Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Home speakers vs. Cinema speakers

This is topic Home speakers vs. Cinema speakers in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=011330

Posted by Jim Henk (Member # 3628) on 10-16-2012, 07:00 PM:

Here's one...

What makes cinema speakers a better match for movie theatre use than good high powered home speakers? I can't imagine that it's just the wattage rating...

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-16-2012, 08:02 PM:

Let's see:

Coverage patterns, frequency response, efficiency, (also as in SPL output capability), durability, and many other factors that differentiate between "Near Field" listening in a home application vs. the "Far Field" of a cinema.

Just for starters.... [Big Grin]

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-16-2012, 09:09 PM:

I side with the argument that a cinema is a near-field environment. Let the flames begin!

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-16-2012, 09:34 PM:

That's like saying, "All crows are black."
The statement may or may not be true, depending on how you frame the question.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-16-2012, 10:18 PM:

This probably would be covered by the near-field/far-field question, but I'd think even "good high-powered" home speakers would sound weak and anemic in a huge room like a movie theater.

When I was a DJ back in the '70s/'80s, we started out using home speakers because we didn't have the $ to buy real professional gear. We "borrowed" the top-of-the-line speakers from our store (and marked them down substantially) for our first few gigs. After that we home-built some Speakerlab Model 7s, which were very good, but still not great for large rooms like gyms.

Then when we had some bucks we bought real pro-type Cerwin-Vega speakers. (Model PD-18B, for those who know about these things.) I was stunned at how much better the CVs sounded than the Pioneer and Technics home type speakers we had started out with.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-16-2012, 10:19 PM:

I'm actually curious about what motivated the original question.

Are we possibly considering putting home theatre speakers in a cinema..?

If this was in the Afterlife forum I might wonder if it was the other way round -- putting cinema speakers in a home-theatre. But it's not. It's here in the FHF. So, I'm curious/concerned.

Posted by Jim Henk (Member # 3628) on 10-16-2012, 10:48 PM:

I'm a big fan of doing things with reasons. Never because "we've always done it that way before". Have heard people ask that question before, and even seen and heard people (strangers) point to surrounds on the wall, and tell each other that they're the same as what you have at home.

As a few people here know, I'm gathering knowledge and some soon-to-be rare equipment for my to-be home theatre. But no, not speakers yet. So why not ask now, I ask. Oy...

Posted by Jim Henk (Member # 3628) on 10-17-2012, 02:10 AM:

Strikes me that I didn't answer your question there. Yep.

Eventual goal: home screening room with both video, 35, and 70. Room size? Have no idea yet, and won't til the house is closer, but I'm sure it will be a build-out.

Nearer goal: knowledge under the belt. Why do people choose what they choose?

Does that put things in context? Now back to the flame wars.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-17-2012, 11:54 AM:

Jim: Here's your speaker solution right here: QSC [thumbsup]

Guess what my next purchase order from QSC is gonna include? If the price point is anything like the rest of their line it is gonna be money well spent, and probably cheaper than a set of "high-end" home speakers. (Oh another thing you need to consider: A lot of high-end home speakers are sold in PAIRS only..so you're gonna have an extra stage speaker you'll not need. )

All other factors aside, if you are looking for realistic cinema sound in a home screening room, only genuine cinema speakers are going to get you there, period. As I presented in another thread a while back, cinema sound is mixed specifically with a cinema environment and speakers in mind.

No flaming necessary Manny...But you are wrong. [Smile]

(And right.) The classic definition of near field audio is any point where you are at or closer than, the distance between speakers. So, for the majority of auditoria, the main seating area is NOT near-field.

Now a home screening room, will mainly be a near-field environment (exception: Brad's room. [Smile]

) and it is a rare speaker that can cover that well. My experiences with QSC's speakers so far have proven that they work quite well (but not optimum) in near-field. But much better than any of the JBL's I have tried so far. [Smile]

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-17-2012, 12:33 PM:

I don't remember the entire argument with great accuracy (it was a while ago) but I do recall that one factor alone did not make an environment near- or far-field. Rather, *several* items on a sort-of "checklist" had to be true before declaring something far-field, and one of them was that in a far-field the SPL drops -6dB when distance is doubled. Seems like it would depend on the size of the auditorium. My hunch is that most cinemas are too small to reach this threshold.

