# [Updated 10/21/21] 31 Acoustically Transparent Screen Materials Reviewed and Measured



## PixelPusher15

*[10/21/21 Update] Thank you to those that have followed along and have given such incredible feedback. Below is my updated and much improved results. More materials were added and a couple were removed. I believe many will find these results much more thorough. 

If you would like to jump to the comments for after this was updated, **click here**.

This is a copy and paste from my website. A lot of formatting, the table of contents and all of the images of acoustic measurements have been dropped from this version. If you would like to read its designed for format, **click here**.
_*

Finding the right screen and screen material for your home theater can be quite challenging. Screen size, screen gain, room environment, ambient light, projector light output, screen type, cost, and more can make anyone’s head spin. If you pick an acoustically transparent screen, things get more complicated: 1) there aren’t as many options, and 2) there are more variables to consider, which impact both picture and sound. Plus, acoustically transparent screens on average (at least woven ones) have a lower rated gain than your traditional screen material! Challenging, indeed.

It’s commonly recommended to get as many samples as possible and compare. That’s time-consuming, though, and it can be hard to know what to look for. The goal of this project was to do that comparison and report the findings, in detail, at one time and in one place. Removing as much subjectivity as possible, I’ve tested 31 acoustically transparent screen materials for dB loss, estimated screen gain, visible texture from eight, ten, and 13.5 feet, contrast, and sharpness.

*How should this be used?*
My goal is not to pick a screen for you. There is still some subjectivity involved when picking a screen. All of these screens have some tradeoffs. It is up to you to select the screen that fits your needs and desires. What this report can do is help you narrow down the list. I’d encourage anyone reading this to select a few that check the right boxes and order some samples. Then pick from that grouping.

*Materials Tested*

*Material**Material Type*Carl’s Place Nano Acoustic FlexiWhitePerforatedCarl’s Place Nano Acoustic FlexiGrayPerforatedCarl’s Place SheerWeave AcousticCoated WovenDreamScreen UltraWeave V6Bonded WovenDreamScreen UltraWeave V7Bonded WovenElite Screens AcousticPro 1080P3Uncoated WovenElite Screens AcousticPro UHDCoated WovenElite Screens AcousticPro 8KBonded WovenElite Screens Cinema White 8KBonded WovenSevertson Cinema White MicroPerfPerforatedSevertson BWATCoated WovenSevertson SAT-4KUncoated WovenSevertson TAT-4KUncoated WovenSeymour AV Center Stage UFUncoated WovenSeymour AV Center Stage XDCoated WovenSeymour-Screen Excellence Enlightor NeoUncoated WovenSeymour-Screen Excellence Enlightor BrightCoated WovenSilver Ticket WABCoated WovenSilver Ticket WVSUncoated WovenSpandex – white over black – from Fabric Wholesale DirectUncoated WovenSpandex – light silver over black – from Spandex WorldUncoated WovenStewart Filmscreen Harmony G2Uncoated WovenStewart Filmscreen GreyMatte 70 PerforatedPerforatedStewart Filmscreen FireHawk G5 PerforatedPerforatedStewart Filmscreen StudioTek 100 PerforatedPerforatedStewart Filmscreen StudioTek 130 G4 PerforatedPerforatedXY Screens Black Crystal PerforatedPerforatedXY Screens MFS 1 PerforatedPerforatedXY Screens Sound Max 5 PerforatedPerforatedXY Screens Sound Max 4KCoated WovenXY Screens Sound Max 8KCoated Woven


*Material Types*
Four types of acoustically transparent materials were tested:

standard screen material with micro-perforations to allow sound to pass through;
uncoated woven screen material with a t-shirt kind of feel
bonded woven is a material that has the black backing attached to the front material
coated woven screen material, like the strong outdoor fabric stretched across lounge chairs
Uncoated woven screens typically have less texture but are less sharp. Coated woven screens will typically have a higher gain and will be more sharp compared to the uncoated, but they have a tendency to show more texture. Bonded woven screens are very smooth, have good to great acoustics but struggle with sharpness. All types of woven screens can have good acoustic properties. The micro-perforated screens all suffer in dB attenuation and need a greater seating distance to not show texture. On the other hand, micro-perforated screens can offer very high gain or ambient light rejection characteristics that woven screens just can’t.

*The Results*
Here are the materials that really stood out after my battery of tests:

*Best Acoustics
XY Screens SoundMax 8K*
The SoundMax 8K is at the top of the list for both 4″ and 12″ speaker to material distances. It somehow beat one layer of spandex at 12″. If you need your speakers close to your screen and to have the material make the least acoustic impact, the SoundMax 8K is your pick. It also is very smooth, with no visual texture from even 8′. Gain comes in at 0.69. Sharpness is slightly improved over the SoundMax 4K but is still just ‘OK’. Even with a black backing, this material is great acoustically. It can be used without a black backing if the area behind the screen is black.

The SoundMax 8K and 4K both did so well that I reached out to XY Screens and have agreed to split their usual referral fee between myself and anyone that orders a screen mentions me. Just email Gloria at [email protected] and say you were referred by Andy at Pixel Home Theater. It should get you a $20-25 discount.

*Silver Ticket WAB*
The Silver Ticket WAB also performed extremely well acoustically for both 4″ and 12″. Estimated gain read at 0.70. It is a bit sharper than the SoundMax 8K but shows some graininess at 8′. Ten feet and beyond it appears smooth. Contrast is average for its material type. Overall, this is a very good material from a company with reasonably priced screens.

Sliver Ticket Thin Bezel Woven Acoustic Screen

Silver Ticket Standard Bezel Woven Acoustic Screen

*Editor’s Choice 
XY Screens SoundMax 4K*
This is my personal top pick of all the materials I tested. There is virtually no texture, it has a pretty high gain for a woven screen, its acoustic impacts are manageable at both 4″ and 12″. It maintained contrast well compared to the solid screen. One of the handful of materials I tested without a black backing and it had the lowest contrast drop in that test. Sharpness was rated as ‘Better’. Literally an editor’s choice as I picked it for my theater. I needed a screen that would show no texture at 11-12′, could work well with speakers at a close distance (4-5″), had a higher gain, and was DIY/budget-friendly. This screen checked all of my requirements.

I had a bit of trouble with this screen at first. I couldn’t find an orientation without visible moire. I eventually emailed XY Screens and they helped correct the orientation, which eliminated the moire. So, be careful with your orientation with this one.

See the notes on the SoundMax 8K for ordering information.

*Highest Gain
Severtson Cinema White MicroPerf*
The Severtson CWMP beat out the other high gain micro-perf screen I had on hand, the Stewart StudioTek 130 MP, on both acoustics and gain. (1.10 vs 1.02, although I do believe I may have gotten a bad StudioTek 130 sample as my measurements and the perceived gain did not line up with other 3rd parties measurements and perceptions). This screen showed some shimmer throughout the viewing distances. Sharpness and contrast will be good due to it being a high gain micro-perf screen. As with all the micro-perf screens, the more room you can give between speaker and screen the better. It is not recommended to install this screen within 6″.

Severtson screens appear to be available through their website here.

*Highest Gain, Woven 
Seymour-Screen Excellence Enlightor Bright*
The Enlightor Bright earned its name by coming in with an estimated gain of 0.85. Beating out its stablemate the CenterStage XD by 0.02. They appear to have identical weave patterns and thus both materials are very similar visually, and acoustically. They are ok in close proximity to the speakers but the amount of comb filtering may cause some EQ troubles. If placed at 12″ then they will do very well with just a dip in the higher frequencies that should be able to be very easy to EQ out. Texture-wise these materials struggled. I was able to see the weave at 8′ and even at 13.5′ they still appeared a bit grainy, a rarity for most woven screens I tested.

Seymour-Screen Excellence screens can only be purchased through an authorized dealer. To request samples and find a dealer go to their website here.

Seymour AV screens can be purchased here.

*Best Budget Material
Spandex/Milliskin Matte*
No surprises here. This material is an AVSForum darling and it is easy to see why. Spandex is so incredibly smooth with absolutely no texture from any seating distance. Acoustics are also stellar. Pretty impressive for a material that costs about $80 for both the front and back layers for a 120″ screen! I’ve used this material to make a screen and from experience, I can say that it is very easy and forgiving to install, making it a great DIY’ers choice. It gets knocked for sharpness, like most ultra-smooth woven materials, and its gain is on the low side at 0.64.

One thing to note with spandex is that stretching it can have a fairly significant impact on gain. I saw an almost 15% drop in gain when stretching the white spandex. My end measurement was done with fairly minimal stretching and should reflect a proper install. Do not overstretch spandex. Rose Brand sells a 120″ wide version and that is for sure recommended if going with a larger screen than the traditional 60″ wide can handle.

_Note that the spandex used for testing is from Fabric Wholesale Direct. There are multiple spandex manufacturers out there and I can’t comment on how each differs._

Fabric Wholesale Direct Matte Milliskin Tricot – White

Fabric Wholesale Direct Matte Milliskin Tricot – Black

*Honorable Mentions*
Just because a material didn’t get mentioned here doesn’t mean it isn’t good. There are a lot of solid acoustically transparent materials on the market right now. I encourage you to look over the data and find which screens can work for you.

Only six woven materials achieved 0.78 gain and over. All but one would get my recommendation. To that extent, I feel compelled to call out a couple that deserve the spotlight.

*Elite AcousticPro UHD*
This material has an identical weave pattern to the XY Screens SoundMax 4K material. Therefore, a lot of the measurements are in line with each other. The Elite AcousticPro 4K doesn’t do as well with acoustics but aside from that the screens perform very similarly; relatively high gain, ‘Better’ sharpness, and no texture visible. It is a bit warmer in color compared to the SoundMax 4K which can affect projector calibration.

Elite Screens Aeon Edge Free AcousticPro UHD Screen

*DreamScreen UltraWeave v6/v7*
The UltraWeave v7 is a highly regarded material and it did well on pretty much all fronts. Gain on the v7 comes in at 0.78 and 0.67 for the v6. Acoustics are very good on the v6. While on the v7 there is more attenuation across the frequency range, it is fairly flat which should be able to be easily accounted for with a little EQ and volume control. Like the other bonded materials, the v6 and v7 materials stood out for their complete lack of texture. Likewise, this affected their sharpness coming in as just ‘OK’. It is important to call out that both include their black backing so there is no guesswork on whether the area behind the screen will affect the performance of the materials.

The only place I know to order this screen in the US is from AVScience.

*The Measurements*

*Gain*

MaterialGainContrastReflectance Standard1.00–Severtson Cinema White 1.3 MP1.1053.4Stewart StudioTek 130 G4 MP1.0249.9Stewart StudioTek 1001.0148.8Carl’s FlexiWhite Nano0.9350.2Stewart StudioTek 100 MP0.9146.8Seymour Excellence Enlightor Bright0.8545.6Seymour Center Stage XD0.8345.7XY Screens Sound Max 5 Perforated0.8346.5Carl’s ShearWeave Acoustic0.80–Elite Screens AcousticPro UHD0.8045.0Carl’s FlexiGray Nano0.79–XY Screens Sound Max 4K0.7946.5DreamScreen UltraWeave V70.7846.3Stewart FireHawk G5 MP0.7862.7Silver Ticket Acoustic WAB0.7045.4XY Screens Sound Max 8K0.6945.5Severtson BWAT0.6945.4Silver Ticket Acoustic WVS0.6845.1Severtson SAT-4K0.6747.1Seymour Excellence NEO0.6745.2DreamScreen UltraWeave V60.6746.7Stewart Harmony G20.6645.9Seymour Center Stage UF0.6543.4Elite Screens AcousticPro 8K0.6445.6Spandex FWD White Spandex/Black0.6444.9XY Screens MFS 1 Perforated0.6156.3EPV CineWhite A8K0.6146.1Elite Screens AcousticPro 1080P30.5644.7Stewart GreyMatte 70 MP0.5549.0XY Screens Black Crystal Perforated0.5461.8Severtson TAT-4K0.4946.9Spandex World Light Silver/Black0.4345.1

All woven materials, except the Carl’s ShearWeave, were tested with the manufacturer’s supplied black backing. FWD = Fabric Wholesale Direct.
Here are the REW frequency response graphs for each material compared to the control measurement. The blue line is with psychoacoustic smoothing (what we should hear) and the grey line is 1/48 octave smoothing.

*4″ Between Material and Speaker*

_Frequency charts can be viewed here on Google Drive or here on my website (better option).

Example:







_

*12″ Between Material and Speaker*

_Frequency charts can be viewed here on Google Drive or here on my website (better option).

Example:







_

*dB Loss Numerical Data*
For this data, I set the smoothing to 1/3 octave and took readings at 1Khz, 5Khz, 10Khz, and 16Khz. I then calculated the average dB loss, max dB loss, and standard deviation. Lower numbers are better. The chart below is sorted by 4″ standard deviation. It is sorted this way because high average loss isn’t necessarily bad. If the standard deviation is low, and there aren’t a lot of peaks and nulls in the psychoacoustic graph then the higher losses can easily be adjusted for by higher volume, or power. An example of this is the Seymour-Screen Excellence Enlightor Neo. At 4″, it has one of the highest average losses but a low standard deviation with a pretty flat psychoacoustic graph.


*Material**4″ Std Dev.*4″ Max4″ Avg.12″ Std Dev.12″ Max12″ Avg.Spandex FWD 1 Layer0.11.00.80.31.20.9XY Screens Sound Max 8K0.21.10.90.21.40.8Silver Ticket Acoustic WAB0.31.10.80.41.50.9Spandex FWD 2 Layers0.31.61.30.52.21.6Stewart Harmony G20.32.52.20.52.82.2Severtson BWAT0.31.41.00.51.81.1Dreamscreen V60.32.11.70.52.31.7XY Screens Sound Max 8K + BB0.31.61.30.62.21.4Stewart Harmony G2 + BB0.42.62.20.53.02.4Seymour Excellence NEO0.44.13.80.64.43.7Elite Screens AcousticPro 1080P30.42.21.90.52.62.0Seymour Center Stage UF0.42.92.50.53.22.6Elite Screens CineWhite A8K0.42.92.40.63.12.4Elite Screens AcousticPro 8K0.42.52.10.62.82.1Seymour Excellence NEO + BB0.54.44.00.74.84.0Severtson SAT-4K0.52.41.90.62.82.0Elite Screens AcousticPro 1080P3 + BB0.52.72.20.63.02.3Severtson SAT-4K + BB0.53.93.31.04.83.6Silver Ticket Acoustic WVS0.62.92.30.63.12.3Severtson BWAT + BB0.63.32.80.94.02.9Seymour Center Stage XD + BB0.62.62.20.83.32.3Severtson TAT-4K + BB0.64.53.91.05.24.0XY Screens Sound Max 4K0.62.51.80.93.11.9Severtson TAT-4K0.63.22.50.83.62.6Silver Ticket Acoustic WVS + BB0.63.52.90.73.82.9XY Screens Sound Max 4K + BB0.62.72.11.03.62.3Dreamscreen V70.64.13.41.04.43.2Seymour Center Stage XD0.72.71.90.93.32.0Seymour Excellence EN-B0.82.81.91.03.42.0Seymour Center Stage UF + BB0.84.13.00.73.72.7Silver Ticket Acoustic WAB + BB0.82.81.80.62.51.6Seymour Excellence EN-B + BB0.83.22.31.03.72.4Elite Screens AcousticPro UHD0.94.23.20.94.83.4Carl’s ShearWeave Acoustic0.92.71.71.33.71.9Elite Screens AcousticPro UHD + BB1.14.83.60.84.83.7Severtson Cinema White 1.3 MP1.64.52.61.03.12.1Carl’s Nano Acoustic1.74.62.72.15.62.7XY Screens MFS 1 Perforated2.05.63.32.66.83.4Stewart GreyMatte 70 MP2.15.73.22.46.53.2Stewart StudioTek 100 MP2.15.73.22.46.53.2Stewart StudioTek 130 G4 MP2.16.03.62.77.33.7Stewart FireHawk G5 MP2.26.03.52.87.43.7XY Screens Sound Max 5 Perforated2.87.74.53.28.64.5XY Screens Black Crystal Perforated2.87.84.63.28.74.5
FWD = Fabric Wholesale Direct.​
*Commentary and Buying Guide *
While performing and researching this project and because of the great feedback I received on first version I have learned a lot. A lot that I don’t believe is readily available or known by those shopping for an acoustically transparent screen. Here is a summary of what I have learned:

*The Distance Between Speakers and Screen Has a Big Impact on Acoustics*
In my measurements I saw that not all screens were affected equally by adding more space between the speaker but as a general rule the peaks and dips were significantly reduced. The is especially true for perforated screens. Comb filtering is greatly reduced as the speaker is moved back and the entire frequency range is much more manageable for equalization.Placing a screen directly in front of in-wall speakers should be done with great care and planning. A micro-perf screen will not work for close distances. Most manufacturers recommend at least six inches but I’d recommend shooting for the 12 inches for a micro-perf screen. This study commissioned by Screen Excellence was referenced many times. In it you can see how increasing the distance between the screen and speaker can have a significant impact.

*Not Using a Black Backing Negatively Impacts Contrast*
All woven acoustically transparent screens took a hit compared to a solid screen. Perforated screens can maintain contrast better because they can have some ambient light rejecting properties to them. But a perforated screen will still lose some contrast compared to its solid counterpart. On average I saw a 6.5% drop in contrast between a solid screen and a woven screen with its black backing. Bonded screens did slightly better. I measured another 4-6% percent drop when the black backing was removed with a max drop of 12% for my intra-scene contrast pattern. This isn’t a huge change but if you are trying to muster every bit of performance out of your projector then it may be worth accounting for.

*There Are No Woven Unity Gain Screens*
No matter the ratings by many manufacturers, there are no woven screens that hit a gain of 1.0. This isn’t an error in my measurement equipment. I have a reflectance standard and a screen that measures nearly identical to it (StudioTek 100). No woven screen can touch it. Visually, it is plainly obvious when comparing them to each other too. I have also learned that many manufacturers are not rating their materials with reflectance standards but instead with comparisons to other screens or maybe with their own methods. I saw with samples that were sent to me and conversations with manufacturers that there are unit to unit variations so even comparing numbers to other known screens and their gains can be flawed. I hope in the future that all manufacturers use industry accepted reflectance standards and have them routinely calibrated.

*Treating the Area Behind the Screen Is Crucial*
What happens to the the sound that doesn’t make it through the screen? Well, some of it may get absorbed in a woven screen but a lot of it will get reflected back behind the screen. Then what? If you have it treated with sound absorbing materials then mostly nothing will happen. The sound will be absorbed and you’re good to go. But, if you don’t then this sound energy will get trapped, build, and then come through the screen causing peaks in your frequency response. Treat the area behind your screen as best you can. And if possible, add some sound absorption to the baffle of your speakers.

*Testing Methodology *
*Max dB Loss*
For measuring acoustic attenuation I used a calibrated UMIK-1 microphone, REW installed on a 2015 MacBook Pro, and a PreSonus E3.5 powered monitor. I built a rig to hold each material and to block sound from diffracting around the outer edge of the material holder. This rig was 3’x3′ and lined with mineral wool on the speaker side. All woven materials were tested with and without their manufacturer-supplied black backings.

*Estimated Gain and Contrast*
I used my X-Rite i1Display Pro colorimeter hooked up to HCFR measuring an Epson 5050UB projector to estimate gain. An Optikon reflectance standard was used to establish a 1.0 gain reading. Since my meter has a 5-degree viewing angle, these measurements aren’t perfectly on-axis but they are very close. Because of this, they are listed as estimated gain. These numbers should be compared against each other in this report, not against other benchmarks. All woven materials were tested with their manufacturer-supplied black backings.

In this same setup, I also measured contrast with a self-created pattern. This pattern was a sort of contrast torture test:









This is the two patterns combined in one image; I measured the small white/black box in each pattern. This pattern was created so black and white would be projected on my letter sized sample swatches. This way I could see if light back bleed would alter the contrast ratio. Again, every woven material was measured with its black backing. I also tested a select few without to see how the results were impacted. Dark grey acoustic foam as seen in the picture below was behind the materials during testing.

*Texture*








To test the visible texture, I created a rig that could be hung from my screen’s french cleat and hold about 8-9 screen samples. For evaluating texture I displayed a 100% white image, an image of clouds, a couple of videos that panned across sky and mountains. These bright areas, and specifically while the camera is panning, are where a screen shows its worst texture characteristics.

My subjective analysis was done from eight, ten, and 13.5 feet away. I also would view each sample at an angle to see if any moire would develop. All woven materials were tested with their manufacturer-supplied black backings.

*Sharpness*
For evaluating each screen’s abilities to accurately show fine details I used the Quick Brown Fox pattern and took pictures of the same area for each screen. I compared each material to a piece of paper as a reference. I used a FujiFilm XT-10 and an iPhone XS in an attempt to capture each screen’s detail reproduction. This did not turn out flawlessly. Using auto-exposure was essential since the brighter screen almost always looks more detailed. Doing so resulted in each camera sometimes getting tripped up and not entirely capturing what is seen in real life. In the end I used the photo captures and my own eyes to establish an OK/Good/Better/Best rating. Here is a representation of what each category looks like:









A piece of paper is on the left in each example. The paper looks slightly less sharp than the StudioTek 100 MP ‘Best’ example. This was a camera/light bleed issue. ‘Best’ is virtually equal to paper.​
*The Spreadsheet of “Truth”*
Here you can find all my measurements and notes on the visible texture of each screen material.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Reserved.


----------



## Lygren

Nice review! The fact that the v6 and v7 includes the black backing should probably be included in the overview on the AT-measurements as I take it you did not include a backing on the others? As for the XY-measurements, measured by Gorm Sorensen, a THX / ISF-calibrator, the 4K XY measured in about 10% lower than the v7, but they might have alternated their fabric somewhat since he took the measurements. I take it you used a black backing on each measurement of single-layered fabrics (i.e. all fabrics except the v6 / v7)? 

Regardless, good work on doing such an extensive report on AT materials.


----------



## rjyap

Thanks for the effort. I'm in the market for AT screen and XYScreen been on my consideration. Looks like I would either go for 4k or 8k. I'm more concern on the sound quality so most likely will go for 8k. Will put your name in as reference.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Lygren said:


> Nice review! The fact that the v6 and v7 includes the black backing should probably be included in the overview on the AT-measurements as I take it you did not include a backing on the others? As for the XY-measurements, measured by Gorm Sorensen, a THX / ISF-calibrator, the 4K XY measured in about 10% lower than the v7, but they might have alternated their fabric somewhat since he took the measurements. I take it you used a black backing on each measurement of single-layered fabrics (i.e. all fabrics except the v6 / v7)?
> 
> Regardless, good work on doing such an extensive report on AT materials.


Hey Lygren,
I updated the text here to include that the DreamScreen materials do include the black backing. I also mentioned it where I called it out specifically in the best of section. I was very impressed by how well the DreamScreen materials measured based on how thick they were. The combined thickness of the spandex is much thinner than the v6 but the v6 performs better

I did not use a black backing for anything other than the spandex since it is pretty much the standard to use a layer of black and white spandex. I thought about using a layer of black spandex as the black backing for every other screen and measure each with and without but the single layer of spandex didn't measure as well as a lot of manufacturers quoted acoustic attenuation for their black backings. Seymour sites their black backing only attenuates an average of 0.3dB, although they don't list a max. Silver Ticket has theirs at -0.2dB as an average.


----------



## Lygren

Thanks. As for the black backing it is important in order to avoid any back reflection. Even a grey absorbant in the back would potentially reflect light back through the fabric and thus contaminate the results. Not saying it has neccessarily happened in your case, but the fact that our measurements are very different to yours on the v7 vs the xy 4k that we used for our official benchmark measurements is a bit weird. As stated to you over pm it might also be an issue with the v7 sample as we have unfortunately shipped out a damaged batch to our US distributor, and as such would be happy to ship you a fresh sample if you have the time to remeasure. Thanks again for the good work! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lygren

Black backings, btw, attenuate quite differently. Many use the same material as their front layer, just dyed black, and as such doubling their AT blockage. 0.3dB is very low, lower than most very thin speaker grille fabrics, so I would say it would normally add 0.7-1.5dB based on type of material being used.

I should also add that getting the backing 100% tensioned towards the front layer is very hard and even the slightest distance would add ghosting. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PixelPusher15

Lygren said:


> Thanks. As for the black backing it is important in order to avoid any back reflection. Even a grey absorbant in the back would potentially reflect light back through the fabric and thus contaminate the results. Not saying it has neccessarily happened in your case, but the fact that our measurements are very different to yours on the v7 vs the xy 4k that we used for our official benchmark measurements is a bit weird. As stated to you over pm it might also be an issue with the v7 sample as we have unfortunately shipped out a damaged batch to our US distributor, and as such would be happy to ship you a fresh sample if you have the time to remeasure. Thanks again for the good work!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As I also just stated over PM that I do think a new batch of tests should be done with the black backing on all the materials that need one. I also would love to get a fresh sample of the v7 material. I'll add it to the bunch when I do the gain measures over again. I think I'll also try to secure a couple of samples of black backing and test those to see how they measure acoustically. Let's dub my measurements above as version 0.1 

Edit: I updated the top of this post saying I will be performing an update as soon as I am able


----------



## PerryH

Which Silver Ticket woven screen did you test?

I believe they have 2. In their screen products the 2 types are differentiated by WAB and WVS at the end.


----------



## PixelPusher15

PerryH said:


> Which Silver Ticket woven screen did you test?
> 
> I believe they have 2. In their screen products the 2 types are differentiated by WAB and WVS at the end.


It appears I may need to follow up with Silver Ticket and find out exactly what I tested. I thought the WVS and the WAB were the same but the WAB had the black backing. But I saw this review and they said that ST said they are different: Silver Ticket WVS 125" 2.35:1 Screen Review • Home Theater Forum

I ordered this sample kit from Silver Ticket for my testing and it sites it as the WAB material which is supposed to have a black backing, mine didn’t:Material Samples Kit for STR, STC & STT Series Fixed Screens

I have an email out to them now trying to obtain a sample of the black backing material they use and in that email I stated my belief that they are the same material just one has the black backing. We’ll see how they respond and if I can get that black backing sample. Stay tuned, I guess.


----------



## stef2

Thank you for that useful comparison of those various AT materials! I am currently looking to upgrade my Seymour Center Stage XD. My new screen will be approximately 15-20% bigger (area) and my first goal is to avoid dropping in nits while going larger. I think I will have no choice but to go with the ST130, vhich seems to have 20% more gain than the XD.

My biggest disappointment is the Severtson BWAT, which seems to has 14% less gain than the XD. I was certainly hoping the BWAT to have more gain than the Center Stage XD, and I "wanted" it to measure much closer (gain wise) to the ST130.

I have recently ordered some samples (ST130 microperf, Ultramatte 150 microperf, Severtson BWAT, Sound Max4K, mainly) and I will post a brief "relative" gain comparison as soon as I have them on hand.


----------



## squared80

PixelPusher15 said:


> It appears I may need to follow up with Silver Ticket and find out exactly what I tested. I thought the WVS and the WAB were the same but the WAB had the black backing.


They are different. I'm pretty much sold on the WVS, but I, too, would be curious which one you tested.


----------



## donivan

Thank's for taking the time to do this thorough testing! I want to go with a bigger screen so need all the real world gain I can get. I'm considering the ST130 MP but currently have Severtson Cinema White Microperf 1.3 gain. Any chance you can add the Severtson CWMP to the next round to see how it compares to the other perforated materials? I may have a sample laying around if needed.


----------



## PixelPusher15

donivan said:


> Thank's for taking the time to do this thorough testing! I want to go with a bigger screen so need all the real world gain I can get. I'm considering the ST130 MP but currently have Severtson Cinema White Microperf 1.3 gain. Any chance you can add the Severtson CWMP to the next round to see how it compares to the other perforated materials? I may have a sample laying around if needed.


I just sent an email asking for a sample.


----------



## PixelPusher15

PerryH said:


> Which Silver Ticket woven screen did you test?
> 
> I believe they have 2. In their screen products the 2 types are differentiated by WAB and WVS at the end.





squared80 said:


> They are different. I'm pretty much sold on the WVS, but I, too, would be curious which one you tested.


I just confirmed with Silver Ticket, I tested the WAB material. I'll update the post. From what I've heard, the WVS is supposed to be better compared to the WAB so this is interesting. I have a sample of their black backing coming as well. 

An update for the Elite Screens materials: they don't sell/include the UHD material with a black backing but include a detachable black backing for the 1080P3 material with certain screens. I'm still waiting back from a rep to see if I was supposed to get a black backing with my sample or if they can send me one.


----------



## stef2

donivan said:


> Thank's for taking the time to do this thorough testing! I want to go with a bigger screen so need all the real world gain I can get. I'm considering the ST130 MP but currently have Severtson Cinema White Microperf 1.3 gain. Any chance you can add the Severtson CWMP to the next round to see how it compares to the other perforated materials? I may have a sample laying around if needed.


I would also a direct comparison between ST130 microperf and Cinema White microperf. I have some samples on the way and will be comparing their relative gain as soon as I get them. My current AT screen is the Seymour AV Center Stage XD and I am looking for more brightness.


----------



## aron7awol

First of all, kudos for the time and effort put in here. As someone who has done independent testing of different things myself and shared the results with the community, I respect and appreciate the contribution you are making here, and so I hope this feedback comes across positively...

1. I think not including a back backing on each sample could be polluting the gain results significantly.
2. Some AT screens, especially microperf specifically, aren't intended to have the speakers right up against the back of the screen, so their results could also be affected significantly.


----------



## PixelPusher15

aron7awol said:


> First of all, kudos for the time and effort put in here. As someone who has done independent testing of different things myself and shared the results with the community, I respect and appreciate the contribution you are making here, and so I hope this feedback comes across positively...
> 
> 1. I think not including a back backing on each sample could be polluting the gain results significantly.
> 2. Some AT screens, especially microperf specifically, aren't intended to have the speakers right up against the back of the screen, so their results could also be affected significantly.


Thank you for the feedback, I appreciate it.

I’m going to run all the materials through at least another battery of gain tests and will probably do a REW sweep again with the black backings. This will mean I'll have to do it with all 25 26 samples to make sure my measurements are consistent, sigh. I agree that without the black backing it isn’t giving the full picture and that’s needed.

I didn’t know that about the microperf screens. Do you have documentation on that? Also, it may look like it is right up against the frame in the photo I attached but there is about 2 inches of space between the tweeter and material. I theoretically could move the samples a foot away from the speaker and then place the UMIK-1 a few inches in front of that and do another comparison. I have a request from another member asking for the off-axis measurements of each as well. I'm not sure I could do the off-axis + increasing the distance on such a small sample.


----------



## aron7awol

PixelPusher15 said:


> I didn’t know that about the microperf screens. Do you have documentation on that? Also, it may look like it is right up against the frame in the photo I attached but there is about 2 inches of space between the tweeter and material. I theoretically could move the samples a foot away from the speaker and then place the UMIK-1 a few inches in front of that and do another comparison.


From Defining the Difference in Perforated Screens - Stewart

"The speakers behind the screen need to be a minimum of 12 inches away from the rear surface for the best performance. They found that if the speakers are closer to the fabric, comb filtering can occur but when installed to specification, minimal attenuation occurs permitting truly transparent audio. "

I think it's at least worth experimenting with different spacings to see what difference it makes, and then go from there? It might make sense to check if moving the UMIK a foot from the sample also makes a similar difference.


----------



## PixelPusher15

aron7awol said:


> From Defining the Difference in Perforated Screens - Stewart
> 
> "The speakers behind the screen need to be a minimum of 12 inches away from the rear surface for the best performance. They found that if the speakers are closer to the fabric, comb filtering can occur but when installed to specification, minimal attenuation occurs permitting truly transparent audio. "
> 
> I think it's at least worth experimenting with different spacings to see what difference it makes, and then go from there? It might make sense to check if moving the UMIK a foot from the sample also makes a similar difference.


Thanks! This is helpful. Looks like I'll be doing a few sweeps to test some things out. I'll probably try out a few placements with the best performing materials and see how it changes things. I wish I could find a way to just see the delta between two measurements in REW. I asked elsewhere and didn't get any bites. It would help speed up these tests I have planned and make the info a bit more clear


----------



## aron7awol

One more question...how did you benchmark your gain measurements? Many seem significantly higher than other measurements I've seen elsewhere, so I was initially applying an adjustment to your measurements (0.89x) to bring them down much closer to expected (and I believe closer to reality) compared to previously published measurements for the ST130 microperf and Seymour XD. This seems to work pretty well, but that adjustment then brings Dreamscreen lower than expected.


----------



## PixelPusher15

aron7awol said:


> One more question...how did you benchmark your gain measurements? Many seem significantly higher than other measurements I've seen elsewhere, so I was initially applying an adjustment to your measurements (0.89x) to bring them down much closer to expected (and I believe closer to reality) compared to previously published measurements for the ST130 microperf and Seymour XD. This seems to work pretty well, but that adjustment then brings Dreamscreen lower than expected.


I used DreamScreen's published measurements and the StudioTek 130. There's some that come in right on spec too. I threw in a white Silver Ticket material that is spec'd at 1.1 gain and I measured it at 1.11. Interestingly, the FireHawk G5 came in at 0.97 but is spec'd at 1.1 gain and the Snomatte 70 is spec'd at 0.7 and I measured it at 0.71. I'm guessing I may have been slightly off axis and that impacted the FireHawk but the StudioTek 130 also should have been a bit off as well. They both drop about 0.1 gain at a 10 degree angle.

For some of the others my assumption now is that the black backing will play a factor in reducing some of the gain measurements. The next go around I'll also pay closer attention to my angle of measurement. This started out as mainly a woven screen comparison where being off a few degrees didn't have much of an impact.

I'm fairly confident in my meters consistency btw. For a couple of samples I experimented with removing them and then reattaching them to see if the measurements were the same. I didn't see more than a 1nit variation which here would equate to a +/-0.01 gain variation. I recall testing the StudioTek about 3 or 4 times to see if I could hit a perfect 130 nits just because it would be neat but it kept coming up between 129.5 and 129.9. That being said, I have plans to buy an i1 Display Pro soon so the next round of tests may be done with that.

Edit: thanks again for the feedback and questions. I'd like this to be as helpful as possible and I'm very open to critiques and suggestions on how to improve it.


----------



## aron7awol

ST130 is 1.3 gain for solid screen. Microperf has ~10% open area so gain should be around 90% of solid spec gain:

ST130 MP 1.3 -> 1.17
Firehawk G5 MP 1.1 -> 0.99
GrayMatte 70 MP 0.7 -> 0.63

In general, published gains cannot be trusted unless they are benchmarked against a known reference material (such as ST100). So I wouldn't trust the Silver Ticket spec.

You may want to reference the AccuCal report to try to help adjust yours:


https://www.accucalav.com/wp-content/uploads/accucal_front_projection_screen_report.pdf



As for calculating, summarizing, and presenting your acoustical transparency data, maybe it would be best to export the FRs to csv and open in Excel. Then you can do the subtraction you are looking to do and also will have the data all in a spreadsheet to summarize if you want.


----------



## PixelPusher15

aron7awol said:


> ST130 is 1.3 gain for solid screen. Microperf has ~10% open area so gain should be around 90% of solid spec gain:
> 
> ST130 MP 1.3 -> 1.17
> Firehawk G5 MP 1.1 -> 0.99
> GrayMatte 70 MP 0.7 -> 0.63
> 
> In general, published gains cannot be trusted unless they are benchmarked against a known reference material (such as ST100). So I wouldn't trust the Silver Ticket spec.
> 
> You may want to reference the AccuCal report to try to help adjust yours:
> 
> 
> https://www.accucalav.com/wp-content/uploads/accucal_front_projection_screen_report.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> As for calculating, summarizing, and presenting your acoustical transparency data, maybe it would be best to export the FRs to csv and open in Excel. Then you can do the subtraction you are looking to do and also will have the data all in a spreadsheet to summarize if you want.


Tremendously helpful. Thank you.

I didn’t think about exporting it to Excel even though I saw the CSV option. Since I’m doing another round of tests I’m reaching out to Stewart for a Harmony G2 sample and I’ll also request a ST100 sample as well for benchmarking.


----------



## howiee

Top work on this thread! Much appreciated.


----------



## gworrel

It would be nice to see some pricing on the different materials as well. If that is frowned upon here, then maybe just on your website. 

I seem to remember some audio tests done in the past that indicated the best results were with the fabric as close as possible to the speakers. I think those tests were on spandex and XD. Perhaps the microperfed screens are different.


----------



## mindedc

Microperf are very different from a woven screen and require more space to the speakers. You also have more rear reflections.

The other thing to keep in mind is that all of these screens are really meant to be used with EQ in this modern day. In the stone ages you didn't have audyssey, dirac or even PEQ. We have that now so anyone using these screens should be planning on using room correction or at the very least EQ to compensate for any attenuation in the material. Comparing loss is interesting and informative that there is a significant power delta for your amplification chain for a .1db loss vs a 3db loss, but as long as these materials don't have any excessive dips it will all get corrected out after audio calibration.

Final observation, you are measuring small "sample swatches" of the material at a full spectrum with REW. There is a phenomenon whereas if the primary dimension of the object is below (I believe, any acousticians watching please correct me), 1/2 the wavelength of a given frequency it will simply wrap around the object instead of passing through it. You are then comparing the size and side material construction (baffle edge diffraction) of your test rig vs the fabric. You should be cutting the sweep off at the lower boundary of the fabric swatch to pass sound through vs around. For this reason I think you should also be using a larger swatch as the small swatches you are testing will push that frequency quite high. Again, any actual acousticians please tell me if I'm completely wrong.


----------



## PixelPusher15

mindedc said:


> Microperf are very different from a woven screen and require more space to the speakers. You also have more rear reflections.
> 
> The other thing to keep in mind is that all of these screens are really meant to be used with EQ in this modern day. In the stone ages you didn't have audyssey, dirac or even PEQ. We have that now so anyone using these screens should be planning on using room correction or at the very least EQ to compensate for any attenuation in the material. Comparing loss is interesting and informative that there is a significant power delta for your amplification chain for a .1db loss vs a 3db loss, but as long as these materials don't have any excessive dips it will all get corrected out after audio calibration.
> 
> Final observation, you are measuring small "sample swatches" of the material at a full spectrum with REW. There is a phenomenon whereas if the primary dimension of the object is below (I believe, any acousticians watching please correct me), 1/2 the wavelength of a given frequency it will simply wrap around the object instead of passing through it. You are then comparing the size and side material construction (baffle edge diffraction) of your test rig vs the fabric. You should be cutting the sweep off at the lower boundary of the fabric swatch to pass sound through vs around. For this reason I think you should also be using a larger swatch as the small swatches you are testing will push that frequency quite high. Again, any actual acousticians please tell me if I'm completely wrong.


Thanks for the input!

Totally agree with the fact that most if not all of these screens can have their acoustic impacts removed. I'm looking forward to making new graphs in Excel so it can be easier to see if there are any big dips that would make it difficult to EQ out.

I was wondering about the sample size and if something like this would happen. It isn't possible for me to get larger swatches since I would have to pay to do so and it would get pricey, I'm assuming here a bit. An idea I did have was to create a sort of enclosure with some mineral wool on all four sides but no have anything rigid behind the MW so no frequencies would go through the MW and bounce off the side "walls" then make their way back to the mic. Could be hard to set up but I have a bunch of 16" wide acoustic panels that are made with 3" mineral wool. The panels are 48" tall so it would allow me to make some adjustments to the distance between the speaker, screen sample, and mic. Thoughts on this as a setup for the next round of tests?


----------



## sathyakamaraj

Terrific thread !!! Good to see that XY screen results are attractive.


----------



## rcohen

Wow! I really appreciate all your hard work for an ultimate AT test. There's nothing else like this out there!
I'm in the market, so this answers a lot of questions for me.
If you are going to repeat the tests, here are some specific things I'm wondering about:

1) Sound response at a speaker-screen distance that's roughly consistent with manuf. guidelines. Probably the same distance for all materials, to keep it fair. This would tell me much more about a proper setup.

2) Off-axis response. One of my concerns about microperf screens is off-axis performance. It would be really interesting to see the same tests with the material frame rotated 30 degrees or so. I pick that number because it's a typical angle to left and right speakers.

3) Native contrast. I have heard that light leakage on some AT screens results in a washed out image. It would be great to have an objective measurement on the effect this has on native contrast. With and without backing layers would be ideal, but whatever is practical would be very helpful.

4) Sharpness. I have also heard that some AT screens have sharpness issues. No idea how to measure this, except perhaps subjectively.

In regards to room correction, I honestly don't think testing room correction is worth all the time and effort. We already know what room correction does. Measuring it would tell us more about your system's output and room correction capabilities than the screens. Measuring attenuation (as you are) and explaining it in your post (as you are) is really all that's needed there, with one exception: Off-axis response. Rotating the material tells us how well sound problems introduced by the screen can be corrected.

Speaking selfishly, my top contenders are XD and G4 materials, so I'd love to see those compared. That said, I'm sure many people are interested in all the materials.

Also, I noticed that the mdat file has 1/6 octave smoothing baked into it (unless I'm doing something wrong.) It would also be interesting if you shared an unsmoothed file.

Thanks again, regardless of whether you are able to do the extra requests!


----------



## rcohen

Thinking a little more about the native contrast test, I guess it would be important to limit the projected region to the frame. Otherwise, light would go around the sample and spoil the results.


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> Thinking a little more about the native contrast test, I guess it would be important to limit the projected region to the frame. Otherwise, light would go around the sample and spoil the results.


Thanks for the feedback!

1) I haven't fully decided on how I'm going to place the materials the second go around. I might do some experiementing to see where each material type performs its best and then do that for each type. Each specific material may perform better at a unique distance but that's a *ton* of work to figure out so I don't think I'm going to go that route. I also want to be mindful of how people will actually set up their speakers. Therefore I may do close-up measurements as I have already done and some others at what I find to be the optimal distance for each type (perforated, flexible woven, and stiff woven).

2) I do want to do some off-axis testing but my plan right now is to only do it for the top dozen screens or so. Maybe that will change but I don't have unlimited amounts of time. My plan was to do it at 15 degrees based on some other feedback I got from @nathan_h 

3) From my understanding, a washed out image would come from light leakage that gets reflected off the surfaces behind the screen and then coming through the dark parts of the image. A black backing should "fix" this. It will be very hard for me to test this since I only have samples. I think the best way to test it would be to take ANSI contrast measurements and see if the white areas are leaking light through the back and impacting the black areas. It would take a large sample to make this test equal across the board. Also, this would be environment-dependent. If everything behind my screen was painted super flat black, it would not be a comparable test to someone putting an AT screen on a white wall with in wall speakers. So, the root problem is light leakage. This I may be able to actually test by placing the meter behind the material and measuring how much light gets through it and the black backing (if equipped). 

4) I don't plan on doing more subjective analysis with all the samples but I think some data can be gleaned from my texture notes for each material. This is just a hunch but, the materials with the most texture would most likely impact the perceived sharpness the most. Less texture = a more accurate depiction of the image. As I said in my test, the DreamScreen materials and spandex showed the pixel structure of the 5050UB from a few feet away. No other material could match it. That leads me to believe that the finer details will be masked more and more the worse the texture is. I may experiment with this a bit by taking a sample from each texture score and seeing how they do with a detailed image. 

Thanks again for the feedback, I appreciate it. The more feedback I get, the better my next round of tests will be. I'm targeting the second week in August to do more testing as I am on vacation next week and I'm waiting for more samples to come in, and possibly a new calibration meter.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> Thanks for the feedback!


Back seat driving is easy!




PixelPusher15 said:


> 1) I haven't fully decided on how I'm going to place the materials the second go around. I might do some experiementing to see where each material type performs its best and then do that for each type. Each specific material may perform better at a unique distance but that's a *ton* of work to figure out so I don't think I'm going to go that route. I also want to be mindful of how people will actually set up their speakers. Therefore I may do close-up measurements as I have already done and some others at what I find to be the optimal distance for each type (perforated, flexible woven, and stiff woven).


I don't think there is a "best" distance so much as a minimum distance, as long as it's typical. I think anywhere in the range of 1-2 feet would be great to avoid the worst problems.




PixelPusher15 said:


> 2) I do want to do some off-axis testing but my plan right now is to only do it for the top dozen screens or so. Maybe that will change but I don't have unlimited amounts of time. My plan was to do it at 15 degrees based on some other feedback I got from @nathan_h


The most important angles are the LCR angles.
The Dolby spec for that is 22-30 degrees, so according to that, 26 and 0 degrees are the "correct" angles to measure.





5.1 Virtual Speaker Setup


Use our speaker placement guide to optimize your home theater with 5.1. virtual speaker setup with Dolby Atmos sound. Enjoy your entertainment in Dolby.




www.dolby.com








PixelPusher15 said:


> 3) From my understanding, a washed out image would come from light leakage that gets reflected off the surfaces behind the screen and then coming through the dark parts of the image. A black backing should "fix" this. It will be very hard for me to test this since I only have samples. I think the best way to test it would be to take ANSI contrast measurements and see if the white areas are leaking light through the back and impacting the black areas. It would take a large sample to make this test equal across the board. Also, this would be environment-dependent. If everything behind my screen was painted super flat black, it would not be a comparable test to someone putting an AT screen on a white wall with in wall speakers. So, the root problem is light leakage. This I may be able to actually test by placing the meter behind the material and measuring how much light gets through it and the black backing (if equipped).


I'm not sure if I explained this clearly, but my suggestion would be to use a checker test image that cropped everything outside the smallest sample to black. That should solve the sample size problem. Since your behind screen stuff is black, I'd consider that a valid test. Anyone can achieve the same results using these screen materials + some black paint.

Measuring light leakage sounds much better than no data (which is where we stand today.) There is a potential problem, though. Some materials are translucent (to varying degrees) and some are opaque (referring the solid portions, not the holes.) The opaque materials probably handle the same amount of light leakage much better.




PixelPusher15 said:


> 4) I don't plan on doing more subjective analysis with all the samples but I think some data can be gleaned from my texture notes for each material. This is just a hunch but, the materials with the most texture would most likely impact the perceived sharpness the most. Less texture = a more accurate depiction of the image. As I said in my test, the DreamScreen materials and spandex showed the pixel structure of the 5050UB from a few feet away. No other material could match it. That leads me to believe that the finer details will be masked more and more the worse the texture is. I may experiment with this a bit by taking a sample from each texture score and seeing how they do with a detailed image.


You might be right that sharpness is related to texture. Either way, the texture details are great. It's also possible that sharpness problems are caused by translucent materials (subsurface scattering.) I don't really know. I'd consider this to be a lower priority, though, unless you notice important differences. Hard to say, since I don't have them in front of me.




PixelPusher15 said:


> Thanks again for the feedback, I appreciate it. The more feedback I get, the better my next round of tests will be. I'm targeting the second week in August to do more testing as I am on vacation next week and I'm waiting for more samples to come in, and possibly a new calibration meter.


That's good to know, as I plan my purchase. Thanks!


----------



## Don Stewart

Over the years, I have witnessed testing of AT screen materials on several occasions at professional audio labs including THX and Harman JBL. In each case, the testing was done in an anecholic sound chamber. The mic was set one meter, (39.37") back from the screen surface for on and off axis readings. With the woven type AT materials, it was measured with and without the black backing fabric so one could judge the differences.. With perforated type screens, no secondary black fabric was used as they are typically installed without the need of a backing fabric. Anyway, hope that helps you out.

Best Regards,
Don


----------



## rcohen

Don Stewart said:


> Over the years, I have witnessed testing of AT screen materials on several occasions at professional audio labs including THX and Harman JBL. In each case, the testing was done in an anecholic sound chamber. The mic was set one meter, (39.37") back from the screen surface for on and off axis readings. With the woven type AT materials, it was measured with and without the black backing fabric so one could judge the differences.. With perforated type screens, no secondary black fabric was used as they are typically installed without the need of a backing fabric. Anyway, hope that helps you out.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Don


Thanks, Don!
What were the results of these tests?
Do you have any links?

I tweaked my Google search and got a few hits!



https://screenexcellence.com/downloads/ISVR_screens_evaluation.pdf





https://www.accucalav.com/wp-content/uploads/accucal_front_projection_screen_report.pdf








Defining the Difference in Perforated Screens - Stewart


It seems that we thrive on the “who is best” arguments in all walks of life. There is the PC versus MAC conflict and the Ford versus Chevy versus Dodge battles that fuel the NASCAR phenomenon. In our realm of replicating the cinema experience we can look to a more profound group of metrics with w




www.stewartfilmscreen.com


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> Back seat driving is easy!
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there is a "best" distance so much as a minimum distance, as long as it's typical. I think anywhere in the range of 1-2 feet would be great to avoid the worst problems.
> 
> 
> 
> The most important angles are the LCR angles.
> The Dolby spec for that is 22-30 degrees, so according to that, 26 and 0 degrees are the "correct" angles to measure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.1 Virtual Speaker Setup
> 
> 
> Use our speaker placement guide to optimize your home theater with 5.1. virtual speaker setup with Dolby Atmos sound. Enjoy your entertainment in Dolby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dolby.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if I explained this clearly, but my suggestion would be to use a checker test image that cropped everything outside the smallest sample to black. That should solve the sample size problem. Since your behind screen stuff is black, I'd consider that a valid test. Anyone can achieve the same results using these screen materials + some black paint.
> 
> Measuring light leakage sounds much better than no data (which is where we stand today.) There is a potential problem, though. Some materials are translucent (to varying degrees) and some are opaque (referring the solid portions, not the holes.) The opaque materials probably handle the same amount of light leakage much better.
> 
> 
> 
> You might be right that sharpness is related to texture. Either way, the texture details are great. It's also possible that sharpness problems are caused by translucent materials (subsurface scattering.) I don't really know. I'd consider this to be a lower priority, though, unless you notice important differences. Hard to say, since I don't have them in front of me.
> 
> 
> 
> That's good to know, as I plan my purchase. Thanks!


I like using the dolby spec for off-axis measurements. 0 and 26 it is.

I think I understand your proposed test for the contrast measurement. As of now, my meter sucks for reading black levels so I could only do this if I get a new meter. Finding a way to block all the light from the rest of the image may be difficult. I guess I can go buy a few yards of velvet :/ 



Don Stewart said:


> Over the years, I have witnessed testing of AT screen materials on several occasions at professional audio labs including THX and Harman JBL. In each case, the testing was done in an anecholic sound chamber. The mic was set one meter, (39.37") back from the screen surface for on and off axis readings. With the woven type AT materials, it was measured with and without the black backing fabric so one could judge the differences.. With perforated type screens, no secondary black fabric was used as they are typically installed without the need of a backing fabric. Anyway, hope that helps you out.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Don


Thank you very much for the input, Don. I, unfortunately, don't have access anechoic chamber. Not many of us do, right? lol. But this got me thinking and I'm going to attempt for my next batch of testing to do quasi-anechoic measurements. I haven't done these before but my light reading so far makes it seem not bad at all. It may not be as good as an anechoic chamber but I think it's the best I could offer. I will also attempt to use the same one meter of spacing.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> I like using the dolby spec for off-axis measurements. 0 and 26 it is.
> 
> I think I understand your proposed test for the contrast measurement. As of now, my meter sucks for reading black levels so I could only do this if I get a new meter. Finding a way to block all the light from the rest of the image may be difficult. I guess I can go buy a few yards of velvet :/


No, I just mean blacking out area outside the smallest sample using image editing software! No need for velvet.

I'm no expert, but I think quasi-anechoic is totally reasonable. You just go to the impulse tab in REW and drag the green peg at the top for where you want to window it. My understanding is that it's ideal to window out objects in the room, by converting time to distance (speed of sound.) If that's not practical, you can just window out big stuff, like the side walls and back walls. That helps take the room out of the equation. I don't think that's a huge issue, though, since we're focused on the difference between the two responses. It will make your graphs look cleaner, though. The window does need to be big enough to capture reflections from the screen (more than screen to speaker distance + 2x(screen to back wall distance)).

Again, IMO, it would be fine to leave the quasi-anechoic thing out, since we are comparing two responses to examine the influence from the screen. I'd actually argue that an anechoic chamber has some problems. If reflections from the screen to the wall behind the screen are a major issue in real setups, an anechoic chamber would hide it. Of course, it is still generally recommended that the wall behind an AT screen has absorption. Some people even put extreme amounts of absorption there - like a foot of insulation. By publishing the mdat file, people can always do their own windowing, if they want something specific.


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> Thanks, Don!
> What were the results of these tests?
> Do you have any links?
> 
> I tweaked my Google search and got a few hits!
> 
> 
> 
> https://screenexcellence.com/downloads/ISVR_screens_evaluation.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.accucalav.com/wp-content/uploads/accucal_front_projection_screen_report.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defining the Difference in Perforated Screens - Stewart
> 
> 
> It seems that we thrive on the “who is best” arguments in all walks of life. There is the PC versus MAC conflict and the Ford versus Chevy versus Dodge battles that fuel the NASCAR phenomenon. In our realm of replicating the cinema experience we can look to a more profound group of metrics with w
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.stewartfilmscreen.com


Hm, I hadn't seen that Screen Excellence one and it is interesting. They test multiple distances between the screen and speaker and don't seem to come to a definite conclusion on which distance is "best"


----------



## rcohen

I wonder if there's a good way in REW to view the difference between responses. Or perhaps using the control to "correct" the screen responses, so we can just see the offset from the screen (instead of worrying about windowing.) I tried the "trace arithmetic" feature, but that didn't give me what I was expecting. It's almost like the control should be used to calibrate the response.

I wonder if the "calibrate soundcard" feature could be tricked to take the control response. (I'm also not a REW expert.)

I did find Graph - Remove Smoothing, so your smoothing isn't actually baked in. Never mind that part.


----------



## jbm007

Don Stewart said:


> Over the years, I have witnessed testing of AT screen materials on several occasions at professional audio labs including THX and Harman JBL. In each case, the testing was done in an anecholic sound chamber. The mic was set one meter, (39.37") back from the screen surface for on and off axis readings. With the woven type AT materials, it was measured with and without the black backing fabric so one could judge the differences.. With perforated type screens, no secondary black fabric was used as they are typically installed without the need of a backing fabric. Anyway, hope that helps you out.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Don


Don

Your thoughts on using the black fabric on the the back of a G2 weave screen.

Projector is a 10,000 lumen projector set back 22 feet.

Directors cut format.

Does it help control secondary rear sound or is it cutting down on any rear reflections behind the screen.

How much influence does it have on the sound.


----------



## Don Stewart

mindedc said:


> Final observation, *you are measuring small "sample swatches" of the material at a full spectrum with REW.* There is a phenomenon whereas if the primary dimension of the object is below (I believe, any acousticians watching please correct me), 1/2 the wavelength of a given frequency it will simply wrap around the object instead of passing through it. You are then comparing the size and side material construction (baffle edge diffraction) of your test rig vs the fabric. You should be cutting the sweep off at the lower boundary of the fabric swatch to pass sound through vs around. For this reason I think you should also be using a larger swatch as the small swatches you are testing will push that frequency quite high. Again, any actual acousticians please tell me if I'm completely wrong.


