can't comment on the sound or power of the Onkyo since I use the ATI amp but I am surprised at how warm the Onkyo gets. Before buying the Onkyo I already read comments about how Onkyo's tend to be much warmer than other AVR's and I figured this wouldn't be a problem in my situation because it would not be closed in and wouldn't be driven hard because of the outboard amp. Well, it's not a problem but it's definitely warmer than any of the other 4 or 5 AVR's I've used. I couldn't imagine how hot it would get if it were running the front 3 speakers. The Onkyo (driving 4 surround speakers) gets warmer than the ATI amp (driving the 3 main speakers) which is 450W/channel. I have recently moved the Onkyo from the middle shelf to the top to get more air circulation.


----------



## Osage_Winter

gdstupak said:


> The Onkyo 706:
> I don't care about THX certification or the THX listening modes very much, but do use the preamp outs.
> For my front 3 speakers, I use an external amp, the ATI AT1506 that is located in the shelf under the AVR. The 4 surround sound speakers are powered by the Onkyo.


Right -- I noticed that in the pic...

Are you calibrated via the receiver's Audyssey system, or have you manually calibrated? 



> I can't comment on the sound or power of the Onkyo since I use the ATI amp but I am surprised at how warm the Onkyo gets. Before buying the Onkyo I already read comments about how Onkyo's tend to be much warmer than other AVR's and I figured this wouldn't be a problem in my situation because it would not be closed in and wouldn't be driven hard because of the outboard amp. Well, it's not a problem but it's definitely warmer than any of the other 4 or 5 AVR's I've used. I couldn't imagine how hot it would get if it were running the front 3 speakers. The Onkyo (driving 4 surround speakers) gets warmer than the ATI amp (driving the 3 main speakers) which is 450W/channel. I have recently moved the Onkyo from the middle shelf to the top to get more air circulation.


Yeah, the Onkyos have been notorious for getting ridiculously hot -- some 605 owners, in fact, have described being able to almost fry eggs on top of their topplates they were so warm, and that's with an AVR that specs at "90 watts per channel." I never experienced this heat though with my units, although my 605 is very well-ventilated in the entertainment cabinet it's in, behind a glass door and with nothing placed on top of it. 

Wow -- your ATI puts out 450 watts a channel? That's the kind of power I wanna feed my Polk RTi12 mains someday...are the ATIs affordable at all? 

Can you tell me a bit more about the API's connection to the AVR -- I mean, do the preouts of the Onkyo present a "voltage matching" issue with the amp? I have heard horror stories about some lower-priced AVRs and their preouts not feeding a strong enough gain signal to an outboard power amp, even though the AVR was equipped with preouts for that purpose...do you find this with the API and Onkyo? Is there an input level system in the AVI to control the volume gain? 

Do you feel the back channels are sufficiently powered off the Onkyo? I think that is going to be my next upgrade -- get a new Onkyo AVR that has preouts, and add a three-channel amp for my front soundstage, letting the AVR feed the surround channels.


----------



## gdstupak

Calibration:
My system is first calibrated with outboard eq's. Then the Audyssey calibration is run.
ATI AT1506 amp: 
(review) http://www.wwsp.com/ati/hometheatermagazine.htm
Bought in 2003 for $1200. This is the 6 channel version, 150w/ch (hence the "6" in AT1506. 3ch version would be the AT1503.) I run my 6ch amp bridged into 3ch, 450w/ch. It runs great with both AVR's that it's been hooked up to, my present Onkyo and before that was a good Yamaha circa 1999. There is no gain adjustments on the ATI, simple plug-n-play. And it works/sounds great. 
Originally the 6ch amp was powering all speakers, but I read a review suggesting the bridged 450watts. I switched to bridged and said "Holy Crud!! This Is Good!!" and I never looked back.
AVR with surround:
The Onkyo does a great job with the 4 surround speakers. Granted, they are not power hungry. For WAF (and budget) I used decent in-ceiling speakers: JBL, 6", 3-way. But I have no doubt the Onkyo would do wonderful with more demanding speakers.


----------



## Osage_Winter

gdstupak said:


> Calibration:
> My system is first calibrated with outboard eq's. Then the Audyssey calibration is run.


Do you like the results Audyssey gives? You wouldn't prefer manual adjustments? 



> ATI AT1506 amp:
> (review) http://www.wwsp.com/ati/hometheatermagazine.htm
> Bought in 2003 for $1200. This is the 6 channel version, 150w/ch (hence the "6" in AT1506. 3ch version would be the AT1503.) I run my 6ch amp bridged into 3ch, 450w/ch. It runs great with both AVR's that it's been hooked up to, my present Onkyo and before that was a good Yamaha circa 1999. There is no gain adjustments on the ATI, simple plug-n-play. And it works/sounds great.


Wow -- no gain adjustments? Is this common? 

Originally the 6ch amp was powering all speakers, but I read a review suggesting the bridged 450watts. I switched to bridged and said "Holy Crud!! This Is Good!!" and I never looked back.[/quote]

Is this something you recommend I look into -- that is, getting a six channel model and bridging for just the front three channels? Or should I look to a good three-channel power amp? 



> AVR with surround:
> The Onkyo does a great job with the 4 surround speakers. Granted, they are not power hungry. For WAF (and budget) I used decent in-ceiling speakers: JBL, 6", 3-way. But I have no doubt the Onkyo would do wonderful with more demanding speakers.


Good to know -- I too use in-ceiling Speakercrafts for the surround channels (actually they were pre-installed in our house when we bought it; considered a sort of "upgrade").


----------



## gdstupak

It's late so I'll give some thoughts on amps and later write about Audyssey.
I don't have much experience with amps so I don't know how common or uncommon gain adjustment is on them.
Outboard amps are an extra, not a basic need for home theater. Don't skimp on the basics of having very good speakers, AVR, and display because you also want to go the extra mile and have an amp. If you are in the market for a new display, I would suggest spending as much money as you can to get very good quality. 
After having very good basics, then start on the extras like amps. If you're using a good quality AVR (Onkyo) then getting a standard outboard amp that puts out 100w/ch might not make a very big difference, so you would need to step up to the big boys and big wattage to really make it worthwhile.
If you can afford it all at once, more power to ya!


----------



## Osage_Winter

gdstupak said:


> It's late so I'll give some thoughts on amps and later write about Audyssey.


Okay...appreciate it...



> I don't have much experience with amps so I don't know how common or uncommon gain adjustment is on them.


I know two-channel power amplifiers always had these "gain" controls or "input sensitivity" adjustments (as on car audio amps) to "regulate" the output of the amp (like a more advanced volume control); I'm not that familiar with multichannel units, but maybe those don't have gain controls for each channel, as this would prove daunting to adjust. That's what's so appealing about Onkyo's (and their Integra line as well) AVRs, in that they come equipped with that "IntelliVolume" feature that acts like a source "leveler" for the volume of the receiver -- almost like a power amp's "sensitivity control." 



> Outboard amps are an extra, not a basic need for home theater. Don't skimp on the basics of having very good speakers, AVR, and display because you also want to go the extra mile and have an amp. If you are in the market for a new display, I would suggest spending as much money as you can to get very good quality.


Gotcha. Makes sense; perhaps that will get us back on track a bit in terms of this thread (my question of upgrading to a larger display)...but I was curious to hear your feedback in terms of your own equipment...



> After having very good basics, then start on the extras like amps. If you're using a good quality AVR (Onkyo) then getting a standard outboard amp that puts out 100w/ch might not make a very big difference, so you would need to step up to the big boys and big wattage to really make it worthwhile.
> If you can afford it all at once, more power to ya!


Well, if I were in the market for an outboard power amp, it sure would be putting out a whole lot more than 100 watts per channel -- that's what I want my next AVR to do (Onkyo) and then some, and THEN see if I should add on a 250-300 watt per channel external amp...