Yes, we're sitting further away from cinema loudspeakers than home theatre speakers (or studio monitors) so I can understand the impulse to make that (alone) the determining factor, but they're also a heck of a lot bigger/more powerful, and a (good) cinema is relatively dead so, when we factor in scale, the overall effect is similar to near-field listening.

[Note: I'm only referring to the main loudspeakers. I'd readily accept that cinema surrounds are far-field.]

I've never heard or read anything about the distance between the speakers being a factor. This is not to say that it isn't -- I'm not claiming to be an expert in this area -- just that it's yet another qualifier on a growing list of criteria of near/far-field differentiation.

Let's say for a moment that the distance between speakers versus the distance between listener and speaker was the litmus test for this. It would mean that some home theatres are near-field and some are far-field, depending on where the speakers are placed. It would also mean that some seats in a cinema may be near-field, while most would be far-field. And, yet, a major point of cinema standardization is to render all seats essentially equal. Obviously, they are not all equal, but is there really *that* much of a difference in a well-designed cinema?

I honestly don't know the answer, but the question is interesting. It all makes me curious what a definitive "text book" answer would be.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 10-17-2012, 03:11 PM:

If you're going to build a real cinema room with real projectors, use real cinema equipment. Make it genuine top to bottom. If for no other reason than you'll regret it otherwise when you take a pro on a tour and they say "Okay, but why did you go big here but not here", which will leave you regretting doing what you did there.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-17-2012, 07:13 PM:

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
Jim: Here's your speaker solution right here: QSC

Nah, this is the way to go. [thumbsup]

Seriously, QSC speakers really can't be beat. I couldn't be happier with them. To anyone that hasn't tried them, you really don't know what you are missing. (And yes they work spectacularly in small rooms too.)

Posted by Jim Henk (Member # 3628) on 10-17-2012, 11:30 PM:

This is a *great* debate. You guys are tremendous.

I read a good argument for full featured cinema speakers in a large room. I'm with you. I get it. But what about the small rooms where the throw is 20 feet or so? And there are a lot of them. Probably the reason that scope lenses officially focus down to 17 feet.

Brad makes the point that the QSC's sound really good in a small room as well as a large, but for that small room, is it worth the difference in price from good sounding well powered home speakers? *Is* there a big difference in price? I'd imagine so. (new out of the box, to compare apples to apples)

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-18-2012, 10:32 AM:

It isn't really a debate...one need to really look at what one is trying to do and what the tools available are to do that job. Any debate can be over what one thinks happens to be the best sounding this or that.

quote: Jim Henk
Have heard people ask that question before, and even seen and heard people (strangers) point to surrounds on the wall, and tell each other that they're the same as what you have at home.

Again, one need look at what was being done with surrounds when "bookshelf" speakers were used as surrounds (or even worse quality...say just 8" woofers in a box)...Surrounds started out as an "effects" channel only...with rare exception, there was no fidelity sent to them where any sort of accuracy was needed. This was true for all formats before digital except 70mm magnetic, Fantasound, Cinerama...etc...those sorts of formats. Even 35mm magnetic put relatively small demands on the surrounds and lack of frequency response would only help hide the hideous 12KHz pilot tone.

The SVA sound track with surrounds had an inherent frequency response of 100Hz-7KHz...not exactly high-fidelity. Its dynamic range was also VERY limited. It wouldn't be too much of a challenge for a "home" type speaker to reproduce. Furthermore, they were place, relatively, close to the listener and recommended to be in great quantity thereby lessening the demand on each speaker. The business side of things would also look at surrounds being 8-24 speakers per auditorium (by and large)...so lowering the cost per unit would be an incentive to not go crazy with them.

With digital audio...all of that changed. The surrounds are now a full range channel with potentially full power demands too. A bookshelf speaker with a typical 88-90 db 1W/1m will not be able to deliver. As we move into dividing the surrounds up into smaller channels...each channel now has more demanded of it since only one or two speakers may need to "reach" the entire auditorium.

As to the stage speakers...the big magical thing about cinema speakers was, traditionally, that they concerned themselves about

1) Playing through a screen
2) Must reproduce dialog with high intelligibility.

In 2-way systems, the 500Hz crossover point was not chosen by chance...it was done to keep the crossover region as far away from the dialog as practical. Getting the timber of two different drivers to be identical is near impossible...which is another reason to keep crossover points away from the dialog region.