I am not by any means an audio expert as my expertise is in the optical and visual world. That said, when audio expertise is needed, we contract with outside audio consultants who are experts. I do know when sending AT materials out for testing in anecholic chambers, they always ask for a minimum material size of 36" x 36". The material is then tightly attached to a wooden frame prior to testing. Perhaps they need that larger size for reasons you mention above???


----------



## Don Stewart

jbm007 said:


> Don
> 
> Your thoughts on using the black fabric on the the back of a G2 weave screen.
> 
> Projector is a 10,000 lumen projector set back 22 feet.
> 
> Directors cut format.
> 
> Does it help control secondary rear sound or is it cutting down on any rear reflections behind the screen.
> 
> How much influence does it have on the sound.


I wish I could answer your audio questions but I am not qualified in that field to give you accurate answers. On the visual side, like other weave type AT screens, a black secondary fabric is highly recommended to absorb incident light leakage that travels through the primary screen so a higher contrast level can be achieved. Sorry I could not be more helpful on your audio questions. BTW, the Harmony G2 is an honest 0.7 gain, but should not be a problem with your 10,000 lumen PJ.


----------



## aron7awol

Don Stewart said:


> On the visual side, like other weave type AT screens, a black secondary fabric is highly recommended to absorb incident light leakage that travels through the primary screen so a higher contrast level can be achieved.


I am curious as to why a microperf screen is considered not to need a black backing, since it's still letting ~10% of the light through.


----------



## mindedc

Don Stewart said:


> I am not by any means an audio expert as my expertise is in the optical and visual world. That said, when audio expertise is needed, we contract with outside audio consultants who are experts. I do know when sending AT materials out for testing in anecholic chambers, they always ask for a minimum material size of 36" x 36". The material is then tightly attached to a wooden frame prior to testing. Perhaps they need that larger size for reasons you mention above???


I would suspect for the exact reasons I mentioned. They probably have determined that 36x36 pushes any errors far enough down in the bass region a sub is going to handle those frequencies anyway... or perhaps to the infrasonic at 1/4 wavelength...


----------



## mindedc

aron7awol said:


> I am curious as to why a microperf screen is considered not to need a black backing, since it's still letting ~10% of the light through.


Think about shining a flashlight at a piece of gauze with a sheet of aluminum foil behind it, you're going to have many places the light bleeds through reflected to many places and evenly pass through the gauze. This is the same thing with a woven screen, just less obvious.

Think about the same thing with a sheet of notebook paper with a bunch of pinholes instead of the gauze. The light passes through a spread out pattern of pinholes hitting the aluminum foil, it then reflects back and paints the back of the screen. The microperf screens need to be something like a foot forward of the speakers to prevent comb filtering, so the light is traveling two feet to hit our foil in this example, one there and one back, the pinhole of light has now spread to a large disk and the inverse square law dictates the intensity of light is very small..now the only part of that light that makes it to the eye is what then hits the tiny perforations and the angle of incidence allows it through the opening...not much will come back.


----------



## rcohen

mindedc said:


> Think about shining a flashlight at a piece of gauze with a sheet of aluminum foil behind it, you're going to have many places the light bleeds through reflected to many places and evenly pass through the gauze. This is the same thing with a woven screen, just less obvious.
> 
> Think about the same thing with a sheet of notebook paper with a bunch of pinholes instead of the gauze. The light passes through a spread out pattern of pinholes hitting the aluminum foil, it then reflects back and paints the back of the screen. The microperf screens need to be something like a foot forward of the speakers to prevent comb filtering, so the light is traveling two feet to hit our foil in this example, one there and one back, the pinhole of light has now spread to a large disk and the inverse square law dictates the intensity of light is very small..now the only part of that light that makes it to the eye is what then hits the tiny perforations and the angle of incidence allows it through the opening...not much will come back.


It be great to have a good comparison of this stuff. Inverse square law doesn't help much, since it's based on the distance from the projector, so it's not much more distance. Also, keep in mind that light perception is logarithmic, so it only takes tiny amounts of light to ruin black levels and huge amounts of light to make something perceptually brighter. We get screwed coming and going.


----------



## aron7awol

mindedc said:


> Think about shining a flashlight at a piece of gauze with a sheet of aluminum foil behind it, you're going to have many places the light bleeds through reflected to many places and evenly pass through the gauze. This is the same thing with a woven screen, just less obvious.
> 
> Think about the same thing with a sheet of notebook paper with a bunch of pinholes instead of the gauze. The light passes through a spread out pattern of pinholes hitting the aluminum foil, it then reflects back and paints the back of the screen. The microperf screens need to be something like a foot forward of the speakers to prevent comb filtering, so the light is traveling two feet to hit our foil in this example, one there and one back, the pinhole of light has now spread to a large disk and the inverse square law dictates the intensity of light is very small..now the only part of that light that makes it to the eye is what then hits the tiny perforations and the angle of incidence allows it through the opening...not much will come back.


I think this is a very good thought experiment, but I'm not sure about your expected result. Are we talking about an equal amount of open area in the two cases? I am, so assuming that, isn't a uniform weave essentially just a micro-microperf? In other words, just a scaled down version which still has the same open area, just made up of smaller openings, but which are importantly also closer together to still result in the same open area? And since the only thing changing in this example is the scale, does anything actually change meaningfully as far as percentage of light that makes its way back through?


----------



## rcohen

aron7awol said:


> I think this is a very good thought experiment, but I'm not sure about your expected result. Are we talking about an equal amount of open area in the two cases? I am, so assuming that, isn't a uniform weave essentially just a micro-microperf? In other words, just a scaled down version which still has the same open area, just made up of smaller openings, but which are importantly also closer together to still result in the same open area? And since the only thing changing in this example is the scale, does anything actually change meaningfully as far as percentage of light that makes its way back through?


My understanding is that the solid area of weave is translucent while the solid area of microperf is opaque. I haven't seen this quantified, though. Also, both vary in terms of the open %.


----------



## rcohen

aron7awol said:


> I am curious as to why a microperf screen is considered not to need a black backing, since it's still letting ~10% of the light through.


I am curious, too, but assuming the back wall is 10% reflective and the light has to pass through the screen twice, 10%x10%x10% = potential for 1000:1 contrast (assuming a perfect projector and light that's considerate enough to only bounce once.)


----------



## aron7awol

rcohen said:


> My understanding is that the solid area of weave is translucent while the solid area of microperf is opaque. I haven't seen this quantified, though. Also, both vary in terms of the open %.


That's an interesting distinction, if true.

Of course I know all the different screens vary in open area, but I'm saying, for the purposes of this thought experiment to compare apples to apples, let's assume the same open area for both, and consider why microperf may not need a black backing while a weave would.


----------



## Don Stewart

aron7awol said:


> I am curious as to why a microperf screen is considered not to need a black backing, since it's still letting ~10% of the light through.


Think of it this way. Hang an ordinary woven fabric bed sheet in the middle of a room and project an image on it. Then walk to the back side and you will also see a reversed image of the what is being projected on the front side. The fabric acts somewhat like a translucent rear projection screen, although not a very efficient rear projection screen at that. On a MP screen, the solid screen material between the holes is opaque and does not let any light return through it.. As what Minededc mentioned, incident light traveling through the perforated tunnels will only come back to a viewer if they are perfectly aligned with a few holes and something behind the holes have a very reflective surface such as a glass cabinet. In all my years in the screen business, this issue has only come up a few times. In most cases, the culprit was a shinny chrome dome speaker tweeter(s) that was sparking back through the screen from direct incident light reflecting back to a particular seat. That said, an easy fix by carefully blacking out the tweeters with a sharpie felt pen.

MP Magnified


----------



## aron7awol

Okay, translucence it is.


----------



## Ads___

Great write up, I'm considering AT fabrics and was leaning towards the dreamscreen v7 as my main concern is visually seeing the weave / perforation. I have seen a few screens here and for my eyes I basically need a non AT screen visual performance however with an AT material (yes i want it all).

Your findings seem to rate the dreamscreen v7 as one of (if not) the best for lack of visible texture. I'm ordering a sample myself.

Thanks for putting the time and effort into this, we need one of these comparisons once a year


----------



## jbm007

Ads___ said:


> Great write up, I'm considering AT fabrics and was leaning towards the dreamscreen v7 as my main concern is visually seeing the weave / perforation. I have seen a few screens here and for my eyes I basically need a non AT screen visual performance however with an AT material (yes i want it all).
> 
> Your findings seem to rate the dreamscreen v7 as one of (if not) the best for lack of visible texture. I'm ordering a sample myself.
> 
> Thanks for putting the time and effort into this, we need one of these comparisons once a year



Well after 2 days of extensive testing we have answered most of our questions.

We installed probable onE of the first G2 screens out in the wild.

*Audio details*.

2 db sound level improvement. Slight frequency improvement.

Biggest improvement with out question was the sound stage.
With the Studio tek micro perf screen the sound stage or image presence sonicaly formed at the screen.
With the new G 2 ultra weave; the sound stage moved in to the room, way into the room.
Dialog was more balance with the L and R fronts. IT WAS NOTICED BY EVERYONE PRESENT.

I am sure that is a benift that most ultra weave screen will have.

*Video details*

With out question Image sharpness. Makes sense "micro perf" holes effect clarity and sharpness.
Then calibration
Ability to control the black levels. We found it easier to control HDR low light level settings better then on the Studio tec screen. Caveat .7 gain. Make sure you have enough lumen output to work with from your projector, especially doing HDR 

Mark us very happy. Since it was a screen replacement with stuck with Stewart so we could reuse the frame.
They didn't disappoint.


----------



## rcohen

jbm007 said:


> Well after 2 days of extensive testing we have answered most of our questions.
> 
> We installed probable onE of the first G2 screens out in the wild.
> 
> *Audio details*.
> 
> 2 db sound level improvement. Slight frequency improvement.
> 
> Biggest improvement with out question was the sound stage.
> With the Studio tek micro perf screen the sound stage or image presence sonicaly formed at the screen.
> With the new G 2 ultra weave; the sound stage moved in to the room, way into the room.
> Dialog was more balance with the L and R fronts. IT WAS NOTICED BY EVERYONE PRESENT.
> 
> I am sure that is a benift that most ultra weave screen will have.
> 
> *Video details*
> 
> With out question Image sharpness. Makes sense "micro perf" holes effect clarity and sharpness.
> Then calibration
> Ability to control the black levels. We found it easier to control HDR low light level settings better then on the Studio tec screen. Caveat .7 gain. Make sure you have enough lumen output to work with from your projector, especially doing HDR
> 
> Mark us very happy. Since it was a screen replacement with stuck with Stewart so we could reuse the frame.
> They didn't disappoint.


Did you correct the frequency response with EQ? I'm wondering if the soundstage improvement was a difference in frequency response, or perhaps better off-axis behavior from the weave screen.


----------



## mindedc

Ads___ said:


> Great write up, I'm considering AT fabrics and was leaning towards the dreamscreen v7 as my main concern is visually seeing the weave / perforation. I have seen a few screens here and for my eyes I basically need a non AT screen visual performance however with an AT material (yes i want it all).
> 
> Your findings seem to rate the dreamscreen v7 as one of (if not) the best for lack of visible texture. I'm ordering a sample myself.
> 
> Thanks for putting the time and effort into this, we need one of these comparisons once a year


When I bought my AT screen a few years ago I got a sample of V6 and was very impressed. Visible texture was a big issue for me because I have a close seating distance on my front row. I ordered swatches from most of the major screen companies. After comparing at a friend's HT with the same PJ I wound up going with Screen Excellence Neo, but the V6 was a strong contender. I needed a lot of light and the V6 was slightly dimmer/more grey than the Neo and I was able to get a better price on the Neo screen than the V6. Both materials are completely smooth. I have not seen the V7, I can only imagine it's improved. I did order swatches of several of the materials and compare them visually. I never did any acoustic measurements because I think it's not as important when using room correction.


----------



## mindedc

rcohen said:


> It be great to have a good comparison of this stuff. Inverse square law doesn't help much, since it's based on the distance from the projector, so it's not much more distance. Also, keep in mind that light perception is logarithmic, so it only takes tiny amounts of light to ruin black levels and huge amounts of light to make something perceptually brighter. We get screwed coming and going.


The inverse square in this scenario applies to the light passing through the screen and off whatever is behind it (foil in my example, presumaby speakers and acoustic insulation in the real world). A woven screen can be right up to the drivers while a microperf needs something like a foot of seperation between the screen and the speaker baffle. You are adding an additional two feet of inverse square law to the light passing back through the perforations. You are also shooting the light at a downard angle (assuming ceiling mounted PJ at recomended top of screen position) which passes through the perforations, becomes many tiny oblong cones of light (shine a flashlight through a hole at an angle and it turns into an elipse), which in turn travels a foot and reflects off the speakers and insulation at an angle equal to the incidence of the incoming light, travels another foot back towards the screen while spreading more, hits the microperf holes at another downward angle. Whatever makes it through and is directed at your eyes you see.

You're not getting a lot of light back through it. 

I have seen quite a few microperf screens and the contrast was excellent, better than any of the Seymour fabrics with baking, better than Elune 4K, dreamscreen v6 etc.. the image is excellent if you're far enough away to not see the perforations. There are some audio compromises with microperf and I wound up going with a woven screen myself as it had the set of compromises and price point I could work with. 

It's very nice of the OP to be going down this rabbit hole for us to have some numbers to help our decision making because it's not reasonable to get samples of 25 materials to compare...


----------



## jbm007

rcohen said:


> Did you correct the frequency response with EQ? I'm wondering if the soundstage improvement was a difference in frequency response, or perhaps better off-axis behavior from the weave screen.


We did not touch the EQ and agree with you 
We feel we were getting better off-axis behavior


----------



## rcohen

mindedc said:


> The inverse square in this scenario applies to the light passing through the screen and off whatever is behind it (foil in my example, presumaby speakers and acoustic insulation in the real world). A woven screen can be right up to the drivers while a microperf needs something like a foot of seperation between the screen and the speaker baffle. You are adding an additional two feet of inverse square law to the light passing back through the perforations. You are also shooting the light at a downard angle (assuming ceiling mounted PJ at recomended top of screen position) which passes through the perforations, becomes many tiny oblong cones of light (shine a flashlight through a hole at an angle and it turns into an elipse), which in turn travels a foot and reflects off the speakers and insulation at an angle equal to the incidence of the incoming light, travels another foot back towards the screen while spreading more, hits the microperf holes at another downward angle. Whatever makes it through and is directed at your eyes you see.
> 
> You're not getting a lot of light back through it.
> 
> I have seen quite a few microperf screens and the contrast was excellent, better than any of the Seymour fabrics with baking, better than Elune 4K, dreamscreen v6 etc.. the image is excellent if you're far enough away to not see the perforations. There are some audio compromises with microperf and I wound up going with a woven screen myself as it had the set of compromises and price point I could work with.
> 
> It's very nice of the OP to be going down this rabbit hole for us to have some numbers to help our decision making because it's not reasonable to get samples of 25 materials to compare...


Inverse square doesn't really apply in this case. 100% of the light that emits from the back of the screen will hit something, and some portion will be reflected back (depending on reflectivity.)
That's because the reflective light is irradiance x reflectivity x surface area. If it's further back, the irradiance will decrease exactly the same amount that the reflecting surface area increases.

I guess you could paint it in Vantablack or put this over anything reflective.








Amazon.com: Jet Black Speaker Grill Cloth 60 Inch x 36 Inch, A-569 : Electronics


Amazon.com: Jet Black Speaker Grill Cloth 60 Inch x 36 Inch, A-569 : Electronics



www.amazon.com





Also, have guests wear this:


Amazon.com



Super black paint:








BIG BLACK - *The World's Biggest Blackest Black 3.0 - 33.8 fl oz (1L)


Just for manual sales direct




www.culturehustleusa.com


----------



## rcohen

jbm007 said:


> We did not touch the EQ and agree with you
> We feel we were getting better off-axis behavior


That certainly seems possible, although I think EQ correction would be pretty important for valid subjective comparisons.


----------



## jbm007

rcohen said:


> That certainly seems possible, although I think EQ correction would be pretty important for valid subjective comparisons.


I agree. Need to do whole new sound sweeps with the Alttiude, but for right now we are in happy land for the moment.

More to come.

Right now we are grinding our teeth on HDR settings with the Lumagen, and the G2 woven fabric.


----------



## mindedc

rcohen said:


> Inverse square doesn't really apply in this case. 100% of the light that emits from the back of the screen will hit something, and some portion will be reflected back (depending on reflectivity.)
> That's because the reflective light is irradiance x reflectivity x surface area. If it's further back, the irradiance will decrease exactly the same amount that the reflecting surface area increases.
> 
> I guess you could paint it in Vantablack or put this over anything reflective.


I would buy that if the microperf screens were translucent, however the one's Ive seen are opaque. You are further taking your total reflected light and reducing by another 90% at best as it passes through and I submit that the angles involved play to the favor of a microperf. If you don't believe me go look at one and decide for yourself if it needs backing.


----------



## rcohen

mindedc said:


> I would buy that if the microperf screens were translucent, however the one's Ive seen are opaque. You are further taking your total reflected light and reducing by another 90% at best as it passes through and I submit that the angles involved play to the favor of a microperf. If you don't believe me go look at one and decide for yourself if it needs backing.


I think the key factors there are translucency and open area, not distance.
I promise that light reflection works like that:
radiant flux (radiant energy) = irradiant flux x reflectivity = irradiance x surface area x reflectivity
If the 100 photons pass through the screen, and the receiving surface is 10% reflective, 10 photons will bounce back, regardless of distance.
With greater distance, if you look at the back surface with your eyes, it will appear dimmer due to lower photon density, but the illuminated area will grow exactly the same amount, so the same number of photons get reflected back. Those photons have just spread out more. Once they hit a matte black wall, they will scatter, so they will be spread out when they return to the screen no matter what.


----------



## mindedc

rcohen said:


> I think the key factors there are translucency and open area, not distance.
> I promise that light reflection works like that:
> radiant flux (radiant energy) = irradiant flux x reflectivity = irradiance x surface area x reflectivity
> If the 100 photons pass through the screen, and the receiving surface is 10% reflective, 10 photons will bounce back, regardless of distance.
> With greater distance, if you look at the back surface with your eyes, it will appear dimmer due to lower photon density, but the illuminated area will grow exactly the same amount, so the same number of photons get reflected back. Those photons have just spread out more. Once they hit a matte black wall, they will scatter, so they will be spread out when they return to the screen no matter what.


I agree, the further impediment is the the 10 remaining photons are going to hit the back of an opaque surface with 10% perforation so presumably 1 photon of the origonal 100 that passed through the screen initially makes its way back through the screen where if it happens to be directed to the viewer it would hit their eyes.

like I said, go see one, in the real world they don't need a back backing. Meanwhile I have a back back cloth on my woven screen because it absolutely has a bad glow in credits etc..


----------



## rcohen

mindedc said:


> I agree, the further impediment is the the 10 remaining photons are going to hit the back of an opaque surface with 10% perforation so presumably 1 photon of the origonal 100 that passed through the screen initially makes its way back through the screen where if it happens to be directed to the viewer it would hit their eyes.
> 
> like I said, go see one, in the real world they don't need a back backing. Meanwhile I have a back back cloth on my woven screen because it absolutely has a bad glow in credits etc..


I haven't compared them side by side, but what you are saying is consistent with what others have said.
I also haven't seen woven with & without a black cloth side by side.

For the OP's comparison, it would be really interesting to see microperf, woven w/backing, woven w/o backing with the same exposure for some kind of useful side-by-side demonstration of the contrast differences.

At the end of the day, we're talking about:
1) More gain with microperf
2) Better contrast with microperf compared to woven w/o backing, unclear compared to woven w/ backing
3) Possibly significantly better off-axis response and imaging w/ woven (does backing play a role?)

I'd consider the need to be black behind the screen and use more EQ with microperf to be inconsequential. I'll correct with EQ no matter what.
Also, my viewing distance is 13.5', so texture/perf visibility aren't significant issues for me.


----------



## jbm007

rcohen said:


> I haven't compared them side by side, but what you are saying is consistent with what others have said.
> I also haven't seen woven with & without a black cloth side by side.
> 
> For the OP's comparison, it would be really interesting to see microperf, woven w/backing, woven w/o backing with the same exposure for some kind of useful side-by-side demonstration of the contrast differences.
> 
> At the end of the day, we're talking about:
> 1) More gain with microperf
> 2) Better contrast with microperf compared to woven w/o backing, unclear compared to woven w/ backing
> 3) Possibly significantly better off-axis response and imaging w/ woven (does backing play a role?)
> 
> I'd consider the need to be black behind the screen and use more EQ with microperf to be inconsequential. I'll correct with EQ no matter what.
> Also, my viewing distance is 13.5', so texture/perf visibility aren't significant issues for me.


For those that have the bandwith.

HDR scenes from Spears & Muersil after HDR calibrations have been made using the Stewart G2 Ultra weave.

Was recorded using a Iphone 10

Enjoy

Jim

Download Attachment
Available until Aug 25, 2021


----------



## jbm007

jbm007 said:


> For those that have the bandwith.
> 
> HDR scenes from Spears & Muersil after HDR calibrations have been made using the Stewart G2 Ultra weave.
> 
> Was recorded using a Iphone 10
> 
> Enjoy
> 
> Jim
> 
> Download Attachment
> Available until Aug 25, 2021


Any blooming or high light blow outs are from the Iphone,They do not appear in the video.


----------



## rcohen

jbm007 said:


> For those that have the bandwith.
> 
> HDR scenes from Spears & Muersil after HDR calibrations have been made using the Stewart G2 Ultra weave.
> 
> Was recorded using a Iphone 10
> 
> Enjoy
> 
> Jim
> 
> Download Attachment
> Available until Aug 25, 2021


Thanks for sharing that!

It's hard to tell from the video, though.
How is the contrast and sharpness compared to conventional screens?
Is that with or without black backing?


----------



## sam_adams

PixelPusher15 said:


> I wish I could find a way to just see the delta between two measurements in REW. I asked elsewhere and didn't get any bites. It would help speed up these tests I have planned and make the info a bit more clear


In order to see just the magnitude difference between the Control measurement and the test sample, you would use the Trace Arithmetic controls in the All SPL tab in REW. Let's take a look at how to do that.

Here are some screenshots using some of the measurements from your .mdat file.

Since we are intersted in only the magnitude differences between the control measurement and the samples, click the All SPL button and set the graph limits:










the limits can be adjusted later to better fit the data or simply for best appearance.

Next, click the 'Controls gear and then 'Measurement actions' so we can offset the data for the control and other measurements to display better:





















Now let's generate a 0dB reference line using Trace Arithmetic.

With the 'Controls' dialog open, click the 'Trace arithmetic' button. In the 'Trace arithmetic' dialog, select the Control measurement for both 'A' and 'B'. Select 'A/B' in the operation dropdown and click 'Generate'. REW will divide the measurement against itself and produce the needed 0 dB reference line (in red) below.










Now, in the 'Trace arithmetic' dialog, select the first measurement to difference as 'A' and and leave the control measurement as 'B' and click the 'Generate' button:










REW will divide the first measurement by the control measurement and show us the difference referenced against the 0dB reference line of the control measurement:










This is what all the measurement differences combined would look like from your posted .mdat file:










What do you notice here?

You can look at individual measurements against the control by just selecting the control, the reference, and the measurement of interest, from the list at the bottom of the All SPL window:










'FWD Spandex 1 Layer' looking good.

Now the unfortunate thing about this procedure is that you have to do this with every measurement as—at this time—there really isn't a way to automagically generate these types of graphs in REW. I'm certain that John Mulcahy has scripting on his feature list somewhere, but it's not coming tomorrow.


----------



## rcohen

sam_adams said:


> In order to see just the magnitude difference between the Control measurement and the test sample, you would use the Trace Arithmetic controls in the All SPL tab in REW. Let's take a look at how to do that.
> 
> Here are some screenshots using some of the measurements from your .mdat file.
> 
> Since we are intersted in only the magnitude differences between the control measurement and the samples, click the All SPL button and set the graph limits:
> 
> View attachment 3158938
> 
> 
> the limits can be adjusted later to better fit the data or simply for best appearance.
> 
> Next, click the 'Controls gear and then 'Measurement actions' so we can offset the data for the control and other measurements to display better:
> 
> View attachment 3158939
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 3158940
> 
> 
> 
> Now let's generate a 0dB reference line using Trace Arithmetic.
> 
> With the 'Controls' dialog open, click the 'Trace arithmetic' button. In the 'Trace arithmetic' dialog, select the Control measurement for both 'A' and 'B'. Select 'A/B' in the operation dropdown and click 'Generate'. REW will divide the measurement against itself and produce the needed 0 dB reference line (in red) below.
> 
> View attachment 3158948
> 
> 
> Now, in the 'Trace arithmetic' dialog, select the first measurement to difference as 'A' and and leave the control measurement as 'B' and click the 'Generate' button:
> 
> View attachment 3158950
> 
> 
> REW will divide the first measurement by the control measurement and show us the difference referenced against the 0dB reference line of the control measurement:
> 
> View attachment 3158952
> 
> 
> This is what all the measurement differences combined would look like from your posted .mdat file:
> 
> View attachment 3158956
> 
> 
> What do you notice here?
> 
> You can look at individual measurements against the control by just selecting the control, the reference, and the measurement of interest, from the list at the bottom of the All SPL window:
> 
> View attachment 3158957
> 
> 
> 'FWD Spandex 1 Layer' looking good.
> 
> Now the unfortunate thing about this procedure is that you have to do this with every measurement as—at this time—there really isn't a way to automagically generate these types of graphs in REW. I'm certain that John Mulcahy has scripting on his feature list somewhere, but it's not coming tomorrow.


Very helpful! I tried this, but I was using subtract instead of divide, with broken looking results.


----------



## jbm007

rcohen said:


> Thanks for sharing that!
> 
> It's hard to tell from the video, though.
> How is the contrast and sharpness compared to conventional screens?
> Is that with or without black backing?


With the black backing.


----------



## PixelPusher15

sam_adams said:


> In order to see just the magnitude difference between the Control measurement and the test sample, you would use the Trace Arithmetic controls in the All SPL tab in REW. Let's take a look at how to do that.
> 
> Here are some screenshots using some of the measurements from your .mdat file.
> 
> Since we are intersted in only the magnitude differences between the control measurement and the samples, click the All SPL button and set the graph limits:
> 
> View attachment 3158938
> 
> 
> the limits can be adjusted later to better fit the data or simply for best appearance.
> 
> Next, click the 'Controls gear and then 'Measurement actions' so we can offset the data for the control and other measurements to display better:
> 
> View attachment 3158939
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 3158940
> 
> 
> 
> Now let's generate a 0dB reference line using Trace Arithmetic.
> 
> With the 'Controls' dialog open, click the 'Trace arithmetic' button. In the 'Trace arithmetic' dialog, select the Control measurement for both 'A' and 'B'. Select 'A/B' in the operation dropdown and click 'Generate'. REW will divide the measurement against itself and produce the needed 0 dB reference line (in red) below.
> 
> View attachment 3158948
> 
> 
> Now, in the 'Trace arithmetic' dialog, select the first measurement to difference as 'A' and and leave the control measurement as 'B' and click the 'Generate' button:
> 
> View attachment 3158950
> 
> 
> REW will divide the first measurement by the control measurement and show us the difference referenced against the 0dB reference line of the control measurement:
> 
> View attachment 3158952
> 
> 
> This is what all the measurement differences combined would look like from your posted .mdat file:
> 
> View attachment 3158956
> 
> 
> What do you notice here?
> 
> You can look at individual measurements against the control by just selecting the control, the reference, and the measurement of interest, from the list at the bottom of the All SPL window:
> 
> View attachment 3158957
> 
> 
> 'FWD Spandex 1 Layer' looking good.
> 
> Now the unfortunate thing about this procedure is that you have to do this with every measurement as—at this time—there really isn't a way to automagically generate these types of graphs in REW. I'm certain that John Mulcahy has scripting on his feature list somewhere, but it's not coming tomorrow.


This is extremely helpful. Thank you!


----------



## PixelPusher15

An update on the Dreamscreen UltraWeave v7 sample I used. @Lygren sent me over a new v7 sample since he thought I may have received a contaminated sample that impacted the measured gain and it appears that may be true. In person, the new sample does look brighter than the one I tested. I'm not sure the photo below will show it as well as I can see it but here it is nonetheless (new sample is on the right):









Some other updates for those that are paying attention. I've gotten a couple of black backings from Stewart, Elite, and Silver Ticket which I will be testing and using with their respective screens. I've qlso gotten a few more samples in from Severtson (their Cinema White MicroPerf), Stewart (Harmony G2, StudioTek 100 for my reference material, and StudioTek 100 MicroPerf), Silver Ticket (WVS), and I'll be taking in some more samples from Seymour Excellence including their Enlightor Neo, Enlightor Bright, and some Ambient Visionaire samples for my own curiosity since they get reviewed so well. My goal is to do the gain tests again with a proper sample to reference against (ST100) this week or weekend. Then I will be redoing my acoustic testing over the next couple of weeks as I develop a plan to account for all the phenomenal feedback I have received thus far.


----------



## howiee

I'm looking forward to these results! At the moment we're leaning towards Dreamscreen v7 and it was between that and StudioTek 100. Any comparisons will be much appreciated


----------



## PixelPusher15

howiee said:


> I'm looking forward to these results! At the moment we're leaning towards Dreamscreen v7 and it was between that and StudioTek 100. Any comparisons will be much appreciated


Unfortunately but fortunately it’s going to be a bit longer. I’m getting in some more black backings and a new unreleased 8K material from Elite. I’m realizing now that I also don’t have samples from SI which I may need to address as well. Interestingly, I haven’t gotten any requests to test their materials


----------



## roxiedog13

PixelPusher15 said:


> This post is pretty much a copy/paste of the article here on my newly launched website. The formatting is a bit better there, especially the presentation of the REW graphs down below.
> 
> _Note that @Lygren has raised some valid concerns with some of the tests below and I will be updating this as soon as I am able and have a new sample of the DreamScreen v7 material. See the comments in subsequent posts for Lygren's concerns. _
> 
> While trying to find an acoustically transparent screen for my own usage I found it quite difficult to get good data, objective and subjective, on a variety of materials. It was especially hard to find measurements on the more budget-friendly options like spandex, XY Screens, and Silver Ticket. So I did the only reasonable thing someone in my position would do, I grabbed every sample I could, measured them, and made the report below. My thought process in testing so many materials was that my measurement equipment isn't as well calibrated as some professional equipment but it is consistent and my testing process is consistent. This way the materials in this report can be compared and weighed against each other. That being said, a lot of my measurements line up with other first and third-party measurements.
> 
> *Materials Tested*
> Carl’s Place Nano Acoustic FlexiWhite
> Carl’s Place Nano Acoustic FlexiGray
> Carl’s Place SheerWeave Acoustic
> Draper ClearSound Perforated XT1000
> Draper ClearSound Weave XH600E
> DreamScreen UltraWeave V6
> DreamScreen UltraWeave V7
> Elite Screens AcousticPro 1080P3
> Elite Screens AcousticPro UHD
> Fabric Wholesale Direct White over Black Spandex
> Severtson BWAT
> Severtson SAT-4K
> Severtson TAT-4K
> Seymour AV Center Stage UF
> Seymour AV Center Stage XD
> Silver Ticket Acoustic Woven WAB
> Spandex World Light Silver over Black Spandex
> Stewart Filmscreen GreyMatte 70 Perforated
> Stewart Filmscreen FireHawk G5 Perforated
> Stewart Filmscreen StudioTek 130 G4 Perforated
> XY Screens Black Crystal Perforated
> XY Screens MFS 1 Perforated
> XY Screens Sound Max 5
> XY Screens Sound Max 4K
> XY Screens Sound Max 8K
> 
> *Material Types*
> I tested three types of acoustically transparent materials:
> 
> standard screen material with micro-perforations to allow sound to pass through;
> flexible woven screen material with a t-shirt-type feel;
> stiffer woven screen material, like the strong outdoor fabric stretched across lounge chairs
> Flexible woven screens typically have better acoustic properties while stiff woven screen materials have higher measured gain. The micro-perforated screens all suffer in dB attenuation and need more seating distance to not show texture. On the other hand, micro-perforated screens can offer very high gain or ambient light rejection characteristics that woven screens just can’t.
> 
> *Testing Methodology
> 
> Max dB Loss*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For measuring acoustic attenuation I used a calibrated UMIK-1 microphone, REW installed on a 2015 MacBook Pro, and a PreSonus E3.5 as the speaker and amplifier since it is a powered monitor. A suspended picture frame held each screen material, which was attached by push pins. The frame was placed 2-3″ in front of the speaker. Each material was stretched in a way that mimics the tension of the material being installed in a finished screen. Wrinkles were also avoided. No black backing was used except for the spandex and the DreamScreen materials which includes one. Each manufacturer has their own black backing or sometimes you can provide your own. Keep this in mind when comparing materials. In most cases a backing will be needed but black backings typically have much less of an impact on acoustics than the screen materials.
> 
> To calculate max dB attenuation I took a control measurement with the frame in place but no material. I then looked for the largest drop from that control graph for each sample. This is strictly the max loss – there is more nuance when looking at the graph comparisons.
> 
> *Estimated Gain*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I used my X-Rite i1Display LT colorimeter measured by HCFR and Epson 5050UB projector to estimate gain. I also used the same picture frame that I used for measuring the max dB attenuation but for this test, I made a custom jig based on a tripod to hold it in place. I used magnets so I could quickly detach the frame and swap samples while ensuring the frame was in the same place each time. The tripod was also held my colorimeter stay in place. To make sure the screen materials weren’t angled differently, I was able to visually align the back of the picture frame with a straight edge on my wall pretty easily. The screen samples were centered in the middle of my 120″ projected image from the 5050UB. I also attached each sample as I did for the dB loss test: flat, stretched as it would be installed, and without wrinkles. As seen in the picture, the area behind the samples is all black and so was the frame.
> 
> It’s important to note that the gain numbers I have listed are _estimated_. I did not have a reference material to calibrate my numbers against so I had to use the materials I had and measurements that others have made with them to come up with what a 1.0 gain screen would measure. It just so happened that with my Epson 5050UB set to medium power 100 nits equaled 1.0 gain. I do want to make it clear that these numbers should be used as a comparison metric within this report and not against measurements made by others. While I’m pretty confident in the numbers since they align very well with other testers and respected manufacturers, I’m not confident enough to call them gospel.
> 
> *Texture*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To test the visible texture, I again created a jig that could be hung from my screen’s french cleat and hold about 8 screen samples. For most of the testing, I just used a 100 IRE pattern to evaluate if I could see any sort of texture or moire. I found that 100 IRE showed the worst sides of each material. When unsure of a screen sample’s texture performance, I would try a couple of other patterns or even real-world content.
> My subjective analysis was done from 8 and 10 feet away from my screen with sometimes stepping back to 12 feet to evaluate a more challenging sample. I also would view each sample at an angle to see if any moire would develop.
> 
> *Screen Score*
> To come up with some sort of ranking metric I decided to develop a Screen Score for each material. There are actually two scores: one that is gain weighted and one that is not. Each category was given a maximum score of 10 points.
> 
> *Max dB Loss*
> To calculate the max dB loss I used 1/6th octave smoothing, looked for the largest dB drop, and measured it while rounding to the nearest 0.5dB. I then used the bands below to give it a score. This doesn’t give the full picture of how a material interacts with a speaker so I also have provided the full REW .mdat file and screenshots of all the measurements compared to the control.
> 
> 10 = 0dB to -1.9dB
> 7.5 = -2dB to -3.9dB
> 5 = -4dB to -6dB
> 2.5 = over -6dB
> 
> *Gain*
> The gain score was fairly straightforward. The screen with the max gain, Stewart Filmscreen StudioTek 130 at 1.3, was given a 10 and every other material was evaluated against that. So, a screen that had a gain of 1.0 would receive a score of 7.7 for gain.
> 
> *Texture*
> Scoring for texture is a bit subjective. Some may not be bothered by texture if the screen material accomplishes some other goals. I put more of an emphasis on the 10′ evaluation but both were considered. Here was my rubric for calculating the texture score:
> 
> 10/Excellent = No discernable texture from 10′; non-distracting texture or no texture at 8′
> 7.5/Very Good = Texture visible at 10′ but would blend in with most real-world content; more visible or distracting at 8′
> 5/Acceptable = Texture is plainly visible at 10′ but may be acceptable if the material accomplishes other needs; would not work at 8′
> 2.5/Poor = Texture so visible it would be very distracting and/or moire present with on-axis viewing
> 0/Very Poor = Texture or moire are so prevalent that in a typically-sized theatre it would be infeasible to increase viewing distance sufficiently to eliminate distraction
> 
> _It’s important to note that the scoring was based on 8-10′ viewing distances and some of the materials that received a 2.5 or 5 out of 10 would be fine at 15′ or higher._
> 
> *The Results*
> Here are the materials that really stood out after my battery of tests:
> 
> *Best Score: XY Screens SoundMax 8K*
> This screen received an 8.98 out of 10! It got that score because its max calculated dB loss was only 1.5dB and there was no texture visible from 10′ and very little visible from 8′. The only downside to the screen is that its estimated gain is 0.9. This material is one of the stiff weave screens which makes its dB loss score even more impressive. I can easily recommend it if you want a screen to have very little impact on your speaker’s performance and not distract visually. The dB loss is so low that it would be possible to use this screen without having to worry about EQing the dB loss with your receiver.
> 
> The SoundMax 8K and 4K both did so well that I reached out to XY Screens and have agreed to split their usual referral fee between myself and anyone that mentions me. Just email Gloria at [email protected] and say you were referred by Andy at Pixel Home Theater. It should get you a $20-25 discount.
> 
> *Editor’s Choice: XY Screens SoundMax 4K*
> This is my pick for the best overall screen material. The smoothness of the material and an estimated gain of 1.03 make for a visually stunning screen. Its max dB loss of 3 is also very good and easily EQ-able. The 3 dB drop is also a little misleading when compared to others that test similarly – this screen does very well acoustically. It also is fairly cost-effective when comparing it to materials that test similarly. A material-only DIY option is also available.
> I had a bit of trouble with this screen at first. I couldn’t find an orientation without visible moire. I eventually emailed XY Screens and they helped correct the orientation, which eliminated the moire. After doing this, the material essentially disappeared into the sea of white projected by the 5050UB.
> See the notes on the SoundMax 8K for ordering information.
> 
> *Highest Gain, Woven: Seymour AV CenterStage XD*
> This screen material came in with high expectations based on numerous recommendations on AVSForum. I’d say it met them but did not exceed them. With the highest estimated gain of 1.06 and a max dB loss of 2.5dB, it is a very well-performing screen on the measurement side of things but when it comes to the subjective texture test I wish it would have done a bit better. Texture in the form of a crosshatch pattern is visible from 10′ and the material needs more like 11′ to 12′ to look its best. If you have a deeper theater, this material would be stellar.
> 
> 
> *Best Budget Material: Spandex/Milliskin Matte*
> No surprises here. This material is an AVSForum darling and it is easy to see why. The spandex sample was so smooth that I could make out the pixel structure of the 5050UB from around 2′ away (the only other material to achieve this is the DreamScreen). Pretty impressive for a material that costs about $80 for both the front and back layers! I’ve used this material to make my screen and from experience, I can say that it is very easy and forgiving to install, making it a great DIY’ers choice. The biggest (and well-known) issue is its estimated gain of 0.75, so you need to make sure your projector can account for the light attenuation. Max dB loss comes in at 2.5dB with both layers.
> 
> _Note that the spandex used for testing is from Fabric Wholesale Direct. There are multiple spandex manufacturers out there and I can’t comment on how each differs. _
> 
> *Highest Gain: Stewart Filmscreen StudioTek 130 G4 Microperf*
> If you are set on having an acoustically transparent screen but need it to be high gain, then the StudioTek 130 is your choice. Its max dB loss was 6dB and the perforations are visible at 10′. If you can keep your seating at 12′ or greater and can EQ out the acoustical impacts you will be left with a great performing screen. This material is very hefty compared to the other microperf screens – it felt very high-quality when handled. I almost felt bad sticking a push pin in it.
> 
> *Honorable Mentions
> ELITE ACOUSTICPRO UHD*
> This material looks so incredibly similar to the XY Screens SoundMax 4K that I swore they were the same. I had to go over my measurements to confirm. The weave looks identical and they both feel the same in hand. The Elite UHD material measures a bit lower for gain – 1.02 vs 1.03 – but it is the REW measurements that make it appear that they are in fact different. You can see below how they both compare to the control graph…similar, but different enough to conclude they are likely not the same. Maybe they are made in the same factory with slightly different threads? The Elite UHD does have a slightly warmer appearance when viewing them side by side in daylight. If deciding between these two materials I would pick the screen that fits your budget and aesthetic as they are both great screen materials.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *SILVER TICKET WOVEN ACOUSTIC WAB*
> This material deserves to be mentioned because Silver Ticket is a favorite among enthusiasts for budget-minded yet quality screens. Silver Ticket has produced a very well-performing woven screen material. Gain comes in around 0.95, max dB loss was very good at -1.5dB but texture came in with a rating of Good, or a 7.5. This material is best at over 10′ and that is what held it back from getting a more significant call out.
> 
> 
> *DREAMSCREEN V6/V7*
> Both the DreamScreen V6 and V7 materials were very impressive. As smooth as spandex, both included an attached black backing as an extra benefit (black backings can add further dB loss, so it’s another factor to consider when ordering a material that doesn’t include it). There’s no guesswork with the DreamScreen materials. You get a max dB loss of -2 with the V6 and -3.5 with the V7, both are incredibly smooth, the V6 has a gain of 0.85 and the V7 comes in at 0.96. The downside is the higher cost compared to similarly-performing materials.
> 
> 
> *The Measurements*
> Here are the REW frequency response graphs for each material compared to the control measurement. The dark red is the control in every graph.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Use this link (Google Drive) if you would like the .mdat file from my REW measurements.*
> 
> 
> *Material**Approx. Gain*Stewart Filmscreen StudioTek 130 G41.299Draper ClearSound Perf XT10001.227Carl’s FlexiWhite Nano1.197Silver Ticket White1.11XY Screens Sound Max 5 Perforated1.075Seymour Center Stage XD1.068Carl’s ShearWeave Acoustic1.047XY Screens Sound Max 4K1.036Elite Screens AcousticPro UHD1.024Stewart Filmscreen FireHawk G50.97Dreamscreen V70.963Silver Ticket Acoustic Woven WAB0.95Carl’s FlexiGray Nano0.92Severtson BWAT0.9167XY Screens Sound Max 8K0.904Severtson SAT-4K0.869Dreamscreen V60.852Seymour Center Stage UF0.845Elite Screens AcousticPro 1080P30.802XY Screens MFS 1 Perforated0.749FWD White Spandex/Black0.745Stewart Filmscreen GreyMatte 700.721Draper ClearSound Weave XH600E0.72XY Screens Black Crystal Perforated0.642Severtson TAT-4K0.6267Spandex World Light Silver/Black0.511
> 
> 
> *Material**Max dB Attenuation*XY Screens Sound Max 8K1Silver Ticket Acoustic Woven WAB1.5Severtson BWAT1.5Dreamscreen V62Elite Screens AcousticPro 1080P32Seymour Center Stage XD2.5Severtson SAT-4K2.5FWD White Spandex/Black2.5Draper ClearSound Weave XH600E2.5Spandex World Light Silver/Black2.5Carl’s ShearWeave Acoustic3XY Screens Sound Max 4K3Seymour Center Stage UF3Severtson TAT-4K3Draper ClearSound Perf XT10003.5Dreamscreen V73.5Carl’s FlexiWhite Nano4Elite Screens AcousticPro UHD4Carl’s FlexiGray Nano4XY Screens MFS 1 Perforated5.5Stewart Filmscreen StudioTek 130 G46Stewart Filmscreen FireHawk G56Stewart Filmscreen GreyMatte 706XY Screens Sound Max 5 Perforated7XY Screens Black Crystal Perforated8
> 
> *The Spreadsheet of “Truth”*
> Here is a link where you can find all my measurements and notes on the visible texture of each screen material.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acoustically Transparent Screen Material Report - v1
> 
> 
> Summary Material,Gain Adj Score,Screen Score,Est. Gain,dB Attenuation,Attenuation Rating,Texture Rating,10' Texture Notes,8' Texture Notes,Nits XY Screens Sound Max 8K,8.98,10,0.904,1,Excellent,Excellent,Smooth, no discernable moire or texture,Smooth. Very slight weave pattern visible. Recommend...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docs.google.com


What about Screen Excellence Enlightor-Neo 4K ? Have you considered testing this fabric?


----------



## PixelPusher15

roxiedog13 said:


> What about Screen Excellence Enlightor-Neo 4K ? Have you considered testing this fabric?


I just took in both Neo samples last week


----------



## Lightivity

PixelPusher15 said:


> I just took in both Neo samples last week


It would be so great if you could check out the Screen Research Clearpix Ultimate too . I did a non-scientific check last week where we compared it to the Neo, and the Ultimate was clearly brighter / had more gain at its specified 0.75 gain compared to the Neo's specified 0.95.


----------



## roxiedog13

PixelPusher15 said:


> I just took in both Neo samples last week


Excellent, looking forward to your report for the Neo product . Elune Vision also sell a ultraweave 4K material, supposed to be 1.15 gain and give up very little acoustically. I know their reference 4K matt white material is nearly identical to the ST100 and at a fraction of the cost, maybe their perforated and woven products are also equally as competative all around . Here is the link to the audioweave product : https://elunevision.com/materials/reference-studio-4k-audioweave/


----------



## rcohen

roxiedog13 said:


> Excellent, looking forward to your report for the Neo product . Elune Vision also sell a ultraweave 4K material, supposed to be 1.15 gain and give up very little acoustically. I know their reference 4K matt white material is nearly identical to the ST100 and at a fraction of the cost, maybe their perforated and woven products are also equally as competative all around . Here is the link to the audioweave product : Reference Studio 4K AudioWeave - Elunevision


Looks like someone measured it at 0.95 gain:








Elunevision Audioweave Reference 4K - need real world...


I am upgrading my HT to complement an inbound JVC NX7, and want to go with an AT screen because of room size. (120ich diagonal 16:9) I am considering two screens: Screenacoustics V6 and Elunevision Audioweave 4K. V6 i think is best in class but has gain of 'only' 0.8 therefore for my setup the...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## roxiedog13

rcohen said:


> Looks like someone measured it at 0.95 gain:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elunevision Audioweave Reference 4K - need real world...
> 
> 
> I am upgrading my HT to complement an inbound JVC NX7, and want to go with an AT screen because of room size. (120ich diagonal 16:9) I am considering two screens: Screenacoustics V6 and Elunevision Audioweave 4K. V6 i think is best in class but has gain of 'only' 0.8 therefore for my setup the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


At the end of that post another said he measured it at .78 gain, said it added nothing visually, not sure what that means, in the end said it was mediocre visually, excellent audibly. Personally, I'd prefer to have it checked against the competition using the same test methods as was performed here,at least then you can see how it stacks up for the price.


----------



## rcohen

roxiedog13 said:


> At the end of that post another said he measured it at .78 gain, said it added nothing visually, not sure what that means, in the end said it was mediocre visually, excellent audibly. Personally, I'd prefer to have it checked against the competition using the same test methods as was performed here,at least then you can see how it stacks up for the price.


Make sense!

I currently have an XD screen, and I'm paying attention to understand the audio tradeoffs for more gain. So, for my personal priorities, it doesn't sound like Audioweave delivers any advantages. You might be closer to the screen, though.


----------



## mindedc

rcohen said:


> Make sense!
> 
> I currently have an XD screen, and I'm paying attention to understand the audio tradeoffs for more gain. So, for my personal priorities, it doesn't sound like Audioweave delivers any advantages. You might be closer to the screen, though.


I have a swatch of it somewhere. Elunevision wasn't super interested in sending a sample. I think they made me pay a lot to get it. I don't have video gear capable of any level of acurate measurement and didn't bother testing audio. I can say that anecdotally it's visually inferior (dim/low gain and has a definite regular texture) to some of the other options (dreamscreen, Seymour etc). From an audio perspective it seemed good to the ear and it certainly has a lot of open area. I did really like the finish and durability, a very high quality manufacturing process. I crossed it off the list in pursuit of higher gain. If you have a light cannon or are sitting further back it would probably be good.


Hopefully we can get some hard number on it as that's better for everyone


----------



## catinthehat85

Hi @PixelPusher15 ,

I say this with the utmost respect for you as a person and the knowledge you contribute to this community, but this test you've put together in the state that it's in just feels like it's doing more harm than good. I am by no means a self proclaimed expert on screen fabric or acoustics, but the way you are benchmarking gain is inconsistent, the testing method for acoustical performance is inaccurate, and the topic of visual weave/visual impact is lacking as well (this one I admit is more my opinion). I am not trying to rub anything in here, as I believe you have already graciously taken feedback from others above, but my fear is that 99% of people on the web shopping for AT screen material are going to find your link as a top hit on google (there just isn't any comprehensive test like this out there), they're going to scroll to the results, and make a selection from there. This is going to hurt some of the small companies that have been working extremely hard and pouring alot of R&D into products that are not getting the attention they deserve. I've already purchased an AT screen a while back but I want to see this niche market thrive. It really pains me to write this, but if you still believe me I think you did a tremendous effort getting this far, it's just not quite ready for the masses.

I'll provide a small example I'm not sure has been brought up yet in the attempt of some constructive criticism. While the topic of visible weave/surface texture certainly has a degree of subjectivity to it, I was initially shocked when I saw the XY material and Dreamscreen material rated the same "excellent." I've seen these materials in person and they are not close. In fact the only thing in the same ballpark as dreamscreen in my humble opinion is spandex. When I read how you were rating the materials it made a bit more sense. Excellent is what you could see from 10 feet away with the small sample you had. From personal experience I can say that I think your observation would have been different if your sample was bigger, and add to the fact some people are more sensitive to weave than others. I purchased large samples of all the screen materials I was interested in (including XY 4k and dreamscreen V6 and V7), and at 10 feet I definitely see a difference, especially in bright scenes with skies or fields. The way you set up your rating system I would say isn't inaccurate...it just feels a bit misleading based on what I've personally experienced. Maybe take some close up photos of each material for comparison? Anyway my two cents, thanks for the hard work getting this far.


----------



## PixelPusher15

catinthehat85 said:


> Hi @PixelPusher15 ,
> 
> I say this with the utmost respect for you as a person and the knowledge you contribute to this community, but this test you've put together in the state that it's in just feels like it's doing more harm than good. I am by no means a self proclaimed expert on screen fabric or acoustics, but the way you are benchmarking gain is inconsistent, the testing method for acoustical performance is inaccurate, and the topic of visual weave/visual impact is lacking as well (this one I admit is more my opinion). I am not trying to rub anything in here, as I believe you have already graciously taken feedback from others above, but my fear is that 99% of people on the web shopping for AT screen material are going to find your link as a top hit on google (there just isn't any comprehensive test like this out there), they're going to scroll to the results, and make a selection from there. This is going to hurt some of the small companies that have been working extremely hard and pouring alot of R&D into products that are not getting the attention they deserve. I've already purchased an AT screen a while back but I want to see this niche market thrive. It really pains me to write this, but if you still believe me I think you did a tremendous effort getting this far, it's just not quite ready for the masses.
> 
> I'll provide a small example I'm not sure has been brought up yet in the attempt of some constructive criticism. While the topic of visible weave/surface texture certainly has a degree of subjectivity to it, I was initially shocked when I saw the XY material and Dreamscreen material rated the same "excellent." I've seen these materials in person and they are not close. In fact the only thing in the same ballpark as dreamscreen in my humble opinion is spandex. When I read how you were rating the materials it made a bit more sense. Excellent is what you could see from 10 feet away with the small sample you had. From personal experience I can say that I think your observation would have been different if your sample was bigger, and add to the fact some people are more sensitive to weave than others. I purchased large samples of all the screen materials I was interested in (including XY 4k and dreamscreen V6 and V7), and at 10 feet I definitely see a difference, especially in bright scenes with skies or fields. The way you set up your rating system I would say isn't inaccurate...it just feels a bit misleading based on what I've personally experienced. Maybe take some close up photos of each material for comparison? Anyway my two cents, thanks for the hard work getting this far.


Hey Steve,

Thanks for the honest and candid feedback. I honestly do appreciate it. While I don't disagree with you that my processes need to be improved I do disagree that it isn't going to be valuable when finished. I also could argue that it is valuable now but it is indeed misleading and needs a closer look over to get an accurate understanding of the materials compared. I need to improve my gain testing and be more consistent with it. I need to also improve my acoustic testing which I have plans to do so and one of the options is to use the same, or very similar, testing method that DreamScreen used to test their materials against others. 

I hear your feedback about the subjective texture tests and now that I think about it, it is a bit unfair to DreamScreen, and spandex for that matter, to put it in the same category as the XY 4K material. DreamScreen and spandex are by far the smoothest and should have a separate category for themselves. Maybe you have better eyes than me, or a different projector that reveals the weave more, but from 10' I honestly couldn't make out the weave without squinting and leaning forward a bit. I did note that it was more sensitive to orientation so maybe you had it oriented slightly different than I did.

Please also note that the Dreamscreen materials that I tested are tainted. The v6 material was separating from its black backing and both of them are noticeably darker compared to the new samples I have. 

In light of this feedback I will put a disclaimer on both my site and the first post here. Thanks again for the feedback!


----------



## chriscmore

I'd also suggest to you that gain is not an awesomeness rating. A 0.8 gain screen can be the better material than a 1.0 gain screen, depending on the application. They linearly improve black levels, where the eye is the most sensitive to gradation. Sub-unity screens also offer a degree of splash-back light contamination resistance while maintaining their Lambertian uniformity. This preserves your ANSI contrast ratio in any non-ideal room. It's silly to penalize materials specifically designed with these features.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## PixelPusher15

chriscmore said:


> I'd also suggest to you that gain is not an awesomeness rating. A 0.8 gain screen can be the better material than a 1.0 gain screen, depending on the application. They linearly improve black levels, where the eye is the most sensitive to gradation. Sub-unity screens also offer a degree of splash-back light contamination resistance while maintaining their Lambertian uniformity. This preserves your ANSI contrast ratio in any non-ideal room. It's silly to penalize materials specifically designed with these features.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


Hm, I didn't mean for it to come across as an awesomeness rating lol. I personally am using a light silver spandex which came in very low on gain. I did this for the sole purpose of reducing splash-back lighting. I used gain in my overall rating system, at least the one that is gain weighted, because higher gain screens for AT materials are sought after in these parts. I see comment after comment about how people want higher gain AT screens or screens in general. The ST130 is very popular and of course the ST100 is too. HDR has lead to many looking for brighter projectors or screens and I was trying to assist in that search. 

I'll take a good look at my wording when I revise this and make it clear that gain is just one component of the material and it should be matched to the room. 

Thanks for the feedback!


----------



## catinthehat85

PixelPusher15 said:


> Hey Steve,
> 
> Thanks for the honest and candid feedback. I honestly do appreciate it. While I don't disagree with you that my processes need to be improved I do disagree that it isn't going to be valuable when finished. I also could argue that it is valuable now but it is indeed misleading and needs a closer look over to get an accurate understanding of the materials compared. I need to improve my gain testing and be more consistent with it. I need to also improve my acoustic testing which I have plans to do so and one of the options is to use the same, or very similar, testing method that DreamScreen used to test their materials against others.
> 
> I hear your feedback about the subjective texture tests and now that I think about it, it is a bit unfair to DreamScreen, and spandex for that matter, to put it in the same category as the XY 4K material. DreamScreen and spandex are by far the smoothest and should have a separate category for themselves. Maybe you have better eyes than me, or a different projector that reveals the weave more, but from 10' I honestly couldn't make out the weave without squinting and leaning forward a bit. I did note that it was more sensitive to orientation so maybe you had it oriented slightly different than I did.
> 
> Please also note that the Dreamscreen materials that I tested are tainted. The v6 material was separating from its black backing and both of them are noticeably darker compared to the new samples I have.
> 
> In light of this feedback I will put a disclaimer on both my site and the first post here. Thanks again for the feedback!


Sounds good and I'm relieved you took my comment positively. To be clear I think when everything is cleaned up and finalized, this is going to be one of, if not the most useful tools for folks shopping for an AT screen to date. I know it would have saved me months of research and headache, and quite honestly cost. I paid a good amount of money for all the extra large sample materials I was interested in but couldn't find the right info for online.


----------



## mindedc

Just as an FYI, the other material I would rank with dreamscreen and spandex for smoothness is the Screen Excellence NEO fabric.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Well, I'm a bit stumped here and I may need some help from others in this thread. I got my ST100 sample from Stewart (actually two of them by accident) and I did a whole new battery of gain tests with my new X-rite i1 Display Pro. These results *did not* come out as expected. I'm going to list my full measurements below and maybe someone can see something I'm not. By using the Stewart ST100 as my reference material, almost everything came out lower than expected, a lot lower than expected. This is my second set of tests too. The first one I did at too much of an angle on the low side. I reset everything and did this round of tests measuring just over the i1DPs shadow about 4 inches away from the materials. I measured and finagled the i1DP and materials multiple times to see if I had something wonky going on. Nope, the readings only changed slightly. The second round with the new materials/sensor really only changed the high gain materials. The matte materials were almost identical. Anyway, I could use some input. It's almost like the ST100 is measuring at 1.1 or more gain.

(All of the woven screens were measured with the black backing that would be included in a screen from that company except Carl's)


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> Well, I'm a bit stumped here and I may need some help from others in this thread. I got my ST100 sample from Stewart (actually two of them by accident) and I did a whole new battery of gain tests with my new X-rite i1 Display Pro. These results *did not* come out as expected. I'm going to list my full measurements below and maybe someone can see something I'm not. By using the Stewart ST100 as my reference material, almost everything came out lower than expected, a lot lower than expected. This is my second set of tests too. The first one I did at too much of an angle on the low side. I reset everything and did this round of tests measuring just over the i1DPs shadow about 4 inches away from the materials. I measured and finagled the i1DP and materials multiple times to see if I had something wonky going on. Nope, the readings only changed slightly. The second round with the new materials/sensor really only changed the high gain materials. The matte materials were almost identical. Anyway, I could use some input. It's almost like the ST100 is measuring at 1.1 or more gain.
> 
> (All of the woven screens were measured with the black backing that would be included in a screen from that company except Carl's)
> View attachment 3171359


Looks to me like your ST100 samples are actually some flavor of 130 samples. (ST130, UM130, etc.)


----------



## Lygren

Although your measurements are a bit more in line now relatively speaking, your values differ greatly to ours, also taken with the Studiotek 100 as the reference. According to our in-house THX calibrator, the X-rite i1 Display Pro is made for displays, not reflected light. The measuring cone of this probe is very wide, as it is made out to measure as much of the displays direct light as possible. According to Progressive Labs (Calman), this meter is not suitable for measuring reflected light, only displays. This might be why you are measuring these off-values, perhaps on account of the size of the sample, small sample equals less reflected light within the measuring cone of the meter, for example (just one theory, might be other reasons). Regardless of reason, a more suited probe would be for example the Klein K-10A, or the CR100. Unfortunately, though, these probes are expensive... Those probes will, however, measure a far more focused spot, and is therefore far more suited for these types of measurements.


----------



## rcohen

Lygren said:


> Although your measurements are a bit more in line now relatively speaking, your values differ greatly to ours, also taken with the Studiotek 100 as the reference. According to our in-house THX calibrator, the X-rite i1 Display Pro is made for displays, not reflected light. The measuring cone of this probe is very wide, as it is made out to measure as much of the displays direct light as possible. According to Progressive Labs (Calman), this meter is not suitable for measuring reflected light, only displays. This might be why you are measuring these off-values, perhaps on account of the size of the sample, small sample equals less reflected light within the measuring cone of the meter, for example (just one theory, might be other reasons). Regardless of reason, a more suited probe would be for example the Klein K-10A, or the CR100. Unfortunately, though, these probes are expensive... Those probes will, however, measure a far more focused spot, and is therefore far more suited for these types of measurements.


Perhaps if he cut all the samples to the same size?


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> Perhaps if he cut all the samples to the same size?


They are all 8.5"x11" samples except for the Draper samples (don't care much because they perform horribly) and the new 8K samples from Elite/EPV. 



Lygren said:


> Although your measurements are a bit more in line now relatively speaking, your values differ greatly to ours, also taken with the Studiotek 100 as the reference. According to our in-house THX calibrator, the X-rite i1 Display Pro is made for displays, not reflected light. The measuring cone of this probe is very wide, as it is made out to measure as much of the displays direct light as possible. According to Progressive Labs (Calman), this meter is not suitable for measuring reflected light, only displays. This might be why you are measuring these off-values, perhaps on account of the size of the sample, small sample equals less reflected light within the measuring cone of the meter, for example (just one theory, might be other reasons). Regardless of reason, a more suited probe would be for example the Klein K-10A, or the CR100. Unfortunately, though, these probes are expensive... Those probes will, however, measure a far more focused spot, and is therefore far more suited for these types of measurements.


I'm not really understanding how the meter with a consistent sample size could affect the matte samples differently. I can see why the positive gain samples with narrower viewing angles could possibly pose an issue but I am measuring so close to the screen here that I can't see matte screens, including the Lambertian ST100 being affected differently. There is a telephoto mode on the sensor so maybe I may try that as it most likely limits the measuring cone. I believe I did experiment with this on the ST100 sample and it didn't change though. The other reason I'm not fully groking this as the reason is that when I measured from a farther out distance (12" vs 3-4") the matte materials were all within a couple of nits of the close-up measures. This would lead me to believe the measuring cone isn't having that large of an impact.

I'm going to shoot over to the calibration forum and see what they have to say.


----------



## Lygren

Weird... The fact that you measure the same values on ST100 and ST130 kind of confirms something is fishy. Hope you can figure it out or perhaps someone in your proximity could lend you a Klein K10 / CR100? With all the hard work you´ve put into this it would be really sad if the equipment at hand reduces the validity of your results.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Lygren said:


> Weird... The fact that you measure the same values on ST100 and ST130 kind of confirms something is fishy. Hope you can figure it out or perhaps someone in your proximity could lend you a Klein K10 / CR100? With all the hard work you´ve put into this it would be really sad if the equipment at hand reduces the validity of your results.


Yeah, it is weird. I posted on the calibration forum and I also submitted a note to Stewart to see if they possibly got their samples mixed up. This would be surprising but not impossible.


----------



## Lygren

PixelPusher15 said:


> Yeah, it is weird. I posted on the calibration forum and I also submitted a note to Stewart to see if they possibly got their samples mixed up. This would be surprising but not impossible.


You would see that right away, the ST100 is superbly matte, almost zero sheen, while the ST130, even the G4, would have a little "glitter" / "sheen" (not as bad as many of the others, but there is still something there in order to give it the increased gain). You should also be able to see it visibly very clearly, 30% difference in gain is very visible. A photo of the two samples projected on with the same 100 IRE test image should clearly indicate the difference as well.


----------



## rcohen

Lygren said:


> You would see that right away, the ST100 is superbly matte, almost zero sheen, while the ST130, even the G4, would have a little "glitter" / "sheen" (not as bad as many of the others, but there is still something there in order to give it the increased gain). You should also be able to see it visibly very clearly, 30% difference in gain is very visible. A photo of the two samples projected on with the same 100 IRE test image should clearly indicate the difference as well.


Stewart UltraMatte 130?


----------



## Don Stewart

PixelPusher15 said:


> Well, I'm a bit stumped here and I may need some help from others in this thread. I got my ST100 sample from Stewart (actually two of them by accident) and I did a whole new battery of gain tests with my new X-rite i1 Display Pro. These results *did not* come out as expected. I'm going to list my full measurements below and maybe someone can see something I'm not. By using the Stewart ST100 as my reference material, almost everything came out lower than expected, a lot lower than expected. This is my second set of tests too. The first one I did at too much of an angle on the low side. I reset everything and did this round of tests measuring just over the i1DPs shadow about 4 inches away from the materials. I measured and finagled the i1DP and materials multiple times to see if I had something wonky going on. Nope, the readings only changed slightly. The second round with the new materials/sensor really only changed the high gain materials. The matte materials were almost identical. Anyway, I could use some input. It's almost like the ST100 is measuring at 1.1 or more gain.
> 
> (All of the woven screens were measured with the black backing that would be included in a screen from that company except Carl's)
> View attachment 3171359


With all due respect to the OP's good intentions, I am cringing reading the above post. As this thread now has over 6,000 views, many of them could be newbies, it is very misleading as the published light measurements were not done to professional standards which requires the proper lab equipment and training, plus the extremely critical geometrical alignment of all the components in the optical light path. That said, IMO, this can be very harmful to the ten or so commercial screen companies above as many viewers may take the above measured numbers at face value which is unfair to all those companies listed above. Measuring light output is in my daily world and I have been doing it for well over three decades, so one may say I am an expert at it.
When measuring a screen sample, such as a true matte lambertian diffusion screen, one can be quite sloppy with the lab components optical path alignment because the reflectance of light is pretty much equal at all angles. But when measuring the "PEAK GAIN" on any screen sample that has a "HALF GAIN" screen brightness angle, the proper alignment of the components in the light patch is most critical. The higher the screen gain and/or the darker the screen material, such as found ALR screens with narrow half gain viewing angles, will result with a "False" lower "Peak Gain" value measurement. This is because the light source component and light reading measurement device cannot occupy the same measuring axis as one component would block the light path of the other component. Therefore, with screen materials that have a half gain angle, the incident light ray reflects off the screen surface at the opposite same angle it strikes the screen surface. When positioning the light source and light measuring device, these angles must be precisely factored in to get an accurate Peak Gain measurement. (See example illustration below) Please note it is still very difficult to get the critical light paths perfectly aligned, even when using tripods with plum-bobs and large protractors for a temporary setup and still get accurate results. Please note, I have been there, done that with less than perfect results. To get truely accurate and very importantly, repeatable results, an optical light bench with a voltage power regulator is required where all the components are bolted down and hard mounted in perfect precise alignment and distances from sample being measured.(See second photo ) Where I work, we take screen measurements seriously. Therefore, I felt it important to take time to post the above.
Best Regards
Don Stewart


----------



## PixelPusher15

Don Stewart said:


> With all due respect to the OP's good intentions, I am cringing reading the above post. As this thread now has over 6,000 views, many of them newbies, it is very misleading as the light the measurements were not done to professional standards which requires the proper lab equipment and training, plus the extremely critical geometrical alignment of all the components in the optical light path. That said, IMO, this can be very harmful to the ten or so commercial screen companies above as many viewers may take the above measured numbers at face value which is unfair to all those companies listed above. Measuring light output is in my daily world and I have been doing it for well over three decades, so one may say I am an expert at it.
> When measuring a screen sample, such as a true matte lambertian diffusion screen, one can be quite sloppy with the lab components optical path alignment because the reflectance of light is pretty much equal at all angles. But when measuring the "PEAK GAIN" on any screen sample that has a "HALF GAIN" screen brightness angle, the proper alignment of the components in the light patch is most critical. The higher the screen gain and/or the darker the screen material, such as found ALR screens with narrow half gain viewing angles, will result with a "False" lower "Peak Gain" value measurement. This is because the light source component and light reading measurement device cannot occupy the same measuring axis as one component would block the light path of the other component. Therefore, with screen materials that have a half gain angle, the incident light ray reflects off the screen surface at the opposite same angle it strikes the screen surface. When positioning the light source and light measuring device, these angles must be precisely factored in to get an accurate Peak Gain measurement. (See example illustration below) Please note it is still very difficult to get the critical light paths perfectly aligned, even when using tripods with plum-bobs and large protractors for a temporary setup and still get accurate results. Please note, I have been there, done that with less than perfect results. To get truely accurate and very importantly, repeatable results, an optical light bench is required where all the components are bolted down and hard mounted in perfect precise alignment and distances from sample being measured.(See second photo ) Where I work, we take screen measurements seriously. Therefore, I felt it important to take time to post the above.
> Best Regards
> Don Stewart
> View attachment 3171677
> 
> View attachment 3171685


Don, thank you very much for chiming in and giving your input. I am sorry I made you cringe. I'd like to make it clear that nowhere have I said these should be considered reference measurements. In my original report here and on my website I emphasized that they are estimated gain measurements. Based on the feedback I have received I have tried to make them more sound while also not trying to present them as gospel. I recently got off the phone with a professional calibrator that didn't throw any red flags on my testing but did suggest that I find a Lambertian reflector to use as my reference material. I have searched but couldn't find one easily. If you know where I can obtain one please do let me know so I can get one to improve my methodology.

I obviously don't have the equipment that Stewart has to perform these measurements, but I can say that I have done my best in my environment to align my equipment as your diagram has shown. Again, I know it isn't nearly good enough to be considered reference grade and I will never present it as such.

Regarding my measurements above you can see that when the GreyMatte 70 MP is compared to the StudioTek 100 it comes out to a gain of 0.55. It is perforated but following the same 10% drop from the ST100 to the ST100 MP, I would have assumed the GreyMatte 70 MP would measure around 0.63. Both of these materials are spec'd as Lambertian by Stewart so my "sloppy" measuring should still result in a rather accurate reading. That didn't happen. This is my concern and why I was stumped. I would assume that you would be stumped too with them being both Lambertian screens. Do you have any insight into why these materials measured the way they did?


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> Don, thank you very much for chiming in and giving your input. I am sorry I made you cringe. I'd like to make it clear that nowhere have I said these should be considered reference measurements. In my original report here and on my website I emphasized that they are estimated gain measurements. Based on the feedback I have received I have tried to make them more sound while also not trying to present them as gospel. I recently got off the phone with a professional calibrator that didn't throw any red flags on my testing but did suggest that I find a Lambertian reflector to use as my reference material. I have searched but couldn't find one easily. If you know where I can obtain one please do let me know so I can get one to improve my methodology.
> 
> I obviously don't have the equipment that Stewart has to perform these measurements, but I can say that I have done my best in my environment to align my equipment as your diagram has shown. Again, I know it isn't nearly good enough to be considered reference grade and I will never present it as such.
> 
> Regarding my measurements above you can see that when the GreyMatte 70 MP is compared to the StudioTek 100 it comes out to a gain of 0.55. Both of these materials are spec'd as Lambertian by Stewart so my "sloppy" measuring should still result in a rather accurate reading. That didn't happen. This is my concern and why I was stumped. I would assume that you would be stumped too with them being both Lambertian screens. Do you have any insight into why these materials measured the way they did?


Excellent points. A Lambertian material should measure nearly consistently from all angles. However, that only works with a point sample sensor. With a broad sensor, you can't compare angles because the solid angle (visible area) decreases as you move off axis. (This and ignoring ambient light are probably the main reasons why a point sensor is important.)

Don makes a great point that the angle of incidence and reflection must match to properly measure high gain materials.

Combining both points, if you compared the ST100 sample side-by-side with another material that is known to be Lambertian, then you can walk around them. Their relative brightness should be consistent. For ST130, it should be brighter than the other material from the front and darker from the side. That relationship should be easily visible with eyes or from a camera that isn't overexposed.


----------



## Don Stewart

rcohen said:


> Excellent points. A Lambertian material should measure nearly consistently from all angles. However, that only works with a point sample sensor. *With a broad sensor, you can't compare angles because the solid angle (visible area) decreases as you move off axis. (This and ignoring ambient light are probably the main reasons why a point sensor is important.)*
> 
> Don makes a great point that the angle of incidence and reflection must match to properly measure high gain materials.
> 
> Combining both points, if you compared the ST100 sample side-by-side with another material that is known to be Lambertian, then you can walk around them. Their relative brightness should be consistent. For ST130, it should be brighter than the other material from the front and darker from the side. That relationship should be easily visible with eyes or from a camera that isn't overexposed.


Somehow I missed on earlier OP's post that OP is NOT using a lens focused spot meter sensor as a light reading device and I just assumed it as this is basic Screen Tech 101. Your points are well noted.


----------



## rcohen

Don Stewart said:


> Somehow I missed on earlier OP's post that OP is NOT using a lens focused spot meter sensor as a light reading device and I just assumed it as this is basic Screen Tech 101. Your points are well noted.


This is sure to make you cringe again, but I wonder if there's a mobile app that can give you reasonably accurate point luminance values.

Of course, a loaned spot meter is even better.


----------



## Don Stewart

rcohen said:


> This is sure to make you cringe again, but I wonder if there's a mobile app that can give you reasonably accurate point luminance values.
> 
> Of course, a loaned spot meter is even better.


I never had the need to check for a Mobil App as I have easy access to two different trustworthy screen labs here at Stewart. As for myself, I would only trust a Mobil App after doing comparison test utilizing the very same screen samples on the optical bench and then using the app to compare those samples and then analyze the data between the two. When there have been times when I have had to field test a screen on a job site, I have always used a compact Minolta 110 spot meter along with a certified lab reflectance standard for calibration.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Don Stewart said:


> I never had the need to check for a Mobil App as I have easy access to two different trustworthy screen labs here at Stewart. As for myself, I would only trust a Mobil App after doing comparison test utilizing the very same screen samples on the optical bench and then using the app to compare those samples and then analyze the data between the two. When there have been times when I have had to field test a screen on a job site, I have always used a compact* Minolta 110 degree* spot meter along with a certified lab reflectance standard for calibration.


Is this a typo? I found that the i1 Display Pro should have a much smaller viewing angle than 110 degrees. @Dominic Chan said it is +/-5 degress here: How to measure ALR screen gain



rcohen said:


> Excellent points. A Lambertian material should measure nearly consistently from all angles. However, that only works with a point sample sensor. With a broad sensor, you can't compare angles because the solid angle (visible area) decreases as you move off axis. (This and ignoring ambient light are probably the main reasons why a point sensor is important.)
> 
> Don makes a great point that the angle of incidence and reflection must match to properly measure high gain materials.
> 
> Combining both points, if you compared the ST100 sample side-by-side with another material that is known to be Lambertian, then you can walk around them. Their relative brightness should be consistent. For ST130, it should be brighter than the other material from the front and darker from the side. That relationship should be easily visible with eyes or from a camera that isn't overexposed.


The acceptance angle is spec'd identically on the Klien K10-A as what I also have found listed for the i1 Display Pro:


https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54dbde3fe4b0071045498815/t/5817d03dbebafb322e5493de/1477955647020/K10-A+SpecSheet.pdf















X-Rite i1 Measurement Solutions Info (i1Display PRO OEM Rev.B 2020 & i1PRO2 OEM Rev.E)


X-Rite i1Display PRO OEM Rev.B 2020 manufactured colorimeter with 2000 nits extended dynamic range and i1PRO2 Rev.E OEM spectrophotometer for color accuracy.



www.displaycalibrations.com













Is there something I am missing with how these meters are spec'd? Or is the previously suggested Klien meter not correct either?


----------



## Don Stewart

PixelPusher15 said:


> Is this a typo? I found that the i1 Display Pro should have a much smaller viewing angle than 110 degrees. @Dominic Chan said it is +/-5 degress here: How to measure ALR screen gain
> 
> 
> 
> The acceptance angle is spec'd identically on the Klien K10-A as what I also have found listed for the i1 Display Pro:
> 
> 
> https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54dbde3fe4b0071045498815/t/5817d03dbebafb322e5493de/1477955647020/K10-A+SpecSheet.pdf
> 
> 
> View attachment 3171753
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> X-Rite i1 Measurement Solutions Info (i1Display PRO OEM Rev.B 2020 & i1PRO2 OEM Rev.E)
> 
> 
> X-Rite i1Display PRO OEM Rev.B 2020 manufactured colorimeter with 2000 nits extended dynamic range and i1PRO2 Rev.E OEM spectrophotometer for color accuracy.
> 
> 
> 
> www.displaycalibrations.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 3171752
> 
> 
> Is there something I am missing with how these meters are spec'd? Or is the previously suggested Klien meter not correct either?


Yes, it is an error on my part and I corrected it. The model # is the Minolta 110.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> Is this a typo? I found that the i1 Display Pro should have a much smaller viewing angle than 110 degrees. @Dominic Chan said it is +/-5 degress here: How to measure ALR screen gain
> 
> 
> 
> The acceptance angle is spec'd identically on the Klien K10-A as what I also have found listed for the i1 Display Pro:
> 
> 
> https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54dbde3fe4b0071045498815/t/5817d03dbebafb322e5493de/1477955647020/K10-A+SpecSheet.pdf
> 
> 
> View attachment 3171753
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> X-Rite i1 Measurement Solutions Info (i1Display PRO OEM Rev.B 2020 & i1PRO2 OEM Rev.E)
> 
> 
> X-Rite i1Display PRO OEM Rev.B 2020 manufactured colorimeter with 2000 nits extended dynamic range and i1PRO2 Rev.E OEM spectrophotometer for color accuracy.
> 
> 
> 
> www.displaycalibrations.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 3171752
> 
> 
> Is there something I am missing with how these meters are spec'd? Or is the previously suggested Klien meter not correct either?


Come to think of it, since all the measurements you're doing are relative, you're using consistent and small sample sizes, and assuming you measure from the reflected angle like Don says, I think you're totally fine.

It's nice to have a narrowish angle like that to help ignore ambient light.

If you were measuring the off-axis response, a focused point measurement would be important (due to the solid angle thing), but that's not what you're doing.

It could also be a problem for measuring a full-size screen (since different parts of the screen would have very different angles), but again, that's not what you're doing.


----------



## Lygren

PixelPusher15 said:


> Is this a typo? I found that the i1 Display Pro should have a much smaller viewing angle than 110 degrees. @Dominic Chan said it is +/-5 degress here: How to measure ALR screen gain
> 
> 
> 
> The acceptance angle is spec'd identically on the Klien K10-A as what I also have found listed for the i1 Display Pro:
> 
> 
> https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54dbde3fe4b0071045498815/t/5817d03dbebafb322e5493de/1477955647020/K10-A+SpecSheet.pdf
> 
> 
> View attachment 3171753
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> X-Rite i1 Measurement Solutions Info (i1Display PRO OEM Rev.B 2020 & i1PRO2 OEM Rev.E)
> 
> 
> X-Rite i1Display PRO OEM Rev.B 2020 manufactured colorimeter with 2000 nits extended dynamic range and i1PRO2 Rev.E OEM spectrophotometer for color accuracy.
> 
> 
> 
> www.displaycalibrations.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 3171752
> 
> 
> Is there something I am missing with how these meters are spec'd? Or is the previously suggested Klien meter not correct either?


It´s not the actual measurement angle of the probe, but the probes reading angle, in your example 160 degrees cosine response for the i1 Display Pro.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Lygren said:


> It´s not the actual measurement angle of the probe, but the probes reading angle, in your example 160 degrees cosine response for the i1 Display Pro.


That 160 degree angle is the ambient viewing angle with the diffuser in place. At least that’s how I understand it and is what I’ve read.


----------



## Lygren

PixelPusher15 said:


> That 160 degree angle is the ambient viewing angle with the diffuser in place. At least that’s how I understand it and is what I’ve read.


We asked Calman / L.A. Heberlein a while back, and they told us that that probe should not be used for projection / reflective measurements on account of viewing angle. We have not analysed this further, and for all I know Calman might not be right, but at least I would assume this might be a potential issue? Too bad you´re located on the other side of the pond, we would gladly have lend you one of our K10A probes for your reference if not!


----------



## jsmith967

I also did some measurements several months ago and found that the Stewart was way brighter than the others. I've reposted the measurements here. My projector is calibrated to the Center Stage XD, which is why it has the least errors. All material has a black backing, so that shouldn't skew the measurements. 


XY screen Sound Max 4k
x: .3128
y: .3249
Y: 68.59
E: 2.3
Delata xy: .0042

XY Screen Sound Max 8k
x: .3132
y: .3247
Y: 59.773
E: 2.2
Delata xy: .0043

Elite UHD
x: .3131
y: .3250
Y: 65.973
E: 2.2
Delata xy: .0040

Seymour Center Stage XD (my current screen fabric on a DIY fixed frame)
x: .3252
y: .3275
Y: 71.06
E: 1
Delata xy: .0029

Seymour Center Stage UF
x: .3138
y: .3251
Y: 58.074
E: 1.9
Delata xy: .004

Stewart 100
x: .3147
y: .3253
Y: 85.2
E: 2.0
Delata xy: .0042 











Seating/Viewing distance: 7.5 feet

Samples:
Left half: Seymour Center Stage XD (my DIY fixed frame screen)
On the right half side:
Top left: Stewart 100
Top center: Dreamweave v7
Top right: Elite UHD
Bottom: XYScreens Sound Max 4K

Notes on texture and brightness in video:
As you can see, the 4k and the XD screen are quite close and on video content, it is hard to tell them apart except that the 4K material has less texture than the XD material.
The Dreamweave is comparatively dim (this is apparently a 'contaminated' sample that does not reflect an uncontaminated/full version of the fabric)
Difficult to tell XYScreen Sound Max 4K and Elite UHD apart.
The Seymour Center Stage XD is just a tad brighter than the XY Sound Max 4K. The XY Sound Max 4k, Dreamweave v7, and Elite Acoustic UHD have no texture. The Stewart has a slight sparkle that is not presence on the rest which makes me think it is not the 100 but the 130. However, it has a 100 sticker on it and I asked the rep to verify and they confirmed that it was the 100. The Center Stage XD has a slight weave texture (as has been noted by others at this viewing distance).


----------



## rcohen

jsmith967 said:


> I also did some measurements several months ago and found that the Stewart was way brighter than the others. I've reposted the measurements here. My projector is calibrated to the Center Stage XD, which is why it has the least errors. All material has a black backing, so that shouldn't skew the measurements.
> 
> 
> XY screen Sound Max 4k
> x: .3128
> y: .3249
> Y: 68.59
> E: 2.3
> Delata xy: .0042
> 
> XY Screen Sound Max 8k
> x: .3132
> y: .3247
> Y: 59.773
> E: 2.2
> Delata xy: .0043
> 
> Elite UHD
> x: .3131
> y: .3250
> Y: 65.973
> E: 2.2
> Delata xy: .0040
> 
> Seymour Center Stage XD (my current screen fabric on a DIY fixed frame)
> x: .3252
> y: .3275
> Y: 71.06
> E: 1
> Delata xy: .0029
> 
> Seymour Center Stage UF
> x: .3138
> y: .3251
> Y: 58.074
> E: 1.9
> Delata xy: .004
> 
> Stewart 100
> x: .3147
> y: .3253
> Y: 85.2
> E: 2.0
> Delata xy: .0042
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seating/Viewing distance: 7.5 feet
> 
> Samples:
> Left half: Seymour Center Stage XD (my DIY fixed frame screen)
> On the right half side:
> Top left: Stewart 100
> Top center: Dreamweave v7
> Top right: Elite UHD
> Bottom: XYScreens Sound Max 4K
> 
> Notes on texture and brightness in video:
> As you can see, the 4k and the XD screen are quite close and on video content, it is hard to tell them apart except that the 4K material has less texture than the XD material.
> The Dreamweave is comparatively dim (this is apparently a 'contaminated' sample that does not reflect an uncontaminated/full version of the fabric)
> Difficult to tell XYScreen Sound Max 4K and Elite UHD apart.
> The Seymour Center Stage XD is just a tad brighter than the XY Sound Max 4K. The XY Sound Max 4k, Dreamweave v7, and Elite Acoustic UHD have no texture. The Stewart has a slight sparkle that is not presence on the rest which makes me think it is not the 100 but the 130. However, it has a 100 sticker on it and I asked the rep to verify and they confirmed that it was the 100. The Center Stage XD has a slight weave texture (as has been noted by others at this viewing distance).


Did you put masking tape on your screen??

For a fair comparison, you would need the microperf version of ST100. In theory, the non-perf version should have a gain of 1. I just mean that the microperf version should have a gain of less than 1, for apples-apples.

These Y values may be non-linear, so hard to guess how much absolute brightness they represent, but anything is better than nothing!


----------



## Lygren

We have always used the Studiotek 100 (non AT / non perf) for our reference for our measurements (referencing it as a gain 1.0), you can find them referenced on our webpages (all the way down); DREAMSCREEN ULTRAWEAVE V7 SCREEN FABRIC 2,3X4M / 2,3X5,3M FIT-ALL SYSTEM – DreamScreen. I guess we should be using an industry default 1.0 gain test piece instead of the Studiotek 100 though, but our measurements has always come out quite as expected, both in terms measuring our own fabrics as well as other competing ones using the Studiotek 100 as the reference. There should be very little sheen on the Studiotek 100, and compared to the Studiotek 130 it should be a very clear difference in on axis light reflection between the two. Do these two ST100 / ST130-samples look similar upon visual inspection as well?


----------



## PixelPusher15

Just an update on my next steps. I've built a rig that is mounted with screws to my screen wall and will hold the screen samples and the i1 Display Pro at ~3" away. I also set up a string from the center of the projector lens to the center of the screen sample area to measure the angle of projected light with a protractor. Then, I calculated the opposite angle for positioning the i1DP. The rig is dead plumb, the projected light is coming in at 100 degrees and I'm measuring at 80 degrees with the i1DP. Since this is all secured to my wall there will be no chance for these variables to change. The one exception is the i1DP which could get bumped from its mounted position. I'll be sure to check the measurement angle throughout this next testing session, which will hopefully be tonight.

If this doesn't produce satisfactory results then I'm going to throw my hands in the air and run through my neighborhood screaming in frustration. Just kidding. I'm going to try to get a white reflectance standard to lock down what a true 1.0 gain measurement looks like. I may also try to borrow a different meter but I still have a lot of doubts that is the issue here.


----------



## rcohen

Not making any requests - just a thought experiment...

What's the best way to compare contrast loss due to light leakage/translucency with AT screens?

It seems like the ideal way would be to have full size screens against a black backdrop, but that's not practical.

With a small sample, I worry that would underestimate contrast loss, since the leaked light isn't trapped.

Perhaps the sample frame needs a proportionately sized box that's painted black?


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> Not making any requests - just a thought experiment...
> 
> What's the best way to compare contrast loss due to light leakage/translucency with AT screens?
> 
> It seems like the ideal way would be to have full size screens against a black backdrop, but that's not practical.
> 
> With a small sample, I worry that would underestimate contrast loss, since the leaked light isn't trapped.
> 
> Perhaps the sample frame needs a proportionately sized box that's painted black?


I'd say +95% of what is behind my screen is black/dark dark grey. I'm not sure that there will be a large difference between measuring contrast in this situation and a full screen. Will it be exact? Probably not. Will it be good enough to get an idea of what will happen in practice? Probably. 

That being said, I'm not sure contrast will be affected that much. If a screen lets 10% of the light through then it will do it for peak white and the black. The ratio should stay the same. ANSI contrast may be impacted by the light penetration going through once and then back. This would be heavily influenced by each person's setup though. If you put velvet behind the screen then it won't be an issue. If you have a white wall behind the screen then....what are you doing? Lol. 

I'll give do a few contrast measurements to see what happens though, it's worth experimenting with.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> I'd say +95% of what is behind my screen is black/dark dark grey. I'm not sure that there will be a large difference between measuring contrast in this situation and a full screen. Will it be exact? Probably not. Will it be good enough to get an idea of what will happen in practice? Probably.
> 
> That being said, I'm not sure contrast will be affected that much. If a screen lets 10% of the light through then it will do it for peak white and the black. The ratio should stay the same. ANSI contrast may be impacted by the light penetration going through once and then back. This would be heavily influenced by each person's setup though. If you put velvet behind the screen then it won't be an issue. If you have a white wall behind the screen then....what are you doing? Lol.
> 
> I'll give do a few contrast measurements to see what happens though, it's worth experimenting with.


Speaking selfishly again, my decision is between XD and ST130MP.

I’ve heard conflicting things, but the issues are how big the differences are with brightness, contrast, and off-axis FR shifts.

the contrast difference has been brought up repeatedly by other people, but it’s all anecdotal. They claim it’s substantial. So, I’d love to see it measured. 

I don’t know how important it is to trap the light in a box. I think it might be, but I’m not sure.


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> Speaking selfishly again, my decision is between XD and ST130MP.
> 
> I’ve heard conflicting things, but the issues are how big the differences are with brightness, contrast, and off-axis FR shifts.
> 
> the contrast difference has been brought up repeatedly by other people, but it’s all anecdotal. They claim it’s substantial. So, I’d love to see it measured.
> 
> I don’t know how important it is to trap the light in a box. I think it might be, but I’m not sure.


I can put a piece of velvet .75” behind the screen but I’m not sure how that will reflect real world usage. I could also put a piece of cardboard spray painted flat black as well. This would probably be more real world-like as far as the sort of reflectance behind the screen.

I can take a picture of my rig but it is .75” thick so it would be essentially a light trap with the back material (not black backing) placed on its backside.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> I can put a piece of velvet .75” behind the screen but I’m not sure how that will reflect real world usage. I could also put a piece of cardboard spray painted flat black as well. This would probably be more real world-like as far as the sort of reflectance behind the screen.
> 
> I can take a picture of my jig but it is .75” thick so it would be essentially a light trap with the back material (not black backing) placed on its backside.


Thinking about this some more, best case, there is black in front and black behind the screen. Assuming the screen mostly reflects, scattered light behind the screen can’t be any more of an issue than in front of the screen.

With that in mind, I think the real enemy is blooming from light that passes through the screen.

I’m not sure how to gauge that, though. A piece of black velvet might unrealistically reduce the effect. I’m hoping you can somehow measure the effect, not eliminate it.

The box idea was for scattered light, so never mind that.


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> Thinking about this some more, best case, there is black in front and black behind the screen. Assuming the screen mostly reflects, scattered light behind the screen can’t be any more of an issue than in front of the screen.
> 
> With that in mind, I think the real enemy is blooming from light that passes through the screen.
> 
> I’m not sure how to gauge that, though. A piece of black velvet might unrealistically reduce the effect. I’m hoping you can somehow measure the effect, not eliminate it.
> 
> The box idea was for scattered light, so never mind that.


Yeah, this is gonna be hard to test with such a small piece of material. I may be able to rig up an ANSI-like contrast pattern where a black/white split goes right through the sample. I’ve got some charcoal spray paint, I think, that I could use for that back material during the test. I could see this being a decent test for blooming but it still has the caveat that what I have behind the materials will differ from most everyone


----------



## sam_adams

PixelPusher15 said:


> Yeah, this is gonna be hard to test with such a small piece of material. I may be able to rig up an ANSI-like contrast pattern where a black/white split goes right through the sample. I’ve got some charcoal spray paint, I think, that I could use for that back material during the test. I could see this being a decent test for blooming but it still has the caveat that what I have behind the materials will differ from most everyone


You could try to limit the angular field of view of the i1DP by using a small tube with a black, flocked paper lining—to limit internal reflections—attached to the front of the sensor. Using a known 1.0 gain sample you could calibrate your initial measurement against that and then measure your other samples. Don't know how well this would work without some testing, but it might be worth a try.


----------



## jsmith967

rcohen said:


> Did you put masking tape on your screen??
> 
> For a fair comparison, you would need the microperf version of ST100. In theory, the non-perf version should have a gain of 1. I just mean that the microperf version should have a gain of less than 1, for apples-apples.
> 
> These Y values may be non-linear, so hard to guess how much absolute brightness they represent, but anything is better than nothing!


I did not put masking tap on the screen. As I noted, there is a black velvet behind the samples and the samples a taped to that. 

As Lygren says below, I used the ST100 as a standard practice given that it represents 1.0 gain. I was shocked to see how much brighter it was than the XD or the other materials (as Seymour is conservative in the gain estimates). 

The Y values are meant to be relative only. I did not do the math for everyone like PixelPusher did. Assuming that the ST100 is 1.0, you can calculate the relative gain with the Y values. Or, given my current screen of the XD, I can calculate how much dimmer/brighter the other screens will be.


----------



## rcohen

jsmith967 said:


> I did not put masking tap on the screen. As I noted, there is a black velvet behind the samples and the samples a taped to that.
> 
> As Lygren says below, I used the ST100 as a standard practice given that it represents 1.0 gain. I was shocked to see how much brighter it was than the XD or the other materials (as Seymour is conservative in the gain estimates).
> 
> The Y values are meant to be relative only. I did not do the math for everyone like PixelPusher did. Assuming that the ST100 is 1.0, you can calculate the relative gain with the Y values. Or, given my current screen of the XD, I can calculate how much dimmer/brighter the other screens will be.


How did you get those values? I'm not clear on whether the Y value is linear, logarithmic, or something else. Gain is linear, so any non-linear measure would need to be converted, if it is non-linear.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> Yeah, this is gonna be hard to test with such a small piece of material. I may be able to rig up an ANSI-like contrast pattern where a black/white split goes right through the sample. I’ve got some charcoal spray paint, I think, that I could use for that back material during the test. I could see this being a decent test for blooming but it still has the caveat that what I have behind the materials will differ from most everyone


I thought your background is already black.

Considering the 20 degree angle that you're using now, you'd think blooming on a contrast pattern would reveal if there is much difference between the weaves and microperf vinyl.

Perhaps it would depend on the distance to the black background, so that a white square on the back wall lines up with a black square on the screen (from the POV of the sensor.)


----------



## rcohen

This article is interesting. It acknowledges and shows that woven screens without black backing have superior acoustical transparency to microperf, but then makes the point that woven + black backing sacrifices that advantage. It then points out that microperf has superior gain and contrast compared to woven, so therefore, it's a false tradeoff.





Defining the Difference in Perforated Screens - Stewart


It seems that we thrive on the “who is best” arguments in all walks of life. There is the PC versus MAC conflict and the Ford versus Chevy versus Dodge battles that fuel the NASCAR phenomenon. In our realm of replicating the cinema experience we can look to a more profound group of metrics with w




www.stewartfilmscreen.com





I don't understand why a black backing provides any better visual performance than a black wall - especially one covered with black fabric.

Perhaps the primary concern is a double image, necessitating that the black backing is placed directly against the screen?

In that case, perhaps the problem with woven (aside from gain) is a double image, rather than a loss in contrast? I can't say I've ever noticed a double image on woven screens that I've seen. I never looked super close, unfortunately, and it's been too long to remember details. 

Perhaps the loss in sharpness people discuss about woven is really due to a low gain screen in a non-black room?


----------



## Lygren

Even very slightly shiny objects such as a speaker tweeter might cause back-reflections, and as such, using a backing material is normally a good idea in my opinion. The challenge with separate backing is to get it perfectly close to the primary reflective layer. Even the slightest distance will cause light bleed between the layers and as such also blur. We found that to be an issue with a lot of solutions up through and is also why our backing is now bonded and fully integrated with our fabrics along with the remainder of the layers in our patented buildup. The black backing often also increases the perceived contrast for some reason, I´d assume for simply adding more "black" to the projected surface. 

In some cases I am sure installation without the backing might work fine if one plans for it properly though, but since it is a lot of additional work figuring out later on that it did not work as intended I guess a lot of people choose to install it as a precaution.


----------



## PixelPusher15

I ran through my test again last night and had to make one adjustment to my rig. The i1DP was measuring its shadow so I had to back it up to ~5" but still maintained the -10 degree angle from the horizontal plane. Here's a picture of the rig:









Before running through this one I calibrated peak white to the Stewart StudioTek 100. Here are the readings (not much different from my last batch):









@rcohen I did a 1% contrast measure where I adjusted the 1% full white box up so about 25% of it would pass through the screen sample area and hit my speaker directly. Here's a picture of what that looked like (this is with it adjusted up):








You can see in the photo that I blocked off the area above the screen samples with black spandex. This allows some light to pass through it but not a ton. The light passing through this should equally affect all materials that have some translucency. I turned my speaker to make some room but this acts as a solid black surface for some reflectancy that I assume would be real-world-like. I'm not 100% confident in these measurements since I did them late last night and had to adjust a few things throughout to make it a fair comparison and consistent. This meant I had to go back and redo some measurements. I did this as a sort of proof of concept to see if I should do more testing on more materials. Based on the readings below I for sure would like to fine-tune this and do more testing:









Considering my gain measurements still don't line up with AccuCal I am probably going to investigate some next steps. The first will probably be to see if someone around me has a Minolta meter I can borrow. I wonder if something like a reflectance standard or a Minolta meter can be rented. I am still doubting that my i1DP is invalid for the matte 1.0 gain and below materials. My readings have been pretty darn consistent for those regardless of angle.

Further feedback and input are welcome as always.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> I ran through my test again last night and had to make one adjustment to my rig. The i1DP was measuring its shadow so I had to back it up to ~5" but still maintained the -10 degree angle from the horizontal plane. Here's a picture of the rig:
> View attachment 3173087
> 
> 
> Before running through this one I calibrated peak white to the Stewart StudioTek 100. Here are the readings (not much different from my last batch):
> View attachment 3173082
> 
> 
> @rcohen I did a 1% contrast measure where I adjusted the 1% full white box up so about 25% of it would pass through the screen sample area and hit my speaker directly. Here's a picture of what that looked like (this is with it adjusted up):
> View attachment 3173086
> 
> You can see in the photo that I blocked off the area above the screen samples with black spandex. This allows some light to pass through it but not a ton. The light passing through this should equally affect all materials that have some translucency. I turned my speaker to make some room but this acts as a solid black surface for some reflectancy that I assume would be real-world-like. I'm not 100% confident in these measurements since I did them late last night and had to adjust a few things throughout to make it a fair comparison and consistent. This meant I had to go back and redo some measurements. I did this as a sort of proof of concept to see if I should do more testing on more materials. Based on the readings below I for sure would like to fine-tune this and do more testing:
> View attachment 3173089
> 
> 
> Considering my gain measurements still don't line up with AccuCal I am probably going to investigate some next steps. The first will probably be to see if someone around me has a Minolta meter I can borrow. I wonder if something like a reflectance standard or a Minolta meter can be rented. I am still doubting that my i1DP is invalid for the matte 1.0 gain and below materials. My readings have been pretty darn consistent for those regardless of angle.
> 
> Further feedback and input are welcome as always.


ST100 and ST130 measuring the same is still very suspect. The only explanation I can think of is that one of them is the wrong sample. It would be a shame if that invalidated your hard work. 

No idea what % contrast is ideal to measure.

Did you notice a significant problem with double images on weave vs weave w/backing vs vinyl? If that’s not a big deal, no worries! If it is a huge deal, it would be nice to quantify somehow.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Oh, I forgot to also mention that all of the contrast measurements were done with the manufacturer's black backing. But I also did one without the black backing for the XY 4K material.

*Material**Black**White**Contrast (With Backing)**Black**White**Contrast (Without Backing)*XY Screens Sound Max 4K0.1990.1474:10.21391.4429:1


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> ST100 and ST130 measuring the same is still very suspect. The only explanation I can think of is that one of them is the wrong sample. It would be a shame if that invalidated your hard work.
> 
> No idea what % contrast is ideal to measure.
> 
> Did you notice a significant problem with double images on weave vs weave w/backing vs vinyl? If that’s not a big deal, no worries! If it is a huge deal, it would be nice to quantify somehow.


The ST130 is MP and is measuring at 1.0, the ST100 MP is measuring at 0.9. So if the ST130 loses 10% when perforated then a non-perf ST130 would measure around 1.1. Not the same as the ST100 but still a bit suspect. That being said, the ST130 is a lighter-weight material than ST100, and when viewing the perforations from the backside they appear slightly smaller on the ST130. I am not sure how the thickness of the material would impact the gain measurements but the larger perforations on the ST100 would seem to harm it more than the ST130. I don't have a sample of the ST130 to see the actual light loss and my last request for more samples was met with a wee bit more questioning from Stewart Filmscreen.

Well, Dominic Chan just chimed in on my question about using the i1DP for this test and he said the area of measurement from one foot for the i1DP would be ~2.2". I'm measuring at 4" (just took a tape to it) so that means *my measurement area is 0.73". *He also gave a tip on using the Ambient Visionaire 2.1 as a way to lock down an angle where it measures its highest and then using that for everything else. This is a different methodology from what @Don Stewart posted and what I just implemented but it would be easy to see how some of the positive gain screens measure doing this.

He also said that unmounted screen samples measure lower and he himself had the Silver Ticket Matte Grey at 0.6, mine is 0.62. A link to his comments.


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> ST100 and ST130 measuring the same is still very suspect. The only explanation I can think of is that one of them is the wrong sample. It would be a shame if that invalidated your hard work.
> 
> No idea what % contrast is ideal to measure.
> 
> Did you notice a significant problem with double images on weave vs weave w/backing vs vinyl? If that’s not a big deal, no worries! If it is a huge deal, it would be nice to quantify somehow.


I didn't think the 1% contrast measurement was special for this. It was more that it was an easy pattern to modify and it would also not cast a ton of light off random materials behind my screen. The 1% box could easily be captured with the black spandex as well. This means contrast for something like an ANSI pattern could be more negatively affected since there is even more light passing through the screen. I do feel like I only have the ability to give a small snapshot into the effects on contrast given my sample sizes.

I didn't notice any obvious double images but I wasn't really looking for it. I have a handful of new samples that I need to redo the texture tests for. My plan was to that all over again with the manufacturer's black backings and look for double images and blurring/blooming. Hopefully, if there are any obvious issues I can capture them with my mirrorless DSLR. I'd like to get through this gain test first though. It was supposed to be the easy one vs redoing the acoustic testing. 😬


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> The ST130 is MP and is measuring at 1.0, the ST100 MP is measuring at 0.9. So if the ST130 loses 10% when perforated then a non-perf ST130 would measure around 1.1. Not the same as the ST100 but still a bit suspect. That being said, the ST130 is a lighter-weight material than ST100, and when viewing the perforations from the backside they appear slightly smaller on the ST130. I am not sure how the thickness of the material would impact the gain measurements but the larger perforations on the ST100 would seem to harm it more than the ST130. I don't have a sample of the ST130 to see the actual light loss and my last request for more samples was met with a wee bit more questioning from Stewart Filmscreen.


Ah...I accidentally compared ST100 to ST130 MP. Not apples-apples!


----------



## PixelPusher15

I just noticed that Sound and Vision did a review of the Harmony G2 screen from Stewart a couple weeks ago and they used a Labsphere USRT-99 Spectralon Reflectance Target. With this they measured 18.2 ft-L and then with the Harmony G2 they measured 11.935 ft-L, this equates to a gain of .66. My recent measurements have the gain of the G2 at .63. Given I'm using an ST100 as my reference material that I have seen reviewed at +/- a couple percent deviation from 1.0 I'd consider what I have measured pretty darn close.

Here's the link to the review: Stewart Filmscreen Harmony G2 Acoustically Transparent Screen Review Test Bench


----------



## Lygren

Just for fun, how about you try to double the light output from your light source (i.e. projector)? Just place it a bit closer. In the past I have seen that for some probes / settings, the amount of light reflected might change the (relative) results.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Lygren said:


> Just for fun, how about you try to double the light output from your light source (i.e. projector)? Just place it a bit closer. In the past I have seen that for some probes / settings, the amount of light reflected might change the (relative) results.


I have no problem doing this for a handful (low and high gain) to see what happens. I did just have to get some sports tape to wrap the tips of my fingers. Pushing these push pins in over and over is taking a toll on ’em lol


----------



## Lygren

PixelPusher15 said:


> I have no problem doing this for a handful (low and high gain) to see what happens. I did just have to get some sports tape to wrap the tips of my fingers. Pushing these push pins in over and over is taking a toll on ’em lol


Sure, I was thinking more of testing just a couple of samples to see, just out of curiosity. We just did a quick remeasure of the XY 4K, Studiotek 100 and v7 the other day, and our values still come out exactly as they did in the past. Our measurement room is pitch black with no reflections whatsoever though, and our reference ST100 is a full size screen, not a small sample, but aside from that and the meter we are using, there is little reason for our measurements to come out this differently. Hope we can figure it out, it is certainly in a lot of people´s interest to get these kind of data on such a huge amount of screen materials.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Lygren said:


> Sure, I was thinking more of testing just a couple of samples to see, just out of curiosity. We just did a quick remeasure of the XY 4K, Studiotek 100 and v7 the other day, and our values still come out exactly as they did in the past. Our measurement room is pitch black with no reflections whatsoever though, and our reference ST100 is a full size screen, not a small sample, but aside from that and the meter we are using, there is little reason for our measurements to come out this differently. Hope we can figure it out, it is certainly in a lot of people´s interest to get these kind of data on such a huge amount of screen materials.


I’ve got an email out to X-rite about using the Display Pro for this test so we’ll see what they say soon enough.


----------



## jsmith967

rcohen said:


> How did you get those values? I'm not clear on whether the Y value is linear, logarithmic, or something else. Gain is linear, so any non-linear measure would need to be converted, if it is non-linear.


Y = nits. It is a standard reading in calibration software.


----------



## PixelPusher15

I'm not sure why I didn't do this before but I took some pictures. I was going to use my mirrorless DSLR (FujiFilm XT-10) but it was out of battery and I was doing this over lunch, so my iPhone XS will have to do. I do believe it shows the differences well but be aware that on my iPhone screen it was obvious. On my desktop monitor, it was slightly less obvious.

@Lygren, I also tried measuring a few with my projector in high power mode and did see a small difference. Each material measured about 1-2% higher in relation to the ST100 but they all stayed pretty relative to each other. The labels on the photos below have the gain measurements listed from this high-power mode reading.

Below are photos of what each material looks like in the position I am taking measurements in. This first photo has the black backing behind the XY material. I put the V7 material on top because it doesn't allow much light through it at all. There have also been doubts that it is measuring low so I gave it the advantage of being in front of the XY material, just in case some light went through the XY 4K and then came back through.



























I'll let y'all judge with your eyes but I do believe the photos show what I am seeing in person.


----------



## PixelPusher15

I also heard back from X-rite and they said they would have no reason to believe the i1Display Pro would provide inconsistent readings as long as my projector and angle of measurement are consistent. Considering both are pretty well fixed in place and my projector has been very consistent with its light output I don't think there is an issue with the setup.

At this point, I'm pretty confident in my methodology accurately reading the samples I have +/- a few percentage points. I do believe the margin of error is too high for reference readings and that was never my goal. If these gain measurements aren't aligning with expectations then I can only conclude one of two things, the ST100 sample is measuring higher than 1.0, or the sample is tainted in some way. I don't believe I have tainted any of the samples based on my handling, but that isn't impossible. For most of their time in my possession, they have been stored in an envelope or recently stored in a folder for each manufacturer inside a sealed box. Dreamscreen has already caught that I received a tainted first sample so it is possible that some of the other samples were tainted before they got to me as well. I guess there is a third possibility and that is that 8.5x11" samples will for some reason measure lower when not mounted. Dominic Chan said this in another thread so that is a possibility. But I don't know why all samples, including the reference ST100, wouldn't also measure lower.

I'd like to hear from those in the thread about how you all would like me to represent this data. I do believe that my methods are accurately reading what one would see in person, that is the point of measuring, right? But, there is the possibility that my reference material is off and the actual gain measures aren't "true" if compared to a real reference standard. I can report the measurements purely on nit levels and the reader can interpret them as they see fit, or I can continue reporting gain. Is there a preference?


----------



## Lygren

I´ll try to take some pics tomorrow, but this is how the XY screen we measured looks like (bottom right). I guess the version you are using is an updated version with higher gain.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> I'm not sure why I didn't do this before but I took some pictures. I was going to use my mirrorless DSLR (FujiFilm XT-10) but it was out of battery and I was doing this over lunch, so my iPhone XS will have to do. I do believe it shows the differences well but be aware that on my iPhone screen it was obvious. On my desktop monitor, it was slightly less obvious.
> 
> @Lygren, I also tried measuring a few with my projector in high power mode and did see a small difference. Each material measured about 1-2% higher in relation to the ST100 but they all stayed pretty relative to each other. The labels on the photos below have the gain measurements listed from this high-power mode reading.
> 
> Below are photos of what each material looks like in the position I am taking measurements in. This first photo has the black backing behind the XY material. I put the V7 material on top because it doesn't allow much light through it at all. There have also been doubts that it is measuring low so I gave it the advantage of being in front of the XY material, just in case some light went through the XY 4K and then came back through.
> View attachment 3173831
> 
> 
> View attachment 3173832
> 
> 
> View attachment 3173830
> 
> 
> I'll let y'all judge with your eyes but I do believe the photos show what I am seeing in person.


The pictures are indeed useful. They would be more useful if the pictures could somehow use a consistent exposure. If you don't have a camera with manual exposure, you could use a reference material (ST100 or the brightest sample) and tap on that with the camera so it is used to set the exposure.

Personally, I'm really curious to see XD and ST130MP side-by-side, but I could do that across images if they had a consistent exposure.

It looks like the answer to this is yes, but just to confirm, the photos are taken with the projector on at the reflected angle? Just want to make sure we are seeing the angle with max brightness.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> I also heard back from X-rite and they said they would have no reason to believe the i1Display Pro would provide inconsistent readings as long as my projector and angle of measurement are consistent. Considering both are pretty well fixed in place and my projector has been very consistent with its light output I don't think there is an issue with the setup.
> 
> At this point, I'm pretty confident in my methodology accurately reading the samples I have +/- a few percentage points. I do believe the margin of error is too high for reference readings and that was never my goal. If these gain measurements aren't aligning with expectations then I can only conclude one of two things, the ST100 sample is measuring higher than 1.0, or the sample is tainted in some way. I don't believe I have tainted any of the samples based on my handling, but that isn't impossible. For most of their time in my possession, they have been stored in an envelope or recently stored in a folder for each manufacturer inside a sealed box. Dreamscreen has already caught that I received a tainted first sample so it is possible that some of the other samples were tainted before they got to me as well. I guess there is a third possibility and that is that 8.5x11" samples will for some reason measure lower when not mounted. Dominic Chan said this in another thread so that is a possibility. But I don't know why all samples, including the reference ST100, wouldn't also measure lower.
> 
> I'd like to hear from those in the thread about how you all would like me to represent this data. I do believe that my methods are accurately reading what one would see in person, that is the point of measuring, right? But, there is the possibility that my reference material is off and the actual gain measures aren't "true" if compared to a real reference standard. I can report the measurements purely on nit levels and the reader can interpret them as they see fit, or I can continue reporting gain. Is there a preference?


To me, gain is the most useful, since nits are specific to the projector & setup (as long as the gain reference is clearly stated, which I'm sure it would be.)


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> The pictures are indeed useful. They would be more useful if the pictures could somehow use a consistent exposure. If you don't have a camera with manual exposure, you could use a reference material (ST100 or the brightest sample) and tap on that with the camera so it is used to set the exposure.
> 
> Personally, I'm really curious to see XD and ST130MP side-by-side, but I could do that across images if they had a consistent exposure.
> 
> It looks like the answer to this is yes, but just to confirm, the photos are taken with the projector on at the reflected angle? Just want to make sure we are seeing the angle with max brightness.


These weren't taken with the precision needed for accurate cross-reference. They were more done to show that these gain numbers I'm reporting are actually reflecting what I'm seeing in real life. I left the meter in place so the lens on the camera would need to be directly behind the material to get the same angle.

I'd be fine with taking photos to add a bit more meat to these tests. I can use my XT-10 on a tripod exactly at 10 degrees below the horizontal axis, lock the exposure, and snap a shot of each material. Since it does appear that adding a bit more light raises the negative gain screens a percent or two I was planning on running everything through once more. I can do the pictures as part of this, although it will take two batches of testing since I'll need to move the i1Display Pro.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> These weren't taken with the precision needed for accurate cross-reference. They were more done to show that these gain numbers I'm reporting are actually reflecting what I'm seeing in real life. I left the meter in place so the lens on the camera would need to be directly behind the material to get the same angle.
> 
> I'd be fine with taking photos to add a bit more meat to these tests. I can use my XT-10 on a tripod exactly at 10 degrees below the horizontal axis, lock the exposure, and snap a shot of each material. Since it does appear that adding a bit more light raises the negative gain screens a percent or two I was planning on running everything through once more. I can do the pictures as part of this, although it will take two batches of testing since I'll need to move the i1Display Pro.


Sounds great! Of course, you'd want to lock the exposure using the brightest material, in order to avoid overexposure.


----------



## Lygren

Not the best picture, but ST100 as the main frame, v7 in the middle and the XY 4K to the right. What one can also see we measure accordingly, although a bit lower values (the light source is not properlt calibrated, might be causing some shift), but without our 5% buffer the v7 measures 0.863 and the XY 4K measures 0.835 on one side and 0.827 on the other. On the "official" gain we have added 5% "buffer" (others add typically 20-30%) to account for that the ST100 might measure a bit over 1.0 gain or other smaller variations (we do post the actual measurements for all to see though, so full transparency either way), so this is still pretty much in line with our previous measurements. We might have used the "lower gain" side of the XY 4K when measuring in the past, but the picture is showing the "higher gain" side of the XY. Your XY 4K screen sample is probably a different version than ours.

I guess there is not that much more I can contribute with here, other than stating our measurements differ on account of some variable. Either your ST100 sample measures significantly higher than our full sized ST100 screen or there are issues with the meter. As we are calibrating professional studios all the time, and the guy doing the measurements has been doing professional calibrations for some 20 year and also use a CR250 spectroradiometer to profile our Klein K10A probes, we have little reason to believe our gear has any issues, but if we do find something might be off we will be sure to let you know.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Lygren said:


> Not the best picture, but ST100 as the main frame, v7 in the middle and the XY 4K to the right. What one can also see we measure accordingly, although a bit lower values (the light source is not properlt calibrated, might be causing some shift), but without our 5% buffer the v7 measures 0.863 and the XY 4K measures 0.835 on one side and 0.827 on the other. On the "official" gain we have added 5% "buffer" (others add typically 20-30%) to account for that the ST100 might measure a bit over 1.0 gain or other smaller variations (we do post the actual measurements for all to see though, so full transparency either way), so this is still pretty much in line with our previous measurements. We might have used the "lower gain" side of the XY 4K when measuring in the past, but the picture is showing the "higher gain" side of the XY. Your XY 4K screen sample is probably a different version than ours.
> 
> I guess there is not that much more I can contribute with here, other than stating our measurements differ on account of some variable. Either your ST100 sample measures significantly higher than our full sized ST100 screen or there are issues with the meter. As we are calibrating professional studios all the time, and the guy doing the measurements has been doing professional calibrations for some 20 year and also use a CR250 spectroradiometer to profile our Klein K10A probes, we have little reason to believe our gear has any issues, but if we do find something might be off we will be sure to let you know.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 3174089


Thanks for showing this. Comparing your photo to mine, which may be a failed exercise from the beginning, it appears to show that relative to the ST100 both the XY and v7 materials are in fact brighter. If this is true, which has been my assumption, then I'm also not sure how to proceed. What I am measuring is what is matching what I see, and you are doing the same.

I do have to ask though, is your setup similar to mine? I've gotten a bit of scrutiny over here with making sure the light source, material, and meter are fixed and that the measurement angle is exactly the opposite of the incoming light source. I just want to make sure our measurements are as close to apples to apples as they can be.


----------



## Lygren

Attaching a couple of pics from our "calibration dungeon"... We place the incoming light and measurement probe at approximately the same angle. However, for a unity gain type of screen, this is not as important as for a positive gain screen. From the distance we are placing our Klein K10, the measurement area is about the size of a baseball. However, with the probe you are using, you have to place it extremely close to reduce the area of measurement sufficiently, and might easily end up measuring parts of the shadow from the probe. Again, I am just speculating here, but our measurements differ on a pretty signifiant degree, so there is probably also a pretty significant reason for it...


----------



## PixelPusher15

Lygren said:


> Attaching a couple of pics from our "calibration dungeon"... We place the incoming light and measurement probe at approximately the same angle. However, for a unity gain type of screen, this is not as important as for a positive gain screen. From the distance we are placing our Klein K10, the measurement area is about the size of a baseball. However, with the probe you are using, you have to place it extremely close to reduce the area of measurement sufficiently, and might easily end up measuring parts of the shadow from the probe. Again, I am just speculating here, but our measurements differ on a pretty signifiant degree, so there is probably also a pretty significant reason for it...
> 
> 
> View attachment 3174110
> 
> 
> View attachment 3174111
> View attachment 3174112


Thanks for the pictures. My measurement area based on a 10 degree viewing angle and a distance of 4" is about the width of your thumb. Maybe I should move it out further so we can have similar baseball size measurements. I'm about as confident as I can be that I am not measuring in the shadow. I've had the meter too close and know what those measurements look like.

That is what I will do. I'll rerig my rig so the measurement area is roughly similar to yours assuming I can do so without measuring in the shadow.


----------



## Lygren

Not that it should matter relatively speaking, but we are placing quite a lot of light on the screen, Y was measured in at 607 for the ST100 and 524 for the v7 and 507 (on the brighter side) of the XY 4K on this particular test run for example.


----------



## Lygren

The potential problem for you relocating your meter like we do with ours is that it might measure too wide (i.e. far outside the sample area) and as such potentially give incorrect values as far as I have understood it... Again, I am not sure why our values come out this differently, but I certainly have to say I´m impressed with your eagerness to figure this out!


----------



## PixelPusher15

Lygren said:


> Not that it should matter relatively speaking, but we are placing quite a lot of light on the screen, Y was measured in at 607 for the ST100 and 524 for the v7 and 507 (on the brighter side) of the XY 4K on this particular test run for example.





Lygren said:


> The potential problem for you relocating your meter like we do with ours is that it might measure too wide (i.e. far outside the sample area) and as such potentially give incorrect values as far as I have understood it... Again, I am not sure why our values come out this differently, but I certainly have to say I´m impressed with your eagerness to figure this out!


Based on the spec'd viewing angles from X-rite I shouldn't have an issue with measuring a baseball size area. I did some mathing and it looks like at 17.2" away I'll have a measurement area of 3" which is a tad more than a baseball. Our now official measurement size.

The nit differences are interesting. As I noted before when I put my 5050 in high power mode I saw a 1-2% increase in nits relative to the ST100. I'm not sure why this changed, honestly. But, if I put another 425 nits on the screen and for each 25 nits it increases 1% relative to the ST100 then for the v7 we'd be looking at a gain of...get this... 0.87.

This would be strange and shouldn't happen, right? But, maybe I can find out. I'll narrow my zoom on the 5050 and put it in high lamp mode. I'll also measure at the official baseball size area and see what we come up with. I'll do a handful of materials at lunch today so that's in a little over an hour my time.


----------



## rcohen

The only other thing I can think of is that you could test the ST100 from a large angle. If the brightness is uniform, it is impossible that the gain is >1. It can only be <=1. The only way to achieve >1 gain is to sacrifice off-axis brightness.

Just don't go at such an angle that any part of the sensor cone is missing the sample.

If the ST100 off-axis is as advertised, I think it's safe to assume that it is unity gain.





StudioTek 100 - Stewart


Our most requested residential fabric, StudioTek 100 is a flexible, front projection, matte white screen material formulated to meet the strictest color and white field uniformity standards.




www.stewartfilmscreen.com


----------



## PixelPusher15

Below you can see my results with 11 materials and the differences between my projector in medium lamp/wide-angle vs high lamp/max telephoto.

MaterialGain (Low Lumen/4")Nits (Low Lumen/4")Gain (High Lumen/17")Nits (High Lumen/17")Dreamscreen V60.6477.30.65244Dreamscreen V70.7590.50.76285.8Seymour Center Stage XD0.8096.20.82307.5Stewart Harmony G20.6375.80.64241.25Stewart FireHawk G5 MP0.7489.40.76284.9Stewart StudioTek 1001.00120.31.00374.8Stewart StudioTek 130 G4 MP0.99119.51.01377.1XY Screens Black Crystal Perforated0.5161.90.67195.7XY Screens MFS 1 Perforated0.5870.20.59222.5XY Screens Sound Max 4K0.76920.78291.5Ambient Visionarre 2.11.98237.62.05768.8

The only real changes of note in this group are the AV2.1 and Black Crystal (this screen sample has some vertical lines in it that I have attempted to leave out of my measurement area so this isn't the best sample to base changes on). The AV2.1 change is actually just a 3.5% difference, so not major even considering its narrow viewing cone.

I had a very enlightening call with someone from Stewart yesterday. I'm not going to give their name because I don't believe everything I was told was to be made public. I will also limit some of the information due to that as well. They first said they weren't surprised by my measurements given my setup (I only gave the Stewart ones) with the exception of the FireHawk. They thought that one should be measuring higher. They said that for me and my measurements to have a seat at the table I'd need a spot meter and a reflectance standard. I've ordered a reflectance standard (it'll be here in a couple weeks) but I'm not sure about getting a spot meter quite yet. An interesting tidbit that they did say is that previously they did a competitive analysis of every woven screen they could get their hands on, including DIY materials, and they saw a max gain of ~0.75. I told them I am seeing around a max gain of ~0.8 for woven and their response was it must be with the vinyl-coated woven screens and that is true. It was made pretty clear that currently these measurements can't be considered reference but for relative measurements, they aren't invalid either. They thought I could clean some things up even with my equipment and still provide some value.

Long story short was that there was some hesitancy to my use of the i1Display Pro, using the ST100 as a reference when it's not, using my projector in wide-angle, stretching the materials taught to make sure they are flat, and the angle I am measuring from (Ideally the light and the sensor would be on the same plane not just opposite angles). These, aside from the sensor, are the things I am going to try to clean up for now. I am not sure how much they will change things considering the above measurements were done with the projector in telephoto, and the materials stretched very taught. I will play with the angle of measurement some more though and see if that affects things.

One last note that I'm afraid will add more work for me. They made it clear that the true measure of a good screen is its off-axis gain and not just on-axis. Having consistent gain across a 30-degree viewing cone is what will make sure a home theater viewer stays immersed in a film. If the gain drops too much as it reaches the edge of this viewing angle then it can be distracting. Obviously, this should also be measured and verified like the rest of what I am doing for the most complete picture of a screen material.

@Lygren, I can say that there is nothing I will be able to test that will put the v7 material as a higher gain compared to the XY 4K. From every angle I look at both of these the XY 4K material is brighter. That's not saying it is an overall better screen material. I have more testing to do, but with these two samples I have, they just won't align with your tests. Now, we'll see what the reflectance standard does to my gain numbers when I get it.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> Below you can see my results with 11 materials and the differences between my projector in medium lamp/wide-angle vs high lamp/max telephoto.
> 
> MaterialGain (Low Lumen/4")Nits (Low Lumen/4")Gain (High Lumen/17")Nits (High Lumen/17")Dreamscreen V60.6477.30.65244Dreamscreen V70.7590.50.76285.8Seymour Center Stage XD0.8096.20.82307.5Stewart Harmony G20.6375.80.64241.25Stewart FireHawk G5 MP0.7489.40.76284.9Stewart StudioTek 1001.00120.31.00374.8Stewart StudioTek 130 G4 MP0.99119.51.01377.1XY Screens Black Crystal Perforated0.5161.90.67195.7XY Screens MFS 1 Perforated0.5870.20.59222.5XY Screens Sound Max 4K0.76920.78291.5Ambient Visionarre 2.11.98237.62.05768.8
> 
> The only real changes of note in this group are the AV2.1 and Black Crystal (this screen sample has some vertical lines in it that I have attempted to leave out of my measurement area so this isn't the best sample to base changes on). The AV2.1 change is actually just a 3.5% difference, so not major even considering its narrow viewing cone.
> 
> I had a very enlightening call with someone from Stewart yesterday. I'm not going to give their name because I don't believe everything I was told was to be made public. I will also limit some of the information due to that as well. They first said they weren't surprised by my measurements given my setup (I only gave the Stewart ones) with the exception of the FireHawk. They thought that one should be measuring higher. They said that for me and my measurements to have a seat at the table I'd need a spot meter and a reflectance standard. I've ordered a reflectance standard (it'll be here in a couple weeks) but I'm not sure about getting a spot meter quite yet. An interesting tidbit that they did say is that previously they did a competitive analysis of every woven screen they could get their hands on, including DIY materials, and they saw a max gain of ~0.75. I told them I am seeing around a max gain of ~0.8 for woven and their response was it must be with the vinyl-coated woven screens and that is true. It was made pretty clear that currently these measurements can't be considered reference but for relative measurements, they aren't invalid either. They thought I could clean some things up even with my equipment and still provide some value.
> 
> Long story short was that there was some hesitancy to my use of the i1Display Pro, using the ST100 as a reference when it's not, using my projector in wide-angle, stretching the materials taught to make sure they are flat, and the angle I am measuring from (Ideally the light and the sensor would be on the same plane not just opposite angles). These, aside from the sensor, are the things I am going to try to clean up for now. I am not sure how much they will change things considering the above measurements were done with the projector in telephoto, and the materials stretched very taught. I will play with the angle of measurement some more though and see if that affects things.
> 
> One last note that I'm afraid will add more work for me. They made it clear that the true measure of a good screen is its off-axis gain and not just on-axis. Having consistent gain across a 30-degree viewing cone is what will make sure a home theater viewer stays immersed in a film. If the gain drops too much as it reaches the edge of this viewing angle then it can be distracting. Obviously, this should also be measured and verified like the rest of what I am doing for the most complete picture of a screen material.
> 
> @Lygren, I can say that there is nothing I will be able to test that will put the v7 material as a higher gain compared to the XY 4K. From every angle I look at both of these the XY 4K material is brighter. That's not saying it is an overall better screen material. I have more testing to do, but with these two samples I have, they just won't align with your tests. Now, we'll see what the reflectance standard does to my gain numbers when I get it.


Nice work!

The two brightness levels seem to confirm the linearity of your meter. It's conceivable that the difference in zoom changes measurements (scattered light?), but I doubt that would significantly change your results.

It's possible that overstretching the materials might actually hurt their performance, especially for weave. A real frame stretches them pretty tightly, but that's spread out over a much larger piece of fabric. Just speculating here...not speaking from any actual expertise or experience.

I have to say I'm disappointed in the gain from the weave materials. Kind of a bummer you don't have a MP and non-MP version of the same material, so we can see the contribution of that.

I guess the important thing to know is going from XD to G4MP gives a 24% brightness boost. Really looking forward to seeing the on and off-axis sound comparisons.


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> Nice work!
> 
> The two brightness levels seem to confirm the linearity of your meter. It's conceivable that the difference in zoom changes measurements (scattered light?), but I doubt that would significantly change your results.
> 
> It's possible that overstretching the materials might actually hurt their performance, especially for weave. A real frame stretches them pretty tightly, but that's spread out over a much larger piece of fabric. Just speculating here...not speaking from any actual expertise or experience.
> 
> I have to say I'm disappointed in the gain from the weave materials. Kind of a bummer you don't have a MP and non-MP version of the same material, so we can see the contribution of that.
> 
> I guess the important thing to know is going from XD to G4MP gives a 24% brightness boost. Really looking forward to seeing the on and off-axis sound comparisons.


The person from Stewart said they stretch each sample a half an inch when testing. I didn't double-check with them to make sure we are using the same size test pieces though. They did know I have 8.5x11" samples. They did tell me to narrow the focus on the projector so the light is more collimated, as non-collimated light could possibly affect the readings. But as seen above the measurements didn't change much. 

I do have a sample of the ST100 and ST100 MP. The perforations across the FireHawk, GreyMatte 70, ST100 and ST130 all look identical. The drop in gain has been pretty consistent at 10-11% for the ST100 MP. The Stewart rep also said the 10% should be consistent across the materials. As I mentioned, they said if anything the materials might come out measuring low. It is possible I got a slightly low gain ST130 MP too. I'd like to ask for another but I feel like Stewart might be getting sick of me haha.

As for the acoustic testing, I am considering doing it outside. That was the recommendation from the Stewart rep as well. I'd like to do some testing on the differences between speaker placement behind the screen and how each material type reacts. I don't want to do it with every material though so I need to figure out which types to test. Here's my initial selection:

ST100 MP
Harmony G2 with and without the BB
Dreamscreen v7
Seymour XD with and without the BB
XY 4K with and without the BB
Spandex dual layer
Each of these materials are different from the other but have others that are similar to them. The Seymour XD material and XY 4K material are close but the XD's BB is very stiff. It's the only BB like it and I'm curious how it impacts acoustics vs the other backings. I'm thinking 2", 6" and 12" for speaker placements. My neighbors will love me. Maybe I'll go find an open field haha.

After testing the optimal placement for each material type I need to figure out whether to test each type from its best location or to do all from the same location. I have a theory that at about 12", the max distance I'll test, they will all perform well and this could be my standard location.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> The person from Stewart said they stretch each sample a half an inch when testing. I didn't double-check with them to make sure we are using the same size test pieces though. They did know I have 8.5x11" samples. They did tell me to narrow the focus on the projector so the light is more collimated, as non-collimated light could possibly affect the readings. But as seen above the measurements didn't change much.
> 
> I do have a sample of the ST100 and ST100 MP. The perforations across the FireHawk, GreyMatte 70, ST100 and ST130 all look identical. The drop in gain has been pretty consistent at 10-11% for the ST100 MP. The Stewart rep also said the 10% should be consistent across the materials. As I mentioned, they said if anything the materials might come out measuring low. It is possible I got a slightly low gain ST130 MP too. I'd like to ask for another but I feel like Stewart might be getting sick of me haha.
> 
> As for the acoustic testing, I am considering doing it outside. That was the recommendation from the Stewart rep as well. I'd like to do some testing on the differences between speaker placement behind the screen and how each material type reacts. I don't want to do it with every material though so I need to figure out which types to test. Here's my initial selection:
> 
> ST100 MP
> Harmony G2 with and without the BB
> Dreamscreen v7
> Seymour XD with and without the BB
> XY 4K with and without the BB
> Spandex dual layer
> Each of these materials are different from the other but have others that are similar to them. The Seymour XD material and XY 4K material are close but the XD's BB is very stiff. It's the only BB like it and I'm curious how it impacts acoustics vs the other backings. I'm thinking 2", 6" and 12" for speaker placements. My neighbors will love me. Maybe I'll go find an open field haha.
> 
> After testing the optimal placement for each material type I need to figure out whether to test each type from its best location or to do all from the same location. I have a theory that at about 12", the max distance I'll test, they will all perform well and this could be my standard location.


Sounds great! Also sounds like a lot of work!

A few notes to take or leave...

Do ST100 and ST130 appear to be the same density and thickness? Just wondering if it's safe to assume that they are acoustically identical.

Also, I've seen it recommended that 24" is ideal for MP, but I've seen a lot of other numbers, too. Hard to say if it would be worth the trouble of another measurement.

Speaking of the vinyl coating, I wonder if that's detrimental to the acoustics. Looks like we'll find out!


----------



## Lygren

As for acoustical measurements outside; probably a good idea as you will reduce any potential room interference. As the fabrics with lower AT properties will allow more of the sound energy to pass / bounce off the sample and as such bounce off surrounding surfaces plus simply move around (certain frequencies that is) and give better measurements than is the case in real life, we always use a box that simply allows only the waves transmitted towards the fabric to pass. This means a sealed box, where the fabric is placed side-to-side and top-to-bottom. I have already sent you the pics of our measurement box, and it is really not THAT much job building one - and to boot your neighbours will be happier campers.


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> Sounds great! Also sounds like a lot of work!
> 
> A few notes to take or leave...
> 
> Do ST100 and ST130 appear to be the same density and thickness? Just wondering if it's safe to assume that they are acoustically identical.
> 
> Also, I've seen it recommended that 24" is ideal for MP, but I've seen a lot of other numbers, too. Hard to say if it would be worth the trouble of another measurement.
> 
> Speaking of the vinyl coating, I wonder if that's detrimental to the acoustics. Looks like we'll find out!


It does sound like a lot of work! Hopefully, I don't need to redo this one a bunch of times.

I think it was earlier in this thread there was another paper down on placement and the differences. I could look at the distances that they used. 

The ST130 and ST100 aren't the same thickness/density. The ST130 is a bit thinner. It will probably impact acoustics but for the purposes of speaker distances I really want to limit it to one MP material for my own sanity. I will test each material though. Well, I may skip some of the materials from the same company that appear identical in physical characteristics. The some of the Stewart and Severtson materials appear to be identical other than color. 



Lygren said:


> As for acoustical measurements outside; probably a good idea as you will reduce any potential room gain. As the fabrics with lower AT properties will allow more of the sound energy to pass / bounce off the sample and as such bounce off surrounding surfaces plus simply move around (certain frequencies that is) and give better measurements than is the case in real life, we always use a box that simply allows only the waves transmitted towards the fabric to pass. This means a sealed box, where the fabric is placed side-to-side and top-to-bottom. I have already sent you the pics of our measurement box, and it is really not THAT much job building one - and to boot your neighbours will be happier campers.


I actually bought some insulation to build a box like you sent but Stewart advocating for outdoor measurements made me lean that direction because it may actually be logistically easier for me. I also am a little concerned about the potential of soundwaves penetrating the insulation, bouncing off the box material, going back through the insulation, and hitting the mic. That sounds more of a risk than sound waves going around the screen material outside. I feel like I want to ring up Floyd Toole for this test lol.


----------



## Lygren

Well, you make up your own mind, but if you place a small surface in front of sound waves, they will bounce off the surface in increased intensity as the AT properties of that surface is lowered. These waves will be measured as SPL with your mic and potentially contaminate your measurements. The box will certainly create some nodes too, particularly in the lower frequencies, but we have tested measuring both outside and inside, and we have never been able to get accurate readings doing so. This was for our own experiments though, not for any benchmarking vs others, but the principles would remain the same, we saw that the lower AT materials measured incorrectly / seemed to have better AT properties if not placed inside a sealed box.


----------



## Lygren

Should add; if you place your mic very close to the material, the effect of measuring sound waves moving around it will be reduced, but the further away you move the mic it caused issues when we tested this way back at least.


----------



## rcohen

Lygren said:


> Well, you make up your own mind, but if you place a small surface in front of sound waves, they will bounce off the surface in increased intensity as the AT properties of that surface is lowered. These waves will be measured as SPL with your mic and potentially contaminate your measurements. The box will certainly create some nodes too, particularly in the lower frequencies, but we have tested measuring both outside and inside, and we have never been able to get accurate readings doing so. This was for our own experiments though, not for any benchmarking vs others, but the principles would remain the same, we saw that the lower AT materials measured incorrectly / seemed to have better AT properties if not placed inside a sealed box.


Do you think it's better to completely eliminate back wall sound reflections or to try to make them consistent with actual use? Assuming a vinyl screen reflects more sound, that back wall might play an important role. I was wondering about that with those tests in anechoic chambers.


----------



## Lygren

Tried to find some useful theory regarding this, but here is at least something that might be of some interest; Diffraction. We have been using our box for such a long time that I really do not remember how much issues was caused when not using it, but I do remember the measurements outside were much better so might work too...


----------



## PixelPusher15

Lygren said:


> Well, you make up your own mind, but if you place a small surface in front of sound waves, they will bounce off the surface in increased intensity as the AT properties of that surface is lowered. These waves will be measured as SPL with your mic and potentially contaminate your measurements. The box will certainly create some nodes too, particularly in the lower frequencies, but we have tested measuring both outside and inside, and we have never been able to get accurate readings doing so. This was for our own experiments though, not for any benchmarking vs others, but the principles would remain the same, we saw that the lower AT materials measured incorrectly / seemed to have better AT properties if not placed inside a sealed box.


Good to know. Maybe I’ll continue with the box plan then


----------



## PixelPusher15

Lygren said:


> Should add; if you place your mic very close to the material, the effect of measuring sound waves moving around it will be reduced, but the further away you move the mic it caused issues when we tested this way back at least.


How close do you place the mic in your box?


----------



## Lygren

In the box, it’s about 50cm away, but in that case we have ‘trapped’ the energy more or less. I guess if you perhaps just try to build a very basic box and do some comparisons on the lower at materials from outside? I know you probably have other stuff to do too, outside might work fine too… 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PixelPusher15

I found the paper that I read before regarding speaker to screen distance and off-axis performance for multiple screen materials. It looks like it was commissioned/endorsed by Screen Excellence in 2013: https://screenexcellence.com/downloads/ISVR_screens_evaluation.pdf 

In that paper they referenced another report that was published in the SMPTE journal regarding the interactions between screens and loudspeakers: https://www.acousticdirections.com/wp-content/uploads/smpte_mot._imag._j-2012-long-46-62.pdf 

Between the two of these, I do not believe that I can add any more substantive data to the conversation of the distance between the screen and speaker, or each material's off-axis performance. What I do think I can offer is how each of these materials performs at a fixed distance so they can be compared with each other. I may still attempt to do two distance measurements purely out of my own curiosity due to my existing theater setup. My speakers are currently about 4" away from the screen and I can't increase the gap much more than that. 

For now, my plan will be to measure each screen at 30cm or ~12" in a sealed box.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> I found the paper that I read before regarding speaker to screen distance and off-axis performance for multiple screen materials. It looks like it was commissioned/endorsed by Screen Excellence in 2013: https://screenexcellence.com/downloads/ISVR_screens_evaluation.pdf
> 
> In that paper they referenced another report that was published in the SMPTE journal regarding the interactions between screens and loudspeakers: https://www.acousticdirections.com/wp-content/uploads/smpte_mot._imag._j-2012-long-46-62.pdf
> 
> Between the two of these, I do not believe that I can add any more substantive data to the conversation of the distance between the screen and speaker, or each material's off-axis performance. What I do think I can offer is how each of these materials performs at a fixed distance so they can be compared with each other. I may still attempt to do two distance measurements purely out of my own curiosity due to my existing theater setup. My speakers are currently about 4" away from the screen and I can't increase the gap much more than that.
> 
> For now, my plan will be to measure each screen at 30cm or ~12" in a sealed box.


That SMPTE one looks interesting. I hadn't seen that one. I'll check it out!

I'm still interested to see how yours turn out. Reducing the testing is totally reasonable.

One thing I haven't seen in these papers is the acoustic difference between coated woven and uncoated woven.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> I found the paper that I read before regarding speaker to screen distance and off-axis performance for multiple screen materials. It looks like it was commissioned/endorsed by Screen Excellence in 2013: https://screenexcellence.com/downloads/ISVR_screens_evaluation.pdf
> 
> In that paper they referenced another report that was published in the SMPTE journal regarding the interactions between screens and loudspeakers: https://www.acousticdirections.com/wp-content/uploads/smpte_mot._imag._j-2012-long-46-62.pdf
> 
> Between the two of these, I do not believe that I can add any more substantive data to the conversation of the distance between the screen and speaker, or each material's off-axis performance. What I do think I can offer is how each of these materials performs at a fixed distance so they can be compared with each other. I may still attempt to do two distance measurements purely out of my own curiosity due to my existing theater setup. My speakers are currently about 4" away from the screen and I can't increase the gap much more than that.
> 
> For now, my plan will be to measure each screen at 30cm or ~12" in a sealed box.


That SMPTE article was super interesting.

It looks like the >2 khz sound reflection off the screen is a major issue with microperf (in addition to the high frequency roll-off, of course.) It also looks like increasing the distance between speaker and screen dramatically improves the problems from the back-wave, including inconsistent off-axis filtering. There was enormous improvement between 6" and 12", and then again from 12" to 18". Since the improvements aren't diminishing at 18", I assume that more distance would yield more improvements.

This stuff makes me wonder if adding a weave-like texture to the back side of a microperf screen would yield a significant improvement, or if it's more about high frequency pressure resistance.

After seeing this, I have to admit, I'm more curious what 24" would measure.


----------



## audioguy

This is a great thread.

I have not read every post in this thread but have a lot of them. Is the issue with micro perf screens when the speaker is too close to the rear of the screen that some of the sound bounces off the rear of the screen, back to the wall and then some of it going back through screen? How does that change if the wall behind the screen is covered with absorption materia (as it should be)? I am interested in one of the Stewart perf screens (Studio Tek 130 G4) but my center channel is maybe 2" behind the screen. (Currently using Seymour XD material) and moving the screen forward by more than an inch or so would be a huge pain in the rear.

I was with a client earlier today who has a JVC RS3000 with a screen by Display Technology (a UK company). NEVER have seen an image that comes close to what I saw today. Jaw dropping. Will be contacting them to get some detailed information. Audio loss from pass through is low on the priority as I have lots of avialable headroom. Just looking for the best possible image from an AT screen.


----------



## rcohen

audioguy said:


> This is a great thread.
> 
> I have not read every post in this thread but have a lot of them. Is the issue with micro perf screens when the speaker is too close to the rear of the screen that some of the sound bounces off the rear of the screen, back to the wall and then some of it going back through screen? How does that change if the wall behind the screen is covered with absorption materia (as it should be)? I am interested in one of the Stewart perf screens (Studio Tek 130 G4) but my center channel is maybe 2" behind the screen. (Currently using Seymour XD material) and moving the screen forward by more than an inch or so would be a huge pain in the rear.
> 
> I was with a client earlier today who has a JVC RS3000 with a screen by Display Technology (a UK company). NEVER have seen an image that comes close to what I saw today. Jaw dropping. Will be contacting them to get some detailed information. Audio loss from pass through is low on the priority as I have lots of avialable headroom. Just looking for the best possible image from an AT screen.


The SMPTE test above was done in an anechoic chamber, with only the speaker, screen, and mic at play. They measured severe comb filtering with microperf when the speakers are close to the screen, particularly <=12". So, they were measuring interference between direct sound and sound reflected off the speaker baffle. As the distance grows, the magnitude of comb filtering greatly decreases. Perhaps microperf screens reflect high frequencies and transmit low frequencies. That seems consistent with the high frequency rolloff. Most of the comb filtering is >2 khz.

It seems pretty clear that the back wall should be treated, particularly for high frequencies. The baffle reflections still appear to be a major issue at close distances, though. Things improve at greater distances, looking pretty respectable at 18" distance.

The weave materials seem to handle close distances much better.


----------



## PixelPusher15

I ran another small batch of tests this morning and the results were a bit interesting. I moved my meter up about a foot to change the angle of measurement. I was hoping to get to 5 degrees but the shadow of the meter got in the way. I took out the Ambient Visionnare sample and found the angle that it measured it's highest (per the recommendation of Dominic Chan). This came out to about -8 degrees. The angle that my projector hitting the screen is about 7 degrees. So not exactly in line with each other but when I dropped the meter to -7 degrees the nits came down too. So I went with -7/8 to see what the results were. Here they are: 

MaterialGain (High Lumen/6.5")Nits (High Lumen/6.5")Dreamscreen V60.67271.9Dreamscreen V70.78316.7Seymour Center Stage XD0.83337Stewart Harmony G20.66266.6Stewart FireHawk G5 MP0.78316.8Stewart StudioTek 100 MP0.90366.2Stewart StudioTek 130 G4 MP1.01410.8XY Screens Black Crystal Perforated0.54217.9XY Screens MFS 1 Perforated0.61246.2XY Screens Sound Max 4K0.79318.8Ambient Visionarre 2.12.07841.1Reference Material (ST100)405.60

Everything came up in relation to the ST100 except for the XY Black Crystal. I'm not sure what is going on with that screen material. Every slight variation in measurement angle it reads wildly different. Nothing else reads like it.

These measurements are starting to look a bit better but it does have me wondering about a spot meter. It also really shows how these materials are very much not unity gain screens. If I could get within 5deg on the measurement angle I really wonder where everything would end up.


----------



## audioguy

rcohen said:


> The SMPTE test above was done in an anechoic chamber, with only the speaker, screen, and mic at play. They measured severe comb filtering with microperf when the speakers are close to the screen, particularly <=12". So, they were measuring interference between direct sound and sound reflected off the speaker baffle. As the distance grows, the magnitude of comb filtering greatly decreases. Perhaps microperf screens reflect high frequencies and transmit low frequencies. That seems consistent with the high frequency rolloff. Most of the comb filtering is >2 khz.
> 
> It seems pretty clear that the back wall should be treated, particularly for high frequencies. The baffle reflections still appear to be a major issue at close distances, though. Things improve at greater distances, looking pretty respectable at 18" distance.
> 
> The weave materials seem to handle close distances much better.


Based upon the above, it appears a microperf screen may not be in my future . Thanks.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> I ran another small batch of tests this morning and the results were a bit interesting. I moved my meter up about a foot to change the angle of measurement. I was hoping to get to 5 degrees but the shadow of the meter got in the way. I took out the Ambient Visionnare sample and found the angle that it measured it's highest (per the recommendation of Dominic Chan). This came out to about -8 degrees. The angle that my projector hitting the screen is about 7 degrees. So not exactly in line with each other but when I dropped the meter to -7 degrees the nits came down too. So I went with -7/8 to see what the results were. Here they are:
> 
> MaterialGain (High Lumen/6.5")Nits (High Lumen/6.5")Dreamscreen V60.67271.9Dreamscreen V70.78316.7Seymour Center Stage XD0.83337Stewart Harmony G20.66266.6Stewart FireHawk G5 MP0.78316.8Stewart StudioTek 100 MP0.90366.2Stewart StudioTek 130 G4 MP1.01410.8XY Screens Black Crystal Perforated0.54217.9XY Screens MFS 1 Perforated0.61246.2XY Screens Sound Max 4K0.79318.8Ambient Visionarre 2.12.07841.1Reference Material (ST100)405.60
> 
> Everything came up in relation to the ST100 except for the XY Black Crystal. I'm not sure what is going on with that screen material. Every slight variation in measurement angle it reads wildly different. Nothing else reads like it.
> 
> These measurements are starting to look a bit better but it does have me wondering about a spot meter. It also really shows how these materials are very much not unity gain screens. If I could get within 5deg on the measurement angle I really wonder where everything would end up.


That's not surprising. Real world reflectance is more complex than the simplified approximations we generally use. You can think of it as a billion "microfacets" with a statistical distribution of angles and a distribution of self-shadowing. Then you can integrate over the microfacets to determine how a material will reflect light in a particular direction. This behavior can be different for different wavelengths. There are elaborate robot setups to directly measure this complex behavior, which are used for realistic rendering.

No reason every screen would have exactly the same reflectance behavior, but you can only do so much. The simplified approximations work pretty well for most things.

OTOH, it might be as simple as the meter measuring off the edge of the sample. That would favor smaller angles, since less of the cone would miss the sample. I would expect that difference to be fair, though. (equal across all samples)


----------



## rcohen

audioguy said:


> Based upon the above, it appears a microperf screen may not be in my future . Thanks.


I should add, I don't know how audible the comb filtering effects are. You can see the measurements in that SMPTE paper, though.


----------



## rcohen

One would think that speakers that use large horns/waveguides for frequencies >2 khz might be better suited for microperf since the baffle reflections may be more scattered.

This Triad baffle design makes more sense to me now, where the baffle of the speaker appears to be treated with high frequency absorption.

@audioguy adding something like this to your speaker baffles might help a lot with microperf. I think you'd want it to be relatively thin in order to avoid changing the intended baffle behavior too much.


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> One would think that speakers that use large horns/waveguides for frequencies >2 khz might be better suited for microperf since the baffle reflections may be more scattered.
> 
> This Triad baffle design makes more sense to me now, where the baffle of the speaker appears to be treated with high frequency absorption.
> 
> @audioguy adding something like this to your speaker baffles might help a lot with microperf. I think you'd want it to be relatively thin in order to avoid changing the intended baffle behavior too much.
> 
> View attachment 3175023


I forgot which paper mentioned it, maybe it was both, but it was recommended to treat the speaker baffle with HF absorption as well as the area behind the screen


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> I forgot which paper mentioned it, maybe it was both, but it was recommended to treat the speaker baffle with HF absorption as well as the area behind the screen


It seems most of what we're discussing is well understood by the experts, but not by the rest of us.


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> That's not surprising. Real world reflectance is more complex than the simplified approximations we generally use. You can think of it as a billion "microfacets" with a statistical distribution of angles and a distribution of self-shadowing. Then you can integrate over the microfacets to determine how a material will reflect light in a particular direction. This behavior can be different for different wavelengths. There are elaborate robot setups to directly measure this complex behavior, which are used for realistic rendering.
> 
> No reason every screen would have exactly the same reflectance behavior, but you can only do so much. The simplified approximations work pretty well for most things.
> 
> OTOH, it might be as simple as the meter measuring off the edge of the sample. That would favor smaller angles, since less of the cone would miss the sample. I would expect that difference to be fair, though. (equal across all samples)
> 
> View attachment 3175020


I’m trying to come to a conclusion on how much further I want to push my gain tests. I’m not going to call mine final until I get the reflectance standard. That may take up to a month though. If I get it and things don’t look right the person at Stewart offered to compare it to a calibrated reflectance standard that they have. I’d have to send it to them to do that, adding time. Between now and getting the standard I’m pondering whether to get a spot meter or not. Sekonic makes one for $600 which also has an ambient sensor. This would be nice to have for my future aspirations of projector reviews. The only downside is that it only reads down to 0.1 nits which isn’t good for contrast measurements. Anything that goes lower quickly raises in price. I can rent a Sekonic meter for not too much too.

I do think getting the spot meter would elevate these measures to decently close to reference but will it actually improve the goal of my tests? My goal was to offer a comparative analysis between materials. No matter what I change in my methodology, the relative…I want to say rankings stay the same. Sample A is continually brighter than Sample E, E is darker the J, so on and so forth. Getting better absolute gain measurements may make them comparable to other tests but also maybe not. This most recent test put the Harmony G2 spot on with the S&V tests.

Sorry for my musings, I’m just trying to figure out the balance of how much value I can provide and how much time/money I want to spend.


----------



## audioguy

rcohen said:


> @audioguy adding something like this to your speaker baffles might help a lot with microperf. I think you'd want it to be relatively thin in order to avoid changing the intended baffle behavior too much.
> 
> View attachment 3175023


My center speaker is the only one behind the screen. I'm now using Wisdom Line Source speakers (no longer Triads) and the left column in the attached speaker image is the PMD so can't be covered. I might be able to easily cover the areas I have outlined in red in the image but finding a way to cut perfectly round holes for the woofers in 1" rigid fiberglass might take some imagination - and then too what good effect?


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> I’m trying to come to a conclusion on how much further I want to push my gain tests. I’m not going to call mine final until I get the reflectance standard. That may take up to a month though. If I get it and things don’t look right the person at Stewart offered to compare it to a calibrated reflectance standard that they have. I’d have to send it to them to do that, adding time. Between now and getting the standard I’m pondering whether to get a spot meter or not. Sekonic makes one for $600 which also has an ambient sensor. This would be nice to have for my future aspirations of projector reviews. The only downside is that it only reads down to 0.1 nits which isn’t good for contrast measurements. Anything that goes lower quickly raises in price. I can rent a Sekonic meter for not too much too.
> 
> I do think getting the spot meter would elevate these measures to decently close to reference but will it actually improve the goal of my tests? My goal was to offer a comparative analysis between materials. No matter what I change in my methodology, the relative…I want to say rankings stay the same. Sample A is continually brighter than Sample E, E is darker the J, so on and so forth. Getting better absolute gain measurements may make them comparable to other tests but also maybe not. This most recent test put the Harmony G2 spot on with the S&V tests.
> 
> Sorry for my musings, I’m just trying to figure out the balance of how much value I can provide and how much time/money I want to spend.


FWIW, I think whatever direction you decide will be valuable for two reasons:
1) You are doing the tests on a wide variety of popular materials. The research is testing older stuff, and usually not much variety.
2) Most people aren't familiar with the research.

You mentioned before that you didn't know what you could add to the research that has already been done. I think that's a pretty academic perspective. The combination of covering popular materials and educating people is very valuable, regardless of whether it repaves some old ground.

I appreciate your work.


----------



## rcohen

audioguy said:


> My center speaker is the only one behind the screen. I'm now using Wisdom Line Source speakers (no longer Triads) and the left column in the attached speaker image is the PMD so can't be covered. I might be able to easily cover the areas I have outlined in red in the image but finding a way to cut perfectly round holes for the woofers in 1" rigid fiberglass might take some imagination - and then too what good effect?
> View attachment 3175026


It seems like planar drivers mounted close to microperf screens might be a bad combination.
I'm not sure. I'm no expert - just trying to understand this stuff.
You might ask Wisdom. I bet they would have experience with these issues.


----------



## rcohen

Just thought I'd share my perspective, in case that's somehow helpful in general.

Comparing XD and G4:
1) G4 is 22% brighter.
2) Microperf can cause severe comb filtering, but it appears to be solvable with distance. The remaining high frequency attenuation appears to be consistent off-axis, and therefore correctable (with sufficient output capability.)

Open questions:
1) What is the acoustical impact of the backing layer on XD?
2) How does the contrast compare between microperf and weave with & without the backing layer?
3) How do texture an sharpness compare at my viewing distance (13.5')?


----------



## audioguy

rcohen said:


> It seems like planar drivers mounted close to microperf screens might be a bad combination.
> I'm not sure. I'm no expert - just trying to understand this stuff.
> You might ask Wisdom. I bet they would have experience with these issues.


Unfortunately, I never asked Wisdom about any of this prior to rebuilding the wall. But after the fact, and discussing another subject, they informed me that my speaker was too close to the screen and that it needed to be 6" to 12" away - neither of which is possible, at least without a lot new construction (not happening). 
However, there may be a difference between "need to" and real world experience. The same guy from Wisdom who told me that, has since visited my home, and to use his exact words: "The best music reproduction I have heard in my 30 years in the business and one of the very best rooms I have ever heard". And FWIW, I did take measurements with the screen in place and without, and there was virtually no difference. But the XD material is woven, not microperf.

So who knows?


----------



## rcohen

audioguy said:


> Unfortunately, I never asked Wisdom about any of this prior to rebuilding the wall. But after the fact, and discussing another subject, they informed me that my speaker was too close to the screen and that it needed to be 6" to 12" away - neither of which is possible, at least without a lot new construction (not happening).
> However, there may be a difference between "need to" and real world experience. The same guy from Wisdom who told me that, has since visited my home, and to use his exact words: "The best music reproduction I have heard in my 30 years in the business and one of the very best rooms I have ever heard". And FWIW, I did take measurements with the screen in place and without, and there was virtually no difference. But the XD material is woven, not microperf.
> 
> So who knows?


According to that SMPTE test, the combing from woven screens was only +/-2-3 db, and was fine at close distances. It just shifted to higher frequencies at close distances rather than growing, so it was possibly even less audible at close distances.

In contrast, there was about +/-10 db of combing at close distances on a "mini-perf" screen. Mini-perf was worse than larger perfs, so micro-perf might be even worse. Also, this was prior to EQ compensation, which is required for perf. Assuming 10 db of boost, you might even end up with +/-20 db of combing at 6"!

You may be better off pursuing other avenues to upgrade the picture, like a brighter projector, black backing, or dark black speaker fabric over the acoustic treatments.

This stuff is really dark.








Amazon.com: Jet Black Speaker Grill Cloth 60 Inch x 36 Inch, A-569 : Electronics


Amazon.com: Jet Black Speaker Grill Cloth 60 Inch x 36 Inch, A-569 : Electronics



www.amazon.com


----------



## audioguy

rcohen said:


> According to that SMPTE test, the combing from woven screens was only +/-2-3 db, and was fine at close distances. It just shifted to higher frequencies at close distances rather than growing, so it was possibly even less audible at close distances.
> 
> In contrast, there was about +/-10 db of combing at close distances on a "mini-perf" screen. Mini-perf was worse than larger perfs, so micro-perf might be even worse. Also, this was prior to EQ compensation, which is required for perf. Assuming 10 db of boost, you might even end up with +/-20 db of combing at 6"!
> 
> You may be better off pursuing other avenues to upgrade the picture, like a brighter projector, black backing, or dark black speaker fabric over the acoustic treatments.
> 
> This stuff is really dark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazon.com: Jet Black Speaker Grill Cloth 60 Inch x 36 Inch, A-569 : Electronics
> 
> 
> Amazon.com: Jet Black Speaker Grill Cloth 60 Inch x 36 Inch, A-569 : Electronics
> 
> 
> 
> www.amazon.com


The PJ I have and the one I am buying both (RS4500 to NZ9) go to 3000 lumens. And the brightness of the picture is not my issue. There was just such clarity and "3D-ness" to the image I saw yesterday that was unlike anything I have ever seen - and his PJ topped out about 2200 lumens (RS3000). I will be investigating his screen material next week.


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> Just thought I'd share my perspective, in case that's somehow helpful in general.
> 
> Comparing XD and G4:
> 1) G4 is 22% brighter.
> 2) Microperf can cause severe comb filtering, but it appears to be solvable with distance. The remaining high frequency attenuation appears to be consistent off-axis, and therefore correctable (with sufficient output capability.)
> 
> Open questions:
> 1) What is the acoustical impact of the backing layer on XD?
> 2) How does the contrast compare between microperf and weave with & without the backing layer?
> 3) How do texture an sharpness compare at my viewing distance (13.5')?


I think for now my plan is going to be to continue with the i1Display Pro as my meter. As I have gotten closer to 0deg the gain measurements relative to the ST100 have gone up. This makes logical sense. Given that, I think it is safe to say that everything is measuring a tad low for an absolute gain measurement. I thinking mentioning this in my final write-up should clear up some of the discrepancies between my measurements and other third parties. One thing I noticed int the AccuCal report by Jeff Meier was it didn't look like he was using a black backing. I do wonder what would happen if I could get a spot meter closer to on-axis and I removed the black backings. Would something like the XD get closer to his 0.94 gain reading? Maybe. But then again, maybe not. His readings for most AT materials only drop ~0.01 gain between on-axis and off-axis. Anyway, more musings. 

Here's my plan for testing:

On-axis (as close as I can get) gain with reflectance standard
Off-axis gain at 15 degrees with reflectance standard
Acoustic testing (more on this below)
Contrast tests
Texture testing (up to ~14 feet)
Image of each material with camera perpendicular to the sample

I am considering doing something a little different for my acoustic testing rig and I could use some feedback on it. The box idea still has me worried about sound waves getting trapped and bouncing around through the box. Also, the logistics of using a box are a little bit more time-consuming. @Lygren's point about diffraction though is also a concern outside. So, my new plan is to use a 3'x3' sheet of wood with a 7x9 cutout in the middle. On the side facing the speaker, I will install 3" of mineral wool. Nothing on the mic side. I will then do this testing outside. I believe this can only work better than the box and it will allow me to work much quicker and perform more tests. I'd like to test each black backing and each material with and without the backing. I don't have unlimited time so I'd need to work quickly to accomplish that. I think my neighbors might hate me lol.


----------



## rcohen

audioguy said:


> The PJ I have and the one I am buying both (RS4500 to NZ9) go to 3000 lumens. And the brightness of the picture is not my issue. There was just such clarity and "3D-ness" to the image I saw yesterday that was unlike anything I have ever seen - and his PJ topped out about 2200 lumens (RS3000). I will be investigating his screen material next week.


Was it microperf or woven?


----------



## rcohen

Double post.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> I think for now my plan is going to be to continue with the i1Display Pro as my meter. As I have gotten closer to 0deg the gain measurements relative to the ST100 have gone up. This makes logical sense. Given that, I think it is safe to say that everything is measuring a tad low for an absolute gain measurement. I thinking mentioning this in my final write-up should clear up some of the discrepancies between my measurements and other third parties. One thing I noticed int the AccuCal report by Jeff Meier was it didn't look like he was using a black backing. I do wonder what would happen if I could get a spot meter closer to on-axis and I removed the black backings. Would something like the XD get closer to his 0.94 gain reading? Maybe. But then again, maybe not. His readings for most AT materials only drop ~0.01 gain between on-axis and off-axis. Anyway, more musings.
> 
> Here's my plan for testing:
> 
> On-axis (as close as I can get) gain with reflectance standard
> Off-axis gain at 15 degrees with reflectance standard
> Acoustic testing (more on this below)
> Contrast tests
> Texture testing (up to ~14 feet)
> Image of each material with camera perpendicular to the sample
> 
> I am considering doing something a little different for my acoustic testing rig and I could use some feedback on it. The box idea still has me worried about sound waves getting trapped and bouncing around through the box. Also, the logistics of using a box are a little bit more time-consuming. @Lygren's point about diffraction though is also a concern outside. So, my new plan is to use a 3'x3' sheet of wood with a 7x9 cutout in the middle. On the side facing the speaker, I will install 3" of mineral wool. Nothing on the mic side. I will then do this testing outside. I believe this can only work better than the box and it will allow me to work much quicker and perform more tests. I'd like to test each black backing and each material with and without the backing. I don't have unlimited time so I'd need to work quickly to accomplish that. I think my neighbors might hate me lol.


If that XD reading was up against a white background, that would be suspect.

Ultimately, the relative numbers are what matters, but I can certainly see how you’d want them to be scaled to match a trusted reference.


----------



## PixelPusher15

audioguy said:


> The PJ I have and the one I am buying both (RS4500 to NZ9) go to 3000 lumens. And the brightness of the picture is not my issue. There was just such clarity and "3D-ness" to the image I saw yesterday that was unlike anything I have ever seen - and his PJ topped out about 2200 lumens (RS3000). I will be investigating his screen material next week.


How far away are you from your screen right now? I thought the XD material has a decent amount of texture from 12' and it would impact the image. If you hang tight for a bit I will be doing some contrast tests. My initial proof of concept testing on contrast did show there is a difference between materials


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> How far away are you from your screen right now? I thought the XD material has a decent amount of texture from 12' and it would impact the image. If you hang tight for a bit I will be doing some contrast tests. My initial proof of concept testing on contrast did show there is a difference between materials
> View attachment 3175064


Those contrast differences are much lower than I expected. I wonder if 1% is too low to reveal the differences.


----------



## audioguy

PixelPusher15 said:


> How far away are you from your screen right now? I thought the XD material has a decent amount of texture from 12' and it would impact the image. If you hang tight for a bit I will be doing some contrast tests. My initial proof of concept testing on contrast did show there is a difference between materials
> View attachment 3175064


I am about 13 to 13.5 feet away. Kris Deering suggested I look at the Enlightnor Neo or the V7 (don't know who makes the V7?).


----------



## rcohen

audioguy said:


> I am about 13 to 13.5 feet away. Kris Deering suggested I look at the Enlightnor Neo or the V7 (don't know who makes the V7?).


DreamScreen


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> Those contrast differences are much lower than I expected. I wonder if 1% is too low to reveal the differences.


I’m working with such small samples so I’m not sure if I can show the true affects. I could do the ST100 compared to my spandex at sample sizes and then see what my full screen screen spandex shows. Either way, I’m going to experiment some more.


----------



## squared80

Start a 'GoFundMe' if you need some larger sample sizes that require a nominal fee. We all pitch in a couple bucks, would be worth it IMO.


----------



## magnetic

I was going to write the same - I would throw in towards a spot meter.


----------



## ceenhad

All of the Display Technologies AT screens are knitted polyester. Our two AT surfaces are optimised not just for acoustic performance and colour accuracy but also the “whiteness” of the base colour. This is a very noticeable difference when compared with competing solutions. 

There seems to have been lots of discussion over the results here but I have to say that as a relative measure these numbers tally closely enough with my own limited sampling of the competition. For simple luminance data the i1 device is perfectly adequate and hardly less accurate than the Klein K10 (I have both). Ideally you would have access to a high end spectro such as a jeti 1501 to reveal much more data but if the goal is purely relative then this is fine. 

You can’t seriously do this type of testing without a proper lab calibrated reflectance sample. There is no “gold standard” image surface that is perfect at everything. You have to make compromises. The 2” square lab calibrated Spectralon tiles we have cost over £1000 and even they come with an excel sheet with the corrections that must be applied across the visible spectrum. You do get batch to batch variation (in this thread we have seen different not contaminated samples being sent etc over numbers that are only a couple of % out). 

Think on this also, no screen I have measured has a completely flat spectral response. This means that the peak gain with projector A can vary a little from that with projector B if the projectors display a variance in colour space. You can only really scrape that data out with a spectro. 

With reference to acoustic performance then it is course a complex subject but there has been some really good work done recently as part of the new CEDIA cinema design standards developments. There are three main factors that seem to be prevalent. 

1. straight transmission loss through the surface. For various reasons you tend to find the family of fabric based screens (woven/knitted) have loss kick in at lower frequency but remain pretty constant until the HF when 3dB is a typical roll off. MP vinyl types have a bit less loss initially but quickly roll off much more to 9dB or more. 

2. Comb filter caused by energy reflected back from the screen onto the wall behind and then back through. You get dips based on the distance between the two in a similar concept to the back wave cancellation you get on any non in wall speakers. Typically MP reflects more energy as frequency increases but the shorter wavelengths can mask an issue if they are shorter than the distance to the screen. The longer the distance the lower the dip frequency occurs. 

3. The acoustic resistance (I believe the exact term is still being debated). The acoustic energy transferred from a driver to the air is a pretty complex function of driver weight, size and loading. A dome tweeter delivers beautiful sound but the light weight makes it more susceptible to this resistance factor than say a 4” horn compression driver. A large light planar panel is likely to be impacted by this quite a lot also. 

As the driver generates acoustic output by converting motion to pressure changes in the air, placing a piece of material in front of it can mean that some driver types have their operating efficiency reduced (non linearly) when the driver is too close. This is just as true for speaker grilles as screens but typically a screen has to be more dense so more impactful on this metric. 

It seems that 10-15cm is enough to cure this issue regardless of the screen type delivering better acoustic measurements. This implies that regardless of what type of screen is more impacted by comb filtering, 10cm+ spacing to the speaker is just a general good practise. 

I hope this data is useful. This thread started off all over the place but the method has improved to deliver data that is pretty decent - especially when treated as a relative rather than absolute metric. Good luck to the OP and I hope that you enjoy this to keep giving up your time. Also don’t forget for some us, understanding this data and how to acquire it correctly is a matter of professional importance. No one need be naive that all published screen gain numbers from all manufacturers will always in all tests match. It’s a complex sum of environment, equipment and commercial factors…for me it is also one of the least important in these days of very powerful projectors compared to colour accuracy, base colour and contrast performance.


----------



## audioguy

@ceenhad Since you apparently know about the Display Technology company, do you happen to know the advertized (or measured) screen gain? I saw this screen in action yesterday could not stop drooling. Best image I have ever seen. Stunning. His was the Frontier version of the screens. I have a DT dealer, and the owner is going to use this material in his home theater but he did not know the gain.

What will be the audible results if I am unable to meet the 4" to 6" spacing between the rear of the screen and speakers. With some major effort, I could get closer to the 4" number.


----------



## stephenbr

audioguy said:


> @ceenhad Since you apparently know about the Display Technology company, do you happen to know the advertized (or measured) screen gain? I saw this screen in action yesterday could not stop drooling. Best image I have ever seen. Stunning. His was the Frontier version of the screens. I have a DT dealer, and the owner is going to use this material in his home theater but he did not know the gain.
> 
> What will be the audible results if I am unable to meet the 4" to 6" spacing between the rear of the screen and speakers. With some major effort, I could get closer to the 4" number.


From their website the ATPro and ATRef is 0.91 if after an AT screen.



https://displaytechnologies.co.uk/dt-screens/technology/


----------



## audioguy

stephenbr said:


> From their website the ATPro and ATRef is 0.91 if after an AT screen.
> 
> 
> 
> https://displaytechnologies.co.uk/dt-screens/technology/


Thank you.


----------



## Hawks07

audioguy said:


> @ceenhad Since you apparently know about the Display Technology company, do you happen to know the advertized (or measured) screen gain? I saw this screen in action yesterday could not stop drooling. Best image I have ever seen. Stunning. His was the Frontier version of the screens. I have a DT dealer, and the owner is going to use this material in his home theater but he did not know the gain.
> 
> What will be the audible results if I am unable to meet the 4" to 6" spacing between the rear of the screen and speakers. With some major effort, I could get closer to the 4" number.


I've never heard of those screens before. There seems to be very little information on them.
Has anybody tried/tested these screens?


----------



## ceenhad

Hawks07 said:


> I've never heard of those screens before. There seems to be very little information on them.
> Has anybody tried/tested these screens?


To clarify, I am one of the owners of DT so yes I do have some experience with them!

Our company specialises in high end screens for the CI market. We have features in numerous CEDIA award winning systems over the last few years and are used by leading companies such as Barco Residential in their facilities. A number of A grade directors and executives use our screens so we have had to go through several rounds of studio approvals hence I am familiar with the types of questions raised. 

We are sold all over the world with an extensive distribution and rep network giving full coverage of the US however all of our products are made at our facility in the UK. 

Unlike others we do NOT offer image surface only options - you must buy a full screen solution from us. Our company was founded to deliver the best possible install experience as well as the best possible image quality and we can only assure that by offering systems. 

Even our most basic frontier fixed frame screen features many unique benefits such as the front loading image surface with magnetic front bezels. It was flattering to see one of the other big names try to copy the front loading image surface story lately. 

What we are particularly known for is having the absolute best masking system on the market. Our masking screens use a proprietary system called Mask Position Logic which enables us to mask to any requested aspect ratio without the need for presets. Want the screen to move to 1778 aspect then simply ask it to do so. 1780 content now - no problem, if the screen is big enough the masks will move to that new location. Want a 2.1 aspect 4 way mask with artwork - no problem we do that stuff all the time. 

We also do a full line of hush boxes, portholes, mounting brackets and so on. 

You won’t see us a lot on forums as we don’t really cater for DIY but we try to be everywhere in pro install.


----------



## Hawks07

ceenhad said:


> To clarify, I am one of the owners of DT so yes I do have some experience with them!
> 
> Our company specialises in high end screens for the CI market. We have features in numerous CEDIA award winning systems over the last few years and are used by leading companies such as Barco Residential in their facilities. A number of A grade directors and executives use our screens so we have had to go through several rounds of studio approvals hence I am familiar with the types of questions raised.
> 
> We are sold all over the world with an extensive distribution and rep network giving full coverage of the US however all of our products are made at our facility in the UK.
> 
> Unlike others we do NOT offer image surface only options - you must buy a full screen solution from us. Our company was founded to deliver the best possible install experience as well as the best possible image quality and we can only assure that by offering systems.
> 
> Even our most basic frontier fixed frame screen features many unique benefits such as the front loading image surface with magnetic front bezels. It was flattering to see one of the other big names try to copy the front loading image surface story lately.
> 
> What we are particularly known for is having the absolute best masking system on the market. Our masking screens use a proprietary system called Mask Position Logic which enables us to mask to any requested aspect ratio without the need for presets. Want the screen to move to 1778 aspect then simply ask it to do so. 1780 content now - no problem, if the screen is big enough the masks will move to that new location. Want a 2.1 aspect 4 way mask with artwork - no problem we do that stuff all the time.
> 
> We also do a full line of hush boxes, portholes, mounting brackets and so on.
> 
> You won’t see us a lot on forums as we don’t really cater for DIY but we try to be everywhere in pro install.


Well that explains why I haven’t heard much.
They sound like very nice products. The masking sounds amazing and hopefully I’ll be able to see a screen in action at some point.
Thanks.


----------



## gil1

But among all the screens tested, which is the one that offers the most sharpness and resolution of the projected image?


----------



## audioguy

^^^ THAT is the question for which I want the answer.


----------



## mtbdudex

Just saw this thread … lotta posts.
As baseline how does your measurements compare to Jeff’s here?









updated "Projection Screen Material Report"?


Is there by chance an updated "Projection Screen Material Report", the one I see is from 4/2016, 3.5 years old https://www.accucalav.com/wp-content/uploads/accucal_front_projection_screen_report.pdf A lot of the subjective comments I see in various threads here could be answered with that...




www.avsforum.com






Sent from my iPhone 11Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## rcohen

mtbdudex said:


> Just saw this thread … lotta posts.
> As baseline how does your measurements compare to Jeff’s here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> updated "Projection Screen Material Report"?
> 
> 
> Is there by chance an updated "Projection Screen Material Report", the one I see is from 4/2016, 3.5 years old https://www.accucalav.com/wp-content/uploads/accucal_front_projection_screen_report.pdf A lot of the subjective comments I see in various threads here could be answered with that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 11Pro using Tapatalk


One notable difference is that it shows ST100 at 1.02 with ST130 at 1.27.


----------



## mtbdudex

rcohen said:


> One notable difference is that it shows ST100 at 1.02 with ST130 at 1.27.


I’m all for objective fact based data, Jeff’s very respected in this field, hence data taken should match within experimental error … 
As we all know all data has experimental error associated with it, for understanding and peer review.


Sent from my iPhone 11Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> One notable difference is that it shows ST100 at 1.02 with ST130 at 1.27.


If using MP = 10% loss then a ST130 MP in his setup would result in a gain of 1.14. If my ST100 is actually 1.02 like his then my ST130 MP is actually 1.03. So a .11 difference. He also has the XD material about at the same delta. It has been the biggest concern I have for my measurements coming in low relative to the ST100.

My reflectance standard did just come in. It was used and claimed to be in great condition. It wasn’t. I need to look into it I can refurbish it or not. I was told I could so I’ll have to see more tomorrow.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> If using MP = 10% loss then a ST130 MP in his setup would result in a gain of 1.14. If my ST100 is actually 1.02 like his then my ST130 MP is actually 1.03. So a .11 difference. He also has the XD material about at the same delta. It has been the biggest concern I have for my measurements coming in low relative to the ST100.
> 
> My reflectance standard did just come in. It was used and claimed to be in great condition. It wasn’t. I need to look into it I can refurbish it or not. I was told I could so I’ll have to see more tomorrow.


Since it’s not a spot meter, you probably need to match the area to get a relative measurement for calibration. You could mask off whichever is larger with velvet.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> If using MP = 10% loss then a ST130 MP in his setup would result in a gain of 1.14. If my ST100 is actually 1.02 like his then my ST130 MP is actually 1.03. So a .11 difference. He also has the XD material about at the same delta. It has been the biggest concern I have for my measurements coming in low relative to the ST100.
> 
> My reflectance standard did just come in. It was used and claimed to be in great condition. It wasn’t. I need to look into it I can refurbish it or not. I was told I could so I’ll have to see more tomorrow.


That makes me wonder if the ST100 is off or everything else. If everything else is consistent in relative terms, maybe something is amiss with the ST100.


----------



## dlinsley

audioguy said:


> There was just such clarity and "3D-ness" to the image I saw yesterday that was unlike anything I have ever seen - and his PJ topped out about 2200 lumens (RS3000). I will be investigating his screen material next week.


Really interested in hearing more about this when you've had another look (including which DT material it was). The distributor for the Seattle area has small framed samples of ATPro and ATRef to look at, but nothing on show at any dealer. I've reached out, and hopefully can get a demo at home to compare to my v6 screen (and v7 sample). Very happy with v6 still, but the journey never ends


----------



## Technology3456

@PixelPusher15, if you have time, would it be possible for you to include a "sheen test" as part of your screen reviews? I am specifically wondering about RGB laser speckle on different materials. Supposedly the materials that show the least are weave screens, so it would be great to have comparisons of the top weave screens when it comes to this metric. The ones I have heard of are Seymour NEO, Severtson SAT, and Dreamscreen V6 and V7.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Technology3456 said:


> @PixelPusher15, if you have time, would it be possible for you to include a "sheen test" as part of your screen reviews? I am specifically wondering about RGB laser speckle on different materials. Supposedly the materials that show the least are weave screens, so it would be great to have comparisons of the top weave screens when it comes to this metric. The ones I have heard of are Seymour NEO, Severtson SAT, and Dreamscreen V6 and V7.


You caught me at the right time for this request as I am going to be doing the texture/subjective testing over the next couple days. I just finished the gain and acoustic testing.

I can do my best do give some indication of a sheen but I'm not going to know for certain whether it will show speckle or not. I haven't seen a laser projector up close, or even speckle before so I can't know for sure which screen will show it or not. I can tell you right now based on handling these materials for more hours than one should that the most matte materials are the Dreamscreen V6/V7, spandex, Stewart GreyMatte 70, Elite AcousticPro 8K (this material is not fully released yet AFAIK), Seymour NEO and UF, Stewart Harmony G2, and Silver Ticket WVS. The ST100 is also fairly matte.
The one vinyl coated material that sticks out to me is the XY Screens SoundMax 8K. During my first texture test I recall this one looking ultra-smooth without any short of shimmer.

You'll notice I left of the Severtson SAT that you mentioned. Here are my exact comments from my first texture test from 8' "_Grain is just slightly more noticeable. Slight sparkle now visible." _This was also true for the TAT material as well.

Out of all of these I'd pick the Dreamscreen v6/v7, Elite AcousticPro 8K, Spandex, and GreyMatte 70 as the most matte materials. None of these are traditional weave materials. Those materials all have a teeny bit of shimmer to boost gain even under my desk light. I'm not saying they won't work, just that they aren't the most matte. Also, note that there is another Elite 8K material coming out called the CineWhite 8K. This is very similar to the AcousticPro 8K but does have more shimmer too it. Ironically, the shimmer doesn't help on the gain tests. Both of these Elite materials are the only other bonded materials I have seen. They're similar construction to the Dreamscreen materials and I get the feeling that Elite is very proud of them as they sent them over pre-release to be compared.

I hope this helps some and just in case you need to make a decision quickly. I'll take a closer look at shimmer/sheen when they are pinned up for texture testing.


----------



## jsmith967

PixelPusher15 said:


> You caught me at the right time for this request as I am going to be doing the texture/subjective testing over the next couple days. I just finished the gain and acoustic testing.
> 
> I can do my best do give some indication of a sheen but I'm not going to know for certain whether it will show speckle or not. I haven't seen a laser projector up close, or even speckle before so I can't know for sure which screen will show it or not. I can tell you right now based on handling these materials for more hours than one should that the fattest materials are the Dreamscreen V6/V7, spandex, Stewart GreyMatte 70, Elite AcousticPro 8K (this material is not fully released yet AFAIK), Seymour NEO and UF, Stewart Harmony G2, and Silver Ticket WVS. The ST100 is also fairly matte.
> The one vinyl coated material that sticks out to me is the XY Screens SoundMax 8K. During my first texture test I recall this one looking ultra-smooth without any short of shimmer.
> 
> You'll notice I left of the Severtson SAT that you mentioned. Here are my exact comments from my first texture test from 8' "_Grain is just slightly more noticeable. Slight sparkle now visible." _This was also true for the TAT material as well.
> 
> Out of all of these I'd pick the Dreamscreen v6/v7, Elite AcousticPro 8K, Spandex, and GreyMatte 70 as the most matte materials. None of these are traditional weave materials. Those materials all have a teeny bit of shimmer to boost gain even under my desk light. I'm not saying they won't work, just that they aren't the most matte. Also, note that there is another Elite 8K material coming out called the CineWhite 8K. This is very similar to the AcousticPro 8K but does have more shimmer too it. Ironically, the shimmer doesn't help on the gain tests. Both of these Elite materials are the only other bonded materials I have seen. They're similar construction to the Dreamscreen materials and I get the feeling that Elite is very proud of them as they sent them over pre-release to be compared.
> 
> I hope this helps some and just in case you need to make a decision quickly. I'll take a closer look at shimmer/sheen when they are pinned up for texture testing.


Thanks for the comments. I'm looking forward to you updated review/measurements and including the two Elite fabrics you mentioned, especially as compared with your other picks you mentioned earlier in the thread.


----------



## PixelPusher15

I'd like to get some feedback on these acoustic testing I did. Over lunch I followed the tips from @sam_adams to trace the control measurement with the sample measures. I think I did that all correctly and came up with a little bit surprising results for below 1.5khz. I'm not sure this matters as much since usually screens don't have much of an impact at this level. I'm wondering if my rig had something to do with it. Before I go on documenting all of this I'd like to see if anyone has concerns about it now. These tests took quite awhile since I did them from 4" and 12". I also measured each black backing, and the woven screens with and without a black backing. Here's just 14 samples with and without 1/24 octave smoothing:
















Here's some pictures of my rig:

















The mic was placed one meter away for both 4" and 12" tests. The above chart is for 12" (30cm). I looked at the impulse graph to see if I was getting room reflections with this setup and nothing showed up so I proceeded with basic measures. Again, these measurements are intended for comparisons and not reference, please keep that in mind.


----------



## Lygren

I would suggest trying to place the mic a bit closer? Did you do a couple of control tests outside just to check the potential impact of the room? A slope upwards from 18-20kHz on some of the materials seems a bit weird too, given that this is not how the original source behaves (i.e. without the blocker, your control measurement), going upwards in frequency should not reduce the blockage...


----------



## PixelPusher15

Lygren said:


> I would suggest trying to place the mic a bit closer? Did you do a couple of control tests outside just to check the potential impact of the room? A slope upwards from 18-20kHz on some of the materials seems a bit weird too, given that this is not how the original source behaves (i.e. without the blocker, your control measurement), going upwards in frequency should not reduce the blockage...


I haven’t been able to do anything outside. That was my plan but it’s been a rainy mess in Michigan since I had the rig built and ready to go (Monday night). My family was out of town Tuesday so I used that opportunity to do the testing.

The control here is zeroed out so the upward trend at 18-20hz would just mean they have less attenuation.

I can take it all outside tomorrow and give a couple of them a sweep. Should be pretty easy for a few. I think there’s over 100 in total though. So trying to verify these will be less work than redoing.


----------



## Lygren

PixelPusher15 said:


> I haven’t been able to do anything outside. That was my plan but it’s been a rainy mess in Michigan since I had the rig built and ready to go (Monday night). My family was out of town Tuesday so I used that opportunity to do the testing.
> 
> The control here is zeroed out so the upward trend at 18-20hz would just mean they have less attenuation.
> 
> I can take it all outside tomorrow and give a couple of them a sweep. Should be pretty easy for a few. I think there’s over 100 in total though. So trying to verify these will be less work than redoing.


Yes, upwards equals less attenuation, which is not something that would normally happen... It should suffice just testing a few outside to verify if the room makes any difference, but I would suggest trying to move the mic closer regardless as you really want to measure as much of the direct blockage as possible and the further off you place the mic, the more the room reflections might impact your readings.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Lygren said:


> Yes, upwards equals less attenuation, which is not something that would normally happen... It should suffice just testing a few outside to verify if the room makes any difference, but I would suggest trying to move the mic closer regardless as you really want to measure as much of the direct blockage as possible and the further off you place the mic, the more the room reflections might impact your readings.


I'm really hoping I don't need to redo all of these. I just counted, it's 98 measures. It would be 100 but I dropped the Draper materials since they weren't performing well and are too small for the rig. I hope no one was eyeing them. I for sure wouldn't recommend them for home theater.

I checked out a few measurements into the test and everything looked decent. At first glance the slight oddities don't stick out. This is the ST100 MP with 1/24 smoothing. The red is the control and the orange is the ST100 MP without tracing. The blue is tracing the control which has been set to 0. Doesn't look so crazy on the top comparison. Lesson learned. We'll see what happens when I go outside tomorrow.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Lygren said:


> Yes, upwards equals less attenuation, which is not something that would normally happen... It should suffice just testing a few outside to verify if the room makes any difference, but I would suggest trying to move the mic closer regardless as you really want to measure as much of the direct blockage as possible and the further off you place the mic, the more the room reflections might impact your readings.











Well, some things got better and other things got worse. Dreamscreen v6 and StudioTek 130 for both.

As of now, I don't think outside measurements are practical for me. Wind/tree noise is a big issue right now but even if I do it when it's still I still apparently live too close to roads, leaf blowers, planes, etc. etc. There was just too much environmental noise and 3 measurements of one screen would be off by 1-2.5db in places. I could move my stuff to an open field but I'm not positive that will be better and is much more overhead. 

I'm going to try more inside with mic position to see if I can get the 18-20khz range to make more sense. I don't believe we care much about the oddities in the 500hz-1500hz range so I'm not going to focus on those.


----------



## sam_adams

PixelPusher15 said:


> I'm really hoping I don't need to redo all of these.


Just a note on the graph display, you should set the horizontal frequency scale to logarithmic not linear.


----------



## Lygren

PixelPusher15 said:


> View attachment 3179183
> 
> Well, some things got better and other things got worse. Dreamscreen v6 and StudioTek 130 for both.
> 
> As of now, I don't think outside measurements are practical for me. Wind/tree noise is a big issue right now but even if I do it when it's still I still apparently live too close to roads, leaf blowers, planes, etc. etc. There was just too much environmental noise and 3 measurements of one screen would be off by 1-2.5db in places. I could move my stuff to an open field but I'm not positive that will be better and is much more overhead.
> 
> I'm going to try more inside with mic position to see if I can get the 18-20khz range to make more sense. I don't believe we care much about the oddities in the 500hz-1500hz range so I'm not going to focus on those.


Well, I´d still recommend the sealed box method we are using that I mentioned before, but I certainly understand that you do not have all the time and resources in the world, and again, kudos for all your hard work!  I guess you could try inside again, but I believe you would easily provide a benefit to the more reflective fabrics (i.e. the ones with leas AT), as they will start sending back more energy once their blockade levels increase (moving up the the frequency curve), which again would work its way to your microphone through a multitude of room reflections. The sealed box would basically solve this...


----------



## ceenhad

The indoor method shown will give relative data given the difficulties of mounting and un mounting all the fabrics etc. 

The only suggestions I would make is to have the mic much closer to the fabric (say 2x distance of speaker to fabric no more). Make sure that you set the window time to minimise any indirect sounds which should be relatively easy to do if you are comfortable looking at the impulse response. 

Also make sure that you are using the correct calibration for the mic if you are going to point it straight at the fabrics. 

Finally you have to average say three measures if you are trying to get data above say 12kHz with these mics. The capsule is relatively large which the calibration file helps with and averaging improves again. You may find that the three measures are all the same but you remove any chance for complaints!


----------



## PixelPusher15

Measuring closer to the speaker seemed to do the trick, @Lygren . I missed your comment @ceenhad about spacing. I went with 6" between the material and mic. Still measuring at 12" or 30cm from speaker to material. Here are the results of the v6 and ST130. Two materials that showed an upward lift toward 20hz: 









I thought the ST130 performed worse than my expectations near 20hz but I looked at the study done by Screen Excellence and they line up: https://screenexcellence.com/downloads/ISVR_screens_evaluation.pdf 









I didn't average 3 measurements but I am using a calibration file. I'd like to eliminate complaints to it looks like 270+ measures it is!

I measured all the black backings in my first flawed run through. I don't think I'll do that again except for maybe the Seymour AV one compared to something else. They all had very negligible impact by themselves. The Seymour BB is the only vinyl coated black backing and I'm really curious of its impacts.

I'm going to take a break on this for a bit to see if any comments come through. Then, I'll run burn through the sweeps this afternoon/weekend.


----------



## ceenhad

Ok nice work! One thing that you will find is that the speaker spacing actually plays a surprising part in the response. Further rather favours MP types as it masks some issues. Reality suggests that installing an AT screen 30cm from the speaker never ever happens. 5cm is more typical but for many reasons I would suggest you pick 10cm distance between speaker and screen. That distance will surely satisfy all manufacturers as being pretty representative of reality and relatively fair to all types of manufacturing process. 

The type of speaker chosen also plays quite a part in the measurement but that 10cm is a good point where these factors start to be negated.


----------



## PixelPusher15

ceenhad said:


> Ok nice work! One thing that you will find is that the speaker spacing actually plays a surprising part in the response. Further rather favours MP types as it masks some issues. Reality suggests that installing an AT screen 30cm from the speaker never ever happens. 5cm is more typical but for many reasons I would suggest you pick 10cm distance between speaker and screen. That distance will surely satisfy all manufacturers as being pretty representative of reality and relatively fair to all types of manufacturing process.
> 
> The type of speaker chosen also plays quite a part in the measurement but that 10cm is a good point where these factors start to be negated.


Well the good news is that 10cm has always been in the plans! My first test was 4”/10cm and 12”/30cm and I’m planning on doing that again. I wanted to see the effects of each material and see how they changed with and without black backings and at different distances.

One thing I’m wondering is should I keep the mic 18” away from the speaker at both positions or will it not matter?


----------



## ceenhad

At 12” the size of the baffle on the test fixture and also the sample sizes becomes relevant. At 4” this is closer to being irrelevant and is also representative of reality. 

As stated earlier 2x the distance between the speaker and fabric is what I would use as the max for the mic distance. I would be getting the mic dead in line with the tweeter also to minimise the effects of being off axis. Another property that varies a lot between fabric types but which requires you to make polar measurements to quantify. You have more like 900 data points to get then though 😂


----------



## PixelPusher15

ceenhad said:


> At 12” the size of the baffle on the test fixture and also the sample sizes becomes relevant. At 4” this is closer to being irrelevant and is also representative of reality.
> 
> As stated earlier 2x the distance between the speaker and fabric is what I would use as the max for the mic distance. I would be getting the mic dead in line with the tweeter also to minimise the effects of being off axis. Another property that varies a lot between fabric types but which requires you to make polar measurements to quantify. You have more like 900 data points to get then though 😂


Hmm. I’m halfway to completion on 3x sweeps of the speaker at 12” from the screen and the mic at 6” from the material. (So right at that 2x number). My mic is squarely centered between the woofer and the tweeter which was so they would mesh at the mic like when I’d measure from 1m but now I’m realizing this doesn’t make much sense since we care mostly about 2khz+ here which is all tweeter.

Sounds like a restart again but I’m trying to understand why being slightly off axis would impact various materials differently. What’s the reason for this? Same goes for baffle of the rig and sample size from 12”. Why would the impacts here be different between samples?

My goal is to show how each material differs with two distances. There’s some scientific papers on this but nothing comparing real world materials at this magnitude. Especially when you add in the variety of woven, woven with vinyl coating, with and without black backings, MP size, density of MP screen, and so on.


----------



## ceenhad

If you wish to show data for more than one depth then of course that is your choice. I will repeat that the sound source is very rarely more than 10cm from the screen. In the cases of a normal fixed screen this is normally more like 2.5cm. 

A micro perf is a tiny hole punched in a material. As you move axis the “visible” shape of the hole changes significantly. This is the same effect you saw when trying to optimise the light measurement. This can reduce the effective perforation area as a function of angle which is a key consideration given the work that goes into delivering a good off axis response in the speaker design. 

At 30cm spacing you are still at a distance where the wavelength can be significant. You don’t have an infinite baffle so the sound at some point goes around it. You will see some of these effects in the impulse response I am sure. You need to either window them out completely (meaning that data below about 2kHz is sacrificed) or move the speaker closer. I would still window the data but it will be much cleaner much lower down the range. 

The small sample means that you will have various refraction effects that you can’t window out of the measurement. The closer spacing will help that a bit. 

I think after a shaky start you are doing a good job on this within the completely reasonable limitations that you are operating under. I hope my insight helps you get the data as accurate as you can in your situation.


----------



## PixelPusher15

ceenhad said:


> If you wish to show data for more than one depth then of course that is your choice. I will repeat that the sound source is very rarely more than 10cm from the screen. In the cases of a normal fixed screen this is normally more like 2.5cm.
> 
> A micro perf is a tiny hole punched in a material. As you move axis the “visible” shape of the hole changes significantly. This is the same effect you saw when trying to optimise the light measurement. This can reduce the effective perforation area as a function of angle which is a key consideration given the work that goes into delivering a good off axis response in the speaker design.
> 
> At 30cm spacing you are still at a distance where the wavelength can be significant. You don’t have an infinite baffle so the sound at some point goes around it. You will see some of these effects in the impulse response I am sure. You need to either window them out completely (meaning that data below about 2kHz is sacrificed) or move the speaker closer. I would still window the data but it will be much cleaner much lower down the range.
> 
> The small sample means that you will have various refraction effects that you can’t window out of the measurement. The closer spacing will help that a bit.
> 
> I think after a shaky start you are doing a good job on this within the completely reasonable limitations that you are operating under. I hope my insight helps you get the data as accurate as you can in your situation.


Thanks for the explanation on the MP screens, that makes sense. 2.5cm seems like a pretty bad placement for screens based on the other reports in this thread, especially for MP screens. 

I forgot to mention in my last post that I'm not getting much on the impulse graph (this is for 12"/30cm):









Admittedly I haven't done windowed measurements in the past based on the write-ups I have seen for them this looks pretty good for the range we really care about.

Your comments about the off-axis impacts of the MP screens make me want to do an off-axis batch of tests to see these impacts across the board. Based on the previous papers we know it's worse on MP screens (duh, why did I just ask you, haha). This at one point was my plan but the amount of testing snowballed so I dropped it. I may bring it back. I think if I shift the tweeter up slightly in my sample window I should be able to get a 15 degree off-axis measurement for the speaker being placed at 4"/10cm. 

Thanks for your help on this, it is very appreciated.


----------



## ceenhad

Your window is all in. Remember that 1ms is approximately 30cm (12”). You need to zoom way, way in to see what is happening on that first 20ms as a starter to see issues. Yiu will be able to dial it down more from there. 

Off axis sounds easy but you will need to make a jig to accurately move the mic rather than the speaker. Hats if you decide to do it!


----------



## PixelPusher15

ceenhad said:


> Your window is all in. Remember that 1ms is approximately 30cm (12”). You need to zoom way, way in to see what is happening on that first 20ms as a starter to see issues. Yiu will be able to dial it down more from there.
> 
> Off axis sounds easy but you will need to make a jig to accurately move the mic rather than the speaker. Hats if you decide to do it!





















This lookin' a bit better? I measured the distance to my closest wall and it is my ceiling is just under 3' (7' ceilings down here). I put the right window at what would be just under 3' since that should window out the ceiling reflections if I'm gettin' this right. You can see the impact on the SPL graph with a direct copy that isn't windowed. Some very slight difference about 2khz but not much. Again, not sure how much we care about under 2khz.

Regarding off-axis measurements. For comparison sake can I not just take one measurement at 12"/30cm from the tweeter and 15 degrees down? The screen material would stay at 4"/10cm away from the speaker.


----------



## ceenhad

You still have what appears to be a reflection in your window. Probably that is your baffle since it looks to be 1ms which is approx 12”.


----------



## PixelPusher15

ceenhad said:


> You still have what appears to be a reflection in your window. Probably that is your baffle since it looks to be 1ms which is approx 12”.




















I experimented some more with windowing and analyzing some of the 4"/10cm results and things aren't looking as good as they did with my 12"/30cm measures. Up above are 4 different materials with the window set at defaults, 0.3/1.0ms and 0.3/1.8ms for the left/right windows. The Seymour UF and XD materials don't show much of a difference with windowing but the Severtson CWMP and Elite AcousticPro 8K do. The 1.0ms window reducing frequency resolution to 775hz so I lose 500hz to 775hz here. The weird thing is that woven AP8K is harmed with windowing in the upper frequencies while the micro-perfed CWMP is aided. 

The biggest question I have is why do the woven AP8K and Seymour UF materials have worse response below 2khz? Furthermore, the CWMP looks really good when windowed in the upper frequencies, only about -3db. That doesn't make any sense for a MP material at 10cm. The non-windowed ~-6db makes much more sense

Here are the non-windowed measurements for all 4 materials:








Other than the oddness below 2khz where things seem reversed, these align much more with expectations and other research.

There's also a lot more comb filtering at 4"/10cm which is expected.


----------



## ceenhad

You have to show the impulse responses also to let someone comment on your questions. Where the 1.8ms time come from? Do you see differences around these times on the impulses for different surfaces?

The greater loss at 2khz is not unexpected. It’s a function of absorption in the fabric screens that does not happen with vinyl base of the MP screens. It is described in one of the other pieces of literature in this thread where impedance tube testing was used IIRC.


----------



## PixelPusher15

ceenhad said:


> You have to show the impulse responses also to let someone comment on your questions. Where the 1.8ms time come from? Do you see differences around these times on the impulses for different surfaces?
> 
> The greater loss at 2khz is not unexpected. It’s a function of absorption in the fabric screens that does not happen with vinyl base of the MP screens. It is described in one of the other pieces of literature in this thread where impedance tube testing was used IIRC.


Shoot, my bad. Of course.

























The 1.8ms came from if I dropped in lower then I was losing frequencies I tested in the sweep. I stopped at 1ms because it felt like I was chewing too much into the sweep. But maybe that's what I have to do to get accurate results? I can move the left window to bring some of that resolution back too. The lowest REW will allow me to move the right window is 0.5ms.

Ok, I moved the entire rig out of the way and just measured the speaker in the open room. The closest surface is 3' away and the mic is 12" from the tweeter directly on center. This is what the impulse graph looks like:









here is the control overlapped on top of the impulse graph of the open room measurement (Blue is the open room)









And here is the frequency response between the control and open room (blue is open room):









I'm not sure if these help figure out an appropriate window or not but I thought it would be good to know how the rig is affecting things. I tried adjusting the window of the control to see if I could get the SPL graph to match thinking this would be the way to remove the reflections of the rig but this didn't work out. I did set the window on the open room measurements to where known surfaces are (3'). With both of them windowed for the open room and it's known reflection points (0.5/3.0) I get this:


----------



## PixelPusher15

Fighting through all this windowing has got me thinking if this is a “perfect is the enemy of good” situation. It’s been said a couple of times in here that windowing isn’t absolutely essential for the sake of comparisons between materials. Has this sentiment been revised or incorrect? The more I mess with windowing the wackier the results look as it relates to other reports out there. Maybe I’m doing it wrong, that’s entirely possible since this is my first attempt at windowing and probably isn’t the best place for my first foray into it. Anyway, I’m just trying to strike a balance here.


----------



## ceenhad

It looks like you can set the window to 3ms and be sure that there are no impacts other than the direct sound. I am sure that then you have the best possible representation of performance of the fabric only. 

The impulse responses themselves that you posted are actually really interesting


----------



## squared80

By the way, looking for testing on the Silver Ticket STT-169135-WVS.


----------



## marantz545

squared80 said:


> By the way, looking for testing on the Silver Ticket STT-169135-WVS.


I have samples of the WVS and the WAB material. I honestly think the WAB is a better material. The WVS is a softer image and I think the WAB is a tad brighter. I would really like to see some real measurements on both to confirm.


----------



## squared80

marantz545 said:


> I have samples of the WVS and the WAB material. I honestly think the WAB is a better material. The WVS is a softer image and I think the WAB is a tad brighter. I would really like to see some real measurements on both to confirm.


Interesting. From a sound perspective, I read WVS is the better choice. Wasn't sure on the visual aspect, though. Good to know, but yes, anxious for some testing.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Small update. I've collected all the data for the below and will start processing it and re-writing my report.

On-axis gain compared to a reflectance standard. Sneak peak, the ST100 came in at 1.01 so not a big difference from my most recent measurements
12" and 4" on-axis acoustic testing
Sharpness test with QBF pattern (focus locked)
Pictures of each material at 100% white (exposure locked)
Updated texture analysis
Contrast ratio test that wasn't too revelatory but there are a couple of interesting tidbits. I'd like to do more experimentation but I just don't have the time. A sneak peek is that the contrast ratio isn't majorly different between materials (~10%, except ALR) but uncoated woven materials take a bigger hit without a black backing. There was a 20% difference in contrast between the better MP materials and an uncoated woven screen without black backing.
I had to drop off-axis gain and acoustic measurements. I hadn't done any off-axis gain measurements and based on my previous tests I figured it would take a few iterations to get it down. I just don't have the time at this point to keep pushing through these tests. I dropped the off-axis acoustic testing because I tried a few and the results were a bit too inconsistent between measurements of the same material for me to have any sort of confidence in them. I'm pretty sure the sample size I'm working with is at fault here.

Interesting notes on the texture analysis:

Non-coated materials with black backings are all pretty smooth and have no obvious issues at 8'. Without black backings, as with my first test, this was not the case.
Vinyl coated materials are a bit of a mixed bag at 8' with a black backing. Some are very smooth, others can get pretty grainy. As with the uncoated materials, without black backings, they appeared worse. Most are good to go at 10-11'.
Perforated screens need room to breathe. 10' is the absolute minimum, 12'-13' is preferred and >14' is optimal. These screens are sharper though, so there's a balance. The closer you are the sharper you want the screen to be.


----------



## jsmith967

PixelPusher15 said:


> Small update. I've collected all the data for the below and will start processing it and re-writing my report.
> 
> On-axis gain compared to a reflectance standard. Sneak peak, the ST100 came in at 1.01 so not a big difference from my most recent measurements
> 12" and 4" on-axis acoustic testing
> Sharpness test with QBF pattern (focus locked)
> Pictures of each material at 100% white (exposure locked)
> Updated texture analysis
> Contrast ratio test that wasn't too revelatory but there are a couple of interesting tidbits. I'd like to do more experimentation but I just don't have the time. A sneak peek is that the contrast ratio isn't majorly different between materials (~10%, except ALR) but uncoated woven materials take a bigger hit without a black backing. There was a 20% difference in contrast between the better MP materials and an uncoated woven screen without black backing.
> I had to drop off-axis gain and acoustic measurements. I hadn't done any off-axis gain measurements and based on my previous tests I figured it would take a few iterations to get it down. I just don't have the time at this point to keep pushing through these tests. I dropped the off-axis acoustic testing because I tried a few and the results were a bit too inconsistent between measurements of the same material for me to have any sort of confidence in them. I'm pretty sure the sample size I'm working with is at fault here.
> 
> Interesting notes on the texture analysis:
> 
> Non-coated materials with black backings are all pretty smooth and have no obvious issues at 8'. Without black backings, as with my first test, this was not the case.
> Vinyl coated materials are a bit of a mixed bag at 8' with a black backing. Some are very smooth, others can get pretty grainy. As with the uncoated materials, without black backings, they appeared worse. Most are good to go at 10-11'.
> Perforated screens need room to breathe. 10' is the absolute minimum, 12'-13' is preferred and >14' is optimal. These screens are sharper though, so there's a balance. The closer you are the sharper you want the screen to be.


Thanks for all your great work. Whatever you contribute will be a huge help and what you've done is already a huge help. Thanks again.


----------



## Richard Berg

Do you have a colorimeter? I recall that when Jeff (Accucal) measured the previous generation of screens, excessive delta-E was the main reason that less-established brands got ruled out, even moreso than gain or frequency response.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> Small update. I've collected all the data for the below and will start processing it and re-writing my report.
> 
> On-axis gain compared to a reflectance standard. Sneak peak, the ST100 came in at 1.01 so not a big difference from my most recent measurements
> 12" and 4" on-axis acoustic testing
> Sharpness test with QBF pattern (focus locked)
> Pictures of each material at 100% white (exposure locked)
> Updated texture analysis
> Contrast ratio test that wasn't too revelatory but there are a couple of interesting tidbits. I'd like to do more experimentation but I just don't have the time. A sneak peek is that the contrast ratio isn't majorly different between materials (~10%, except ALR) but uncoated woven materials take a bigger hit without a black backing. There was a 20% difference in contrast between the better MP materials and an uncoated woven screen without black backing.
> I had to drop off-axis gain and acoustic measurements. I hadn't done any off-axis gain measurements and based on my previous tests I figured it would take a few iterations to get it down. I just don't have the time at this point to keep pushing through these tests. I dropped the off-axis acoustic testing because I tried a few and the results were a bit too inconsistent between measurements of the same material for me to have any sort of confidence in them. I'm pretty sure the sample size I'm working with is at fault here.
> 
> Interesting notes on the texture analysis:
> 
> Non-coated materials with black backings are all pretty smooth and have no obvious issues at 8'. Without black backings, as with my first test, this was not the case.
> Vinyl coated materials are a bit of a mixed bag at 8' with a black backing. Some are very smooth, others can get pretty grainy. As with the uncoated materials, without black backings, they appeared worse. Most are good to go at 10-11'.
> Perforated screens need room to breathe. 10' is the absolute minimum, 12'-13' is preferred and >14' is optimal. These screens are sharper though, so there's a balance. The closer you are the sharper you want the screen to be.


I'm looking forward to seeing your report! Thanks for doing all this work!

I certainly understand the necessity of focusing the tests, since it's easy to end up with a combinatorial explosion.

It would be very helpful if you could do an acoustic comparison of a single set of microperf vs coated weave vs uncoated weave materials for 24" speaker-screen distance plus off-axis (up to 24".)
Perhaps by focusing that on just 3 materials, the added work would be more manageable?

Your notes about black backing are really interesting. First I've heard about that. It would be interesting to hear more details.

Regardless of any of the above, I appreciate whatever you can do, without reservations.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Here are the raw photos of what I'm using to decide material sharpness. Attached is a compressed version to get under the 20MB upload limit. Here is a link to the full 72MB version.

I may need to redo this. Some materials seem to "render" a bit oddly. The ST100 and ST100MP don't look identical with the obvious exception of the MP. The ST100 honestly looks a bit worse than the ST100 MP. That being said, I still think it is pretty useful in its current form. The bonded materials from Dreamscreen and Elite (the two 8K materials) are probably the blurriest but a lot of the non-coated weave materials are less sharp.

I used my FujiFilm XT-10 and locked the focus on the ST100 material then swapped in each material. I left everything else on auto because I didn't want things to be blown out or underexposed as this distorted what looked sharper during some cursory testing.

I'm "cancelling" this image. I'll leave the link to the full one above but I don't think it was accurate enough to post yet. The auto-exposure on the camera is messing with the perceived sharpness of each image and needs to be adjusted for the next run through. Go ahead and take a look but please keep this in mind.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> Here are the raw photos of what I'm using to decide material sharpness. Attached is a compressed version to get under the 20MB upload limit. Here is a link to the full 72MB version.
> 
> I may need to redo this. Some materials seem to "render" a bit oddly. The ST100 and ST100MP don't look identical with the obvious exception of the MP. The ST100 honestly looks a bit worse than the ST100 MP. That being said, I still think it is pretty useful in its current form. The bonded materials from Dreamscreen and Elite (the two 8K materials) are probably the blurriest but a lot of the non-coated weave materials are less sharp.
> 
> I used my FujiFilm XT-10 and locked the focus on the ST100 material then swapped in each material. I left everything else on auto because I didn't want things to be blown out or underexposed as this distorted what looked sharper during some cursory testing.
> 
> View attachment 3182828


Those are great! Thanks!
If you do redo them, it looks like the color registration on your projector needs adjustment.
BTW, I wasn't able to download the big file. I think you need to set that to public.


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> I'm looking forward to seeing your report! Thanks for doing all this work!
> 
> I certainly understand the necessity of focusing the tests, since it's easy to end up with a combinatorial explosion.
> 
> It would be very helpful if you could do an acoustic comparison of a single set of microperf vs coated weave vs uncoated weave materials for 24" speaker-screen distance plus off-axis (up to 24".)
> Perhaps by focusing that on just 3 materials, the added work would be more manageable?
> 
> Your notes about black backing are really interesting. First I've heard about that. It would be interesting to hear more details.
> 
> Regardless of any of the above, I appreciate whatever you can do, without reservations.


More acoustic testing is probably going to have to hold for a bit. This project has kinda snowballed and I need to reign it in and finish what I have so far. Taking some more photos isn't hard since I can get a batch done in under 2 hours and it's pretty straightforward. Acoustic testing means I need to set up my rig in my theater and all the other equipment and then analyze some test measurements to make sure everything is in order. Just a few measurements take a decent while when factoring in setup and teardown. Doing something like you're asking in the future isn't unreasonable but for the sake of my family, I need to carry on. 

Regarding the off-axis tests. I tried from 4" and things looked really wonky. My impulse graphs (and to a lesser extent frequency response) were all over the map for multiple tests of the same material and positioning. Things can only get worse as I move back since the window for sound to pass through is so small. I personally wouldn't value the data I could provide on off-axis testing from 24". 

For the black backing notes, there isn't much more to add. When I did the texture testing in my first batch, which had no black backings, I used the same distances except for this time I added a 13.5' mark. I noticed that with the black backings up some materials seemed better than I remembered. A lot of the same texture was there but it was reduced by a good amount. Comparing my notes the biggest difference is that a lot of the materials in the first batch that seemed to have a sort of grain to them at close distances now appeared to be smoother. I don't have duplicates of most materials but I do have a copy of the Elite AcousticPro 1080P3. That's one that I noted had some grain without the black backing but didn't with. I can throw both of those up and take a look to confirm.


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> Those are great! Thanks!
> If you do redo them, it looks like the color registration on your projector needs adjustment.
> BTW, I wasn't able to download the big file. I think you need to set that to public.


Thanks! Should be good to go now. 

Color registration? Ya mean panel alignment?


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> Thanks! Should be good to go now.
> 
> Color registration? Ya mean panel alignment?


Yes.

(That did fix it.)


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> More acoustic testing is probably going to have to hold for a bit. This project has kinda snowballed and I need to reign it in and finish what I have so far. Taking some more photos isn't hard since I can get a batch done in under 2 hours and it's pretty straightforward. Acoustic testing means I need to set up my rig in my theater and all the other equipment and then analyze some test measurements to make sure everything is in order. Just a few measurements take a decent while when factoring in setup and teardown. Doing something like you're asking in the future isn't unreasonable but for the sake of my family, I need to carry on.
> 
> Regarding the off-axis tests. I tried from 4" and things looked really wonky. My impulse graphs (and to a lesser extent frequency response) were all over the map for multiple tests of the same material and positioning. Things can only get worse as I move back since the window for sound to pass through is so small. I personally wouldn't value the data I could provide on off-axis testing from 24".
> 
> For the black backing notes, there isn't much more to add. When I did the texture testing in my first batch, which had no black backings, I used the same distances except for this time I added a 13.5' mark. I noticed that with the black backings up some materials seemed better than I remembered. A lot of the same texture was there but it was reduced by a good amount. Comparing my notes the biggest difference is that a lot of the materials in the first batch that seemed to have a sort of grain to them at close distances now appeared to be smoother. I don't have duplicates of most materials but I do have a copy of the Elite AcousticPro 1080P3. That's one that I noted had some grain without the black backing but didn't with. I can throw both of those up and take a look to confirm.


Understood.

So, to be clear, black backing helped with grain inside 10 feet, but didn't matter beyond 10 feet?


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> Yes.
> 
> (That did fix it.)


Yeah, I may need to contact Epson about my convergence. I tried pretty hard to get things to be better and I seemed to make it worse so I reset it. It's a refurb 5050 so maybe this is the reason it was returned.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> Yeah, I may need to contact Epson about my convergence. I tried pretty hard to get things to be better and I seemed to make it worse so I reset it. It's a refurb 5050 so maybe this is the reason it was returned.


That's strange that adjusting the convergence made it worse. That might be worth another try.


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> Understood.
> 
> So, to be clear, black backing helped with grain inside 10 feet, but didn't matter beyond 10 feet?


Grain was the biggest difference but that is the biggest offender for the non-MP AT screens from 8' plus. A few of them have a bit of shimmer, a few a crosshatch sorta pattern. I don't feel like the ones with the crosshatch pattern got better with the black backing (thinking about the XD material). Shimmer was reduced a little but still noticeable (thinking about Severtson TAT).


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> That's strange that adjusting the convergence made it worse. That might be worth another try.


I was able to make the pattern that Epson displays for convergence appear better but then when displaying this QBF pattern, it looked worse. I will give it another go though.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> I was able to make the pattern that Epson displays for convergence appear better but then when displaying this QBF pattern. It looked worse. I will give it another go though.


That's very strange. You could try turning the convergence with the QBF image up, if your projector supports that.


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> That's very strange. You could try turning the convergence with the QBF image up, if your projector supports that.


Took another look last night, I finally realize what's going on. The bottom right corner of my screen is out of focus and each panel seems to be a bit different. It's hard to tell. What I can tell is that it is not possible to get that corner of the screen aligned/sharp. Top left is tack sharp, bottom left and top right are about 90% good. Any adjustments I make to the bottom right messes up the middle of the screen. I've reached out to Epson for a warranty replacement. If I redo the images I can probably get the middle of the screen to be aligned pretty well just for the photoshoot.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> Took another look last night, I finally realize what's going on. The bottom right corner of my screen is out of focus and each panel seems to be a bit different. It's hard to tell. What I can tell is that it is not possible to get that corner of the screen aligned/sharp. Top left is tack sharp, bottom left and top right are about 90% good. Any adjustments I make to the bottom right messes up the middle of the screen. I've reached out to Epson for a warranty replacement. If I redo the images I can probably get the middle of the screen to be aligned pretty well just for the photoshoot.


I'm not familiar with Epson's adjustments. With JVC and Sony, you can tune the color registration independently for different parts of the screen with a grid adjustment. If this is separate from color alignment, and it's a focus issue, that sounds like your lens is out of alignment. In that case, the warranty is the way to go. Normally, with a mediocre lens that is aligned, you can focus the center, but the edges will remain a bit blurry. With a good, lens, you get can get edge to edge sharpness. The non-uniformity sounds something is off, regardless of the quality of the lens.


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> I'm not familiar with Epson's adjustments. With JVC and Sony, you can tune the color registration independently for different parts of the screen with a grid adjustment. If this is separate from color alignment, and it's a focus issue, that sounds like your lens is out of alignment. In that case, the warranty is the way to go. Normally, with a mediocre lens that is aligned, you can focus the center, but the edges will remain a bit blurry. With a good, lens, you get can get edge to edge sharpness. The non-uniformity sounds something is off, regardless of the quality of the lens.


Getting it replaced by Epson. The 5050 is supposed to have great optics and should be sharp edge to edge. I am near the max wide zoom so I could see some slight issues but these were more than slight. They didn't hesitate on replacing it after seeing the photos either. Should be here next week so I'll pencil in another batch of photos for the end of the week.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> Getting it replaced by Epson. The 5050 is supposed to have great optics and should be sharp edge to edge. I am near the max wide zoom so I could see some slight issues but these were more than slight. They didn't hesitate on replacing it after seeing the photos either. Should be here next week so I'll pencil in another batch of photos for the end of the week.


Wide zoom is more challenging, but it should be reasonably centered. That's great that you're getting the replacement so fast.


----------



## Schurter

Is this list up to date, 

I am interested in 135 - 140 inch 2.39 
Probably higher gain for the jvc x950


----------



## PixelPusher15

Schurter said:


> Is this list up to date,
> 
> I am interested in 135 - 140 inch 2.39
> Probably higher gain for the jvc x950


Nope, not up to date but will be soonish.


----------



## Schurter

PixelPusher15 said:


> Nope, not up to date but will be soonish.


Your top five ?


----------



## PixelPusher15

Schurter said:


> Your top five ?


Honestly, that's kinda like asking my top 5 cars across all cars. There are a lot of good screens and your setup, preferences, and budget are going to be a large factor in which screen works best for you. I haven't reviewed the data enough to really come up with much that has bubbled to the top yet. I have reviewed some of the more lower-priced raw material options since I personally had to pick a screen material for myself. At this point, I can weigh in more on that range but even that is preliminary data.


----------



## jsmith967

PixelPusher15 said:


> Honestly, that's kinda like asking my top 5 cars across all cars. There are a lot of good screens and your setup, preferences, and budget are going to be a large factor in which screen works best for you. I haven't reviewed the data enough to really come up with much that has bubbled to the top yet. I have reviewed some of the more lower-priced raw material options since I personally had to pick a screen material for myself. At this point, I can weigh in more on that range but even that is preliminary data.


Thanks again for all your hard work. I am really looking forward to the next report. No pressure of course, you have other things but it will be a good read when it comes. I'm especially looking forward to the comparison between XY Screens 4k and Elite AcousticPro UHD. Thanks so much!


----------



## PixelPusher15

jsmith967 said:


> Thanks again for all your hard work. I am really looking forward to the next report. No pressure of course, you have other things but it will be a good read when it comes. I'm especially looking forward to the comparison between XY Screens 4k and Elite AcousticPro UHD. Thanks so much!


Sneak peek, the XY 4K and AcousticPro UHD are very, very similar. Acoustics are slightly better on the XY 4K. The Elite UHD is a bit warmer in color. Texture and sharpness are pretty much identical.


----------



## Richard Berg

Richard Berg said:


> Do you have a colorimeter? I recall that when Jeff (Accucal) measured the previous generation of screens, excessive delta-E was the main reason that less-established brands got ruled out, even moreso than gain or frequency response.


Thumbing thru said report (2016), the dE of AT screens wasn't too bad, apart from the AcousticPro models. My memory pertained more to the ALR screens, where forum favorites like Black Diamond got trounced by the equivalent Stewarts.

Even so, the AT color errors were a considerable differentiator, especially compared to the ST100MP that manufacturers cite as reference. So please do include avg / max dE if possible! 

Off axis would also be nice, but seems to correlate very strongly with on-axis measurements of this material type, so not essential.


----------



## howiee

Top thread! Being more into video than audio I'm mostly interested in avoiding visual artifacts while compromising a little as possible with gain. So any sheen, sparkling, visible texture etc. Atm Dreamscreen v7 is top of the list as it seems to tick all those boxes (while also being no slouch with audio), but I'm very interested in your results and seeing how the others stack up.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Richard Berg said:


> Thumbing thru said report (2016), the dE of AT screens wasn't too bad, apart from the AcousticPro models. My memory pertained more to the ALR screens, where forum favorites like Black Diamond got trounced by the equivalent Stewarts.
> 
> Even so, the AT color errors were a considerable differentiator, especially compared to the ST100MP that manufacturers cite as reference. So please do include avg / max dE if possible!
> 
> Off axis would also be nice, but seems to correlate very strongly with on-axis measurements of this material type, so not essential.


I did list the dE for all the materials earlier: 25 Acoustically Transparent Screen Materials Reviewed...

I noticed you even liked it  

The gain numbers in this aren't final ones I will use but the dE should still be a very good representation of what you will see. I think I noted in this post that I got the dE as close to 0.0 as I could for the solid ST100 material which ended up being 0.2 it looks like. So everything is in relation to that. There's only a handful of materials that peak over a dE of 3.0. 

I'm not going to go back and redo these anytime soon just an FYI. I hope these numbers will suffice.


----------



## Richard Berg

Thanks for the reminder! No need to redo -- just a matter of collecting the data into one place, as I'm probably not the only one to forget what happened back on page 7!


----------



## jsmith967

PixelPusher15 said:


> Sneak peek, the XY 4K and AcousticPro UHD are very, very similar. Acoustics are slightly better on the XY 4K. The Elite UHD is a bit warmer in color. Texture and sharpness are pretty much identical.


Thanks so much! The gain is equal or, as from your previous report, the AcousticPro UHD is a tad brighter?


----------



## PixelPusher15

jsmith967 said:


> Thanks so much! The gain is equal or, as from your previous report, the AcousticPro UHD is a tad brighter?


In all of my tests, the gain between these two never varied between more than a .02 difference (I actually think it was more like .01 but I'm giving myself a cushion) I'd call them both 0.8 gain materials.


----------



## jsmith967

PixelPusher15 said:


> In all of my tests, the gain between these two never varied between more than a .02 difference (I actually think it was more like .01 but I'm giving myself a cushion) I'd call them both 0.8 gain materials.


Many thanks!


----------



## resqguy

I'm interested in a UST projector like the BenQ 7050i. Does that type of projector require anything special, or should a well performing AT screen/material also do well? I probably won't go much over 100".


----------



## Lygren

Just a comment on the sharpness test, as for our own internal tests & developments we always compare to a regular piece of a4 paper. The below image compares the v7 with a piece of paper (just an iphone 12 pic, but at least one can compare, it does look sharper in real life). The lower image is just a larger iphone pic of the same pattern. 

