Screen dilemma

rblnr

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
May 3, 2010
2,151
291
1,170
NYC/NJ
Have had a Stewart Studiotek 130 w/a JVC RS2 PJ for the last few years. Very happy with the Stewart BUT

its 8' width spans most of the distance between my main speakers, essentially putting the acoustic reflectivity of a hard painted wall between them. Not good for acoustics -- hanging absorption over it very noticeably improves sound -- I'm concerned primarily w/music playback here.

So, seems my options are A), coming up w/some solution to mechanically move in acoustic absorption over the screen when listening to music, but I find this to be an inelegant hassle or B) going to an AT screen, offsetting it from the wall and putting absorbative panels behind it. Problem here is IQ hit of using an AT screen vs. the Stewart.

Thoughts anyone? Room is a black box, btw, PJ about 11' away so don't need much gain. I'm getting samples of AT material from SMX and Seymour to test. Will get some of the Stewart microperf too, but am skeptical despite their charts and graphs that that design can really be very 'AT'
 

Wardsweb

Well-Known Member
May 8, 2010
411
62
935
66
San Antonio, TX
wardswebllc.com
I asked a similar question over on the Home Theater Shack and got this from Rob Sinden there:

=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-
I recently purchased a fixed 100" Seymour AV screen to experiment with and can thoroughly recommend it. I also have a far more expensive Screen Research fixed screen and a VuTec screen both of which are acoustically transparent.

The picture on the Seymour AV screen is brighter and much sharper. Highly recommended!

After watching Avatar at the weekend I've decided I need to upgrade my other screens with Seymour AV's screen surface. At moment my cheapest projector with the Seymour Screen looks considerably better than projectors at twice the price on far more expensive screens. Can't have that!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

There is also a review of the Seymour screen material: click here
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
Steve, I think he is talking about sound reflections from the front of the screen, not the back wall.
 

rblnr

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
May 3, 2010
2,151
291
1,170
NYC/NJ
Steve, I think he is talking about sound reflections from the front of the screen, not the back wall.

Exactly. Seems you have to compromise on SQ or IQ if you're setup w/a screen between the mains. I'll be getting the Seymour sample soon though -- thanks for the rec Wardsweb.
 

Bulldogger

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
129
2
1,573
58
Clinton,MS
The Seymour screen will give you much better sound quality. Slightly less picture quality. You can tell it is not a solid screen. Chris is an exceptionally easy person with which to do business. I highly recommend him and his screen. The only thing better is a fixed Screen Excellence Enlighter 4k. It looks like a solid screen and is extremely transparent. Cost is at least triple of what Chris charges for a retractable. Screen Excellence though is considerably dimmer than the Seymour AV as well. I have a 54 by 132 piece of his original screen that I never installed to a DIY roller I was building and a sample of the newest material. You also notice the difference in gain. A recent test concluded that actual gain of the Seymour was .94 which is still good for an AT screen as nice as that one.
 

rblnr

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
May 3, 2010
2,151
291
1,170
NYC/NJ
I have samples of the Seymour, SMX, and EN4K material taped up to my screen at the moment. The Seymour has clearly the best IQ to me, the EN4K is a disappointment. Might work better w/a projector other than my JVC RS2. I'm probably going to go though with microperfed Ultramatte from Stewart though. Less acoustically transparent than the others, but likely slightly better IQ than the Seymour. Also will be about 1.4 gain which is useful for the JVC.
 

rblnr

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
May 3, 2010
2,151
291
1,170
NYC/NJ
My solution is also not elegant. I have two panels (happen to be RPG BAD Panels) that I slide into place with two channel and move out for HT. Messy but short of installing heavy and movable drapes, I'm not sure what my other options are.

I've had a design in mind for awhile that would allow me to swing panels in front of my screen for 2 ch and away for viewing. Have been to Home Depot, et. al. to scout parts, but just can't muster the enthusiasm to follow through. Minor as it is, don't want to have to swing something in/out for listening/watching, and b), like to listen and have something on screen sometimes. Got a quote on an acoustic curtain to pull over the screen btw, but lack of enthusiasm on that for same reasons. What I have been doing is occasionally using some big spring clamps to hook 4'x4' sheets of acoustic foam over the screen.

With the coming of new speakers, I feel pushed to do something, so after more than a year of debate and now experimenting with different screen materials, I'm going to go with the Stewart stuff. Not quite as transparent as the weaves, but as I'm not putting speakers behind it, won't be such a big deal. IQ is better though, the gain is useful and unique to AT screens, and I should be able to just snap out the old screen, snap in the new. We'll see on that though.

After
 

Steve Williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
My oldest son used an acoustic fabric and had them made into curtains which are on an automated pulley. When he watches video and turns on the PJ a trigger switch opens the curtains to show the screen. Thus the curtains are closed for 2 channel listening. The automated track to open and close was affordable
 

rblnr

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
May 3, 2010
2,151
291
1,170
NYC/NJ
Find it heartening that you passed on the passion to your son. Hope to do so w/my daughters. My wife can't listen to bad systems anymore which I see as a small victory for music playback.
 