With 3-ways...we now have the crossover point, more often than not, in the dialog region (mid to high) and it is a reason, I feel that most 3-ways suck and don't have the clean crisp dialog of a good 2-way. QSC had done a VERY good job on their 3-way/4-way systems...most others have not. I'll take a good 2-way over a cheap 3-way, every time.

So keep in mind what you are trying to reproduce when choosing a speaker.

Make sure you have sufficient efficiency in the speaker and enough amplifier power behind it for your room. That will require math but it isn't that hard.

The other issue is playing through a screen. Domed tweeters generally don't do so well and projecting through the screen...they are more likely to splatter off the screen. Even those that have tried ribbon tweeters found they need to put a horn in front of them.

I can generally tell when a horn is being used versus something softer, like a dome. I will say, the newer shorter horns, like those on QSC (and others) tend to make the horn sound less pronounced.

Like so much in life, there are compromises when choosing equipment that best achieves as many goals as possible.

I would caution against going with speakers that are too large for the room because I've found that they will never image right...one has to sit back far enough for the various points of the speaker to sound like one.

As I am considering my own home theatre...I'm leaning towards using Altec 604 drivers...2-ways in a coaxial formation and then making suitable cabinets similar to the Altec 620. But that is me.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-18-2012, 02:50 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
Seriously, QSC speakers really can't be beat. I couldn't be happier with them. To anyone that hasn't tried them, you really don't know what you are missing.

Having just ordered a bunch of them, I am very happy to read this! (Although I've had QSCs on my "wish list" for years.) [thumbsup]

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-18-2012, 03:04 PM:

Jim, Jim, Jim, are we not paying attention? If you check out the link I gave you those speakers are specifically designed for the short throw small rooms. And remember that my room at UCI (which you have heard if I recall correctly) is using their standard line and it is only a 35' throw from the screen to the back row.

I would expect that the new line in my link would work even better.

Mike, trust us, you're gonna love them. I swear that they make the former king JBL's sound like Radio Shack specials. [Smile]

Posted by Paul Vollmers (Member # 927) on 10-19-2012, 10:12 AM:

When you mention QSC speakers for small throw rooms, what model speakers are you talking about.
My room is 21ft X 24ft screen is 6ft High X 15ft wide.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-19-2012, 12:31 PM:

Paul, click on the blue "QSC" in my second post. [thumbsup]

Posted by Paul Vollmers (Member # 927) on 10-19-2012, 05:20 PM:

Tony, just after I posted the QSC speaker question I saw the click spot and looked at the speakers........sorry.
Looks like nice speakers.....wounder where I could find some used speakers?

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-19-2012, 06:52 PM:

Paul, with the line in my link being a new addition you will not find them used.

In fact, I am willing to bet that unless you're lucky enough to find a smaller cinema that recently installed QSC's and is closing down you're not going to find any of their line used.

But, the good news is find a dealer who you are friendly with and have them price them out for you..you will be pleasantly surprised.

Posted by Matthew McBride (Member # 6598) on 10-19-2012, 08:33 PM:

Tony, when I saw you posted that link, I instantly fell in love with those speakers. I hope the price is reasonable too. I have had serious internal debates on how to go about to getting professional audio equipment without breaking the bank. It seem like these are the right choices [thumbsup]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-19-2012, 09:14 PM:

In a small home theatre...from the QSC line...consider something like this http://www.qscaudio.com/products/speakers/dcs/dcs_sc412.htm

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-22-2012, 06:33 PM:

Not bad Steve, but I'd still prefer a 3-way design. And the dispersion pattern on that speaker isn't what I'd want for a short throw room.

Posted by Matthew McBride (Member # 6598) on 10-22-2012, 10:31 PM:

I do like those Steve, but it seems like those only have the bi-amp option. Now I am a little on the ignorant side when it comes to professional audio, but it seems like when you bi-amp speakers you need that much more power? I was hoping to do 1 amp per two speakers with the exception of the center and sub, which I figured to bridge mono for those. But maybe this isn't the best config? This is slightly off the original topic though.

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 10-22-2012, 11:36 PM:

Regarding amps; you need more channels, but not more power per amp.