This is from a large screen though, about 16 feet wide, and a GTZ380 Sony projector that is pretty good in terms of sharpness (but certainly not perfect), but I would assume comparing sharpness might at least require the base image to be acceptably sharp. 

Also, it is worth noticing that screens with sheen will always look a bit sharper than a matte one as the edges are sharpened up due to the sheen, but this comes at a cost of potentially visible artefacts.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Lygren said:


> Just a comment on the sharpness test, as for our own internal tests & developments we always compare to a regular piece of a4 paper. The below image compares the v7 with a piece of paper (just an iphone 12 pic, but at least one can compare, it does look sharper in real life). The lower image is just a larger iphone pic of the same pattern.
> 
> This is from a large screen though, about 16 feet wide, and a GTZ380 Sony projector that is pretty good in terms of sharpness (but certainly not perfect), but I would assume comparing sharpness might at least require the base image to be acceptably sharp.
> 
> Also, it is worth noticing that screens with sheen will always look a bit sharper than a matte one as the edges are sharpened up due to the sheen, but this comes at a cost of potentially visible artefacts.
> 
> View attachment 3184842
> 
> 
> View attachment 3184843​


I did get a new 5050 sent to me from Epson so I'm going to assume it is sharper and I will be redoing the test with that. I disagree a bit on the underlying projected image needing to be as sharp as possible. As long as it is consistent the materials should be able to be compared against each other. I do agree that it can make the comparison a little harder. It shouldn't make it impossible or irrelevant.

What is more concerning to me is that I think there is some weird stuff happening with the camera and it's auto exposure. Some of the materials are looking more muted and it is making them appear less sharp. I think I am going to go back and delete that image so it doesn't throw people for a loop before I can post the final. 

What I might end up doing is using a reference material (like paper) in each picture and have the image duplicated on both materials so a direct comparison can be made to a known sharp material.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Does anyone have an issue with presenting the acoustic data like below? This is 1/48 smoothing and psychoacoustic. I would also like the data in numerical form so I am planning on taking the attenuation levels at 500hz, 5khz, 10khz, and 16khz just as was done in the research commissioned by Screen Excellence here: https://screenexcellence.com/downloads/ISVR_screens_evaluation.pdf

I would like to take those measurements more in line with what they did though so that would be smoothing at 1/3 octave. This would be different from the graph below though. I like the idea of using psychoacoustic smoothing so it represents what we would hear but the disconnect between the measurements and graph could be confusing. Showing 3 graphs would be too much. Thoughts?


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> I did get a new 5050 sent to me from Epson so I'm going to assume it is sharper and I will be redoing the test with that. I disagree a bit on the underlying projected image needing to be as sharp as possible. As long as it is consistent the materials should be able to be compared against each other. I do agree that it can make the comparison a little harder. It shouldn't make it impossible or irrelevant.
> 
> What is more concerning to me is that I think there is some weird stuff happening with the camera and it's auto exposure. Some of the materials are looking more muted and it is making them appear less sharp. I think I am going to go back and delete that image so it doesn't throw people for a loop before I can post the final.
> 
> What I might end up doing is using a reference material (like paper) in each picture and have the image duplicated on both materials so a direct comparison can be made to a known sharp material.


Regarding exposure, one option would be to put the camera in full manual mode (aperture, ISO, and shutter speed) and make sure that the brightest material isn't overexposed.
Then, you could use the same exposure settings for all materials so that it accurately shows the differences in brightness.

The downside of this is that it would make the darker materials look dim in ways that wouldn't necessarily be representative of what people would get in a setup with a brighter projector or smaller screen. Also, it might be harder to judge texture, sharpness, or contrast from the dimmer images.
Alternately, if your camera supports a histogram mode and/or overexposure overlay, you could manually tune exposure to make them look consistent.


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> Regarding exposure, one option would be to put the camera in full manual mode (aperture, ISO, and shutter speed) and make sure that the brightest material isn't overexposed.
> Then, you could use the same exposure settings for all materials so that it accurately shows the differences in brightness.
> 
> The downside of this is that it would make the darker materials look dim in ways that wouldn't necessarily be representative of what people would get in a setup with a brighter projector or smaller screen. Also, it might be harder to judge texture, sharpness, or contrast from the dimmer images.
> Alternately, if your camera supports a histogram mode and/or overexposure overlay, you could manually tune exposure to make them look consistent.


I thought about the exposure lock but brightness is such a cheating way to make things appear sharper to the eye. I have held to materials up of different brightness and the brighter one always appears sharper. But taking a picture and doing fine comparisons you can see they aren't that different. 

The histogram is an interesting idea and I may give that a whirl. Thanks for the input


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> The histogram is an interesting idea and I may give that a whirl. Thanks for the input


Not sure if you've used that before, but it can be helpful to tuning exposure in auto modes combined with EV+/- controls.

Perhaps a better way is to use exposure bracketing in auto-exposure mode. Then, it will quickly take 3-5 photos at different exposure levels. Once you're all done, you can just pick the best exposure for each material. It's a lot easier to tell on a computer monitor than on the camera back.


----------



## bghous10

resqguy said:


> I'm interested in a UST projector like the BenQ 7050i. Does that type of projector require anything special, or should a well performing AT screen/material also do well? I probably won't go much over 100".


Hello, I am not seeing a reply on resqguy post. Can someone advise what would be the best AT screen for a UST projector please? Not finding any good feedback. Thanks!


----------



## PixelPusher15

bghous10 said:


> Hello, I am not seeing a reply on resqguy post. Can someone advise what would be the best AT screen for a UST projector please? Not finding any good feedback. Thanks!


@resqguy 

I haven't spent much time at all evaluating AT materials for UST projectors. There are for sure not going to be as many out there because the overlap in use case is small and there's a lot that just won't work. 

You are going to need something that is Lambertian or close to it so you aren't reducing light output at viewing angles. I am not sure if the angle of the UST will increase the chances for moire too. At extreme angles some of these materials (the vinyl-coated woven types) I tested shoed moire. Not really an issue for a normal throw, but very well may be for UST. I know there are some materials from Stewart that will work and they are listed on their site. 

If you are looking for ALR UST compatible materials then I am afraid I can't really assist. I would assume that is going to be very difficult to find and even harder to implement. The typical install for a UST being in a living room won't usually allow for sufficient space for speakers behind a perforated ALR screen. Furthermore, I'd imagine that the perforated screen would show its perforations more with the light coming at such a steep angle. I am mostly speculating here since I haven't done more than that so I'd encourage you to do more research.


----------



## bghous10

PixelPusher15 said:


> @resqguy
> 
> I haven't spent much time at all evaluating AT materials for UST projectors. There are for sure not going to be as many out there because the overlap in use case is small and there's a lot that just won't work.
> 
> You are going to need something that is Lambertian or close to it so you aren't reducing light output at viewing angles. I am not sure if the angle of the UST will increase the chances for moire too. At extreme angles some of these materials (the vinyl-coated woven types) I tested shoed moire. Not really an issue for a normal throw, but very well may be for UST. I know there are some materials from Stewart that will work and they are listed on their site.
> 
> If you are looking for ALR UST compatible materials then I am afraid I can't really assist. I would assume that is going to be very difficult to find and even harder to implement. The typical install for a UST being in a living room won't usually allow for sufficient space for speakers behind a perforated ALR screen. Furthermore, I'd imagine that the perforated screen would show its perforations more with the light coming at such a steep angle. I am mostly speculating here since I haven't done more than that so I'd encourage you to do more research.


Thanks for the reply! As far as my HT, ALR isn't really a factor aside from 3-4x a year when we host family/friends for holidays, etc. Otherwise, I watch everything in the dark.


----------



## Ricoflashback

bghous10 said:


> Hello, I am not seeing a reply on resqguy post. Can someone advise what would be the best AT screen for a UST projector please? Not finding any good feedback. Thanks!


I don’t think there is an AT screen for UST projectors. In fact, there are no electronic (retractable) screens for UST projectors that I know of. I’ve asked Seymour AV and they said they don’t have one. I looked at the Grandview Dynamique site and no offerings there, either. With the short throw and angles of UST projectors - you have to go fixed screen, period. I’m not sure if that will ever change.


----------



## bghous10

Ricoflashback said:


> I don’t think there is an AT screen for UST projectors. In fact, there are no electronic (retractable) screens for UST projectors that I know of. I’ve asked Seymour AV and they said they don’t have one. I looked at the Grandview Dynamique site and no offerings there, either. With the short throw and angles of UST projectors - you have to go fixed screen, period. I’m not sure if that will ever change.


Apologies for not clarifying that, this will be a fixed screen. I was saying AT as in Acoustically Transparent, not automatic. So I'm attempting to confirm if it's worth going w/ UST laser projector or better to just do regular throw since I HAVE to have acoustically transparent screen. Big thing is 3D, then 4K in a mostly dark HT.


----------



## Ricoflashback

bghous10 said:


> Apologies for not clarifying that, this will be a fixed screen. I was saying AT as in Acoustically Transparent, not automatic. So I'm attempting to confirm if it's worth going w/ UST laser projector or better to just do regular throw since I HAVE to have acoustically transparent screen. Big thing is 3D, then 4K in a mostly dark HT.


Got it. I didn't know that Acoustically Transparent screens could be made with a fixed screen. My error. Probably for in wall speakers? But, isn't that for regular projectors, only? Again, the surface needed for a UST Projector is totally different due to the angles.

P.S. - something like this? I'm not promoting any company, here. Just an example of what you are talking about, I think!









Screen Innovations 5 Series (160")


Fixed-frame projector screen with acoustically transparent perforated Slate® gray fabric




www.crutchfield.com


----------



## PixelPusher15

Ricoflashback said:


> Got it. I didn't know that Acoustically Transparent screens could be made with a fixed screen. My error. Probably for in wall speakers? But, isn't that for regular projectors, only? Again, the surface needed for a UST Projector is totally different due to the angles.
> 
> P.S. - something like this? I'm not promoting any company, here. Just an example of what you are talking about, I think!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Screen Innovations 5 Series (160")
> 
> 
> Fixed-frame projector screen with acoustically transparent perforated Slate® gray fabric
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.crutchfield.com


A very common build use for an AT screen is to build a false wall that holds the fixed frame screen and then the speakers would be placed in the cavity between the false wall and actual wall. Putting a screen directly on top of in-walls isn't uncommon but it is actually not recommended due to the lack of spacing behind the speaker and screen. This will result in worse audio performance, especially for perforated screens. 

I'm pretty certain that screen won't work for an UST. Most ALR screens are designed to reflect light back toward the direction the light is coming from, and blocking light from other angles. If the light is coming from below then it won't work. Obviously, if it is specially designed for that purpose like some ALR UST screens are then it will.

A normal Lambertian screen will work fine for a UST. The StudioTek 100, SnoMatte 100, GreyMatte 70, and Harmony G2 are either Lambertian or close enough that they will work. I would bet that there's a handful of others in my test batch that would work too, I just haven't checked.


----------



## Ricoflashback

PixelPusher15 said:


> A normal Lambertian screen will work fine for a UST. The StudioTek 100, SnoMatte 100, GreyMatte 70, and Harmony G2 are either Lambertian or close enough that they will work. I would bet that there's a handful of others in my test batch that would work too, I just haven't checked.


I was under the impression that a lenticular screen is what you need for the best UST picture (and fixed screen.) I do not know enough about Lambertian screens to discern the difference. I suspect they are more for standard projectors in rooms with some light.

Are you saying that a lambertian screen is just as good as a Grandview Dynamique, lenticular screen, for a UST PJ, for example?


----------



## PixelPusher15

Ricoflashback said:


> I was under the impression that a lenticular screen is what you need for the best UST picture (and fixed screen.) I do not know enough about Lambertian screens to discern the difference. I suspect they are more for standard projectors in rooms with some light.
> 
> Are you saying that a lambertian screen is just as good as a Grandview Dynamique, lenticular screen, for a UST PJ, for example?


Nope, def not saying that. Lenticular and Lambertian are pretty much opposites. Lenticular screens are designed to take light from one direction and reflect it to another location. Lambertain screens, or a Lambertian surface, is made to take light from any direction and reflect it evenly in every direction. This is why a Lambertian screen would work for a UST projector. It doesn't discriminate against where the light is coming from or going. Lambertian screens are terrible for a living room with practically no ALR properties. If you have an UST in a bat cave then a Lambertian screen would probably be perfectly fine.


----------



## bghous10

PixelPusher15 said:


> A very common build use for an AT screen is to build a false wall that holds the fixed frame screen and then the speakers would be placed in the cavity between the false wall and actual wall. Putting a screen directly on top of in-walls isn't uncommon but it is actually not recommended due to the lack of spacing behind the speaker and screen. This will result in worse audio performance, especially for perforated screens.
> 
> I'm pretty certain that screen won't work for an UST. Most ALR screens are designed to reflect light back toward the direction the light is coming from, and blocking light from other angles. If the light is coming from below then it won't work. Obviously, if it is specially designed for that purpose like some ALR UST screens are then it will.
> 
> A normal Lambertian screen will work fine for a UST. The StudioTek 100, SnoMatte 100, GreyMatte 70, and Harmony G2 are either Lambertian or close enough that they will work. I would bet that there's a handful of others in my test batch that would work too, I just haven't checked.


Well, my HT is already built & I am upgrading from my 70" Sharp to a 3D/4K projector. Currently my L-R-C are in wall on the sides & bottom of my sharp. So I have to do a AT screen. If I have to space it a little off the wall for better audio performance then it won't be an issue. I wanted to see if an UST laser projector would be feasible but it would be mounted from the ceiling. But from what I am reading, it appears a regular throw projector will be the best bet. The reason why I was looking into a UST is because I will have to mount a regular throw 13-14' from my screen which puts me right @ the soffit which my HVAC. I was hoping to avoid that & the certain vibration from mounting it there.


----------



## PixelPusher15

bghous10 said:


> Well, my HT is already built & I am upgrading from my 70" Sharp to a 3D/4K projector. Currently my L-R-C are in wall on the sides & bottom of my sharp. So I have to do a AT screen. If I have to space it a little off the wall for better audio performance then it won't be an issue. I wanted to see if an UST laser projector would be feasible but it would be mounted from the ceiling. But from what I am reading, it appears a regular throw projector will be the best bet. The reason why I was looking into a UST is because I will have to mount a regular throw 13-14' from my screen which puts me right @ the soffit which my HVAC. I was hoping to avoid that & the certain vibration from mounting it there.


Start a thread in the projector price bracket you're thinking about. There may be some other options out there you aren't thinking about. 

Elite lists their AcousticPro UHD material as UST compatible. It is very similar to the XY Screens SoundMax 4K screen too. Both of those _should_ work. I'd expect that the DreamScreen materials would work too but @Lygren would be able to comment on that better. The Silver Ticket materials both have 80 degree half gain angles listed which should work too. 

Obviously, I can only go off of listed specs since I don't have measurements. Listed specs aren't really always trustworthy though so there's that. I can say that there isn't a large difference in perceived off-axis viewing angles between most of the woven screens. You could always gather some samples of the ones that fit your fancy and see how they do. You'd need the UST first though.


----------



## Ricoflashback

bghous10 said:


> Well, my HT is already built & I am upgrading from my 70" Sharp to a 3D/4K projector. Currently my L-R-C are in wall on the sides & bottom of my sharp. So I have to do a AT screen. If I have to space it a little off the wall for better audio performance then it won't be an issue. I wanted to see if an UST laser projector would be feasible but it would be mounted from the ceiling. But from what I am reading, it appears a regular throw projector will be the best bet. The reason why I was looking into a UST is because I will have to mount a regular throw 13-14' from my screen which puts me right @ the soffit which my HVAC. I was hoping to avoid that & the certain vibration from mounting it there.


How large of a screen are you looking at? A regular 16 X 9 screen or Cinemascope? A UST is really a no-go, IMHO, and especially mounted to the ceiling. They are not made for that. There are some short throw projectors (still regular projectors but not Ultra Short Throw) that could work. Many that can fit 13 feet or under. Sounds like an exciting project!

P.S. - for grins, I went to projectorcentral.com and under "Find A Projector," I typed in 120" screen size and a 4K PJ.



Find a Projector


----------



## Lygren

UST is very challenging for AT materials, and I don´t think any coarser woven or even regularly knitted screens would work optimally. I would also think perforated vinyl might cause issues, but I have never tried that for myself. That is due to the very steep angle of the incoming light, very easily producing a shadow effect from the surface otherwise. The UltraWeaves does work, we have tested them with several short throw projectors, but at very high angles in terms of incoming light (i.e. a small screen) you might see a slight issue from this shadowing even then, but I would not say it´s a big issue, at least compared to the numerous issues one might expect from an ALR / UST screen. I guess the best choice - if AT is not needed - is a very finely surfaced solid screen material such as Studiotek 100, or alternatively, a proper UST / ALR screen, although typically 0.4-0.6 gain and - at least in my opinion - a number of artefacts is the tradeoff in such case, but at least it would work with some lights on.


----------



## resqguy

PixelPusher15 said:


> If you are looking for ALR UST compatible materials then I am afraid I can't really assist. I would assume that is going to be very difficult to find and even harder to implement. The typical install for a UST being in a living room won't usually allow for sufficient space for speakers behind a perforated ALR screen. Furthermore, I'd imagine that the perforated screen would show its perforations more with the light coming at such a steep angle. I am mostly speculating here since I haven't done more than that so I'd encourage you to do more research.


I'm still in the build process of my house with an HT compatible Great Room. I was going to have my center channel recessed into the wall so the AT screen would only be a few inches from the wall. My L & R speakers are to the side of my 100in screen. Paying $3k to $5k just for a screen is a deal breaker since I would just purchase a non-projector at that price point and put the center channel above or below the screen.

Several new terms were introduced that I am not aware of. What is ALR? Is that the type of screen a UST projector would use? Another term is Lambertain. I understand the meaning but is this something that can be measured or quantified? Does some AT screen material have some degree of Lambertain without introducing some kind of shadow artifact?


----------



## PixelPusher15

resqguy said:


> I'm still in the build process of my house with an HT compatible Great Room. I was going to have my center channel recessed into the wall so the AT screen would only be a few inches from the wall. My L & R speakers are to the side of my 100in screen. Paying $3k to $5k just for a screen is a deal breaker since I would just purchase a non-projector at that price point and put the center channel above or below the screen.
> 
> Several new terms were introduced that I am not aware of. What is ALR? Is that the type of screen a UST projector would use? Another term is Lambertain. I understand the meaning but is this something that can be measured or quantified? Does some AT screen material have some degree of Lambertain without introducing some kind of shadow artifact?


I really don't think an AT screen is the best bet for you. Here's a great writeup on screens for UST projectors: Screen Magic: How UST Screens Let You See the Light 

Its a bit lengthy and technical but you'll have a really good understanding of a lot of the tech that allows these UST screens to work in ambient light conditions. Which I am assuming is going to be like your great room. If you'd like to watch the projector during the day or with lights on then you really need to get one of the screens designed for this purpose. (See the link) None of these screens, that I am aware of, have been made acoustically transparent. If you go with a normal screen, like a Lambertian one (more on that in a sec) then the image will completely wash out with lights on. 

A Lambertian screen is an either-or thing. There is no degree of Lambertian. It simply means that if you look at a Lambertian surface it will appear the same from every angle. 

ALR = ambient light rejecting.

If I were you I would get a traditional UST screen so you can use the projector all the time.


----------



## Ricoflashback

As long as you do not have a lot of light in the room, an AT screen should work fine with a regular projector. A definite no-go with a UST projector. You seem very firm on your need for an AT screen with your speaker setup. Understandable.

As I mentioned before - - I think there are many regular projectors that could fit into your space - - and not have to deal with the soffit (11-12.5 feet throw distance.) Example for an Epson 5050UB: minimum throw of 9' 10" for a 100" screen. 11' 9" minimum for 120" screen. Have you measured? How far can you go, exactly, without impacting your soffit?)

What did you end up doing, resqguy?

P.S. - A great bang for the buck screen company - Silver Ticket Products. They have AT material, as well, that is reasonably priced. And, an AT option that is supposed to work with UST projectors, although I think a regular projector will provide a better picture for you. 









Acoustic Screen Material Options


Currently Silver Ticket Products offers 4 types of acoustically transparent screen materials made to put speakers behind the screen material. The 4 materials are the 2GP, AGP, WAB and WVS. The WAB material is readily available as it sells on many different marketplaces on the internet. The WAB...




www.silverticketproducts.com


----------



## PixelPusher15

PixelPusher15 said:


> Small update. I've collected all the data for the below and will start processing it and re-writing my report.
> 
> On-axis gain compared to a reflectance standard. Sneak peak, the ST100 came in at 1.01 so not a big difference from my most recent measurements
> 12" and 4" on-axis acoustic testing
> Sharpness test with QBF pattern (focus locked)
> Pictures of each material at 100% white (exposure locked)
> Updated texture analysis
> Contrast ratio test that wasn't too revelatory but there are a couple of interesting tidbits. I'd like to do more experimentation but I just don't have the time. A sneak peek is that the contrast ratio isn't majorly different between materials (~10%, except ALR) but uncoated woven materials take a bigger hit without a black backing. There was a 20% difference in contrast between the better MP materials and an uncoated woven screen without black backing.
> I had to drop off-axis gain and acoustic measurements. I hadn't done any off-axis gain measurements and based on my previous tests I figured it would take a few iterations to get it down. I just don't have the time at this point to keep pushing through these tests. I dropped the off-axis acoustic testing because I tried a few and the results were a bit too inconsistent between measurements of the same material for me to have any sort of confidence in them. I'm pretty sure the sample size I'm working with is at fault here.
> 
> Interesting notes on the texture analysis:
> 
> Non-coated materials with black backings are all pretty smooth and have no obvious issues at 8'. Without black backings, as with my first test, this was not the case.
> Vinyl coated materials are a bit of a mixed bag at 8' with a black backing. Some are very smooth, others can get pretty grainy. As with the uncoated materials, without black backings, they appeared worse. Most are good to go at 10-11'.
> Perforated screens need room to breathe. 10' is the absolute minimum, 12'-13' is preferred and >14' is optimal. These screens are sharper though, so there's a balance. The closer you are the sharper you want the screen to be.


An update to this in regard to the texture with and without a black backing. I just finished doing some comparisons of a few materials with and without the BB and can't really notice a difference in grain or other texture. I'm not sure if I was more critical in the first run-through or more lenient in the second. I'm more confident in my second go-around though since this time I had the StudioTek 100 up the entire time as a point of reference. So, the black backing doesn't help with texture in any meaningful way.


----------



## Schurter

PixelPusher15 said:


> An update to this in regard to the texture with and without a black backing. I just finished doing some comparisons of a few materials with and without the BB and can't really notice a difference in grain or other texture. I'm not sure if I was more critical in the first run-through or more lenient in the second. I'm more confident in my second go-around though since this time I had the StudioTek 100 up the entire time as a point of reference. So, the black backing doesn't help with texture in any meaningful way.


Out of curiosity sitting 12ft from the screen can you see or tell a different in the top.5


----------



## PixelPusher15

Schurter said:


> Out of curiosity sitting 12ft from the screen can you see or tell a different in the top.5


Lol, you really want that top 5, huh?

I really can't give you that. I'm not ever going to give a top 5. I will still have a score rating like I did in the first version but I will also have winners in certain categories. If you tell me a bit about what you're hoping to get out of the screen material, how far away you are sitting, budget,and are you ok with any sort of texture then I should be able to give you some ideas. Also, if you care more about audio or video then that will help too. 

These AT screens all have some form of compromise. The Severtson CWMP had the highest gain but shimmered a tad and you can see the perforations from 12'. It also impacts acoustics more especially at close distances. The ST130 was second in gain and by all accounts is a phenomal solid screen, it too had noticable perforations from 12' and will impact acoustics more. The Dreamscreen v6 has great acoustics but has a decently low gain. All of the bonded materials Dreamscreen v7/v6, Elite AcousticPro 8K, CineWhite 8K) are very smooth and show no texture but they aren't as sharp as other materials. The Seymour XD and Seymour-Screen Exellence Enlightor Bright are the highest gain woven matierals and have really good acoustics but they have texture that is visible from 13'.

Honestly, one of my favorite materials thus far is the XY Screens Soundmax 4K and 8K. The 4K has decent gain (0.8) and solid acoustics at 4" and 12". No texture from seating distances that I can see. The 8K has some of the best acoustics period and is even smoother. Both aren't quite as sharp as the perforated screens but they trade that for essentially zero texture. But, (remember I said there's always a but?) they are from China and they are harder to deal with and there could be warranty issues. 

This is just some of the screens. I mentioned the ones that stick out the most during tests as good performers in one or multiple categories but there isn't any one that wins everything. There's also the Silver Ticket screens that just do solid across the board and you know they are reasonably priced and have good service. 

Anyway, you can probably get a sense for how this is going to turn out. I should have the gain, texture, and acoustic results posted in the next 2-3 days as well as some comments on contrast and maybe on sharpness. I won't have the full sharpness test done for at least another week since the 5050 I got from Epson still has focus issues.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Delete


----------



## PixelPusher15

*Link to gain, contrast, acoustic data (4" and 12"), and texture results (8', 10', 13.5').*








Acoustically Transparent Screen Material Report - v2


Texture Texture,8',10',13.5' Carls Nano Acoustic FlexiGrey,Lots of shimmer/sparkle ,Lots of shimmer/sparkle ,Lots of shimmer/sparkle Carls Nano White,Perforations are visible; slight sheen visible,Perforations are barely noticeable; grain and sheen apparent,Perforations turned to grain; sheen p...




docs.google.com





*Notes on the data above:*

Gain was calculated using an Optikon reflectance standard
dB loss was calculated from 1/3 smoothing. I took measurements at 1khz, 5khz, 10khz, and 16khz. I also listed the standard deviation, max, and average of those values.
The results are really interesting and can be sorted in multiple ways. Sorting by either SD, MAX or AVG can be a bit misleading. Sorting by AVG only ignores a potential large dB drop. Sorting by MAX ignores the potential that a material could evenly affect a speaker across the frequency range, having a low SD and thus would be very easy to EQ (just turn up the volume). Sorting by SD ignores the fact that a material may have a very large average dB loss and thus could require more amplification to overcome.
I'd like to come up with a ranked list but I may just manually select a top 10 that stick out as good or unique. (Like the Dreamscreen v7 and Seymour Neo. Both have decently high dB loss but a low SD)


*Link to images of SPL graphs with 1/48 and psychoacoustic smoothing. *





SPL Graphs - Google Drive







drive.google.com




_Example:_









*Notes on Contrast:*
Non-ALR, and non-positive gain AT materials, including perforated, compared to the StudioTek 100 showed an average contrast loss of 6.5%. Max loss was the Seymour UF at 11%, and the minimum loss was the Severtson SAT at 3.5%.

I didn't check this for all materials, just a sampling of 7 materials, but there was an average of a 10-12% drop in contrast for those materials without a black backing. 

*Notes on Sharpenss*
My plan is still to redo the sharpness tests but this is my take based on seeing all of these materials on the same pattern. The sharpest materials are the perforated ones. The least sharp are the bonded materials from DreamScreen and Elite. These are noticeably less sharp at very close distances. I did not test whether it is noticeable from a seating distance. The non-coated woven materials are typically closer or very close to the bonded materials in terms of sharpness. The coated woven materials, in general, are sharper than the non-coated but not quite as sharp as the perforated. There are exceptions, of course. 

And, as with all of this, I always recommend using my data as a way to narrow down screens and not to pick one solely based on it. Order some samples of materials that stick out to you and make a decision with your own eyes/experience.


----------



## Schurter

Ok great info, 

I sit 13-14 ft from the screen 
Space it dark black / dark gray 
Project jvc x950 
( my current screen Carls flex white 140inch 2.39 ) diy 
I want to be gain 1 or higher ( not sure what flex white gain is ) 
Smooth 

From what I read, 
Xy screens 
Silver Ticket 
elite screens aeon edge


----------



## PixelPusher15

Schurter said:


> Ok great info,
> 
> I sit 13-14 ft from the screen
> Space it dark black / dark gray
> Project jvc x950
> ( my current screen Carls flex white 140inch 2.39 ) diy
> I want to be gain 1 or higher ( not sure what flex white gain is )
> Smooth
> 
> From what I read,
> Xy screens
> Silver Ticket
> elite screens aeon edge


None of those options would work for you. The Flex White perforated screen is a 0.93 gain so what you have should be in the 1.05 region. To stay above 1.0 you will need a positive gain perforated screen. Of the ones I tested that is only the Severtson Cinema White MicroPerf or Stewart StudioTek130. There are others out there too but I can’t comment on them.

You should be ok with a microperf screen from 13-14”. The perforations turned into a slight grainy appearance in highlights from that distance. I personally would be ok with that as a trade off for the visual performance gained.

What will be you speaker distance behind the screen? That will impact the screens acoustic performance.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> *Link to gain, contrast, acoustic data (4" and 12"), and texture results (8', 10', 13.5').*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acoustically Transparent Screen Material Report - v2
> 
> 
> Texture Texture,8',10',13.5' Carls Nano Acoustic FlexiGrey,Lots of shimmer/sparkle ,Lots of shimmer/sparkle ,Lots of shimmer/sparkle Carls Nano White,Perforations are visible; slight sheen visible,Perforations are barely noticeable; grain and sheen apparent,Perforations turned to grain; sheen p...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docs.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Notes on the data above:*
> 
> Gain was calculated using an Optikon reflectance standard
> dB loss was calculated from 1/3 smoothing. I took measurements at 1khz, 5khz, 10khz, and 16khz. I also listed the standard deviation, max, and average of those values.
> The results are really interesting and can be sorted in multiple ways. Sorting by either SD, MAX or AVG can be a bit misleading. Sorting by AVG only ignores a potential large dB drop. Sorting by MAX ignores the potential that a material could evenly affect a speaker across the frequency range, having a low SD and thus would be very easy to EQ (just turn up the volume). Sorting by SD ignores the fact that a material may have a very large average dB loss and thus could require more amplification to overcome.
> I'd like to come up with a ranked list but I may just manually select a top 10 that stick out as good or unique. (Like the Dreamscreen v7 and Seymour Neo. Both have decently high dB loss but a low SD)
> 
> 
> *Link to images of SPL graphs with 1/48 and psychoacoustic smoothing. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SPL Graphs - Google Drive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Example:_
> View attachment 3186269
> 
> 
> *Notes on Contrast:*
> Non-ALR, and non-positive gain AT materials, including perforated, compared to the StudioTek 100 showed an average contrast loss of 6.5%. Max loss was the Seymour UF at 11%, and the minimum loss was the Severtson SAT at 3.5%.
> 
> I didn't check this for all materials, just a sampling of 7 materials, but there was an average of a 10-12% drop in contrast for those materials without a black backing.
> 
> *Notes on Sharpenss*
> My plan is still to redo the sharpness tests but this is my take based on seeing all of these materials on the same pattern. The sharpest materials are the perforated ones. The least sharp are the bonded materials from DreamScreen and Elite. These are noticeably less sharp at very close distances. I did not test whether it is noticeable from a seating distance. The non-coated woven materials are typically closer or very close to the bonded materials in terms of sharpness. The coated woven materials, in general, are sharper than the non-coated but not quite as sharp as the perforated. There are exceptions, of course.
> 
> And, as with all of this, I always recommend using my data as a way to narrow down screens and not to pick one solely based on it. Order some samples of materials that stick out to you and make a decision with your own eyes/experience.


Thank you so much! This information is incredibly useful! It is so consistent that it appears to be very credibly accurate, too - at least in relative terms.

The texture comments by distance are organized in a way I've never seen before, and it's exactly what I needed to know.

Some notes:

Screen distance appears to be HUGELY important for audio quality. I wish there was a 24" column, but at least I can tell that to overall curves seem to stay pretty consistent as distance increases, just with dramatically less comb filtering with more difference. Based on other 24" measurements, it seems that we could expect an improvement that is very similar in character.

I was pleasantly surprised at the Seymour XD performance. Mine is still in the box.

The Severtson CWMP appears to be a very compelling mid-gain material. The gain, texture, and audio performance appear even better than the highly celebrated Stewart G4 130. Can you offer any additional subjective differences? Sheen? Hot spotting? Color tint? Color consistency off-axis? Any idea if the material can be purchased, or is this another manufacturer that forces you to buy a frame? Hmm...just noticed that Severtson CWMP has a half gain angle of 42 degrees, while ST130 has a half gain angle of 80 degrees. That sounds like a big difference, although then Severtson says the cone half gain angle is 90 degrees. Perhaps ST130's 80 refers the the half gain cone angle.

Do you plan on sharing a REW file for the audio curves? That was really nice for checking a few measurements to overlay them on the same graph.

Did you drop the color testing?

Thanks again!


----------



## rcohen

Here's a more detailed viewing angle comparison between Severtson Cinema White and Stewart StudioTek 130 G4, for anyone who is interested. I tried to scale the horizontal scale to match, but the vertical scale is still very different, so it's tough to eyeball. The ST130 80 figure does appear to be a half angle. Based solely on the graphs, I couldn't say which is better overall. I've never seen either, myself.

Severtson Cinema White









Stewart StudioTek 130 G4


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> Thank you so much! This information is incredibly useful! It is so consistent that it appears to be very credibly accurate, too - at least in relative terms.
> 
> The texture comments by distance are organized in a way I've never seen before, and it's exactly what I needed to know.
> 
> Some notes:
> 
> Screen distance appears to be HUGELY important for audio quality. I wish there was a 24" column, but at least I can tell that to overall curves seem to stay pretty consistent as distance increases, just with dramatically less comb filtering with more difference. Based on other 24" measurements, it seems that we could expect an improvement that is very similar in character.
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised at the Seymour XD performance. Mine is still in the box.
> 
> The Severtson CWMP appears to be a very compelling mid-gain material. The gain, texture, and audio performance appear even better than the highly celebrated Stewart G4 130. Can you offer any additional subjective differences? Sheen? Hot spotting? Color tint? Color consistency off-axis? Any idea if the material can be purchased, or is this another manufacturer that forces you to buy a frame? Your sample was the MicroPerf, not the DigiPerf, right?
> View attachment 3186350
> 
> 
> Do you plan on sharing a REW file for the audio curves? That was really nice for checking a few measurements to overlay them on the same graph.
> 
> Did you drop the color testing?
> 
> Thanks again!


I would have liked to do more acoustic testing but it became the most time-consuming and difficult one to nail down. REW only holds 30 measurements at a time and I was doing 3 of each material so I ended up having 5 files to manage for one distance. Then I had to pare that down to 1 per material and duplicate it for both types of smoothing. Just a lot of work.

I forgot to mention, I saw an odd little drop at 19.5khz in some measurements. I'm not sure why but it was material agnostic and would appear sometimes 1/3 or 2/3 measurements for some materials. Others not at all. I'm going to chalk it up to something going awry with REW. I did a couple of reevaluations and didn't see it then.

My thinking was similar to what you said. That we can take the difference between the 4" and 12" data and then use the other research commissioned by Screen Excellence to extrapolate it to other distances.

In my texture notes, I did say that the perforations on the Stewart materials are a bit less noticeable than other screens and the ST130 MP didn't show sheen like the Cinema White Micro Perf (yes, it was the MicroPerf, not Digi Perf). Subjectively, the ST130 MP had better visual characteristics. At 13.5' the ST130 MP just has a slight graininess compared to the ST100 while the CWMP still showed its sheen. Now, I haven't mentioned this but I am going to in the report. I sincerely believe I got a bad sample of the ST130 material. It is visibly less bright than its specs and other independent reviews would indicate while comparing it to the ST100 MP. I tried to reach out to Stewart for another sample but after a few batches I think they gave me the cold shoulder. Oh, well.

I can amend the gain chart to include my dE measurements from a previous test. They weren't taken from the same angle as the final one but were pretty close and I don't think it will have a huge impact anyway.


----------



## Don Stewart

rcohen said:


> Here's a more detailed viewing angle comparison between Severtson Cinema White and Stewart StudioTek 130 G4, for anyone who is interested. I tried to scale the horizontal scale to match, but the vertical scale is still very different, so it's tough to eyeball. The ST130 80 figure does appear to be a half angle. Based solely on the graphs, I couldn't say which is better overall. I've never seen either, myself.
> 
> Severtson Cinema White
> View attachment 3186399
> 
> 
> Stewart StudioTek 130 G4
> View attachment 3186400


Interesting that the top graph only goes out to 45 degrees off axis. Any screen with gain also must have a half gain angle. In the graphs shown, the light reflection above one gain must be taken from other areas of the viewing cone. See below.


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> I was pleasantly surprised at the Seymour XD performance. Mine is still in the box.


The XD and Enlightlor Bright materials both performed very well outside of texture. If you have a seating distance of at least 13' then I think they are great options. The Enlightor Bright had the highest gain of any woven material.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Ah, I forgot to call something out about spandex. I also think I'm going to do a separate write-up on spandex in the DIY section. I currently have 3 samples coming in from 3 different retailers to see how they compare (the downside is they only send swatches so doing the same battery of tests won't work). Anyway, there was a pretty measurable difference in gain when stretching the spandex. I measured it with a mild to medium amount of stretch but when I stretched it a lot then the gain dropped by up to 15%. It might be possible to see a slight increase in gain from my reading but it would be very easy to see a decrease if overstretched. I would be very cautious about overstretching the material. I've seen some threads where people are trying to force spandex to stretch to their frame. This should be done cautiously since it could result in a gain of around .55. It would be better to buy Rose Brand 120" wide spandex and not use all of it.


----------



## rcohen

Don Stewart said:


> Interesting that the top graph only goes out to 45 degrees off axis. Any screen with gain also must have a half gain angle. In the graphs shown, the light reflection above one gain must be taken from other areas of the viewing cone. See below.
> View attachment 3186409


Conservation of energy is a stubborn bastard. Can't you just make a material with peak gain at desired viewing angles, and zero just beyond?

More seriously, I wonder when there will be a manufacturing process that can optimally aim high gain reflection based on screen position, room dimensions, projector position, etc. No idea how that could be done cost effectively. Perhaps some sort of printing or optical curing process?

It's also worth noting that the Severtson curves look like cosines that were fit to measured data, while the Stewart curves look like they were graphed directly from measured data.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> The XD and Enlightlor Bright materials both performed very well outside of texture. If you have a seating distance of at least 13' then I think they are great options. The Enlightor Bright had the highest gain of any woven material.


My view distance is 13.5', so that column is perfect for me. 

Enlightor Bright was missing from your gain spreadsheet. Or is that NEO-B? I think that's just mislabeled. I believe Elightor Neo is a lower gain version.

Is Enlightor Bright identical to XD?


----------



## Schurter

PixelPusher15 said:


> None of those options would work for you. The Flex White perforated screen is a 0.93 gain so what you have should be in the 1.05 region. To stay above 1.0 you will need a positive gain perforated screen. Of the ones I tested that is only the Severtson Cinema White MicroPerf or Stewart StudioTek130. There are others out there too but I can’t comment on them.
> 
> You should be ok with a microperf screen from 13-14”. The perforations turned into a slight grainy appearance in highlights from that distance. I personally would be ok with that as a trade off for the visual performance gained.
> 
> What will be you speaker distance behind the screen? That will impact the screens acoustic performance.


Speakers are diysound HT10 , 3" from the screen 
I have a external amp powering them, I have head room,


I am into diy and don't mind building the screen frame , I want a zero edge set up my wall Is black ,


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> My view distance is 13.5', so that column is perfect for me.
> 
> Enlightor Bright was missing from your gain spreadsheet. Or is that NEO-B? I think that's just mislabeled. I believe Elightor Neo is a lower gain version.
> 
> Is Enlightor Bright identical to XD?


It was mislabeled  I fixed it. For some reason, I thought the Enlightor Bright material was the "Neo Bright" when doing the gain testing and forgot to go back and update it.

The Enlightor Bright and XD seem to be the same base material but the Enlightor Bright has a ....brighter coating on it. They are the only materials that I have seen with their weave pattern and they are essentially identical.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Schurter said:


> Speakers are diysound HT10 , 3" from the screen
> I have a external amp powering them, I have head room,
> 
> 
> I am into diy and don't mind building the screen frame , I want a zero edge set up my wall Is black ,


You should look at the data  

Here is the ST130 MP at 4" away from the speaker: 








This isn't just about headroom, it's about being able to EQ out those dips and peaks. How these interact with your room is another variable that I obviously can't know. 

Here's the XD materials at 4":








These dips and peaks are much more manageable although there is still comb filtering. Which, I think a conversation about whether we can even hear this comb filtering is worth having.

The XD material is going to be your best DIY-friendly material with a higher gain. It still is only .83 though. 

There's better screens for acoustics like spandex, DreamScreen v6, XY Screens SoundMax 8K, etc but you will sacrifice gain (0.65-0.7). The XY 4K material is an in-betweener material with good gain (0.8), pretty good acoustics and virtually no texture. It also can be had as material only for DIY. I don't have a good DIY microperf option in my tests. The Carl's FlexiWhite NanoAcoustic is technically an option and it is what you have as a non-perforated screen but I thought it had too much shimmer/sparkle. I'm not sure if you feel the same. 

Can you move your screen forward?


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> In my texture notes, I did say that the perforations on the Stewart materials are a bit less noticeable than other screens and the ST130 MP didn't show sheen like the Cinema White Micro Perf (yes, it was the MicroPerf, not Digi Perf). Subjectively, the ST130 MP had better visual characteristics. At 13.5' the ST130 MP just has a slight graininess compared to the ST100 while the CWMP still showed its sheen. Now, I haven't mentioned this but I am going to in the report. I sincerely believe I got a bad sample of the ST130 material. It is visibly less bright than its specs and other independent reviews would indicate while comparing it to the ST100 MP. I tried to reach out to Stewart for another sample but after a few batches I think they gave me the cold shoulder. Oh, well.


I just realized I accidentally read from the wrong row the first time. Now I see the right comment that the CWMP maintains a slight sheen at 13.5'.
By a sheen, do you mean that it's behaving a bit like a high gain screen, with slightly uneven corners that shift when you move your head?
By comparison, do you mean that the ST130 has no trace of that at 13.5'?

I was trying to understand why CWMP audio performance is significantly better than the ST130 MP.
It appears that CWMP has a slightly larger microperf pattern, with the associated pros and cons.


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> I just realized I accidentally read from the wrong row the first time. Now I see the right comment that the CWMP maintains a slight sheen at 13.5'.
> By a sheen, do you mean that it's behaving a bit like a high gain screen, with slightly uneven corners that shift when you move your head?
> By comparison, do you mean that the ST130 has no trace of that at 13.5'?
> 
> I was trying to understand why CWMP audio performance is significantly better than the ST130 MP.
> It appears that CWMP has a slightly larger microperf pattern, with the associated pros and cons.


Hard to see much of a change on a small sample size like you are talking about. What I notice is a shimmer/sheen from seating distances. It's there on all of the screens that have additives to increase gain. All ALR screens and Carl's materials, it's also on the grey Severtson TAT. Sparkle or shimmer are probably better words to describe it.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Here are the dE numbers from earlier. I don't think I am going to include them in my official data or report revision. They are all compared to the StudioTek 100 which is interesting but not the best way I should have done this. I should have calibrated the projector directly from the lens and then read each material.

I'll add that to future revisions. For now, here they are with the aforementioned caveat:


MaterialxydEStewart StudioTek 100 *(Reference)*0.31280.322920.2Carl's FlexiGray Nano0.30730.32422.8Carl's FlexiWhite Nano0.30750.3252.6Carl's ShearWeave Acoustic0.31270.33030.9Dreamscreen V60.3120.32860.5Dreamscreen V70.31380.33171.5Elite Screens AcousticPro 1080P30.3070.32153.8Elite Screens AcousticPro 8K0.31250.32960.6Elite Screens AcousticPro UHD0.31040.32751.2Elite CineWhite A8K0.31110.3271.1FWD White Spandex/Black0.30640.32383.1Severtson BWAT0.31340.32960.4Severtson Cinema White 1.3 MP0.31480.33181.5Severtson SAT-4K0.31190.32810.5Severtson TAT-4K0.30680.32393.0Seymour Center Stage UF0.31040.32731.2Seymour Center Stage XD0.31310.33051.1Seymour-Screen Excellence NEO0.31020.32681.3Seymour-Screen Excellence Enlightor Bright0.31020.32741.4Silver Ticket Acoustic WAB0.30960.3271.5Silver Ticket Acoustic WVS0.31150.3280.7Spandex World Light Silver/Black0.30980.32831.8Stewart FireHawk G5 MP0.3770.3242.7Stewart GreyMatte 70 MP0.30240.3295.2Stewart Harmony G20.31120.32790.8Stewart StudioTek 100 MP0.31260.32910.1Stewart StudioTek 130 G4 MP0.31280.32970.5XY Screens Black Crystal Perforated0.31310.32850.7XY Screens MFS 1 Perforated0.30880.32522.1XY Screens Sound Max 4K0.31060.32781.1XY Screens Sound Max 5 Perforated0.30730.32492.7XY Screens Sound Max 8K0.31030.32711.3


----------



## Richard Berg

Parsing through the full dataset with my 8' viewing distance in mind, there seem to be two clusters of acceptable choices:

Low gain: Dreamscreen v6 > Elite 8K / XY 8K > Seymore NEO
Mid gain: Dreamscreen v7 > Elite 4K / XY 4K >> Seymore XD
Within each cluster the luma, chroma, and audio characteristics are extremely similar. (In particular, the respective Elite and XY models are so close they might well be rebrands/clones). Unsurprisingly, all are woven materials + black backing.

Thus the rankings come down to texture, where the Dreamscreen's lack of off-axis moire gives it the slight edge over cheaper materials, and the XD's grain rules it out completely. Dreamscreen is also a consistent winner on color accuracy within each tier, though none of the woven dE's are large enough to be worrisome. Audio wise, the intra-tier rankings are less clear; going by raw attenuation, XY tends to win out over Dreamscreen, but given the wide error bars on these measurements I'm inclined to call it even.


----------



## Lightivity

Richard Berg said:


> Parsing through the full dataset with my 8' viewing distance in mind, there seem to be two clusters of acceptable choices:
> 
> Low gain: Dreamscreen v6 > Elite 8K / XY 8K > Seymore NEO
> Mid gain: Dreamscreen v7 > Elite 4K / XY 4K >> Seymore XD
> Within each cluster the luma, chroma, and audio characteristics are extremely similar. (In particular, the respective Elite and XY models are so close they might well be rebrands/clones). Unsurprisingly, all are woven materials + black backing.
> 
> Thus the rankings come down to texture, where the Dreamscreen's lack of off-axis moire gives it the slight edge over cheaper materials, and the XD's grain rules it out completely. Dreamscreen is also a consistent winner on color accuracy within each tier, though none of the woven dE's are large enough to be worrisome. Audio wise, the intra-tier rankings are less clear; going by raw attenuation, XY tends to win out over Dreamscreen, but given the wide error bars on these measurements I'm inclined to call it even.


Not sure if Screen Research is represented in the US. But I picked up their AT screen Clearpix Ultimate White after comparing it to the Screen Excellence Enlightor Neo, and I'm very satisfied. Brightness "feels" the same as my previous standard non-AT screen and weave is barely noticeable at 6-7 feet.

Here's my experience: Switching to acoustically transparent screen (at 6&#039...

Clearpix Ultimate White product sheet: https://www.screenresearch.com/webs...ClearPix_Ultimate_White_0.75_Web_Feb_2020.pdf

EDIT: Resellers in US: Screen Research: where to buy our products


----------



## PixelPusher15

Richard Berg said:


> Parsing through the full dataset with my 8' viewing distance in mind, there seem to be two clusters of acceptable choices:
> 
> Low gain: Dreamscreen v6 > Elite 8K / XY 8K > Seymore NEO
> Mid gain: Dreamscreen v7 > Elite 4K / XY 4K >> Seymore XD
> Within each cluster the luma, chroma, and audio characteristics are extremely similar. (In particular, the respective Elite and XY models are so close they might well be rebrands/clones). Unsurprisingly, all are woven materials + black backing.
> 
> Thus the rankings come down to texture, where the Dreamscreen's lack of off-axis moire gives it the slight edge over cheaper materials, and the XD's grain rules it out completely. Dreamscreen is also a consistent winner on color accuracy within each tier, though none of the woven dE's are large enough to be worrisome. Audio wise, the intra-tier rankings are less clear; going by raw attenuation, XY tends to win out over Dreamscreen, but given the wide error bars on these measurements I'm inclined to call it even.


There's a few others in the lower gain area that are worthwhile considerations. The Stewart Harmony G2, Elite AcousticPro 8K, and Silver Ticket WVS and WAB. The WAB would get ruled out due to grain at 8' compared to the others. 

Also, it's hard to look in this performance bracket and not acknowledge spandex. Its dE is +2.9 compared to the ST100 but for acoustics and texture, it is stellar. It is crazy how good a screen one can get with a little elbow grease and clothing fabric. 

I originally thought the XY 4K and Elite UHD material were the same. But, what I believe is going on is that they both use the same base weave with a slightly different coating. While the dE is similar the Elite material is visibly warmer. It also performed 1.4db worse on average than the XY 4K. 

A note on the moire of these. When I say large angles, I mean very large angles. In most normal theaters it won't be an issue. I can only see it being an issue if you have an open-concept space and want to view the screen from 60 degrees +.

You might want to wait for my sharpness results. From 8' you may be able to tell the differences here


----------



## Richard Berg

Yup, Elite 8K was on my list (again, nigh-indistinguishable from the XY 8K when going by numbers alone). I see what you mean about the WVS and G2 also fitting into the ~0.67 gain tier.

Can you explain more the different categories of spandex? Various pages show:


> Spandex GreySpandex White
> 
> vs
> 
> 
> Spandex FWD White Spandex/BlackSpandex World Light Silver/Black
> 
> vs
> 
> 
> Spandex FWD 1 LayerSpandex FWD 2 Layers


----------



## PixelPusher15

Richard Berg said:


> Yup, Elite 8K was on my list (again, nigh-indistinguishable from the XY 8K when going by numbers alone). I see what you mean about the WVS and G2 also fitting into the ~0.67 gain tier.
> 
> Can you explain more the different categories of spandex? Various pages show:


Thanks for pointing that out. I haven't fully cleaned everything up yet.

The white spandex I have is from Fabric Wholesale Direct (FWD). The light silver spandex I have is from Spandex World. The acoustic testing was done with the Fabric Wholesale Direct spandex, including the black spandex backing.


----------



## bennynihon

PixelPusher15 said:


> Thanks for pointing that out. I haven't fully cleaned everything up yet.


I just stumbled upon this thread and wanted to thank you PixelPusher for doing us all an amazing service by measuring characteristics of different screen materials. As someone that just moved into a condo with large windows and limited ambient light control (I do have semi-opaque blinds), I suppose I want something with less than unity gain. Is there a good rule of thumb or qualities that I should be paying most attention to from your spreadsheets? I’ve heard good things about the Stewart Firehawk screens for better black levels and ambient light rejection. Its gain ratio of 62.7 really stands out from your spreadsheet. I was hoping one of the cheaper options with great acoustic transparency also would be a suitable screen for ambient light reaction. Is something like the XY Screens Sound Max 4K with its 0.79 gain a good option for my environment, even if its gain ratio is 46.5? Thank you!


----------



## PixelPusher15

bennynihon said:


> I just stumbled upon this thread and wanted to thank you PixelPusher for doing us all an amazing service by measuring characteristics of different screen materials. As someone that just moved into a condo with large windows and limited ambient light control (I do have semi-opaque blinds), I suppose I want something with less than unity gain. Is there a good rule of thumb or qualities that I should be paying most attention to from your spreadsheets? I’ve heard good things about the Stewart Firehawk screens for better black levels and ambient light rejection. Its gain ratio of 62.7 really stands out from your spreadsheet. I was hoping one of the cheaper options with great acoustic transparency also would be a suitable screen for ambient light reaction. Is something like the XY Screens Sound Max 4K with its 0.79 gain a good option for my environment, even if its gain ratio is 46.5? Thank you!


You've got two issues to deal with here. If you are trying to watch the projector with light coming in then you really should opt for an ALR screen. This leads to the second problem. Can you get enough space between the speaker and the screen to have the acoustics still be good? If you are just looking to use the projector at night then there are some options here. You could, of course, use the projector during the day with one of these woven screens. The image will just get washed out pretty easily. 

Gain ratio is actually contrast ratio. This test was sort of a torture test of sorts. To see if the light bleed behind these AT screens would affect a black reading directly next to white. It did, but not to a massive extent. The screens that exceeded the StudioTek100 all have some ALR properties to them. Now, a lot of these screens are semi-low gain, in the 0.7 region. These will assist with some ambient light but not a ton. They're kinda just grey screens at this point. 

You're cheaper AT ALR screens are going to be from XY Screens but they do not have good texture or audio performance. ALR and AT for a living room is really not the best combination as of right now.


----------



## rcohen

bennynihon said:


> I just stumbled upon this thread and wanted to thank you PixelPusher for doing us all an amazing service by measuring characteristics of different screen materials. As someone that just moved into a condo with large windows and limited ambient light control (I do have semi-opaque blinds), I suppose I want something with less than unity gain. Is there a good rule of thumb or qualities that I should be paying most attention to from your spreadsheets? I’ve heard good things about the Stewart Firehawk screens for better black levels and ambient light rejection. Its gain ratio of 62.7 really stands out from your spreadsheet. I was hoping one of the cheaper options with great acoustic transparency also would be a suitable screen for ambient light reaction. Is something like the XY Screens Sound Max 4K with its 0.79 gain a good option for my environment, even if its gain ratio is 46.5? Thank you!


Amongst non-ALR screens, the higher gain screens will be _*better *_at rejecting ambient light.
ALR screens will be best at that, although to different degrees, depending on the screen.

Basically, higher gain screens have a more focused, glossy reflection, while low gain screens have a matte reflection. So, the glossy reflection emphasizes stuff at the reflected angle at the expense of stuff outside that angle. They also have the benefit of a brighter image. The downsides are possible artifacts, depending on details.


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> Amongst non-ALR screens, the higher gain screens will be _*better *_at rejecting ambient light.
> ALR screens will be best at that, although to different degrees, depending on the screen.
> 
> Basically, higher gain screens have a more focused, glossy reflection, while low gain screens have a matte reflection. So, the glossy reflection emphasizes stuff at the reflected angle at the expense of stuff outside that angle. They also have the benefit of a brighter image. The downsides are possible artifacts, depending on details.


It's important to note this isn't relative though. A 0.8 gain screen won't inherently be better at rejecting light than a 0.7 gain screen. There's also sub-unity gain ALR screens that will be better at rejecting light than positive gain screens.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> It's important to note this isn't relative though. A 0.8 gain screen won't inherently be better at rejecting light than a 0.7 gain screen. There's also sub-unity gain ALR screens that will be better at rejecting light than positive gain screens.


Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. Gain is how much it reflects the projector at the expense of the sides. ALR is how much it rejects the sides, which can come at different gains.

Sub-unity gain screens are mostly Lambertian reflectors, unless they are advertised as ALR. That means that they will reflect the room just as much as the projector. That goes for light leaking into the room from the outside and light bounced onto the room from the projector. These types of screens are best reserved for dark, light controlled rooms. For light, non-light controlled rooms, go for ALR and/or higher gain.

The advantage of a Lambertian screen in a dark, light-controlled room is that they produce a very uniform image.


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. Gain is how much it reflects the projector at the expense of the sides. ALR is how much it rejects the sides, which can come at different gains.
> 
> Sub-unity gain screens are mostly Lambertian reflectors, unless they are advertised as ALR. That means that they will reflect the room just as much as the projector. That goes for light leaking into the room from the outside and light bounced onto the room from the projector. These types of screens are best reserved for dark, light controlled rooms. For light, non-light controlled rooms, go for ALR and/or higher gain.
> 
> The advantage of a Lambertian screen in a dark, light-controlled room is that they produce a very uniform image.


Yup yup. The ALR contrast readings I got were pretty interesting to me considering my room is pretty well treated. 1/3rd of it is flock, 2/3 is dark flat grey. There is zero ambient light. I still saw a 34% increase in contrast between the ST100 MP and the FireHawk G5 MP.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> Yup yup. The ALR contrast readings I got were pretty interesting to me considering my room is pretty well treated. 1/3rd of it is flock, 2/3 is dark flat grey. There is zero ambient light. I still saw a 34% increase in contrast between the ST100 MP and the FireHawk G5 MP.


The bad news about higher gain ALR screens is that in order to achieve higher gain, they have to behave like very high gain screens. In other words, an ALR screen will hotspot more than non-ALR screens with equivalent gain. They do help with contrast and rejecting ambient light, though. NILIF.


----------



## bennynihon

PixelPusher15 said:


> You've got two issues to deal with here. If you are trying to watch the projector with light coming in then you really should opt for an ALR screen. This leads to the second problem. Can you get enough space between the speaker and the screen to have the acoustics still be good? If you are just looking to use the projector at night then there are some options here. You could, of course, use the projector during the day with one of these woven screens. The image will just get washed out pretty easily.
> 
> Gain ratio is actually contrast ratio. This test was sort of a torture test of sorts. To see if the light bleed behind these AT screens would affect a black reading directly next to white. It did, but not to a massive extent. The screens that exceeded the StudioTek100 all have some ALR properties to them. Now, a lot of these screens are semi-low gain, in the 0.7 region. These will assist with some ambient light but not a ton. They're kinda just grey screens at this point.
> 
> You're cheaper AT ALR screens are going to be from XY Screens but they do not have good texture or audio performance. ALR and AT for a living room is really not the best combination as of right now.


Thanks for the prompt reply, Andy. After giving this more thought I will pretty much only use my projector at night. It’s not pitch dark, as there is still some light entering my condo with the blinds drawn at night. But not enough to be a concern. So if I remove the need for ALR from the equation, how does this change my preferred screen? I can still see benefit to having a gray screen for improved blacks, even if it’s at the expense of gain (I can’t say I’ve ever viewed a projector at night and thought to myself that it’s not bright enough). I guess it’s no clear to me which of the screens in your list would offer some the benefit of improved contrast and black levels. Thank you!


----------



## Technology3456

For a setup that requires two screens, let's say one fixed on the wall, and one drop-down screen, is it viable to have in-wall speakers that at times will have to go through both screens? One screen will be a fine weave like dreamscreen, while the other would have to be micro-perfed or nano-perfed.

So at times, the speaker is having to fire through either a weave screen, or a perfed screen, but not the other, just one at a time. Many people do this, and if it has an effect on the audio, maybe the treble some have said, apparently you can EQ the issue away, or it doesn't bother most people. But at other times, the speaker would have to fire through a weave screen, and a separate perfed screen, at once. 

Still viable with EQ, or "no way," or "maybe/not sure"?


----------



## rcohen

Technology3456 said:


> For a setup that requires two screens, let's say one fixed on the wall, and one drop-down screen, is it viable to have in-wall speakers that at times will have to go through both screens? One screen will be a fine weave like dreamscreen, while the other would have to be micro-perfed or nano-perfed.
> 
> So at times, the speaker is having to fire through either a weave screen, or a perfed screen, but not the other, just one at a time. Many people do this, and if it has an effect on the audio, maybe the treble some have said, apparently you can EQ the issue away, or it doesn't bother most people. But at other times, the speaker would have to fire through a weave screen, and a separate perfed screen, at once.
> 
> Still viable with EQ, or "no way," or "maybe/not sure"?


It seems like it would be significantly better to have two retractable AT screens. The importance depends on the total DB of loss and whether you have the output capability to power through it.

For example, if you lose 10db of output with each screen, that requires 10x more output capability. Two layers of that would require 100x more output capability, which seems implausible. There may be additional problems with interreflection, such as more severe comb filtering.

Alternately, you could consider the Seymour Proscenium motorized masking screens. They are relatively inexpensive.


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> It seems like it would be significantly better to have two retractable AT screens. The importance depends on the total DB of loss and whether you have the output capability to power through it.
> 
> For example, if you lose 10db of output with each screen, that requires 10x more output capability. Two layers of that would require 100x more output capability, which seems implausible. There may be additional problems with interreflection, such as more severe comb filtering.
> 
> Alternately, you could consider the Seymour Proscenium motorized masking screens. They are relatively inexpensive.


@Technology3456 
There's an outside chance it could work but the front AT screen would have to be phenomenal acoustically and the MP screen would have to be great as well. I'd also want to give the speakers a lot of room behind the first MP screen, at least 12", probably more. Then the area back there would have to be very well treated. The Severtson CWMP was the best MP screen I tested so that is what I'd pick for the first screen. The second screen is much tougher. It needs to be available in a retractable fashion and you will need the black backing since you're going to have a full white area behind the screen. Actually, that white screen behind the screen may be tough for some of these materials even with the black backing. The Stewart Harmony G2, XY Screens SoundMax 8K, and DreamScreen v6 are the only ones I'd consider but I don't think the DreamScreen v6 is available in a retractable screen. I'm also not sure about the Harmony G2 or XY 8K.

If these somehow only act together as an additive and not any sort of multiple then you'd be looking at a max of around 6db loss. On pure energy loss, this is correctable. What I don't know is if there are going to be unfixable dips and peaks caused by the combined usage. I can see sound energy getting trapped between the MP and woven screen. You essentially can't treat the area behind the woven screen like you need to.

I'd love to see how this tests, honestly. It's interesting. But, if I had the means to do so I'd just get two retractable screens and build something around them to frame them in so it looks more framed in. Maybe curtains?


----------



## Technology3456

PixelPusher15 said:


> @Technology3456
> There's an outside chance it could work but the front AT screen would have to be phenomenal acoustically and the MP screen would have to be great as well. I'd also want to give the speakers a lot of room behind the first MP screen, at least 12", probably more. Then the area back there would have to be very well treated. The Severtson CWMP was the best MP screen I tested so that is what I'd pick for the first screen. The second screen is much tougher. It needs to be available in a retractable fashion and you will need the black backing since you're going to have a full white area behind the screen. Actually, that white screen behind the screen may be tough for some of these materials even with the black backing. The Stewart Harmony G2, XY Screens SoundMax 8K, and DreamScreen v6 are the only ones I'd consider but I don't think the DreamScreen v6 is available in a retractable screen. I'm also not sure about the Harmony G2 or XY 8K.
> 
> If these somehow only act together as an additive and not any sort of multiple then you'd be looking at a max of around 6db loss. On pure energy loss, this is correctable. What I don't know is if there are going to be unfixable dips and peaks caused by the combined usage. I can see sound energy getting trapped between the MP and woven screen. You essentially can't treat the area behind the woven screen like you need to.
> 
> I'd love to see how this tests, honestly. It's interesting. But, if I had the means to do so I'd just get two retractable screens and build something around them to frame them in so it looks more framed in. Maybe curtains?


Thanks. I wish I had measurements to give back to the thread with but I dont, and it sounds like this is a non-starter for me because the in-wall speaker would be like an inch behind the first screen. Sounds like a no-go. If it was just one screen, it could be maybe 3 inches, but a few things would have to fall my way for me to use one screen. Both screens being pull down will also probably not work because I am likely to use either a material, or shape (i.e., curved screen) that is not available in pulldown options, if not both.

I am sitting 15 feet away, so maybe an inability to have an in-wall center speaker will not make the same difference as in some other cases. The option to have centers, and even L & R's, in wall (to make the 2nd screen even bigger if it turned out preferable), would be nice tho, but it doesnt look like it will work for me. That is OK though. I am happy with the project outlook overall. There is probably be no such thing as a compromise free HT. Even having full choice whether to use perf/weave screens plus an ear level center speaker, or solid screens but the center speaker below the screen, would not be seen as compromise-free by some people no matter which choice was made, although I would do the AT option if I could. From my seating distance, each is likely to be less noticeable than from closer to the screen, so the difficulty of the decision would still keep its balance, let's say. My guess is though, the screen difference would be invisible, so even if the speaker placement was only slightly audible from that distance, that would be the better choice. So if I could do it for the same cost, I would, but I can't do it period, even _if_ the cost was the same.


----------



## Technology3456

rcohen said:


> It seems like it would be significantly better to have two retractable AT screens. The importance depends on the total DB of loss and whether you have the output capability to power through it.
> 
> For example, if you lose 10db of output with each screen, that requires 10x more output capability. Two layers of that would require 100x more output capability, which seems implausible. There may be additional problems with interreflection, such as more severe comb filtering.
> 
> Alternately, you could consider the Seymour Proscenium motorized masking screens. They are relatively inexpensive.


If anyone makes a horizontally curved motorized pulldown tensioned screen with the ability to use the right screen material, then this would work with some extra effort, but I've never heard of that personally.


----------



## rcohen

Technology3456 said:


> If anyone makes a horizontally curved motorized pulldown tensioned screen with the ability to use the right screen material, then this would work with some extra effort, but I've never heard of that personally.


Why do you need curved?

With motorized for reasonable money, I've seen motorized 2-way masking fixed frames and motorized retractable masking on motorized retractable screens.

For big money, 4-way motorized masking is the ultimate.


----------



## Technology3456

rcohen said:


> Why do you need curved?
> 
> With motorized for reasonable money, I've seen motorized 2-way masking fixed frames and motorized retractable masking on motorized retractable screens.
> 
> For big money, 4-way motorized masking is the ultimate.


It's for double-stack 3D. My top choice for 3D filters would require projectors with 4,000+ calibrated lumens each to achieve 15 foot lamberts 3D on a 1.0 screen my size. I may not be able to get projectors that bright that also perform well elsewhere. However, among the less bright models, I already found two units of, for my usage, the best models in the budget. They will either work with my #2 choice of filters on a 2.4 gain or so screen, which is the gain required to get the best out of that type of filters no matter the projectors brightness because it tends to scale directly with the screen's ability to retain that type of filtration, and which should work OK at my distance even on a flat screen, or they will work with my #1 choice of filters on a 4+ gain screen, which will likely have too severe hotspotting if it's not curved. 

It's all fairly tricky. It could be simple but simple would require matching projectors they don't make under crazy prices with one filter or the other that no one is sure about which is better or which models they will work with or not, etc etc. I've been unearthing one unknown after another for many months now, and here we are at the last few finest of the finer details. I'm excited. Hopefully it is coming down to good choices vs "gooder" ones. It will be fun to finally experience the end product and see how it all comes together.


----------



## rcohen

Technology3456 said:


> It's for double-stack 3D. My top choice for 3D filters would require projectors with 4,000+ calibrated lumens each to achieve 15 foot lamberts 3D on a 1.0 screen my size. I may not be able to get projectors that bright that also perform well elsewhere. However, among the less bright models, I already found two units of, for my usage, the best models in the budget. They will either work with my #2 choice of filters on a 2.4 gain or so screen, which is the gain required to get the best out of that type of filters no matter the projectors brightness because it tends to scale directly with the screen's ability to retain that type of filtration, and which should work OK at my distance even on a flat screen, or they will work with my #1 choice of filters on a 4+ gain screen, which will likely have too severe hotspotting if it's not curved.
> 
> It's all fairly tricky. It could be simple but simple would require matching projectors they don't make under crazy prices with one filter or the other that no one is sure about which is better or which models they will work with or not, etc etc. I've been unearthing one unknown after another for many months now, and here we are at the last few finest of the finer details. I'm excited. Hopefully it is coming down to good choices vs "gooder" ones. It will be fun to finally experience the end product and see how it all comes together.


You are definitely more passionate about 3D than I am. Sounds cool, though. Shame more video games don’t support something like that.


----------



## PixelPusher15

The original post has been updated with all of my new measurements, findings and commentary. My website has also been updated which contains the embedded frequency charts.

*Thank you very much to those that helped along the way!*

I'm going to be completely honest, this took a lot of time and I don't have any more to give to it at this point. I'm really happy with where it ended up but for right now there won't be any redos. I am planning on doing a small comparison between some spandex samples I am getting in but that might not even happen. In the future, I can see adding some screen samples to this list with much less work. My process has been documented and should be repeatable. I'm perfectly happy to take suggestions for that possible future comparison. There are materials I couldn't get my hands on that I wanted to (SI Maestro and some from Elunevision). I'm sure there are others out there too.

My theater spent a lot of time in disarray and I'm really looking forward to getting my new screen installed, kicking back, and binge watching a ton of movies I've been sitting on waiting for the new screen.

🤘


----------



## Kieran

PixelPusher15 said:


> *This is a copy and paste from my website. A lot of formatting, the table of contents and all of the images of acoustic measurements have been dropped from this version. If you would like to read its designed for format, **click here**.*


link goes to a page that says "sorry you are not allowed to view drafts"


----------



## PixelPusher15

Kieran said:


> link goes to a page that says "sorry you are not allowed to view drafts"


Whoops, linked to the preview. Should be fixed now.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> Whoops, linked to the preview. Should be fixed now.


On my hDPI laptop, the tabs on the spreadsheet aren't visible:


----------



## Kieran

@PixelPusher15 Andy, just noticed that you did not include any materials from Screen Innovations; I thought you had mentioned in other threads that you had tested/demoed some materials from them. Curious why they are not in the final review? If you actually did not get any samples from them, was there a reason you did not?


----------



## PixelPusher15

Kieran said:


> @PixelPusher15 Andy, just noticed that you did not include any materials from Screen Innovations; I thought you had mentioned in other threads that you had tested/demoed some materials from them. Curious why they are not in the final review? If you actually did not get any samples from them, was there a reason you did not?


I tried to get samples but they never replied to my email. That happened with a couple of companies, unfortunately. Da-Lite, SI, and Elunevision are all companies with materials I'd like for another batch. Maybe in the late winter/early spring.


----------



## gworrel

I wonder if you could comment on the significance of the different measurements. For example, I would assume that small differences in gain might be tough to distinguish in normal use, but that the difference between the lowest measured and the highest measured would be obvious to even a casual viewer. How small of a difference in gain would you say could be dismissed as insignificant?


----------



## turt4sc

I’m just a layman whose been reading a lot. I believe people need about a 3 db difference to notice change in volume. And of course you can always adjust to simply play louder, provided that the attenuation is uniform and predictable. That’s the key.


----------



## gworrel

turt4sc said:


> I’m just a layman whose been reading a lot. I believe people need about a 3 db difference to notice change in volume. And of course you can always adjust to simply play louder, provided that the attenuation is uniform and predictable. That’s the key.


I was more interested in the brightness screen gain numbers. Adjusting the sound with EQ seems straightforward. But the effects on screen brightness cannot be compensated for. The gain figures range from .43 to 1.03 with a full range of values in between. In comparing materials, is a difference of less than .05 close enough to dismiss gain as a factor? With audio, 1dB is certainly insignificant and 3dB is just noticeable. My question is at what point does a difference in screen gain become significant. I have some samples of my own so I may have to take another look at them to try to correlate what I have with the numbers in the spreadsheet. My recollection is that my sample of spandex seemed closer in gain to my sample of the XD material than the numbers would indicate. I'll have to look to see where I got my sample from.


----------



## rcohen

turt4sc said:


> I’m just a layman whose been reading a lot. I believe people need about a 3 db difference to notice change in volume. And of course you can always adjust to simply play louder, provided that the attenuation is uniform and predictable. That’s the key.


1db is roughly the threshold of what you can hear from rapid A/B switching, although it depends on the frequency. You have a built-in auto-EQ (acclimation) that cancels out much larger swings over time, but the response will change the first impression.

The screens attenuate high frequencies more than low frequencies, so it's not uniform across frequencies. It is, however, uniform with volume, so you can correct the response with EQ, provided that it is consistent and relatively smooth. The comb filtering for microperf screens close to speakers will be much harder to correct.

The main issue with correcting with EQ is that you need speakers with sufficient output capability. Don't expect to be able to correct 10db of treble attenuation with a dome tweeter and achieve reference SPL without substantial distortion.


----------



## rcohen

gworrel said:


> I was more interested in the brightness screen gain numbers. Adjusting the sound with EQ seems straightforward. But the effects on screen brightness cannot be compensated for. The gain figures range from .43 to 1.03 with a full range of values in between. In comparing materials, is a difference of less than .05 close enough to dismiss gain as a factor? With audio, 1dB is certainly insignificant and 3dB is just noticeable. My question is at what point does a difference in screen gain become significant. I have some samples of my own so I may have to take another look at them to try to correlate what I have with the numbers in the spreadsheet. My recollection is that my sample of spandex seemed closer in gain to my sample of the XD material than the numbers would indicate. I'll have to look to see where I got my sample from.


No, 0.05 gain differences will not be significant. However, if you can make multiple small improvements (i.e. screen gain + move projector closer) they can compound to make a significant difference.

With audio, 1db is roughly the threshold of audibility, but see my above post for more details.

It sounds like spandex gain is very dependent on the degree of stretching.


----------



## PixelPusher15

rcohen said:


> It sounds like spandex gain is very dependent on the degree of stretching.


Indeed it is. Laying a sample of spandex on top of or next to any of the higher gain woven fabrics and it looks very similar. Stretch it 10%, put a black backing behind it, and it starts to look light grey. 

@gworrel I have photos of each screen stretch and in place where I measured them. I can try to dig up a couple to show the differences


----------



## howiee

Amazing work there, PixelPusher! And much appreciated. I must admit to being surprised by how low some of the weave screens measured gain wise. The XYZ 4k material is very much on my radar too now.

//edit

You mentioned you had to be careful with orientation on the XYZ 4k to avoid moire. Any tips on that?


----------



## hopefullguy

sorry if off topic a bit but can i ask how much pixelpusher might think milliskin spandex (60" wide) can be stretched. is there a suggested % say 5% for best results..10% limit... 15% no good. seated 11 feet away from 145/150" 2.35.1 screen. epson 5030UB 1080p projector.

thank you


----------



## bobof

howiee said:


> You mentioned you had to be careful with orientation on the XYZ 4k to avoid moire. Any tips on that?


Also interested in this. 

I've got a bunch of samples on the way, both the 4k and 8k as my screen is small (92" diag) so potentially either is good. 

My Screen Research Clearpix 4k needs an upgrade - works pretty well but a bit of texture on pans that annoys me (I'm sat about 8ft from ~7ft wide surface). It's on a frame with electric top / bottom masks.

Dreamscreen V7 is on my radar and I have had samples of it for a long time (though a bit annoying to fit, having to glue stuff to frame in a small cinema room, glue in a fabric lined & carpeted room is a bit of a disaster waiting to happen.). I've also got my eye on the Screen Research Clearpix Ultimate White, which should be a drop-in as same vendor.

The XY screen material is interesting as it looks reasonably priced and they can prepare it with the rods & springs tensioning setup, which is basically how the Screen Research works. So chances are I can fit a new surface to the screen without any screen modifications.


----------



## dlinsley

bobof said:


> Dreamscreen V7 is on my radar and I have had samples of it for a long time (though a bit annoying to fit, having to glue stuff to frame in a small cinema room, glue in a fabric lined & carpeted room is a bit of a disaster waiting to happen.). I've also got my eye on the Screen Research Clearpix Ultimate White, which should be a drop-in as same vendor.
> 
> The XY screen material is interesting as it looks reasonably priced and they can prepare it with the rods & springs tensioning setup, which is basically how the Screen Research works. So chances are I can fit a new surface to the screen without any screen modifications.


One thread showed installing Dreamscreen using foam rods (from Home Depot here, maybe [email protected] have something similar in the weatherproofing aisle) squeezed into the channels on the frame. Some of the Fabricmate like grippers, with a wide flange, you could probably screw onto the frame as they are designed to screw/staple to walls.


----------



## bobof

dlinsley said:


> One thread showed installing Dreamscreen using foam rods (from Home Depot here, maybe [email protected] have something similar in the weatherproofing aisle) squeezed into the channels on the frame. Some of the Fabricmate like grippers, with a wide flange, you could probably screw onto the frame as they are designed to screw/staple to walls.


Thanks. The screen has a reasonably elaborate construction as it is a top/bottom electric mask setup. So the screen is actually a subframe made of extruded aluminium with the fabric stretched over it, which then bolts into the back of the front bezel frame which has the masks in it. That all means it's a bit more work than you'd like (firstly just getting the thing down to survey for options as I think it's about 90 kilos, and then actually doing it and making sure nothing is going to foul when it gets re-assembled. ). But I'll bare those ideas in mind when looking at it. I'd rather not get into drilling the frame if I can avoid it, though.


----------



## bghous10

Ricoflashback said:


> How large of a screen are you looking at? A regular 16 X 9 screen or Cinemascope? A UST is really a no-go, IMHO, and especially mounted to the ceiling. They are not made for that. There are some short throw projectors (still regular projectors but not Ultra Short Throw) that could work. Many that can fit 13 feet or under. Sounds like an exciting project!
> 
> P.S. - for grins, I went to projectorcentral.com and under "Find A Projector," I typed in 120" screen size and a 4K PJ.
> 
> 
> 
> Find a Projector


Thanks for you input! I ended up going w/ the Optoma UHD52ALV projector & ditched the idea for a UST. I went w/ Silver Ticket 120" WAB screen & really happy w/ it. 4K/3D both look great & although I will re-calibrate my avr, I haven't noticed a problem w/ the LCR speakers now behind the screen. Just wanted to post an update & thanks for the replies.


----------



## squared80

You're using a UST with an ATS? How's that working out for you?


----------



## Ricoflashback

bghous10 said:


> Thanks for you input! I ended up going w/ the Optoma UHD52ALV projector & ditched the idea for a UST. I went w/ Silver Ticket 120" WAB screen & really happy w/ it. 4K/3D both look great & although I will re-calibrate my avr, I haven't noticed a problem w/ the LCR speakers now behind the screen. Just wanted to post an update & thanks for the replies.


Very glad it worked out for you. That UHD52ALV is a light cannon! And SilverTicket provides the best bang for the buck. Good quality, too. Enjoy!


----------



## Schurter

Ok this is a loaded quest 
Carl's flex white vs Severtson 
SAT4K
CWMP screens 

140inch 2.39 us my screen 
Black room 
Jvc x950


----------



## HTownTheater

this is amazing work! thank you for putting this together.

I was trying to check out XY Screens but seems their website is not working? is this just me? where are people sourcing the fabric from?

www.xyscreen.com ?


----------



## PixelPusher15

HTownTheater said:


> this is amazing work! thank you for putting this together.
> 
> I was trying to check out XY Screens but seems their website is not working? is this just me? where are people sourcing the fabric from?
> 
> www.xyscreen.com ?


Site seems to be working for me. I worked with Gloria for all my samples and info requests: [email protected]


----------



## HTownTheater

PixelPusher15 said:


> Site seems to be working for me. I worked with Gloria for all my samples and info requests: [email protected]


thanks! it was me, seems they are blocking my VPN, I should have tried that first.


----------



## Enchy

Ended up buying the Silver Ticket WAB based on these test results. Excellent work. 

Now that I've set it up, I was curious what the thoughts are RE room calibration with behind screen speakers. I typically gate Audyssey at 500Hz, but I'm wondering if I should go full range with the AT screen. On all 3 speakers Audyssey is putting in a 5db boost around 8khz, and 3db from about 5khz to 18khz. Wondering if that much of a boost will damage the tweeters.


----------



## squared80

Enchy said:


> Ended up buying the Silver Ticket WAB based on these test results. Excellent work.
> 
> Now that I've set it up, I was curious what the thoughts are RE room calibration with behind screen speakers. I typically gate Audyssey at 500Hz, but I'm wondering if I should go full range with the AT screen. On all 3 speakers Audyssey is putting in a 5db boost around 8khz, and 3db from about 5khz to 18khz. Wondering if that much of a boost will damage the tweeters.


I was all set for the _new and improved_ WVS version, but this testing has me thinking of going to the WAB. Interesting results.


----------



## Enchy

squared80 said:


> I was all set for the _new and improved_ WVS version, but this testing has me thinking of going to the WAB. Interesting results.


Buy the sample pack and compare them side by side. I preferred the WAB


----------



## PixelPusher15

squared80 said:


> I was all set for the _new and improved_ WVS version, but this testing has me thinking of going to the WAB. Interesting results.


I think the WAB is the better buy unless you are close to the screen and need a bit smoother surface.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Enchy said:


> Ended up buying the Silver Ticket WAB based on these test results. Excellent work.
> 
> Now that I've set it up, I was curious what the thoughts are RE room calibration with behind screen speakers. I typically gate Audyssey at 500Hz, but I'm wondering if I should go full range with the AT screen. On all 3 speakers Audyssey is putting in a 5db boost around 8khz, and 3db from about 5khz to 18khz. Wondering if that much of a boost will damage the tweeters.


I am not the most well-versed in EQ and its possible negative effects on the speaker but I don't think there should be a concern unless you are approaching reference levels or at least where your specific speaker reaches distortion. I listen to all my content at around -20 to -24. Putting a 5db boost at any point will only be driving that range at -15. My speakers can play much louder than that without distortion. I'm sure there is more nuance here but that's my cursory understanding (it could be wrong too).


----------



## rcohen

Enchy said:


> Ended up buying the Silver Ticket WAB based on these test results. Excellent work.
> 
> Now that I've set it up, I was curious what the thoughts are RE room calibration with behind screen speakers. I typically gate Audyssey at 500Hz, but I'm wondering if I should go full range with the AT screen. On all 3 speakers Audyssey is putting in a 5db boost around 8khz, and 3db from about 5khz to 18khz. Wondering if that much of a boost will damage the tweeters.


Yes, you should correct speakers behind a screen, and yes, substantial boost risks blowing many dome tweeters.

You can calculate what they are rated for, your listening levels, and loss due to screen and seating distance.


----------



## Enchy

rcohen said:


> Yes, you should correct speakers behind a screen, and yes, substantial boost risks blowing many dome tweeters.
> 
> You can calculate what they are rated for, your listening levels, and loss due to screen and seating distance.


Hey good point. I did some looking. I don't have a power handling rating for these, but they're THX Ultra certified so theoretically they're built to be able to play THX reference (85db with 20db of headroom) at 12 ft. I don't come close to that, my listening typically peaks at 85db, with the knob between -25 and -20. Given that, I should be fine to put a +5db boost on the tweeter then.


----------



## Enchy

squared80 said:


> I was all set for the _new and improved_ WVS version, but this testing has me thinking of going to the WAB. Interesting results.


I will say I disagree slightly with Pixel's assessment of the WAB now that I have the full screen. I sit at about 10' from the screen, and with bright white content if you focus, you can faintly see the weave. It's subtle, but it's there. Not a huge deal for me, but I didn't notice this when I was comparing the samples myself so figured I'd throw it out there. The MP screens I compared were much much more obvious from my distance.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Really a great thread and lots of work done for these comparisons. Question: not many electronic, tab-tensioned screens with an acoustic screen material outside of Elite’s screens Saker Tension AcousticPro UHD Series - 1.0 gain. You mentioned that the sound wasn’t as good. How much of a difference, say, compared to the SilverTicket products? A possible solution for me for a multipurpose room would be the mentioned Elite electronic screen that can be raised to accommodate my other stereo speakers at floor level when listening to my tube amplifier and music.

The main benefit I see is having the center speaker raised significantly so it’s at ear level in the middle of the screen which should provide much clearer dialog AND a tighter soundstage by not having the left and right speakers so far apart. Last questions - how far from the screen should the speakers be? And, what’s the optimal distance you would suggest between the left and right speakers?

P.S. - although not tested, the EluneVision 120” 16 x 9 Reference Studio 4K Tab Tensioned AudioWeave, 1.15 Gain screen would also be a consideration. Pricier but it looks like better quality than the Elite screen.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Ricoflashback said:


> Really a great thread and lots of work done for these comparisons. Question: not many electronic, tab-tensioned screens with an acoustic screen material outside of Elite’s screens Saker Tension AcousticPro UHD Series - 1.0 gain. You mentioned that the sound wasn’t as good. How much of a difference, say, compared to the SilverTicket products? A possible solution for me for a multipurpose room would be the mentioned Elite electronic screen that can be raised to accommodate my other stereo speakers at floor level when listening to my tube amplifier and music.
> 
> The main benefit I see is having the center speaker raised significantly so it’s at ear level in the middle of the screen which should provide much clearer dialog AND a tighter soundstage by not having the left and right speakers so far apart. Last questions - how far from the screen should the speakers be? And, what’s the optimal distance you would suggest between the left and right speakers?
> 
> P.S. - although not tested, the EluneVision 120” 16 x 9 Reference Studio 4K Tab Tensioned AudioWeave, 1.15 Gain screen would also be a consideration. Pricier but it looks like better quality than the Elite screen.


Just remember that these manufacturer gain ratings are to be taken with the tiniest grain of salt. Also, Elunevision apparently doesn't give samples which is a bit sus IMO. 

Take a look at the charts on my site. You can see the acoustic differences between the screens here. The Elite screen didn't measure as well as the XY SoundMax 4K which I found a bit curious since they are of identical weave structure. They do appear to have different coatings though since the gain and color temperature is slightly different. I speculated that this coating is what is impacting acoustics slightly. My results between tests were *very* consistent with these differences. That being said, in my most recent test between the SoundMax 4K and DreamScreen v7 resulted in the SoundMax 4K measuring quite similarly to what I found here in the Elite screen and also the DreamScreen v7. So maybe my sample was a bit of a golden sample. The only real way to confirm this is with another full screen sample of the Elite screen which is just unlikely. Ok, another "that being said", the biggest thing to look for in acoustic comparisons is dips and peaks, especially in the psychoacoustic smoothing. If these dips and peaks vary by 3db or more than it's possible for you to detect them. Under that and it shouldn't be a big deal. Although there is a chance a dip caused by the screen could interact with a dip caused by your room, or speaker and that leads to a bigger problem. That's too specific so it's impossible for me to comment on but room treatments and speaker placements can work to correct interactions like that. 

Below you can see the difference between the SoundMax 4K and the Elite screen. The Elite screen is lower overall but the peaks and dips are pretty similar while the XY screen is just a bit better. Either should be fine and the overall attenuation is pretty fixable with some minor EQ, assuming you aren't stressing your speakers out already with the gain knob. 


















As for ideal placement, stay tuned to my next comment because I just noticed something in another report mentioned earlier in the thread.


----------



## PixelPusher15

@rcohen, you may find this interesting as well. I was recently looking at the Screen Excellence report and noticed something interesting with the off-axis data they published for woven screens.

Below you can see that at 2cm the off axis graph is better than the 7cm graph, it even is comparable to the 15cm graph. Only the 30cm and up graphs looks better overall.








What's interesting is that the on-axis graph shows 2cm isn't better than 7cm, or 15cm and again 30cm is best.









This kinda makes me wonder if placing the speaker at 2cm is better than at 7-15cm when factoring everything. 30cm (12" is) clearly best. I'm not certain on this but I found the data interesting and wanted to add it to the conversation.

To add a bit more to this conversation and it is something that I'd like to add to my article, placing a MP screen at 12" is pretty much essential when looking at the off-axis data:








Comb-filtering below 12" is pretty severe but at 12" things look pretty solid. My data also says that on axis response at 12" is very workable with some EQ.


----------



## rcohen

PixelPusher15 said:


> @rcohen, you may find this interesting as well. I was recently looking at the Screen Excellence report and noticed something interesting with the off-axis data they published for woven screens.
> 
> Below you can see that at 2cm the off axis graph is better than the 7cm graph, it even is comparable to the 15cm graph. Only the 30cm graph looks better overall.
> View attachment 3211173
> 
> What's interesting is that the on-axis graph shows 2cm isn't better than 7cm, or 15cm and again 30cm is best.
> View attachment 3211174
> 
> 
> This kinda makes me wonder if placing the speaker at 2cm is better than at 7-15cm when factoring everything. 30cm (12" is) clearly best. I'm not certain on this but I found the data interesting and wanted to add it to the conversation.
> 
> To add a bit more to this conversation and it is something that I'd like to add to my article, placing a MP screen at 12" is pretty much essential when looking at the off-axis data:
> View attachment 3211175
> 
> Comb-filtering below 12" is pretty severe but at 12" things look pretty solid. My data also says that on axis response at 12" is very workable with some EQ.


I suspect that may be specific to the speaker. It looks like the primary issue with distance is on-axis comb filtering due to cancellation between the baffle and screen. Off-axis, it's not such an issue, but on-axis, it's probably very important for vocal clarity. It seems this is particularly true for vinyl screens where the back surface is highly reflective.

The lowest cancellation frequency can be calculated based on the distance between the screen and baffle using an SBIR calculator. For speakers pretty close to the screen, there may be a big benefit to attaching a (black) foam absorption layer to the baffle. The closer the speaker gets to the screen, the higher the SBIR frequency shifts, so the easier it will be to absorb with a thin absorption layer.

Also, these problems might be reduced by speakers with large horns. The baffle could still be a concern, but the horn geometry should behave better than a flat baffle.

Note: This is all just my amateur theory. No guarantees.


----------



## Enchy

Back to my Audyssey question. I was messing around in REW last night trying to determine where to place my xover with these new speakers. Decided to also see the difference with and without the 500Hz gate I typically place on my speakers with Audyssey (Psychoacoustic smoothing applied)









You can definitely see the high frequencies are being smothered a little bit, which Audyssey is doing its best to compensate for. I had to turn my AVR up to -10 to get 85db sweeps, so I'm definitely not concerned with blowing the tweeters at my normal volume here.

Overall I'm not super pleased with Audyssey adding in those peaks at 750Hz, 1200Hz and 2800Hz. Gonna have to go in and manually fix them, and figure out what's causing that slump around 180Hz. Hopefully the MultiEQ app's curve editor will be enough to let me fix those.

Edit: I'm going to mess around more and probably put in a gate around 1kHz or so, since that roll off without Audyssey looks great to me.


----------



## Enchy

accident


----------



## rcohen

Enchy said:


> Back to my Audyssey question. I was messing around in REW last night trying to determine where to place my xover with these new speakers. Decided to also see the difference with and without the 500Hz gate I typically place on my speakers with Audyssey (Psychoacoustic smoothing applied)
> View attachment 3211247
> 
> 
> You can definitely see the high frequencies are being smothered a little bit, which Audyssey is doing its best to compensate for. I had to turn my AVR up to -10 to get 85db sweeps, so I'm definitely not concerned with blowing the tweeters at my normal volume here.
> 
> Overall I'm not super pleased with Audyssey adding in those peaks at 750Hz, 1200Hz and 2800Hz. Gonna have to go in and manually fix them, and figure out what's causing that slump around 180Hz. Hopefully the MultiEQ app's curve editor will be enough to let me fix those.
> 
> Edit: I'm going to mess around more and probably put in a gate around 1kHz or so, since that roll off without Audyssey looks great to me.


I bet Audyssey limits the boost to avoid blowing speakers, anyway. I do hear stories about people boosting dome tweeters for AT screens and accidentally blowing them. Not sure how much boosting they’re doing.


----------



## Enchy

rcohen said:


> I bet Audyssey limits the boost to avoid blowing speakers, anyway. I do hear stories about people boosting dome tweeters for AT screens and accidentally blowing them. Not sure how much boosting they’re doing.


The sole amazon review for the Monolith speakers I have show Audyssey giving a +10db boost to the tweeter: 









That seems like Audyssey messed up or the speaker is broken to me, since that install wasn't even behind a screen.


----------



## rcohen

Enchy said:


> The sole amazon review for the Monolith speakers I have show Audyssey giving a +10db boost to the tweeter:
> View attachment 3211336
> 
> 
> That seems like Audyssey messed up or the speaker is broken to me, since that install wasn't even behind a screen.


10db is a huge amount of boost. That requires about 10x more power.


----------



## squared80

Ricoflashback said:


> how far from the screen should the speakers be?


Depends on the speakers, but generally, 12".


----------



## PixelPusher15

squared80 said:


> Depends on the speakers, but generally, 12".


That’s a bit too general with the data available in my post. Many materials did just fine at 4”. I wouldn’t place a MP screen much closer than 12” though.


----------



## Enchy

For reference if you look at my measurements further up, my speakers are about 3" from my screen


----------



## clausdk

Just tested 3 xy screens and they perform very well. Compared to my v7 the xyz soundmax 4k looks quite a bit brighter without any downsides. Left is soundmax 4k, middle soundmax 8k and right is perf. Xy screens can provide 285cm tall screens which I am considering for a 500cm wide imax+cih setup.

Once my nz9 arrives I will do another test with black backing on the samples to avoid added brightness. Someone kindly gave me this tip which is great to make as accurate comparisons as possible.


----------



## fatallerror

clausdk said:


> 500cm wide


What’s your projector that you can light up such a big screen?Barco? Other than brightness do you notice sharpness difference?


----------



## Enchy

I'm thinking about putting my projector in the closet behind my room. Doing that would give me the throw distance to pull my screen further out from the speakers. Would 4" be enough or is 6" ideal? Right now they're only 2" apart.


----------



## PixelPusher15

clausdk said:


> Just tested 3 xy screens and they perform very well. Compared to my v7 the xyz soundmax 4k looks quite a bit brighter without any downsides. Left is soundmax 4k, middle soundmax 8k and right is perf. Xy screens can provide 285cm tall screens which I am considering for a 500cm wide imax+cih setup.
> 
> Once my nz9 arrives I will do another test with black backing on the samples to avoid added brightness. Someone kindly gave me this tip which is great to make as accurate comparisons as possible.
> 
> View attachment 3215439
> 
> View attachment 3215436
> 
> View attachment 3215438
> 
> View attachment 3215437
> 
> View attachment 3215441


Be a bit careful here with comparisons. Putting the XY screens on top of another white screen can make the XY screens (or any weave screen) appear brighter. Getting some black paper or any fabric and making sure you block the light from passing through the weave, off the installed screen, and then back through the sample is the best way to do it. I'd use paper clips to hold the paper, or fabric in place and then use painters tape to hold it up.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Enchy said:


> I'm thinking about putting my projector in the closet behind my room. Doing that would give me the throw distance to pull my screen further out from the speakers. Would 4" be enough or is 6" ideal? Right now they're only 2" apart.


Which screen do you have again?


----------



## Enchy

PixelPusher15 said:


> Which screen do you have again?


Silver Ticket WAB w/ backing


----------



## PixelPusher15

Enchy said:


> Silver Ticket WAB w/ backing


4" should be fine:


----------



## JakobsenDK

I’ve been looking at screens and projectors for ages, for my new house. I’ve had the builders cut out and pull cables for an MK Sound setup with 3xIW150 (in wall), 2xM40T, 2x IC95 for Arnos and a IW28S.
Its a living room setup, which means quite a few compromises.

I really had my heart set on an UST with an AT + ALR screen but from what I can gather they’re not really realistic solution. Especially if I want to ceiling mount it.

So instead I’m boosting the size to 150/160” electrical drop down. The issue is that the whole room is white, aside from the floor. I can’t (and won’t honestly) paint the walls. Light control is reasonable since it’ll only be used when the kid is in bed and I can close out all ambient lights.

The screen will drop down in front of a white wall with a tv.

Afaik I understand a white wall and a tv means a micro perforated screen is a no go. So that leaves me with a woven one right?

In Denmark, the reasonable solution seems to be either a SoundMax 4K or an Elite Screen Saker Tab Tensioned with AcousticProUHD. Or am I missing an obvious choice for a white room?


----------



## magnetic

With white walls perforated Firehawk is probably the way to go.


----------



## Prabhurc

Similar to this thread, wondering if there is any good comparison available for Non-AT screens too.


----------



## JakobsenDK

magnetic said:


> With white walls perforated Firehawk is probably the way to go.


They’re just insane expensive in Denmark - way out of my price range unfortunately.


----------



## ARROW-AV

Very well done!

The Elite Cinema White 8K looks pretty damn impressive. Anyone know of any downsides to this material?


----------



## Lygren

ARROW-AV said:


> Very well done!
> 
> The Elite Cinema White 8K looks pretty damn impressive. Anyone know of any downsides to this material?


We were never able to get the combination of gain, sharpness, AT and structural quality using only two layers (we started bonding two layers back in 2005, v1), thus the v6 and v7 uses its current and patented 3+ layer structure (3 layers for v6 and 4 for v7). Our front layer being a woven, randomised and ultra fine one, securing the reflective characteristics we want. Adding a black backing to a knitted front like this one from Elite is certainly a step forward in comparison to a lot of others, but they are missing the patented front layer we are using. However, I am probably not the one that is to conclude on how big of an importance this would be, but at least for gain, it would come in lower than the v6 and certainly the v7. As for the benefit of the added woven randomised we are using vs. the knitted front layer of the Elite, we always saw better detail from adding this woven layer, as well as being 100% certain moiré would never occur at any resolution or technology.


----------



## Beanki

So… My room will have a small 16” deep alcove behind the screen. From this remarkably informative thread, I gather that I will be best served with in wall speakers behind an AT screen rather than bookshelves that will be a couple of inches from the screen surface.

Is this a reasonable conclusion?


----------



## PixelPusher15

Beanki said:


> So… My room will have a small 16” deep alcove behind the screen. From this remarkably informative thread, I gather that I will be best served with in wall speakers behind an AT screen rather than bookshelves that will be a couple of inches from the screen surface.
> 
> Is this a reasonable conclusion?


That's a loaded question without more specifics. What screen material are you looking at? What speakers are you thinking about? If you use in-walls, will you decrease the space between the speaker and its boundaries?

Some bookshelves are perfectly fine being placed right against the wall and aren't that deep. Some speakers are even designed to go into places like you have said and also not be that deep. I personally would try to make bookshelves work as opposed to in-walls since they are easy to demo and upgrade later. In walls are nearly impossible to demo and are a pain to upgrade.


----------



## Beanki

PixelPusher15 said:


> That's a loaded question without more specifics. What screen material are you looking at? What speakers are you thinking about? If you use in-walls, will you decrease the space between the speaker and its boundaries?
> 
> Some bookshelves are perfectly fine being placed right against the wall and aren't that deep. Some speakers are even designed to go into places like you have said and also not be that deep. I personally would try to make bookshelves work as opposed to in-walls since they are easy to demo and upgrade later. In walls are nearly impossible to demo and are a pain to upgrade.


I was originally looking at three Kef R3 bookshelves, which would put the speaker front about 2” from the screen. I could certainly look for shallower bookshelves instead. Alternatively, I would look at in wall speakers like the Goldenear SPS or Focal 300IWLCR6. 

But you are absolutely correct - I can’t find ”better quality” in-wall speakers to demo in San Diego, so I would base my decision off of liking the manufacturer’s other speakers. Not a good place to be. 

i was also thinking I needed a micro perf screen for the additional gain. I had initially planned for a screen around 135-150”, but will probably need to go to the smaller end of this range for a bright enough picture on a woven screen.

I appreciate your insight.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Beanki said:


> I was originally looking at three Kef R3 bookshelves, which would put the speaker front about 2” from the screen. I could certainly look for shallower bookshelves instead. Alternatively, I would look at in wall speakers like the Goldenear SPS or Focal 300IWLCR6.
> 
> But you are absolutely correct - I can’t find ”better quality” in-wall speakers to demo in San Diego, so I would base my decision off of liking the manufacturer’s other speakers. Not a good place to be.
> 
> i was also thinking I needed a micro perf screen for the additional gain. I had initially planned for a screen around 135-150”, but will probably need to go to the smaller end of this range for a bright enough picture on a woven screen.
> 
> I appreciate your insight.


I'm obviously not aware of how your room is designed/built but sometimes a pretty easy fix could be building the screen out a couple inches to give you those extra couple inches you need. 

Have you taken a look at Triad? I'd assume there's a dealer near SD. They have "in-wall" speakers that are fully enclosed so demoing them should transfer more to your own setup. Assuming you don't notice the perforations from your seating distance then you may still be able to go that route.


----------



## Beanki

I will need to move a door to extend the screen into the room, but that might not be out of the question. 

And thanks for the Triad recommendation. I’ll try to find a place to listen.


----------



## Dawn Gordon

Beanki said:


> I will need to move a door to extend the screen into the room, but that might not be out of the question.
> 
> And thanks for the Triad recommendation. I’ll try to find a place to listen.


You might want to visit the Triad thread here on AVS. Lots of folks there who can help.


----------



## JakobsenDK

Beanki said:


> I was originally looking at three Kef R3 bookshelves, which would put the speaker front about 2” from the screen. I could certainly look for shallower bookshelves instead. Alternatively, I would look at in wall speakers like the Goldenear SPS or Focal 300IWLCR6.
> 
> But you are absolutely correct - I can’t find ”better quality” in-wall speakers to demo in San Diego, so I would base my decision off of liking the manufacturer’s other speakers. Not a good place to be.
> 
> i was also thinking I needed a micro perf screen for the additional gain. I had initially planned for a screen around 135-150”, but will probably need to go to the smaller end of this range for a bright enough picture on a woven screen.
> 
> I appreciate your insight.


I’m far from an expert, but I’ve spent countless hours reading in order to choose my next screen.
There haven’t really been any recommendations of the cheaper perforated screens as they apparently cause the moire effect. Also if you hang it in front of a tv, you’re going to have a bad time with reflections - meaning you have to put black cloth over the tv. And then you have different reflections which can’t be ideal.
It’s a shame because for example HiViLux has a micro perforated screen that looks great for bright rooms.
I think I’ll end up with Elite Screens AcousticProUHD tab tensioned and then carefully inspect if its got creases due to @projectorhead feedback on elite screens customer service response.

XY screens can’t ship tab tension larger than 110” and that’s too little for me, whil SI screens and the like are far too expensive.


----------



## Beanki

Dawn Gordon said:


> You might want to visit the Triad thread here on AVS. Lots of folks there who can help.


Great tip, thanks! I’ll get over there this evening.


----------



## TonyHT

How far or close to a DIY Spandex Miliskin screen should the speakers be? I’d like to get them as close as possibly to the screen to get a wider soundstage. However I don’t want them to close to where it will cause audio problems.

One other thing, would two layers of black spandex be better than one layer of GOM701 for the black fabric sound the screen, side walls, and acoustic panels? Or is one layer of GOM good enough to give a nice black whole effect? 

I can’t use velvet to surround the screen since it’s a false wall and I have speakers behind the screen. And I’d like to use the same fabric that’s going surrounding my screen for my acoustic panels and side walls/ceiling in front of my screen. Thanks for the input!


----------



## PixelPusher15

TonyHT said:


> How far or close to a DIY Spandex Miliskin screen should the speakers be? I’d like to get them as close as possibly to the screen to get a wider soundstage. However I don’t want them to close to where it will cause audio problems.
> 
> One other thing, would two layers of black spandex be better than one layer of GOM701 for the black fabric sound the screen, side walls, and acoustic panels? Or is one layer of GOM good enough to give a nice black whole effect?
> 
> I can’t use velvet to surround the screen since it’s a false wall and I have speakers behind the screen. And I’d like to use the same fabric that’s going surrounding my screen for my acoustic panels and side walls/ceiling in front of my screen. Thanks for the input!


I can only speak to the data I recorded and that is at 4" at the closest. That being said, 2 layers of spandex performed very, very well at 4" so I'd bet that even at 2" it would perform well, possibly even closer. Here's an old test where they wrapped the spandex right over the speaker. Two layers of spandex still did quite well even though i have never liked this test that much because it's an unrealistic setup: Acoustic Transparency of Spandex - The Truth

It does depend on the weight of the spandex and it's been a while since that post so who knows if the weights have changed at various places. I did notice that the spandex at my local stores was thinner than the stuff I got from Fabric Wholesale Direct and Spandex World.

Regarding black material. I haven't tested the AT properties of black fabrics but I am using some stretch velvet that I found at Hobby Lobby for a couple of acoustic panels. It has more shimmer with the lights on than normal velvet but with the lights off it is pretty darn black. It really is quite lightweight too. I'd be surprised if it performed worse than two layers of milliskin. 
This is the stuff: Black Velvet Fabric | Hobby Lobby | 1427764 

Don't just take my word for it though. I have no measurements to back this up, just hunches. If you are interested in it I'd buy a small amount and experiment with placing it in front of your speakers.


----------



## TonyHT

PixelPusher15 said:


> I can only speak to the data I recorded and that is at 4" at the closest. That being said, 2 layers of spandex performed very, very well at 4" so I'd bet that even at 2" it would perform well, possibly even closer. Here's an old test where they wrapped the spandex right over the speaker. Two layers of spandex still did quite well even though i have never liked this test that much because it's an unrealistic setup: Acoustic Transparency of Spandex - The Truth
> 
> It does depend on the weight of the spandex and it's been a while since that post so who knows if the weights have changed at various places. I did notice that the spandex at my local stores was thinner than the stuff I got from Fabric Wholesale Direct and Spandex World.
> 
> Regarding black material. I haven't tested the AT properties of black fabrics but I am using some stretch velvet that I found at Hobby Lobby for a couple of acoustic panels. It has more shimmer with the lights on than normal velvet but with the lights off it is pretty darn black. It really is quite lightweight too. I'd be surprised if it performed worse than two layers of milliskin.
> This is the stuff: Black Velvet Fabric | Hobby Lobby | 1427764
> 
> Don't just take my word for it though. I have no measurements to back this up, just hunches. If you are interested in it I'd buy a small amount and experiment with placing it in front of your speakers.


Thanks for the information! I’ll look into the fabric from Hobby Lobby. Would you say that velvet fabric is okay to be used as the surround around the screen? I know you said you haven’t done any tests on it but from experience you think it would be a safe bet it wouldn’t harm the acoustics from the speakers? Or would I be okay to do one layer of spandex miliskin? I already have dark colored walls and no ambient light, but the walls are still reflective even though I went with a matte paint.


----------



## TonyHT

PixelPusher15 said:


> I can only speak to the data I recorded and that is at 4" at the closest. That being said, 2 layers of spandex performed very, very well at 4" so I'd bet that even at 2" it would perform well, possibly even closer. Here's an old test where they wrapped the spandex right over the speaker. Two layers of spandex still did quite well even though i have never liked this test that much because it's an unrealistic setup: Acoustic Transparency of Spandex - The Truth
> 
> It does depend on the weight of the spandex and it's been a while since that post so who knows if the weights have changed at various places. I did notice that the spandex at my local stores was thinner than the stuff I got from Fabric Wholesale Direct and Spandex World.
> 
> Regarding black material. I haven't tested the AT properties of black fabrics but I am using some stretch velvet that I found at Hobby Lobby for a couple of acoustic panels. It has more shimmer with the lights on than normal velvet but with the lights off it is pretty darn black. It really is quite lightweight too. I'd be surprised if it performed worse than two layers of milliskin.
> This is the stuff: Black Velvet Fabric | Hobby Lobby | 1427764
> 
> Don't just take my word for it though. I have no measurements to back this up, just hunches. If you are interested in it I'd buy a small amount and experiment with placing it in front of your speakers.


Here’s an update. I went to Hobby Lobby today and they had the velvet fabric you mentioned in stock. I didn’t end up buying it though due to the cost, I’m hoping I can find a coupon for their store. I was also hesitant since there isn’t any data on how the fabric effects sound from the speakers. 

Is there any easy way I can measure the acoustical properties on the fabric to make sure it’ll be okay to use in front of my speakers? I have a microphone I’d be able to use with my laptop.


----------



## PixelPusher15

TonyHT said:


> Here’s an update. I went to Hobby Lobby today and they had the velvet fabric you mentioned in stock. I didn’t end up buying it though due to the cost, I’m hoping I can find a coupon for their store. I was also hesitant since there isn’t any data on how the fabric effects sound from the speakers.
> 
> Is there any easy way I can measure the acoustical properties on the fabric to make sure it’ll be okay to use in front of my speakers? I have a microphone I’d be able to use with my laptop.


Is it a calibrated mic like a UMIK-1? 

They have stopped a lot of the coupons recently. But, their fabrics routinely go on sale for 40% off. Joanne’s had similar stuff the last time I was there and they still do coupons. I can’t vouch for it though.

I think I might have some scrap and I’m going to be doing some stuff with my UMIK-1 today. No promises but I might be able to put the fabric in my testing rig and do some slightly better than crude measurements.


----------



## TonyHT

PixelPusher15 said:


> Is it a calibrated mic like a UMIK-1?
> 
> They have stopped a lot of the coupons recently. But, their fabrics routinely go on sale for 40% off. Joanne’s had similar stuff the last time I was there and they still do coupons. I can’t vouch for it though.
> 
> I think I might have some scrap and I’m going to be doing some stuff with my UMIK-1 today. No promises but I might be able to put the fabric in my testing rig and do some slightly better than crude measurements.


Thanks, that’d be awesome if you have a chance to. 

I do have a Umik 1 for my mini DSP. I haven’t used them yet as I’m still waiting for my back ordered sub driver. 

I would love the black whole effect, without sacrificing sound quality.


----------



## PixelPusher15

TonyHT said:


> Thanks, that’d be awesome if you have a chance to.
> 
> I do have a Umik 1 for my mini DSP. I haven’t used them yet as I’m still waiting for my back ordered sub driver.
> 
> I would love the black whole effect, without sacrificing sound quality.


Results here: Acoustic Transparency of Royalty 3 Velvet, Stretch...


----------



## Mikesterz

clausdk said:


> Just tested 3 xy screens and they perform very well. Compared to my v7 the xyz soundmax 4k looks quite a bit brighter without any downsides. Left is soundmax 4k, middle soundmax 8k and right is perf. Xy screens can provide 285cm tall screens which I am considering for a 500cm wide imax+cih setup.
> 
> Once my nz9 arrives I will do another test with black backing on the samples to avoid added brightness. Someone kindly gave me this tip which is great to make as accurate comparisons as possible.
> 
> View attachment 3215439
> 
> View attachment 3215436
> 
> View attachment 3215438
> 
> View attachment 3215437
> 
> View attachment 3215441


Not sure if you’ve made up your mind yet but I’m really liking the Harmony G2. Tested it against the seymour neo and V7 and it came out ahead. Now that it’s installed it looks even nicer. Best image out of all of them imo. Another benefit is that it does a good job of holding contrast with ambient light l, the others didn’t do as well. We like some lights on when snacking or watching sports so that’s important for us.