----------



## gdstupak

From a different thread, here is a comment about how I calibrate my system:
--------------------------------------------------------
Audyssey alone probably works great with the standard 5.1 THX set up where all main speakers are small and send all bass to one subwoofer. I say this because the Audyssey listens once and makes it's adjustments, it doesn't listen afterward to make sure everything sounds correct. If you have more than one subwoofer, Audessey doesn't take in to account that at some frequencies the subs might be out of phase and you get no sound, no matter how high the volume level is.
With my system I have the 2 12" subwoofers in the main speakers and also 2 outboard subs. When the Audyssey gets done with it's testing and then I play my test cd's, there are always frequencies where the subs don't play well with each other. As an example, my speakers might be level at 85db from 20khz down to 60hz, then 50hz has nothing (even though the drivers are shakin' their butts off). Then 40hz might be back up to 85db, then 32hz has nothing.
I use my outboard sub eq's to adjust the phase, crossover, and volume for each sub and I can get them both to work together again.
So how I make adjustments is:
1. (with Audyssey off) level all my speakers from 20khz down to 20hz with outboard eq's.
2. run Audyssey set up.
3. listen with test cd's and re-level all speakers with outboard eq's (usually Audyssey's levels will be good from 80hz on up, but I always have to play with several sub frequencies).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Although my ATI amp kicks butt, the outboard equalizers have the biggest impact on the sound. Actually I never intended to get an amp but when trying to connect my eq's back in '03(?), I found that an outboard amp was needed because the cabling had to go from the AVR--> into the eq--> then into an outboard amp (originally I was thinking the cabling could go from the eq back into the AVR again, but I was mistaken). So, I had to buy an outboard amp.
The eq's get everything pretty flat (much, much flatter than Audyssey can) but then I still run the Audyssey because it's supposed to correct timing issues and other stuff. The eq's make a huge difference that is noticeably better than the non eq'ed sound. The Audyssey makes a very small difference that I really can't tell if the sound is better or not, but because Audyssey is supposed to help, I leave it on. 
If I didn't use outboard eq's, then the Audyssey would probably help to flatten the speaker output and would help to make the system sound better.

As far as the sound of the ATI amp:
I didn't do any critical before and after listening tests. I did listen to one track before and after: the 1812 Overture conclusion that uses live canon fire. After the amp was added, and the AVR volume set to the same volume setting, the canon fire sounded much more clean and I think had a little more oomph. The big difference was that the amp let me turn the AVR volume much higher while retaining a clean sound. There was probably a lot more 'air' and stuff to the upper range, but I really wasn't listening for it. 
As mentioned earlier, the biggest and best improvement came from the eq's.


----------



## Osage_Winter

Thank you for the input.

I had the hardest time trying to figure out if I liked the results of Audyssey or not on my TX-SR605; you're right about what the system does with regard to multiple subs (I was under the knowledge that if a sub is along your main wall, with the other three main speakers in the front soundstage, the phase should be set to "0" while if another sub, or the main sub for that matter, is on another side of the room, the phase should switch to "180") and how it doesn't take into account phase shifts and delays, etc....but I just didn't know how I felt about Audyssey in general in my system...

Because of its high frequency rolloff due to the EQ curve it applies, I didn't like the "closed in" experience this resulted in, which is something many Audyssey non-believers have described...the channel levels and crossovers were a bit all over the place as well, and I just didn't, at the end of the day, "trust" what this "auto setup" routine was doing for my room and system. Every time you run Audyssey, even under the same room conditions multiple times, the system comes back with variations of the original results, so it got me wondering just what it's doing...I mean, is it guessing these values? I just decided to trust my own settings, leaving EQ "off" totally on the AVR.


----------



## gdstupak

who decides what:
Another poster on this site claims that the Audyssey program calibrates the eq and does other stuff such as adjusting time domain. But the crossovers and levels are decided by the AVR manufacturer's programming (in our case, that's Onkyo) not Audyssey.

Onkyo crossovers:
My Onkyo definitely favors the THX calibration specs. With my eq's, I level my speakers down to 30hz. If I tell the Onkyo that there is no outboard subwoofer, then it will set my main speakers to 'full size.' If I tell the Onkyo that there is a subwoofer, then it will cut off my main speakers at 80hz. I have 4 individual 6" surround speakers. 2 of them, the Onkyo will cut off at 60hz. And the other 2, it will cut off at 100hz.

speaker levels and distance settings:
Whoever decides these, gets it right for me, almost spot on. The only thing that is consistently very wrong is the level of the subwoofers.

manual eq adjustment:
Do you use a sound meter and test disc to check eq levels? These really are crucial for setting the system properly, and especially helpful in letting you know how your multiple subs are sounding with each other. Honestly, it takes me at least an hour each time to adjust the subs to get them working with each other (and with the main speakers), they are very finicky.