QSC does sell 4 channels amps and crossover modules that would be very good price and space wise.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-23-2012, 05:54 AM:

And why would you prefer 3-ways Tony...most sound worse than 2-ways...particularly for cinema application?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-23-2012, 06:53 AM:

So, where does one go to listen to cinema speakers (other than the cinema)? I've been toying with the idea of upgrading the speakers in my own screening room for a while, but haven't done anything yet. This isn't like buying home stereo speakers, where it's fairly easy to find a dealer who will let customers play a familiar record/CD on different speakers in a controlled environment, and where most speakers are small enough to be easily exchanged or re-sold if the result in one's home is not satisfactory.

I've heard lots of cinema speakers in cinemas, but I have a hard time correlating sound quality with speaker brand/model. There seem to be more differences in the room and system setup than in the loudspeakers themselves. I've heard both good and bad sound in theatres with Altec, JBL, and Electro-Voice speakers. I've had relatively little exposure to the QSCs (they are too new for most of the places where I have worked).

In general, I have been unimpressed with PA speakers used in cinemas. I have done this on a couple of occasions, and I agree with the comment about the importance of keeping the crossover point outside of the vocal range. Many portable PA speakers that sound great with music will completely fail in the dialogue intelligibility area, which is the most important function of cinema speakers.

The best cinema sound that I have heard was at the Cinerama Dome in LA in 2000. I hope that the system there still exists and still sounds good.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-23-2012, 11:07 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
And why would you prefer 3-ways Tony...most sound worse than 2-ways...particularly for cinema application?

I agree that SOME 3-way systems sound worse...but the QSC's for one do not.

The main reason I prefer three way designs is very simple and stated in QSC's description of their 3-way systems, the crossover point is, at BOTH ends, outside of the "meat" of the dialog frequencies. Thus only the midrange driver carries the main workload for dialog. This reduces the problems caused by poor time alignment, lobing and and response errors at the crossover points.

That, to me, makes a three way system the ONLY proper choice for the majority of cinema sound systems. (Just look at the F-T Screening room.) And to my ears, a properly set up three-way system sounds clearer than any two-way system I have encountered in the 30+ years I have been doing this.

BUT, and this is important, the ROOM design and treatments can easily make or break the sound quality of ANY speaker system, two-way, three-way or any way. [Big Grin]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-23-2012, 04:28 PM:

My room uses 4 ways (QSC SC-444), which I find to be the best speaker ever made.

I'm with Steve though, most of the time I would prefer a 2 way to a 3 way. QSC is the only one that got the 3 way right, but their 4 ways are absolutely delicious.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-23-2012, 06:24 PM:

LOL well Grand Poo-Bah, most of us mere mortals will have to settle for a 2 or 3 way system in our home screening rooms.

Maybe if I win the lotto or marry a rich guy I can have a set-up like F-T's. [Big Grin]

You and Steve agreeing? Did hell just freeze over or something? [Eek!]

Posted by Matthew McBride (Member # 6598) on 10-23-2012, 07:02 PM:

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
most of us mere mortals will have to settle for a 2 or 3 way system in our home screening rooms.

This is probably quite true. I will say that the design of Brad's room is definitely a base model for how I will build my private screening room. Ah the day that comes (hopefully at some point in my life), though I guess for now I'll have to settle for what I have. I can't complain too much though, as me wife is very understanding.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-24-2012, 01:57 AM:

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
You and Steve agreeing? Did hell just freeze over or something?

Steve and I actually agree about most things. We really only differ about things where he is wrong, like platters. [Razz]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-24-2012, 04:52 AM:

Crossover from mid to high is at 2200Hz...not exactly out of the dialog region. In fact, most 3-ways crossover mid to high in the dialog region.

Have you heard this little speaker (SC-2150) or are you just applying your experience with the full-size QSC 3-ways to this one?

Conversely, the 2-way puts the crossover out of the dialog region.

I agree that the QSC 423 is the best 3-way I've heard for Cinema but I would not necessarily translate that to the smaller speaker.