Bulldogger

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
129
2
1,573
58
Clinton,MS
I have samples of the Seymour, SMX, and EN4K material taped up to my screen at the moment. The Seymour has clearly the best IQ to me, the EN4K is a disappointment. Might work better w/a projector other than my JVC RS2. I'm probably going to go though with microperfed Ultramatte from Stewart though. Less acoustically transparent than the others, but likely slightly better IQ than the Seymour. Also will be about 1.4 gain which is useful for the JVC.

Be careful. The higher the gain is of course the brighter the image. Usually when you do this kind of comparison, you are going to pick the sample with the brightest image, the Ultramatte. If it were possible for you to see all three fabrics at the same brightness, I think the results would be different. You can see the holes in the Ultramatte for example if the gain is too high and it is by far the worst for sound. To really appreciate the screens you need to see a large sample with about equal brightness. Otherwise, you will usually just pick the brightest one of the samples from the ones side by side. As audiophiles,we are aware that the louder component may appear to sound better until volume levels are matched. It's kind of the same thing here as for which one absolutely looks best. It is not the quite the same because, there is no way to truly make up for the lowest gain, the Screen Excellence, with the RS2, in such a way to make it equal in luminosity to the Ultramatte. If you have something like one of the Sim projectors that can really light up the Screen Excellence, it would look very smooth while you would notice the holes of the Ultramatte. The major disadvantage of the Screen Excellence EN4k is it appears to be very low gain. From what I have heard when retractable perforated screens are lowered, the imaging of the speakers immediately suffers. This effect is very minimal with the woven screens. I have the original Seymour AV screen in a 128 by 54 size, or something like that. It was for a DIY electric screen that I finally just gave up on. It was "hung" in front of my speakers to give me an idea of image quality and acoustical properties. I have also had SMX original screen material up in a 96 by 54 size. I finally settled on Screen Research fabric because it had the least impact on sound quality and numbers and graphics are sharper than the original SMX and Seymour Screens. The newer Seymour AV screen which is the sample that you have, seems as "thin" as the Screen Research fabric. I suspect, from my limited ability to place the materials in front of the tweeters of my former speakers, that the Seymour is close in transparency to the Screen Research. I believe the Screen Excellence fabric has recently tested more transparent however than the newest Seymour AV but the difference is small. Seymour AV has a high enough gain and is very transparent. Make sure the Ultramatte has enough transparency for your taste. I do not see much of an advantage for sound quality with it,too thick and the holes can not overcome this, for me. Just my .02.
 

rblnr

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
May 3, 2010
2,151
291
1,170
NYC/NJ
Be careful. The higher the gain is of course the brighter the image. Usually when you do this kind of comparison, you are going to pick the sample with the brightest image, the Ultramatte. If it were possible for you to see all three fabrics at the same brightness, I think the results would be different. You can see the holes in the Ultramatte for example if the gain is too high and it is by far the worst for sound. To really appreciate the screens you need to see a large sample with about equal brightness. Otherwise, you will usually just pick the brightest one of the samples from the ones side by side. As audiophiles,we are aware that the louder component may appear to sound better until volume levels are matched. It's kind of the same thing here as for which one absolutely looks best. It is not the quite the same because, there is no way to truly make up for the lowest gain, the Screen Excellence, with the RS2, in such a way to make it equal in luminosity to the Ultramatte. If you have something like one of the Sim projectors that can really light up the Screen Excellence, it would look very smooth while you would notice the holes of the Ultramatte. The major disadvantage of the Screen Excellence EN4k is it appears to be very low gain. From what I have heard when retractable perforated screens are lowered, the imaging of the speakers immediately suffers. This effect is very minimal with the woven screens. I have the original Seymour AV screen in a 128 by 54 size, or something like that. It was for a DIY electric screen that I finally just gave up on. It was "hung" in front of my speakers to give me an idea of image quality and acoustical properties. I have also had SMX original screen material up in a 96 by 54 size. I finally settled on Screen Research fabric because it had the least impact on sound quality and numbers and graphics are sharper than the original SMX and Seymour Screens. The newer Seymour AV screen which is the sample that you have, seems as "thin" as the Screen Research fabric. I suspect, from my limited ability to place the materials in front of the tweeters of my former speakers, that the Seymour is close in transparency to the Screen Research. I believe the Screen Excellence fabric has recently tested more transparent however than the newest Seymour AV but the difference is small. Seymour AV has a high enough gain and is very transparent. Make sure the Ultramatte has enough transparency for your taste. I do not see much of an advantage for sound quality with it,too thick and the holes can not overcome this, for me. Just my .02.

I used neutral density gel over the lens to match brightness levels. A 20% ND brings down the SMX and Seymour materials very close to the EN4K. With the RS2 anyway, the EN4K washed out contrast a bit and looked less color accurate. The reduction of contrast seemed to lower subjective resolution as well. The Seymour was clearly the best to my eye.