----------



## Osage_Winter

gdstupak said:


> who decides what:
> Another poster on this site claims that the Audyssey program calibrates the eq and does other stuff such as adjusting time domain. But the crossovers and levels are decided by the AVR manufacturer's programming (in our case, that's Onkyo) not Audyssey.


With regard to the crossovers, that's true -- it's decided by the manufacturer's chipsets inside these things, not Audyssey's algorithms...the channel levels are calculated by Audyssey's computer, however, as far as I know...



> Onkyo crossovers:
> My Onkyo definitely favors the THX calibration specs. With my eq's, I level my speakers down to 30hz. If I tell the Onkyo that there is no outboard subwoofer, then it will set my main speakers to 'full size.' If I tell the Onkyo that there is a subwoofer, then it will cut off my main speakers at 80hz. I have 4 individual 6" surround speakers. 2 of them, the Onkyo will cut off at 60hz. And the other 2, it will cut off at 100hz.


Hmmm...interesting...with Audyssey's 2EQ program on my unit, it pegs my two giant Polk RTi12's as full range (which upon first stab, of course, would be correct based on their sheer size and assumption of handling) but I manually tweaked that (when I ran it) to a 60Hz cutoff because these speakers could work alongside the sub...the other channels it just set weird, so I set my center to THX's 80Hz specification as well as the in-ceiling surrounds...



> speaker levels and distance settings:
> Whoever decides these, gets it right for me, almost spot on. The only thing that is consistently very wrong is the level of the subwoofers.


From what I have experienced, Audyssey always sets the channel levels _way_ too low -- but this is supposed to be in relation to the seating position so...

But the subwoofer channel is a complaint I've read about from so many owners running Audyssey stuff...I set this by personal preference, and also where my sub won't bottom out! 



> manual eq adjustment:
> Do you use a sound meter and test disc to check eq levels? These really are crucial for setting the system properly, and especially helpful in letting you know how your multiple subs are sounding with each other. Honestly, it takes me at least an hour each time to adjust the subs to get them working with each other (and with the main speakers), they are very finicky.


I don't have multiple subs, nor do I really fool with EQ for individual channels; I have found leaving EQ OFF just allows a film soundtrack to play back...well...kind of "as intended" if you know what I mean...


----------



## gdstupak

sub level:
My Onkyo/Audyssey always sets the sub level way way too high, making my subs bottom out, so I have to lower the AVR's sub level by at least 5db.

"as intended":
I would hope the recording engineers for music and movies master their soundtracks to sound best when played through an equalized (neutral) system. Allowing a soundtrack to be played through a non eq'ed system will color the sound from the engineers intent.


----------



## Osage_Winter

gdstupak said:


> I would hope the recording engineers for music and movies master their soundtracks to sound best when played through an equalized (neutral) system. *Allowing a soundtrack to be played through a non eq'ed system will color the sound from the engineers intent.*


Huh? I would believe this to be the exact opposite -- hearing the soundtrack _without_ outboard equalization (whether through external EQs or a built in system like Audyssey) I would think would be the way the engineer _intended_ it to be heard when _they_ mixed the track a certain way...before end users adjust their own settings. :huh:


----------



## gdstupak

Through the use of AVR's, amps, speakers, and room characteristics, each sound system is distorted in different ways. 
You think the sound engineers know how your specific system is distorted and they master soundtracks specifically to compensate for your systems specific distortion?
And when I say that a system is "eq'ed," that doesn't have to mean through the use of electronic eq devices (i.e. Audyssey). Neutralizing a systems sound can be done in a variety of methods such as speaker placement, acoustical treatments, and using equipment that tries not to color the sound.

Surely there are soundtracks that were recorded with the general un-neutralized masses in mind. I used to love listening to Phil Collins cd's from the 80's. Before I leveled my system, these cd's sounded good, after eq'ing my system, the treble range on these cd's sound too emphasized, such as whenever he would sing something with an "s," it would sound a bit screachy and hard. I read an article that said that his cd's were mastered with extra treble to compensate for cheap sound systems that didn't play the upper range correctly.
But most of my music collection sound so much better through the eq'ed system.


----------



## gdstupak

Using a cd that plays test tones and measuring those tones with a meter will show you how close or how far away your system is from reproducing the intent of the audio engineers.


----------