Posted by Robert Koch (Member # 3728) on 10-26-2012, 02:54 PM:

I agree with Steve as usual. Three way systems are for the birds for various reasons. Western Electric came out with their infamous "WIDE RANGE" system in 1930 or 32 and what a monstrosity it was. 3 Jensen woofers on a huge wooden baffle resting on the stage floor with a field supply with an 80 tube for each one. A 555 lst with exponential horn on chains somewhere above that and for the icing on the cake a 597 lst was mounted between somewhere. The crossover was in the booth the frequencies I didnt know and did`nt know how to find out. I had two of these ,Egyptian in Ogden Ut and Empire, Placerville Ca. Kind of shows you how the exhibitors loved to spend money upgrading booth equipment.By the time I began[1949] I found woolite stuffed in the hf 597, two of the 80 tubes "out" in the Jensen woofers. A lesson in history, boys, I`m 90 years old.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-26-2012, 03:51 PM:

Now you guys have got me wondering. Should we cancel the QSC 3-ways and go back to 2-ways?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-26-2012, 04:52 PM:

Nah...if you are going to use the SC-423 then you are going to have a fine speaker. It is quite smooth indeed. I would consider the 424, myself...it gets the highs without having to strain. I've been VERY pleased with the QSC 4x3/4x4 stuff. I do normally tri or quad amp when I've used them.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-26-2012, 04:55 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Now you guys have got me wondering. Should we cancel the QSC 3-ways and go back to 2-ways?

Nope, you should upgrade to the 4-ways. [beer]

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-29-2012, 11:27 PM:

^^^^ What Brad said. [Smile]

Robert, the speakers you refer to are old school technology at best, so you're making a poor comparison IMHO. Modern 3-way designs run circles around the older stuff in most areas, including frequency response, uniformity and time alignment of drivers.

quote: Steve Guttag
Crossover from mid to high is at 2200Hz...not exactly out of the dialog region. In fact, most 3-ways crossover mid to high in the dialog region.

Steve, Steve, Steve. I said the MEAT of the dialog region, which with both male and female voices is well within the passband of the three way designs. Of course both male and female voices have fundamentals outside of the mid band, but that is not what I was talking about. Don't believe me? Simple test, use your RTA and talk normally into one of the mics and see which frequencies are prominent. [Wink]

You'll find the strongest will be in the passband of the midrange driver. (Why do you think they came out with three-way designs in the first place? To avoid the "crossover notch" in the dialog range.)

No, I haven't heard the two-ways you mentioned Steve, which I am sure are fine units. But why bother when the three ways are so close in price point? (Especially the new model I linked to originally.)

Mike, you will not be sorry with the three way QSC's.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-30-2012, 02:57 PM:

Tony, Tony, Tony...

Generally, the pass band of the human voice is 300Hz - 3KHz. Human hearing is quite critical in the 1KHz-4KHz region...why do you think Dolby-B really went for that area above all of the rest?

A 3-way will almost assure you that you are putting the crossover somewhere in the critical listening range of the human voice. It is why cinema speakers always wanted to push the 2-way crossover down as far as they could go without component failure...500Hz was typical and THX tried for 400Hz.

3-ways are not a new thing by any stretch...GOOD ones are new. The normal "sell" on a 3-ways is the notion that it is impossible to get a driver that can play all frequencies equally well at desired volume. If you could get a 1-way system to do that, it would be ideal (no crossover). As such, a 3-way (or other higher way system) should yield lower distortion by allowing each driver to only play in its sweet spot. Getting drivers to match at crossover is near impossible though. The timbre will simply not match even if you can get level to. The characteristics of a cone driver versus a compression driver almost never match. Then there are time artifacts since all of the various drivers will start from a different point in space you will get nodes around the crossover point based on where one is listening to the sound as the sound takes a different amount of time to travel. It gets more complicated as the number of components go up. One of the reasons Altec VOTs lasted so long was they where inherently time-aligned...they picked a crossover that kept the vocal reproduction high and they were VERY efficient (not much power back then). Altec also shifted the LF section to get it as close as possible to the HF section to minimize the voicing as much as possible. In fact, if you look at the QSC 3-way, you'll see a lot of the A7/A5 principles in there though certainly with a much more modern approach to pattern control. On QSC's 4-ways...unlike most others...QSC put the VHF secion coaxial to the HF section so it uses the SAME horn with the SAME path...voicing is going to be near perfect (and it works really well too).