Two other factors: the RS2 is not very bright, screen gain is useful. My current Studiotek 130 is 1.3 gain -- it's helpful. I'd be shocked if I can perceive the microperf holes from 12' when the screen is up -- hope not to be shocked. Factor two is that I'm not putting speakers behind tbe screen, just absorbative material. Would be shocked too if I could hear the difference between a woven and microperf in this scenario. Hope again not to be shocked!

I think it's really a tradeoff between best sound (woven) and best picture, solid vinyl w/perfs. May be that a lowish power pj like the RS2 exacerbates issues w/woven screens.
 

Bulldogger

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
129
2
1,573
58
Clinton,MS
. I'd be shocked if I can perceive the microperf holes from 12' when the screen is up -- hope not to be shocked. Factor two is that I'm not putting speakers behind tbe screen, just absorbative material. Would be shocked too if I could hear the difference between a woven and microperf in this scenario. Hope again not to be shocked!
I can see the holes at 12 feet on bright scenes with the 1.4 ultramatte. I believe it was Stewart that warned me not to go with too high of a gain with a perforated screen for this reason. I do however have better than 20/20 corrected vision. As for hearing the difference that's easy and measurable,unlike a lot of things we often discuss in audio.That's what gave rise to the woven screens in the first place, the acoustical advantage. The micro-perfed screen blocks more sound which of course you know is why it needs EQ to work. It is therefore more reflective of the sound that is being bounced off of it from the the back wall and other points. Of course, you know that sound hits these reflection points bounces back and smears the direct sound from the speakers. Putting a solid screen on the same plane as the speakers, its almost like wall mounting them. The less transparent to sound, the screen, the more it will have this effect. Perforated screens are a lot less transparent to sound than most of the wovens and therefore are more similar to solid screens in this regard. Equalizing the perforated screen is what allows the micro-perf to work at all. However, eq will have no effect on the reflectivity of the front of the screen.The woven is less reflective inherently. Adding absorption at the back of the room,ceiling and other points to stop the sound from bouncing back in the first is the solution. Of course, I realize that you know that as well. I just do not care for too much absorption for music and prefer RPG Skyline diffusers especially for the ceiling and rear wall instead. I think you can use the micro-perf very effectively if you add enough absorption and are not bothered by the effect. In fact, for movies, I have heard some very good rooms where the speakers are even wall mounted. These rooms however have had a lot of absorption. The woven screens for the most part do not have the special coatings of Stewart screens. Most are just window shade materials. I remember speaking with Reuben at SMX and he was working with a company to make materials for screens which matched the specific properties that he needed so this may not be the case for his materials. It has been awhile since I have spoken with Chris Seymour so I have no idea how his new material was selected or if it was created like the path Reuben seemed to be taking. I guess it does not really matter if the end result is good.
 

rblnr

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
May 3, 2010
2,151
291
1,170
NYC/NJ
What works best in my experience is absorption in the front third of the room -- front wall, first side - ceiling -floor reflection, and diffusion in the back 2/3, other than the back wall which might require something thicker. Bass traps in the corners. If there is stuff on the walls -- CD, DVD racks, shelving, whatever, I don't bother with diffusion. It might help, but I don't want the room to get too 'Frankenstein' -esque if you know what I mean, although there are obviously very elegant ways to incorporate it.

It's all a tradeoff, weave vs. microperf and you just have to finally decide where you want to land in that equation. With my present solid screen, I'm getting about 100% of short and medium wavelengths reflected back at me. Let's say microperf knocks that down to 15% vs. weave, which would be 5% -- that's still huge improvement for me.
 

Bulldogger

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
129
2
1,573
58
Clinton,MS
What works best in my experience is absorption in the front third of the room -- front wall, first side - ceiling -floor reflection, and diffusion in the back 2/3, other than the back wall which might require something thicker. Bass traps in the corners. If there is stuff on the walls -- CD, DVD racks, shelving, whatever, I don't bother with diffusion. It might help, but I don't want the room to get too 'Frankenstein' -esque if you know what I mean, although there are obviously very elegant ways to incorporate it.

It's all a tradeoff, weave vs. microperf and you just have to finally decide where you want to land in that equation. With my present solid screen, I'm getting about 100% of short and medium wavelengths reflected back at me. Let's say microperf knocks that down to 15% vs. weave, which would be 5% -- that's still huge improvement for me.
I agree. It's ultimately your call on which trade off you want to make. I have a lot of fun experimenting. I have repeated this over the years. My wife once asked me,"How can buying stuff be a hobby?. If that's the case, then shopping is my hobby." I replied that hometheater is not just about buying stuff for me. I build things,measure acoustics,screens,electronics,etcs. Hands on is where the fun is. What you are doing now, actually taking the screen yourself and expermenting to see what you like is IMO, the most fun!
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing