I'm not THAT cheap! I did buy a bed sheet (20$ at the linen outlet) specifically for the theater screen. I would have used the one in our bedroom, but it wasn't white.
Fun thread: dollar to performance ratio for components
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
I'm not THAT cheap! I did buy a bed sheet (20$ at the linen outlet) specifically for the theater screen. I would have used the one in our bedroom, but it wasn't white.
I am as horrified to hear this as you had been if I suggested these are the speakers I use to listen to music:
Price: $13.95. Story: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-10303654-47.html
Horrified or not, it is a fact. And it is also a fact that numerous "Video authorities" who saw my system guessed that I was using a pro screen. No one to date has detected that it is anything but excellent. But of course, now the cat is out of the bag and there is no putting it back in.
I had a mega-buck Acoustical screen, and then I actually measured its transparency. It was terrible. SO I tried a bed sheet. Not only was its acoustic response 100% better, its video look was not really even noticable. The switch was a "no-brainer".
Measure those loudpseakers and compare the measurements to mine!! They will be a little different.
I don't do this stuff without substantial data to support my decision!! The fact that my conclusions do not fit in with the dogma of the AV community is neither rare or a concern.
First, let me say that I made my comment half jokingly.
There are actually quite a few people who make their own screens so that is not anything unusual. While they don't use bed sheets, fabric can be fabric. Ouch. That hurt Earl
. I won't recite my resume for you but suffice it to say, how you look at audio, is how I look at video. You mention no measurement of the video performance of said bed sheet, yet say it is excellence since people who see it think that way. I know plenty of people who say that about audio/speakers . Reason you saw worse performance of AT screens for audio is that companies attempt to find material which balances video and audio performance. Bed sheet material is available to them but they use special weaves and material as to create better color neutrality, screen gain, freedom from interference patterns, uniformity, flatness, etc. You don't look at a driver and make up your mind how well it works. Likewise, I can't accept the assertion that video looked good and hence without any measurement, it must be better than a Pro screen. And anything said to the contrary is an A/V fanboi talking. I do this stuff for a living as well as you do
. If we could do evaluate video products by eye, I wouldn't own a $25K Minolta CS-100 spectrometer. Sadly, AT screens are not perfect no matter what they are made out of. They are always a compromise, putting audio ahead of video as you did. And yes, if audio is substantially more important to you than video, you can tilt the balance more in that direction. The best video performance comes from a unity gain non-transparent screen such as the Da-Lite affinity. If you hold a piece of AT screen in front of it and compare the two, believe me, you will never go back to your solution
. I have done this with every material and people are just shocked when they see the contrast, pun intended. In our showroom we have two theaters one with the Da-Lite screen and another with AT screen so that people can see the difference and optimize based on their preference.
Amir - I was commenting on the half that wasn't a joke.
Yes, I value audio performance over video performance. I refuse to use screens that have unacceptable audio performance no matter how good they are in video. I understand that screens have improved since my tests, and there are now better screens which do use a weave (my test was almost eight years ago). The point is that I am completely content with my screen and no one to date has ever detected that it was anything but a high quality screen. Why should I change it?
And yes, you do sound like a salesman - I don't sell screens.
Yes, I value audio performance over video performance. I refuse to use screens that have unacceptable audio performance no matter how good they are in video. I understand that screens have improved since my tests, and there are now better screens which do use a weave (my test was almost eight years ago). The point is that I am completely content with my screen and no one to date has ever detected that it was anything but a high quality screen. Why should I change it?
And yes, you do sound like a salesman - I don't sell screens.
Hundreds of people walk up to Bose displays in airports and love what they hear.
Not saying your screen material is at that class but the notion that unknown people have liked what you have is not material in discussing technological merits of your solution. If you tell me Joe Kane came and look at it, then I would listen but not what you said above. I can't sit by and have such casual standards of evaluation be applied to video any more than you would accept it for audio and speaker design .The what? When I said I do this for a living I did not mean my Madrona Digital venture but rather, nearly 20 years of managing engineering projects ranging from equipment for Television networks/post production and what is in every Blu-ray player which plays high definition movies. As for Madrona Digital, my entire team loves these acoustically transparent screens because that is what the casual user likes: it hides the speakers behind so makes things look nice. But from my point of view, we had to have a reference quality video screen and got them to take a look at the Da-Lite matt screen. Once there, they realized how much quality is left on the table otherwise. That screen was designed using science and measurement to make sure it didn't suffer from the problems I mentioned. We are not talking folklore or audiophile beliefs here.
To be abundantly clear, I have my principals and I will not jeopardize them for the sake commercialization. I assume you do the same and hence the reason people listen to you whether they want to buy your speakers or not. So I hope we can dispense with "you have a sales interest" angle for saying what I said. If you can prove me wrong, please do it with data and logic attached to it, not the implication of bias.
Similar threads