3-ways are about not having a compression driver with the power and the horn with the size to handle the lower frequencies, yet also handle very high frequencies...it has little to do with keeping the dialog out of the crossover...because they don't. More often than not, going to a 3-way is a step down to a good 2-way. The QSC SC-4x3 type speaker is the exception to the rule. Which is why I would use a 413 over the "low-cost" 3-way. Or better yet, go to a good 2-way...they are MUCH easier to get right. I wouldn't be as quick as you to use the SC-423 as the reason why all 3-way speakers (or all QSC 3-way speakers) work...it is the exception, not the rule. It brings all of the virtues of 3-ways and very few of their short comings.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-30-2012, 05:50 PM:

So Steve, is this where I say "I told you a long time ago that QSC's speakers would impress you", or should I save that for another conversation? [Cool]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-30-2012, 08:45 PM:

Brad,

I take it all in and use my own experience...just like everyone else. Was I skeptical about the QSC stage speakers at first...sure...everything that came before them was a disappointment to me and I can still get a 2-way system to do most of what they can do. I like the QSC SC-4x3 and SC-4x4 sound. There are things I like about some JBL speakers too. It is still a happy day when I have a room with JBL 4675 speakers...the results are almost always good (a bad room can't be fixed by good speakers though). I also like seeing Altec speakers (still)...An A4 or A5 is something I can work with...the A7 is too weak in the HF department and the A8 is too much of a compromise for size.

Oddly enough, my favorite home speakers remain the ones I have...JBL L-250s...surprise, they are 4-ways. JBL matched drivers when they made them...each pair was serial numbered not only as a unit but to its mate...I've never had stereo imaging as good as them. I run them with their passive crossovers that have VERY shallow slopes...they too defied the norm. 30 years later, they are still my favorite home speakers but I wouldn't use them for a cinema.

Posted by Paul Vollmers (Member # 927) on 10-31-2012, 09:08 AM:

I just priced the QSC SC-2150 from a dealer and they are about $1500.00 to $1150.00 each.
way out of my hobby price league.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-31-2012, 01:00 PM:

Paul just tell the missus there is no new car this year. [Smile]

And hey, you want to play in the big boy yard you gotta pony up the coin. [Smile]

A lot of people waste more money than that on other stupid things.

Seriously, around $6k (with the sub and surrounds) isn't too much to pay for the quality you're gonna get.

And realistically, even a modest home screening room done right (Proper screen, sound and masking) is gonna set you back at least $20k. I know many people who have spent double that on a kitchen and at least that on a bathroom.

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 10-31-2012, 02:06 PM:

Seriously, this is Paul we are talking about! [Smile]

Posted by Robert Koch (Member # 3728) on 10-31-2012, 02:15 PM:

Bravo Steve

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 03-18-2013, 05:43 PM:

Wow guys you are thinking too hard!!! [Smile]

I will give you this info and you can tell me what to do with it.

When we mix a huge movie we will frequently take a reel or two to the Goldwyn Theater at AMPAS and see how it, as we say, translates. If it sounds the way we intended we know we are in good shape and all congratulate ourselves on another fine job. Thats our hero room. Anything you can do to emulate it can only make your presentation sound better.

I am checking with a friend, but I think the room is a 3-way JBL system.

http://www.oscars.org/rentals/technicalinformation.html#alt

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-18-2013, 09:14 PM:

Unless they have changed it recently. The Goldwyn theatre has five JBL 5674 stage channels.

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 03-19-2013, 12:08 AM:

Mr. Guttag you would be correct!

The Goldwyn Theater Sound system is the JBL 5000 series.
Model 5674 Three-Way Screen Channel System.
Dolby Lake processors and Bryston Amplifiers.
JBL Custom shop full-range surrounds with 2 12" woofs and one horn each...at least 16 of them.
The Subwoofers are JBL Custom Shop these kick ass! (all the way up to the 6th floor of the AMPAS! 8 boxes with dual 18" woofers in each box driven by Bryston Amps.

http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/General/Product.aspx?PId=80&MId=1

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 03-19-2013, 07:46 AM:

Lyle: I'm getting a NAD T770 digital decoder with 70-watt amps and Burr-Brown DACs.
Left Ear: [confused] Yeah...
Lyle: It's a big stereo. Speakers so loud, they blow women's clothes off!
Handsome Rob: Now you're talking!

Speakers so loud, they'll blow your clothes off

ultimate sound system

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 03-21-2013, 04:57 AM:

I'm surprised that efficiency has not been stated more dramatically, as cinema speakers found backstage are extremely efficient with figures like 100db@ 1 watt @1m . Where as home speakers might be closer to 86db@ 1 watt @ 1m. Loosely translated this means that the cinema speaker is louder at 1w than many home speaker at 100w.....

There are many other differences as stated but this one is worth pointing out.