----------



## rjyap

Hi Andy, Thanks for the thorough comparison of various AT screen. Just purchase SoundMax 8K with thin bezel from XY-Screen and put you as referrer. I'm using it for UST projector and although Gloria doesn't recommend weave AT screen for UST projector projector due to near field steep angle might show the unevenness of the screen material. I just take the risk with 8k which should have a finer weave compare to 4k and hopefully it still look smooth at 10 feet viewing distance. Wouldn't want SoundMax 5k perforated which is recommended by Gloria due to my speakers would be around 4" from the screen material plus the attenuation is too high based on your measurement. Going to pair it with Fengmi T1 which is rated at 2800 lumens so the gain at 0.7 will be bright enough for HDR movie.


----------



## Richard Berg

Mikesterz said:


> Not sure if you’ve made up your mind yet but I’m really liking the Harmony G2. Tested it against the seymour neo and V7 and it came out ahead. Now that it’s installed it looks even nicer. Best image out of all of them imo. Another benefit is that it does a good job of holding contrast with ambient light l, the others didn’t do as well. We like some lights on when snacking or watching sports so that’s important for us.


What aspects of the PQ did you prefer?


----------



## PixelPusher15

rjyap said:


> Hi Andy, Thanks for the thorough comparison of various AT screen. Just purchase SoundMax 8K with thin bezel from XY-Screen and put you as referrer. I'm using it for UST projector and although Gloria doesn't recommend weave AT screen for UST projector projector due to near field steep angle might show the unevenness of the screen material. I just take the risk with 8k which should have a finer weave compare to 4k and hopefully it still look smooth at 10 feet viewing distance. Wouldn't want SoundMax 5k perforated which is recommended by Gloria due to my speakers would be around 4" from the screen material plus the attenuation is too high based on your measurement. Going to pair it with Fengmi T1 which is rated at 2800 lumens so the gain at 0.7 will be bright enough for HDR movie.


I'm really interested to see how this goes. I've fielded a handful of questions about using a weave screen with an UST but haven't really seen anyone do it. I'd really like to hear back and post photos too. Obviously, photos won't convey the in-person experience but I'm just really intrigued by the UST/weave combo. I hope it works well!

I agree that I don't think the Soundmax 5 would be a good choice. I also think the perforations would be made more noticeable with an UST projector due to the angle of light hitting those perforations


----------



## platinum00

This is fantastic info and saved a ton of research time. I already had a Silver Ticket screen so going with their WAB made sense for me given the decent results and plug and play with my existing frame.

Does anyone happen to have attenuation data for Silver Ticket WAB w/ backing at 1". According to the ST rep and their website, that is the recommended distance with WAB. Interested to see manufacture recommendation vs the standard 4" and 12" readings in the tests.


----------



## squared80

PixelPusher15 said:


> I'm really interested to see how this goes. I've fielded a handful of questions about using a weave screen with an UST but haven't really seen anyone do it. I'd really like to hear back and post photos too. Obviously, photos won't convey the in-person experience but I'm just really intrigued by the UST/weave combo. I hope it works well!


*+1*


----------



## RonBonnell

Shoot, I was thinking I could install in-wall speakers and just hang an AT screen over it. So that doesn't work? Too close?

I have a small room, used for other purposes such as VR table tennis etc, so I don't want to take up space with a false wall, or have a smaller screen in order to have speakers to the side. Willing to sacrifice some sound quality for in walls. Monolith THX-LCR THX Ultra Certified 3-Way's are already delivered.

I have on order a Silver Ticket 128" WAB which will fit perfectly taking up the entire wall. Concerned though that the order from Amazon keeps getting delayed, and is saying now that it is late March for delivery. Silver Ticket web site itself says oos. So I am wondering if it will ever be delivered and therefore looking for and considering other options. The $500 price for the Silver Ticket is about as high as I want to go. I and the grand kids are about the only ones who use this room. Using a Sony 1080 projector. 

I suppose one option is to build my own screen and somehow mount it a bit from the wall? I did want to keep this simple, however, and lumbar certainly isn't cheap these days either. Maybe stretch some Spandex AT material over a cheaper metal frame?


----------



## PixelPusher15

RonBonnell said:


> Shoot, I was thinking I could install in-wall speakers and just hang an AT screen over it. So that doesn't work? Too close?
> 
> I have a small room, used for other purposes such as VR table tennis etc, so I don't want to take up space with a false wall, or have a smaller screen in order to have speakers to the side. Willing to sacrifice some sound quality for in walls. Monolith THX-LCR THX Ultra Certified 3-Way's are already delivered.
> 
> I have on order a Silver Ticket 128" WAB which will fit perfectly taking up the entire wall. Concerned though that the order from Amazon keeps getting delayed, and is saying now that it is late March for delivery. Silver Ticket web site itself says oos. So I am wondering if it will ever be delivered and therefore looking for and considering other options. The $500 price for the Silver Ticket is about as high as I want to go. I and the grand kids are about the only ones who use this room. Using a Sony 1080 projector.
> 
> I suppose one option is to build my own screen and somehow mount it a bit from the wall? I did want to keep this simple, however, and lumbar certainly isn't cheap these days either. Maybe stretch some Spandex AT material over a cheaper metal frame?


A pretty easy solution is just to use some 2x4s on edge, screwed into the wall. You could finish these in a few different ways. You could get some quality lumber and stain or paint it to trim the outer edge. Or, you could wrap the 2x4s in some fabric. There's also just the option of painting the 2x4s but from the side it might just look like a painted 2x4.

My screen is stood off the wall like this and that was intentional as I wanted to add some bias lighting when I had the lights on. 

By doing this you'll get 3.5" from the 2x4 and then usually the screen will add at least .5" before the screen material is in place. Pretty simple solution. You will probably need to add some wood blocks to screw the mounting hardware into.


----------



## Mikesterz

Richard Berg said:


> What aspects of the PQ did you prefer?


Pretty much every aspect. Sharpness, color, and contrast. Obviously you’ll need a bright projector. The following is a low contrast, high brightness dlp projector that belongs to a friend of mine. The main screen is a seymour woven, the two test patterns on the left are white and gray vinyl and the far right is Harmony G2 woven with the lights turned on. You can tell the Harmony is still keeping its contrast.


----------



## elmalloc

clausdk said:


> Just tested 3 xy screens and they perform very well. Compared to my v7 the xyz soundmax 4k looks quite a bit brighter without any downsides. Left is soundmax 4k, middle soundmax 8k and right is perf. Xy screens can provide 285cm tall screens which I am considering for a 500cm wide imax+cih setup.
> 
> Once my nz9 arrives I will do another test with black backing on the samples to avoid added brightness. Someone kindly gave me this tip which is great to make as accurate comparisons as possibl


Jealous of nz9! I am not that rich!


----------



## pettso

Great thread and thanks for all the research, just went through all 22 pages of it. Unfortunately I think I'm stuck in a bit of a bind. I really want the gain of a MP screen (StudioTek 130 or Severtson CWMP) but would like a setup with an in-wall center behind a fixed screen. I'm currently leaning towards keeping the LR speakers on each side of the screen so they won't be impacted by it. But the distance between speaker and screen would likely be under 1". I'm leaning towards the Monolith THX-465IW speaker and can add some acoustic treatment around the speaker if that will help (how big of an area should I cover?).

As people have said, that's not recommended. Does anyone have a setup with a speaker immediately behind a MP screen? Does it cause perceivable issues with the quality of sound coming from that speaker (after EQ)? 

At this point I'm basically trying to trade off between:
1. Putting center below screen. 120" screen, non-matching LCR. No comb filtering.
2. Putting center ~1" behind MP screen. ~140" screen, matching LCR. 
3. Putting center ~1" behind woven screen. 130-140" screen with gain challenges, matching LCR. 

I don't think my NX5 with a 16' throw will be able to sufficiently illuminate a 130" woven screen. So I think my best bet would be option 2 as long as the center isn't totally compromised. I don't need studio-quality sound but I also want to make sure the center channel sounds better than if it were to be put below the screen.


----------



## nathan_h

130" woven screen should be doable. If you are worried, get the Seymour XD material which is about the highest gain woven screen around. (Still probably barely 1.0 in real world testing.)

That seems like a size many people have success with.


----------



## squared80

pettso said:


> I don't think my NX5 with a 16' throw will be able to sufficiently illuminate a 130" woven screen.


Nah, that'll be fine. Even to 135".


----------



## Enchy

pettso said:


> Great thread and thanks for all the research, just went through all 22 pages of it. Unfortunately I think I'm stuck in a bit of a bind. I really want the gain of a MP screen (StudioTek 130 or Severtson CWMP) but would like a setup with an in-wall center behind a fixed screen. I'm currently leaning towards keeping the LR speakers on each side of the screen so they won't be impacted by it. But the distance between speaker and screen would likely be under 1". I'm leaning towards the Monolith THX-465IW speaker and can add some acoustic treatment around the speaker if that will help (how big of an area should I cover?).
> 
> As people have said, that's not recommended. Does anyone have a setup with a speaker immediately behind a MP screen? Does it cause perceivable issues with the quality of sound coming from that speaker (after EQ)?
> 
> At this point I'm basically trying to trade off between:
> 1. Putting center below screen. 120" screen, non-matching LCR. No comb filtering.
> 2. Putting center ~1" behind MP screen. ~140" screen, matching LCR.
> 3. Putting center ~1" behind woven screen. 130-140" screen with gain challenges, matching LCR.
> 
> I don't think my NX5 with a 16' throw will be able to sufficiently illuminate a 130" woven screen. So I think my best bet would be option 2 as long as the center isn't totally compromised. I don't need studio-quality sound but I also want to make sure the center channel sounds better than if it were to be put below the screen.


To get a little extra space between the in wall and the screen, you can put 2x4s on the wall where you would mount the screen to bring it 1.75" further away from the speaker. That's what I did with my Silver Ticket WAB.

Aso for treatment, I'd cover the entire area behind the screen with foam. I used a mattress topper I picked up at Target. Here's my Monolith 365IWs with the 2x4s and foam.


----------



## pettso

Thanks for the quick replies everyone.



Enchy said:


> To get a little extra space between the in wall and the screen, you can put 2x4s on the wall where you would mount the screen to bring it 1.75" further away from the speaker. That's what I did with my Silver Ticket WAB.


Does an extra couple inches make a difference? I was reading through one of the papers linked earlier in this thread and there didn't seem to be a big difference between 2cm and 15cm away from the screen. I can definitely do something like your setup though. I was thinking of something very similar. Still trying to decide whether to keep the L and R channels behind the screen or beside the screen since I've got the space. Any recommendations on foam for behind the screen? 

I'll order a sample of the Seymour XD material as well, seems like that may be a good balance of image and audio quality. Once I get all the samples in, I'll see if I hear a noticeable difference between no screen, woven screen and MP screen when I cover the center channel with it. REW might pick up a big difference, but if my ears don't notice it I might go with the higher gain and well-placed center.


----------



## nathan_h

pettso said:


> Thanks for the quick replies everyone.
> Does an extra couple inches make a difference? I was reading through one of the papers linked earlier in this thread and there didn't seem to be a big difference between 2cm and 15cm away from the screen. I can definitely do something like your setup though. I was thinking of something very similar. Still trying to decide whether to keep the L and R channels behind the screen or beside the screen since I've got the space. Any recommendations on foam for behind the screen?


Personally, I would say the distance difference is relatively minor with the woven screens. Minor enough I wouldn't let it dictate my choice. 

Typically the go to choice for absorption behind a screen has been Linacoustic material. It's black, not too thick, and does a reasonable job of managing comb filtering.


----------



## platinum00

agree . I just did this and ended up a around 2-3 inches off the screen. I measured at 1, 2 , 4 ,8 and allthough there was a slight difference (.5-1db) after eq it is completely unnoticeable to my ear.


----------



## Mikesterz

pettso said:


> Thanks for the quick replies everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Does an extra couple inches make a difference? I was reading through one of the papers linked earlier in this thread and there didn't seem to be a big difference between 2cm and 15cm away from the screen. I can definitely do something like your setup though. I was thinking of something very similar. Still trying to decide whether to keep the L and R channels behind the screen or beside the screen since I've got the space. Any recommendations on foam for behind the screen?
> 
> I'll order a sample of the Seymour XD material as well, seems like that may be a good balance of image and audio quality. Once I get all the samples in, I'll see if I hear a noticeable difference between no screen, woven screen and MP screen when I cover the center channel with it. REW might pick up a big difference, but if my ears don't notice it I might go with the higher gain and well-placed center.


If you put all three behind screen you would be able to add front wide’s in the future.


----------



## Enchy

pettso said:


> Any recommendations on foam for behind the screen?


Like I mentioned I just did a 1.5" foam mattress topper. Gene from Audioholics did the same. You can buy purpose made acoustic foam as well but I didn't want to wait on shipping and saved a few bucks. I've seen foam from this place recommended highly. The Foam Factory, sound proofing deadening, acoustic insulation foams, echo elimination, home studio soundproofing foam,


----------



## amanfromearth

Enchy said:


> Like I mentioned I just did a 1.5" foam mattress topper. Gene from Audioholics did the same. You can buy purpose made acoustic foam as well but I didn't want to wait on shipping and saved a few bucks. I've seen foam from this place recommended highly. The Foam Factory, sound proofing deadening, acoustic insulation foams, echo elimination, home studio soundproofing foam,


Isn’t Owen Corning 703 cheaper and higher NRC over this foam?


----------



## Enchy

amanfromearth said:


> Isn’t Owen Corning 703 cheaper and higher NRC over this foam?


Owens Corning is around $150 delivered for a 6 pack for me. I've been unable to find 703 locally. A 48 pack of the 2" foam from Foam Factory is $80 delivered.


----------



## pettso

Sorry for derailing this discussion a bit. So one of the questions that still comes to mind is whether absorptive baffle wall can mostly eliminate the comb filtering for MP screens or just woven screens?

If I’m able to cover the entire wall with 1" or 1.5" material, would that make MP a reasonable option? I’m assuming a lot of the comb filtering is happening because sound is reflecting off the screen and then back off the wall.

I’m thinking about options if the woven screens I’m sampling aren’t bright enough. It’s a pretty big difference between the 0.85 gain of the Seymour XD (or lower for other woven screens) and the 1.1 gain Severtson CWMP.


----------



## scottyb

nathan_h said:


> Personally, I would say the distance difference is relatively minor with the woven screens. Minor enough I wouldn't let it dictate my choice.
> 
> Typically the go to choice for absorption behind a screen has been Linacoustic material. It's black, not too thick, and does a reasonable job of managing comb filtering.


So are you saying from one woven to another or from a woven to a perforated screen?

I'm debating on a micro-perf but have the same dilemma because my screen would be a couple of inches in front of my speakers!


----------



## nathan_h

amanfromearth said:


> Isn’t Owen Corning 703 cheaper and higher NRC over this foam?


Yes it is. But you will have to call some local hvac supply houses to find it. The big box hardware stores don’t carry it. 



pettso said:


> Sorry for derailing this discussion a bit. So one of the questions that still comes to mind is whether absorptive baffle wall can mostly eliminate the comb filtering for MP screens or just woven screens?
> 
> If I’m able to cover the entire wall with 1" or 1.5" material, would that make MP a reasonable option? I’m assuming a lot of the comb filtering is happening because sound is reflecting off the screen and then back off the wall.
> 
> I’m thinking about options if the woven screens I’m sampling aren’t bright enough. It’s a pretty big difference between the 0.85 gain of the Seymour XD (or lower for other woven screens) and the 1.1 gain Severtson CWMP.


Yes good acoustic treatment can help a lot. 

But also: Look at the report linked in the first post. MP may lose you 6 db of output. That’s like turning a 100 watt amp into a 25 watt amp in terms of output. 



scottyb said:


> So are you saying from one woven to another or from a woven to a perforated screen?
> 
> I'm debating on a micro-perf but have the same dilemma because my screen would be a couple of inches in front of my speakers!


Right I’m saying the differences between two different speaker placement distances on various good woven screens is relatively minor acoustically. It’s much more of a factor with perf screens (though Stewart has claimed their MP screens no longer require the distance their regular perf screens once did). Luckily we have test data linked in the first post by our host that shows what that actually means. 

—

Dont get me wrong, above a certain size (maybe 150”?) depending on projector output (below 3000 lumens?) and at a certain seating distance (maybe fifteen feet?) perf probably has enough advantages to make a lot of sense for “the hassle” of needing very high output high efficiency speakers (compression tweeters, for example), lots of amplification, and etc. 

Im personally on the fence about it for my next build.


----------



## Enchy

When I was testing materials all of the MP screens were ruled out because I could see the holes easily from my seating distance of 10'


----------



## rcohen

Enchy said:


> To get a little extra space between the in wall and the screen, you can put 2x4s on the wall where you would mount the screen to bring it 1.75" further away from the speaker. That's what I did with my Silver Ticket WAB.
> 
> Aso for treatment, I'd cover the entire area behind the screen with foam. I used a mattress topper I picked up at Target. Here's my Monolith 365IWs with the 2x4s and foam.
> 
> View attachment 3231406


You'd probably get a decent bump in image quality if you put some black speaker fabric (or similar) over that foam. It should improve contrast and sharpness (by reducing ghosting and bloom.) AT screens let some light through, especially woven ones.


----------



## Enchy

rcohen said:


> You'd probably get a decent bump in image quality if you put some black speaker fabric (or similar) over that foam. It should improve contrast and sharpness (by reducing ghosting and bloom.) AT screens let some light through, especially woven ones.


My screen has a black backing.


----------



## rcohen

Enchy said:


> My screen has a black backing.


In that case, never mind.


----------



## pettso

@PixelPusher15 would you be open to doing some audio measurements for a few screens to illustrate the impact of going from 4" down to 1"? Not sure if you still have your setup for easy measurements, but I would be very interested to see if there is continued degradation as you get your speakers even closer to the screen or not. Doing measurements for one woven, one MP, and one bonded screen is probably sufficient (at least for what I'd want to know). 

I also spent some more time comparing the frequency response charts and it seems like the dB loss doesn't change much between 4" and 12" spacing; it's primarily peaks and valleys that are introduced/exaggerated from the speaker being closer to the material. If that can be addressed reasonably well with an acoustically treated baffle wall, the distance between speakers and screen may not be as big of a deal as I'm thinking it is? Obviously, a ~5dB loss is still pretty substantial (looking at the ST130 MP and CWMP screens) but it can theoretically be handled with EQ.


----------



## Mikesterz

It’s difficult to justify MP screens. You’ll have to sit far away in order to not see the holes but then you lose the benefit of its superior sharpness at that distance. The only tangible MP benefit is the higher gain. If you have enough lumens in your projector then I would suggest woven.


----------



## ailil

Mikesterz said:


> It’s difficult to justify MP screens. You’ll have to sit far away in order to not see the holes but then you lose the benefit of its superior sharpness at that distance. The only tangible MP benefit is the higher gain. If you have enough lumens in your projector then I would suggest woven.


I guess it depends on the screen size. For smaller screens, the minimum distance of 12ft would be too far away, but for bigger screens, lets say 16 or 20 ft wide, depending on the screen format, 12ft would still be between 1.5 and 2 times the screen height and there would be plenty of room to enjoy the sharpness advantage, and no disadvantage


----------



## Mikesterz

ailil said:


> I guess it depends on the screen size. For smaller screens, the minimum distance of 12ft would be too far away, but for bigger screens, lets say 16 or 20 ft wide, depending on the screen format, 12ft would still be between 1.5 and 2 times the screen height and there would be plenty of room to enjoy the sharpness advantage, and no disadvantage


I don’t think screen size matters when it comes to how sharp a pixel is at 12’ from the screen.


----------



## nathan_h

Mikesterz said:


> I don’t think screen size matters when it comes to how sharp a pixel is at 12’ from the screen.


No but screen size tends to be directly proportional to field of view, and reference field of view is about 45%.....so screen size can 'dictate' distance if one is designing to reference.

That said, there is a lot of personal preference in what field of view people like, so one cannot assume the reference field of view is being adhered to, of course.


----------



## donivan

Mikesterz said:


> It’s difficult to justify MP screens. You’ll have to sit far away in order to not see the holes but then you lose the benefit of its superior sharpness at that distance. The only tangible MP benefit is the higher gain. If you have enough lumens in your projector then I would suggest woven.


I sat 9.5' from my CWMP 1.3 gain screen and definitely noticed the sharpness and increased brightness over my previous XD centerstage weave. The perforations were barely noticeable on bright scenes but they didn't bother me. I understand the acoustic impacts but after eq, subjectively I couldn't tell a difference. I'm sure there is a difference but in real world listening could I tell....I'm not sure? To me the biggest benefit is the brightness like you mention. At an 11.5" wide screen I needed all the gain I could get. I'm now looking at going 12' wide in my new theater and that screen will definitely be MP. People pay big money for brightness whether it's by using an anamorphic lens or a more expensive projector so gaining 33 to 67% in brightness over a woven screen could be the difference between a result that is not acceptable to a great picture. I agree that if your screen is on the smaller side you can get away with woven but the bigger you go the more a MP makes sense.


----------



## HendersonD

I am new to this discussion and am retrofitting my home theater right now. Thinking about going with a new JVC DLA-NP5 projector and a 110" diagonal StudioTek 130 G4 perforated screen. Screen is 11 feet from the seats but the center speaker (RSL CG25) will only be about 4 inches from the screen. The L&R speakers are not behind the screen, they are just to the left and right of the screen. The wall and ceiling behind the L, C, and R speakers is completely covered with 1" Linacoustic. Two questions

I looked at the graphs provided for this screen and there is some loss above about 8k. With my treatments and some EQ can I make this work with a 4" distance between speaker and screen?
At my seating distance, will the perforations be noticeable while watching movies?


----------



## Enchy

HendersonD said:


> I am new to this discussion and am retrofitting my home theater right now. Thinking about going with a new JVC DLA-NP5 projector and a 110" diagonal StudioTek 130 G4 perforated screen. Screen is 11 feet from the seats but the center speaker (RSL CG25) will only be about 4 inches from the screen. The L&R speakers are not behind the screen, they are just to the left and right of the screen. The wall and ceiling behind the L, C, and R speakers is completely covered with 1" Linacoustic. Two questions
> 
> I looked at the graphs provided for this screen and there is some loss above about 8k. With my treatments and some EQ can I make this work with a 4" distance between speaker and screen?
> At my seating distance, will the perforations be noticeable while watching movies?


For the first bullet, EQ might be able to handle it, but bear in mind that correcting a 5db loss requires a lot more power to the tweeter and risks blowing it. The CG25 at 11' can play to about 99 db within its rated power. Behind a screen, that 99db output will be more like 95db. With a +5db correction on the tweeter, trying to play above 95db will go over the power handling of the tweeter and risks blowing it. If you listen at moderate levels you're fine, just need to be careful.

You might notice perforations. I'd recommend getting a sample first. The two MP screens I tested I could see perforations at 10 feet.


----------



## pettso

HendersonD said:


> I am new to this discussion and am retrofitting my home theater right now. Thinking about going with a new JVC DLA-NP5 projector and a 110" diagonal StudioTek 130 G4 perforated screen. Screen is 11 feet from the seats but the center speaker (RSL CG25) will only be about 4 inches from the screen. The L&R speakers are not behind the screen, they are just to the left and right of the screen. The wall and ceiling behind the L, C, and R speakers is completely covered with 1" Linacoustic. Two questions
> 
> I looked at the graphs provided for this screen and there is some loss above about 8k. With my treatments and some EQ can I make this work with a 4" distance between speaker and screen?
> At my seating distance, will the perforations be noticeable while watching movies?


Given the relatively small screen size, why are you leaning towards the ST130 screen? I doubt you’ll need the gain to light up that screen with the JVC NP5. As Enchy said, I would order some samples from various screen options and compare in your space.


----------



## pettso

Quick question on baffle wall acoustic material, would 1/2" Linacoustic RC be sufficient to eliminate most of the comb filtering? I'm going to try to get at least 1" since that will probably help with overall room acoustics more and getting some more space between speakers and screen might help as well. But in the event that I can't mount the fixed screen further out from the wall, would the 1/2" be a decent compromise?


----------



## rcohen

pettso said:


> Quick question on baffle wall acoustic material, would 1/2" Linacoustic RC be sufficient to eliminate most of the comb filtering? I'm going to try to get at least 1" since that will probably help with overall room acoustics more and getting some more space between speakers and screen might help as well. But in the event that I can't mount the fixed screen further out from the wall, would the 1/2" be a decent compromise?
> 
> View attachment 3238905


There are two areas where comb filtering are a concern:
1) SBIR between the speaker front baffle and the back wall.
2) SBIR between the speaker front baffle and the back of a microperf screen. (Not much of an issue for weave screens.)

For #1, the answer is absorption and keeping the speakers close to the wall.
For #2, increasing the distance between speaker and screen seems to mostly eliminate the problem. At least 18" is best. 

Starting at 1/4 wavelength, you will get cancellation.
So, on the back wall, you want to absorb that frequency and higher.
Placing the speaker closer to the wall raises that frequency and makes it easier to absorb.

This is a nice article explaining SBIR.








Speaker Placement 101: Is Speaker-Boundary Interference Killing Your Bass?


Not hearing enough bass through your monitors? The distance between your room boundaries and speakers has a huge impact on your bass performance. This tutorial will show you specific strategies for placing your speakers to get a balanced bass response.



arqen.com





This is an easy calculator you can use to find the 1/4 wavelength frequency.








RealTraps - Frequency/Distance Calculator






realtraps.com


----------



## pettso

I'm primarily interested in #2. I'll have in-wall speakers so there shouldn't be any SBIR between the speakers and the wall. There will be SBIR between the speaker front and screen (still haven't decided between woven and micro-perf), and since I don't have a false wall I can't place the speakers further back. I can maybe move the fixed screen up 1-2" but that's about it.

Since it's all higher frequency interference, I expect that being able to absorb the reflections from the screen before they reflect off the wall and head towards the listener again will solve most of that problem. And since the gap between speakers and screen will be small (and from looking at the charts in the original post), most of the SBIR is in the 6kHz+ range so a 0.5-1" thick absorptive pad should be effective?


----------



## nathan_h

I would shoot for 1.5" for a margin of error/safety if you can.


----------



## rcohen

pettso said:


> I'm primarily interested in #2. I'll have in-wall speakers so there shouldn't be any SBIR between the speakers and the wall. There will be SBIR between the speaker front and screen (still haven't decided between woven and micro-perf), and since I don't have a false wall I can't place the speakers further back. I can maybe move the fixed screen up 1-2" but that's about it.
> 
> Since it's all higher frequency interference, I expect that being able to absorb the reflections from the screen before they reflect off the wall and head towards the listener again will solve most of that problem. And since the gap between speakers and screen will be small (and from looking at the charts in the original post), most of the SBIR is in the 6kHz+ range so a 0.5-1" thick absorptive pad should be effective?


At 1" distance, SBIR starts at 3.4khz.
At 2" distance, SBIR starts at 1.7khz.

It looks like your thin absorption should highly effective for those frequencies.
Perhaps try 1/2" absorption right on the speaker baffle, like Triad does for their baffle wall speakers.
If you don't place absorption on the speaker baffle, the wall absorption will only help for category #1.


----------



## pettso

That's a good point actually, I was thinking of just doing the wall around the speakers but not the speakers themselves.

Enchy had shared this picture earlier:









But I could add some more precisely cut pads on to the speakers themselves. Not sure how wide the reflections will go from the screen. Would this be a good idea or am I more likely to screw up the speakers? Before/after below:


----------



## rcohen

pettso said:


> That's a good point actually, I was thinking of just doing the wall around the speakers but not the speakers themselves.
> 
> Enchy had shared this picture earlier:
> View attachment 3239021
> 
> 
> But I could add some more precisely cut pads on to the speakers themselves. Not sure how wide the reflections will go from the screen. Would this be a good idea or am I more likely to screw up the speakers? Before/after below:
> 
> View attachment 3239020
> View attachment 3239019


Behind an AT screen, dark is good.


----------



## flyers10

So if I was planning to sit about 7.5 from a screen and the speakers 1" from the screen , which model is best to go with?


----------



## donivan

flyers10 said:


> So if I was planning to sit about 7.5 from a screen and the speakers 1" from the screen , which model is best to go with?


Your going to want a weave screen that’s smooth. Checkout the notes from pixelpusher at 8 feet.


----------



## scottyb

Seymour AV UF material 


flyers10 said:


> So if I was planning to sit about 7.5 from a screen and the speakers 1" from the screen , which model is best to go with?


----------



## nathan_h

flyers10 said:


> So if I was planning to sit about 7.5 from a screen and the speakers 1" from the screen , which model is best to go with?


No one can tell you that for sure. But you can narrow the choices and get samples of the best candidates. I wouldn't trust anyone else's eyes on this matter especially in a different room with a different projector and a different screen in a different size projected from a different distance and viewed from their seating location -- both angle and distance -- rather than mine.

Id choose to get samples of the ones with the least visible texture in the 8 foot category here, perhaps focused on those that fit my budget.

The author has shared his data:









Acoustically Transparent Screen Material Report - v2


Texture Texture,8',10',13.5' Carls Nano Acoustic FlexiGrey,Lots of shimmer/sparkle ,Lots of shimmer/sparkle ,Lots of shimmer/sparkle Carls Nano White,Perforations are visible; slight sheen visible,Perforations are barely noticeable; grain and sheen apparent,Perforations turned to grain; sheen p...




docs.google.com


----------



## Hawks07

scottyb said:


> Seymour AV UF material


Or the Dreamscreen V7 at that distance. Brighter and smoother than the UF.


----------



## Enchy

flyers10 said:


> So if I was planning to sit about 7.5 from a screen and the speakers 1" from the screen , which model is best to go with?


Definitely get a bunch of samples and project the brightest image your projector can do on them. I have the Silver Ticket WAB and I can see the weave on bright white scenes at 10'.


----------



## Cugolfer33

Would be nice to set a standard size and get price for each material (or price per ft). Then rank them on what's best quality for your money. I can do spandex for $80 or projector screens quoted me 7000 for size I need. Ridiculous difference in price. 

Im looking for 16:9 in DIY material with wood frame. 169" width x 95" height. Wondering what would work best for me. Listening area will be 17'-20' from screen.


----------



## rcohen

Cugolfer33 said:


> Would be nice to set a standard size and get price for each material (or price per ft). Then rank them on what's best quality for your money. I can do spandex for $80 or projector screens quoted me 7000 for size I need. Ridiculous difference in price.
> 
> Im looking for 16:9 in DIY material with wood frame. 169" width x 95" height. Wondering what would work best for me. Listening area will be 17'-20' from screen.


Most of the manufacturers don't sell the material separately. Seymour does. For that far from the screen, check out XD.





Seymour AV | Center Stage screens


Seymour AV is the premier manufacturer of acoustically transparent home theater projection screens in the world, maintaining the highest standards in projection screen innovation, design and craftsmanship




seymourav.com


----------



## PixelPusher15

Cugolfer33 said:


> Would be nice to set a standard size and get price for each material (or price per ft). Then rank them on what's best quality for your money. I can do spandex for $80 or projector screens quoted me 7000 for size I need. Ridiculous difference in price.
> 
> Im looking for 16:9 in DIY material with wood frame. 169" width x 95" height. Wondering what would work best for me. Listening area will be 17'-20' from screen.


I agree with @rcohen, Seymour XD seems like the obvious pick here for that distance.


----------



## donivan

Cugolfer33 said:


> Would be nice to set a standard size and get price for each material (or price per ft). Then rank them on what's best quality for your money. I can do spandex for $80 or projector screens quoted me 7000 for size I need. Ridiculous difference in price.
> 
> Im looking for 16:9 in DIY material with wood frame. 169" width x 95" height. Wondering what would work best for me. Listening area will be 17'-20' from screen.


That’s a big screen and I would get all the gain I could get. As mentioned you can get Seymour XD but for much more brightness I would go Severtson CW 1.3 gain which you can also buy just the material. I’ve built DIY screens using both materials. Are you going AT?


----------



## nathan_h

Good point. With that size screen you need lots of gain, even for SDR.


----------



## Cugolfer33

donivan said:


> Severtson CW 1.3 gain


Im not sure which CW exactly as they all show 1.3 gain. I see a 60" max height for seamless that would be obvious no go for my setup. Am I reading this right?


----------



## donivan

Cugolfer33 said:


> Im not sure which CW exactly as they all show 1.3 gain. I see a 60" max height for seamless that would be obvious no go for my setup. Am I reading this right?








Severtson Screens Cinema White







severtsonscreens.com





They have a 106” wide roll as well. You can get micro perf, standard perf or no perf.


----------



## graticular

Following on from the advice to install sound behind at AT screen, I have a question.

Currently I have a16:9 100" wide screen, with left and right speakers behind the screen. I will be installing a scope screen, width 136". I am not moving the speakers as I also have 2 wides which take 50% of their input from the left and right speakers (Lyngdorf MP-50 function) so the width of the sound is quite wide. My question is do I need to install the sound absorption in the wide areas currently outside the 16:9 screen (which is a little difficult) or just within the confines of the 100 inch screen?
Any thoughts would be very welcome.


----------



## nathan_h

graticular said:


> Following on from the advice to install sound behind at AT screen, I have a question.
> 
> Currently I have a16:9 100" wide screen, with left and right speakers behind the screen. I will be installing a scope screen, width 136". I am not moving the speakers as I also have 2 wides which take 50% of their input from the left and right speakers (Lyngdorf MP-50 function) so the width of the sound is quite wide. My question is do I need to install the sound absorption in the wide areas currently outside the 16:9 screen (which is a little difficult) or just within the confines of the 100 inch screen?
> Any thoughts would be very welcome.


You may want to take the question to the acoustic treatments threads/section of the forum.

Acoustical Treatments Master Thread

Or, even better, create a dedicate thread about your theater, with photos to illustrate what you mean:









Dedicated Theater Design & Construction


Dedicated Theater construction ideas and design talk. From start to finish of your dedicated theater.




www.avsforum.com





But in general, you want sound absorption in the whole area behind the screen since that helps reduce comb filtering where sound bounces back toward the speakers from the screen and then bounces back toward the listener.


----------



## ARROW-AV

Here is my Quick Brown Fox test pattern projected onto DreamScreen UltraWeave V6 material by a Christie Eclipse (The World's Best Video Display):


----------



## graticular

Thanks for the links, I suspect that within the 669 pages of the of the acoustic treatments thread may lie my answers. I am up to page 3 so far!


----------



## PixelPusher15

ARROW-AV said:


> Here is my Quick Brown Fox test pattern projected onto DreamScreen UltraWeave V6 material by a Christie Eclipse (The World's Best Video Display):


Can you do one with a ST100 sample for a comparative measurement?


----------



## nathan_h

graticular said:


> Thanks for the links, I suspect that within the 669 pages of the of the acoustic treatments thread may lie my answers. I am up to page 3 so far!


If you enjoy reading the thread from the start, that's great -- though I caution you that it is a rabbit hole. If you have that kind of interest, there are better ways to get educated.

I referred you to the thread since it is the right place to ask your question (versus this thread which is specifically about something else).


----------



## PixelPusher15

ARROW-AV said:


> Here is my Quick Brown Fox test pattern projected onto DreamScreen UltraWeave V6 material by a Christie Eclipse (The World's Best Video Display):


Here, I'll post my most recent comparison that I took a month ago when this came up. This is taken with my JVC X790 and I'm only using a green-black pattern to rule out convergence issues.


----------



## Don Stewart

PixelPusher15 said:


> Here, I'll post my most recent comparison that I took a month ago when this came up. This is taken with my JVC X790 and I'm only using a green-black pattern to rule out convergence issues.
> View attachment 3262429
> 
> 
> View attachment 3262431


Yep, good idea to test in monochrome to eliminate any projector convergence issues.That said, what is the pixel resolution of your test pattern? You can observe quite a bit of diagonal pixel aliasing on the "X" text.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Don Stewart said:


> Yep, good idea to test in monochrome to eliminate any projector convergence issues.That said, what is the pixel resolution of your test pattern? You can observe quite a bit of diagonal pixel aliasing on the "X" text.


Yeah, it's not the best pattern. I'm using Guy Kuo's app and there's a slight chance I didn't have it full screen here. He also might have 4K patterns in there that are being downsized to 1080p. I took the photos a month ago.

Not the best of patterns but for comparative sake, the differences can still be seen.


----------



## hokeyplyr48

Question for folks who’ve bought the XY screen. I reached out to them and got kind of a surprising response. First off, the person said they had never heard of a scope screen and weren’t sure what that was. That’s kind of surprising and to me seems like a very common description, given the business they’re in, but maybe it just doesn’t translate well?

Also, part of my request was whether I could purchase just the fabric itself (for cost savings) and they were reluctant to do so and said they sell it as a package deal. I’m handy and could easily build my own frame, but am curious of the price difference and if others have bought their frame or built their own/used a different one.


----------



## Alan Rogozin

Given the results in the testing, everything seems like a major compromise at an 8' viewing distance. Are there any good choices? Seemed like all the screens that wouldn't show the weave from that distance caused the sharpness to plummet. Only slight exception were the results for XY that seemed strange and inconsistent. Am I missing something?


----------



## PixelPusher15

hokeyplyr48 said:


> Question for folks who’ve bought the XY screen. I reached out to them and got kind of a surprising response. First off, the person said they had never heard of a scope screen and weren’t sure what that was. That’s kind of surprising and to me seems like a very common description, given the business they’re in, but maybe it just doesn’t translate well?
> 
> Also, part of my request was whether I could purchase just the fabric itself (for cost savings) and they were reluctant to do so and said they sell it as a package deal. I’m handy and could easily build my own frame, but am curious of the price difference and if others have bought their frame or built their own/used a different one.


You said "scope" not something like "2.35:1"? If so I wonder if it didn't translate.

I bought the material only and I know a couple others that did as well. When I contacted them well before I did this test they seemed to have no issue with selling the material only. Maybe they were just trying to upsell you? Who'd you talk to? Gloria?


----------



## PixelPusher15

Alan Rogozin said:


> Given the results in the testing, everything seems like a major compromise at an 8' viewing distance. Are there any good choices? Seemed like all the screens that wouldn't show the weave from that distance caused the sharpness to plummet. Only slight exception were the results for XY that seemed strange and inconsistent. Am I missing something?


There's quite a few that will work at 8'. Pretty much all the woven screens effect sharpness to some degree. I found that the coated screens do better with sharpness but typically add texture. This makes sense when you think about it. The fibers aren't exposed, they're covered. On the non-coated woven screens the fibers are open. My running theory is that light penetrates the fibers and scatters, slightly blurring the image. The weave on screens like the XY 4K and 8K, and also the Elite AcousticPro UHD is very tight. They are less prone to show texture yet are still coated. This is why I believe they are sharper with fewer consequences.


----------



## hokeyplyr48

PixelPusher15 said:


> You said "scope" not something like "2.35:1"? If so I wonder if it didn't translate.
> 
> I bought the material only and I know a couple others that did as well. When I contacted them well before I did this test they seemed to have no issue with selling the material only. Maybe they were just trying to upsell you? Who'd you talk to? Gloria?


I spoke with Wendy and yep, I said scope and gave dimensions but no aspect ratio. I clarified on my second email and they seemed to understand. Just seemed, odd.

The price difference between frame and no frame was pretty drastic, and given I do woodworking, it’ll be easy to whip up a frame and save several hundred dollars.


----------



## PixelPusher15

hokeyplyr48 said:


> I spoke with Wendy and yep, I said scope and gave dimensions but no aspect ratio. I clarified on my second email and they seemed to understand. Just seemed, odd.
> 
> The price difference between frame and no frame was pretty drastic, and given I do woodworking, it’ll be easy to whip up a frame and save several hundred dollars.


If you build it yourself (which I did too) make sure you give the material a really good stretch during installation. I apparently didn't do that on one side, even though I thought I did, and I have a little bit of waviness developing.


----------



## hokeyplyr48

Are there any specifics to stretching? I’ll admit I’m new to all this, but can you stretch in every dimension or only in one way? I know some are particular


----------



## PixelPusher15

hokeyplyr48 said:


> Are there any specifics to stretching? I’ll admit I’m new to all this, but can you stretch in every dimension or only in one way? I know some are particular


Start in the middle of each edge and then alternate stapling while working toward the corners. I actually use thumb tacks since it makes it easy to readjust if you didn't stretch enough and it holds just as well. Although, your thumb will be sore lol. 








From here: Build Your Own Projector Screen: Stretch & Staple


----------



## hokeyplyr48

Fantastic. You beat me to my follow up question as to whether you stapled or asked them to add grommets, etc. Thank you!

I saw one post from yours a while back regarding having trouble folding over the XY fabric since it was so stiff. Any tips or tricks? I don’t want to damage the fabric if it’s too stiff/rigid and won’t wrap. Otherwise I can take a round over bit to the edge to make it less sharp of an edge which may be easier to fold.


----------



## PixelPusher15

hokeyplyr48 said:


> Fantastic. You beat me to my follow up question as to whether you stapled or asked them to add grommets, etc. Thank you!
> 
> I saw one post from yours a while back regarding having trouble folding over the XY fabric since it was so stiff. Any tips or tricks? I don’t want to damage the fabric if it’s too stiff/rigid and won’t wrap. Otherwise I can take a round over bit to the edge to make it less sharp of an edge which may be easier to fold.


I had quarter round on my frame and that was a pretty sharp edge. I'm not sure why but that sharp edge made it crease when folding over. Adding a .75" board around the whole screen made that a non-issue. I then added a felt border to cover up the added screen area by that 0.75" wood border. 

Just make sure you either have a black backing or that the area behind the screen is nice and black (including the frame). I don't need a black backing since it's so dark behind my screen.


----------



## hokeyplyr48

PixelPusher15 said:


> I had quarter round on my frame and that was a pretty sharp edge. I'm not sure why but that sharp edge made it crease when folding over. Adding a .75" board around the whole screen made that a non-issue. I then added a felt border to cover up the added screen area by that 0.75" wood border.
> 
> Just make sure you either have a black backing or that the area behind the screen is nice and black (including the frame). I don't need a black backing since it's so dark behind my screen.


I’m having trouble picturing your setup with the 1/4 round or the additional .75 board. Do you have a sketch or picture by chance?

To confirm, the quarter round had the rounded side on the outside edge and that was still too sharp? Assuming because of the very top of the quarter round? I was envisioning taking a round over but around the edge which wouldn’t leave a sharp edge, like you get with the 1/4 round, but would blend seamlessly in with the frame so it’s more of a gradual edge.


----------



## PixelPusher15

hokeyplyr48 said:


> I’m having trouble picturing your setup with the 1/4 round or the additional .75 board. Do you have a sketch or picture by chance?
> 
> To confirm, the quarter round had the rounded side on the outside edge and that was still too sharp? Assuming because of the very top of the quarter round? I was envisioning taking a round over but around the edge which wouldn’t leave a sharp edge, like you get with the 1/4 round, but would blend seamlessly in with the frame so it’s more of a gradual edge.











I converted my spandex screen to a vinyl coated woven...


Thought I'd share my experience on how I converted my spandex screen to an XY Screens SoundMax 4K screen and wrapped it. It was kinda tricky and in case others run into the same issues I thought this could help. Reason I moved on from spandex? Wanted a higher gain so I could use the manual...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Nexgen76

Sound like I need to order XY SoundMax 8K Screen.........I wonder if I can get that screen replaced with an Elite Aeon white thin-bezel screen 135 16x9. @PixelPusher15


----------



## Tristan Stoker

I am ordering most of my HT gear today and have a quick question regarding all the findings and feedback. Should I go with a Soundmax 8k or StudioTek 100? I'm pairing this screen with an NZ7, have a light controlled room, and do not currently have a frame.


----------



## KensingtonPark

I have never seen the Soundmax, but I absolutely love my StudioTek 130. Can't see the perfs at even 9 feet. Sounds fantastic even with the screen only 5 inches from the speaker. And I will have a JVC just like you (eventually - who knows when these things will get delivered?). FWIW


----------



## PixelPusher15

Tristan Stoker said:


> I am ordering most of my HT gear today and have a quick question regarding all the findings and feedback. Should I go with a Soundmax 8k or StudioTek 100? I'm pairing this screen with an NZ7, have a light controlled room, and do not currently have a frame.


Order samples. 😊 

Those are two very different screens that require different considerations. Do you have the space behind the screen for the micro perfs? You really need 12". You also need to see if the perforations will be distracting at your seating distance. 

What size screen are you planning on using?


----------



## Tristan Stoker

KensingtonPark said:


> I have never seen the Soundmax, but I absolutely love my StudioTek 130. Can't see the perfs at even 9 feet. Sounds fantastic even with the screen only 5 inches from the speaker. And I will have a JVC just like you (eventually - who knows when these things will get delivered?). FWIW


Awesome thanks for sharing. Just spoke with my dealer and getting a quote on the Stewart.


----------



## Tristan Stoker

PixelPusher15 said:


> Order samples. 😊
> 
> Those are two very different screens that require different considerations. Do you have the space behind the screen for the micro perfs? You really need 12". You also need to see if the perforations will be distracting at your seating distance.
> 
> What size screen are you planning on using?


110inch 16:9. I do have depth to work with so if I need to give an 8 inch gap for my in-wall speakers to breath I can do so.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Tristan Stoker said:


> 110inch 16:9. I do have depth to work with so if I need to give an 8 inch gap for my in-wall speakers to breath I can do so.


Forgot to ask, what's your seating distance looking like?


----------



## KensingtonPark

Tristan Stoker said:


> 110inch 16:9. I do have depth to work with so if I need to give an 8 inch gap for my in-wall speakers to breath I can do so.


Are you just putting the center behind this screen or all three LCR? Those will be pretty close together. I had the same challenge in mine (120" screen), and when I built the frame to give me space, I ended up needing to build out a box for my L/R.


----------



## nathan_h

Tristan Stoker said:


> 110inch 16:9


Thats a nice size screen, but you don't need the gain of a microperf screen at that size. A woven screen would likely be less acoustically challenging, especially if you only have 8" of space behind the screen.


----------



## KensingtonPark

nathan_h said:


> Thats a nice size screen, but you don't need the gain of a microperf screen at that size. A woven screen would likely be less acoustically challenging, especially if you only have 8" of space behind the screen.


Agree here if you’re putting all three behind this screen. My experience is that you really don’t need that much space behind a microperf if you’re only putting one behind it.


----------



## nathan_h

KensingtonPark said:


> Agree here if you’re putting all three behind this screen. My experience is that you really don’t need that much space behind a microperf if you’re only putting one behind it.


The measurments linked in the first post show a signifance difference for a single speaker behind a perf screen when going from a few inches to a couple feet of space.


----------



## KensingtonPark

nathan_h said:


> The measurments linked in the first post show a signifance difference for a single speaker behind a perf screen when going from a few inches to a couple feet of space.


Yes, I saw those. I suppose it may measure that way in the test, but I can’t really hear any meaningful distortion when there is only one and I have sufficiently sound protected the wall. (See my home theater for reference) I was able to jack up the tweeter and it worked great.


----------



## squared80

nathan_h said:


> The measurments linked in the first post show a signifance difference for a single speaker behind a perf screen when going from a few inches to a couple feet of space.


12" between a microperf and the front of the speaker is ideal, if possible. Keep in mind that many speakers need some space behind them, too. I have rear-ported Klipsch RF-7 III's, and I have about 42" behind my screen for them.


----------



## nathan_h

Ports are important for some speakers, especially if one isn't running bass management. 

Otherwise, usually the port is significantly below the crossover, and very little comes out of it. 

For example, with those Klipsch speakers, IIRC, the port tuning is below 40 hz. So if you have a 80hz crossover in your AVR, the audio coming out of the port is more than 24db lower than at 80hz.....so almost non existent in what reaches ones ears.


----------



## Tristan Stoker

PixelPusher15 said:


> Forgot to ask, what's your seating distance looking like?


14 feet


PixelPusher15 said:


> Forgot to ask, what's your seating distance looking like?


Should


nathan_h said:


> Thats a nice size screen, but you don't need the gain of a microperf screen at that size. A woven screen would likely be less acoustically challenging, especially if you only have 8" of space behind the screen.


Thats for sharing that. I had a few people point me towards perf options only but if its less impactful at that size, it certainly opens up some options. So I could push the screen out further if needed. How do people typically execute this? Just DIY something that properly supports the screen 12 or so inches from the wall, or are there kits?


----------



## scottdvm

Tristan Stoker said:


> 14 feet
> 
> 
> Should
> 
> 
> Thats for sharing that. I had a few people point me towards perf options only but if its less impactful at that size, it certainly opens up some options. So I could push the screen out further if needed. How do people typically execute this? Just DIY something that properly supports the screen 12 or so inches from the wall, or are there kits?


Might want to give this a look.








Minimalist Approach to Screen Wall


From time to time I've seen builds posted where the screen wall looks like a load bearing wall, so last week when I had mine apart for carpet installation I took a couple of pics to document my approach which is minimal and considering I intend to join the 2:35 club at some point easy to modify...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## nathan_h

Tristan Stoker said:


> 14 feet
> 
> 
> Should
> 
> 
> Thats for sharing that. I had a few people point me towards perf options only but if its less impactful at that size, it certainly opens up some options. So I could push the screen out further if needed. How do people typically execute this? Just DIY something that properly supports the screen 12 or so inches from the wall, or are there kits?


@scottdvm has a good link. But rather than try work around the issues with a microperf screen, I’d suggest you take a step back. Why are you getting one? Usually people get microperf because a woven screen doesn’t have enough gain. But at the size of your screen, gain should not be an issue. And a woven screen needs only an inch or three of clearance, and will sound better, as well.


----------



## graticular

"Just make sure you either have a black backing or that the area behind the screen is nice and black (including the frame). I don't need a black backing since it's so dark behind my screen."

@PixelPusher15 do you think the black backing needs to be close to the screen fabric (or attached as for the V7) or whether it can just be loose? If you need black backing for the XY what do you think would be the best approach?


----------



## PixelPusher15

graticular said:


> "Just make sure you either have a black backing or that the area behind the screen is nice and black (including the frame). I don't need a black backing since it's so dark behind my screen."
> 
> @PixelPusher15 do you think the black backing needs to be close to the screen fabric (or attached as for the V7) or whether it can just be loose? If you need black backing for the XY what do you think would be the best approach?


I'd put the black backing right up against the screen material. That's how all of my tests were performed and I believe how most screens are sold.


----------



## graticular

PixelPusher15 said:


> I'd put the black backing right up against the screen material. That's how all of my tests were performed and I believe how most screens are sold.


Thanks - any idea how that might work for the frame supplied by XY with the 4K held in place by spring tensioned rods?


----------



## PixelPusher15

graticular said:


> Thanks - any idea how that might work for the frame supplied by XY with the 4K held in place by spring tensioned rods?


I'd ask them. I'm not sure of their frame construction but I do know they offer a black backing so I'm guessing they have a solution.


----------



## graticular

PixelPusher15 said:


> I'd ask them. I'm not sure of their frame construction but I do know they offer a black backing so I'm guessing they have a solution.


Will email Gloria. I couldn't find any reference to the black backing but will see what they say.


----------



## scottdvm

graticular said:


> Will email Gloria. I couldn't find any reference to the black backing but will see what they say.


They sent me their black backing by mistake; I also blacked out everything behind the main screen so didn't actually need it. It came with the same rods and spring hooks as the main screen, so hooking it up to their frame should work exactly the same. It looks like it would be pretty much flush against the back of the main screen. I can easily blow air through it, so I assume it's fairly AT.


----------



## PixelPusher15

scottdvm said:


> They sent me their black backing by mistake; I also blacked out everything behind the main screen so didn't actually need it. It came with the same rods and spring hooks as the main screen, so hooking it up to their frame should work exactly the same. It looks like it would be pretty much flush against the back of the main screen. I can easily blow air through it, so I assume it's fairly AT.


It is. I tested a handful of black backings including this one and by themselves, they barely impacted acoustics at all. It's the combined impact that matters though and those graphs and data are in my tests if @graticular is interested in them.


----------



## graticular

PixelPusher15 said:


> It is. I tested a handful of black backings including this one and by themselves, they barely impacted acoustics at all. It's the combined impact that matters though and those graphs and data are in my tests if @graticular is interested in them.


I have spend a few happy hours reading through all your data - many thanks @PixelPusher15, it has been crucial in my decision making on screens.


----------



## kungfuman

PixelPusher15 said:


> Oh, I forgot to also mention that all of the contrast measurements were done with the manufacturer's black backing. But I also did one without the black backing for the XY 4K material.
> 
> *Material**Black**White**Contrast (With Backing)**Black**White**Contrast (Without Backing)*XY Screens Sound Max 4K0.1990.1474:10.21391.4429:1


hi @PixelPusher15 , i have just received an fixed frame xy screen with the soundmax but only just seen some posts about the black backing so wondering if this is something i need. the back of my screen is painted black and the speakers are dark also. i have been using a Seymour XD for a couple of years and can't say i've noticed any poor effects of not having a black backing. in your tests, the one without the backing, what was behind that? light colored surface or something dark? also, apart from the slight 10% increase in contrast, did you see any negatives without the backing, such as blooming, loss of sharpness?


----------



## reed_wright

PixelPusher15 said:


> In the end I used the photo captures and my own eyes to establish an OK/Good/Better/Best rating. Here is a representation of what each category looks like:


Love what you’ve done in this report. Soundmax 4K is definitely my front runner at this point.

Would it be possible to come up with an approximate viewing angle at which the sharpness of the step-up category becomes perceptible? Eg at a 50°+ viewing angle I could distinguish “best” from “better.”

I imagine that would be hard to do with small sample pieces of the material. Also not sure it works that way. But if it works the same way it does with resolution generally, ie that for 20/20 vision, increased resolution is only perceptible at high enough viewing angles, it would be useful to attach some kind of reference point to the ok/good/better/best categories.

Or more subjectively, maybe you have an offhand guess as to which categories are perceptible in ordinary viewing? Like if you had a blind panel watching ordinary content (not observing test patterns), do you think they would be able to distinguish better from best, for example at 8’, 10’, and 13.5’? Or good from better?


----------



## PixelPusher15

reed_wright said:


> Love what you’ve done in this report. Soundmax 4K is definitely my front runner at this point.
> 
> Would it be possible to come up with an approximate viewing angle at which the sharpness of the step-up category becomes perceptible? Eg at a 50°+ viewing angle I could distinguish “best” from “better.”
> 
> I imagine that would be hard to do with small sample pieces of the material. Also not sure it works that way. But if it works the same way it does with resolution generally, ie that for 20/20 vision, increased resolution is only perceptible at high enough viewing angles, it would be useful to attach some kind of reference point to the ok/good/better/best categories.
> 
> Or more subjectively, maybe you have an offhand guess as to which categories are perceptible in ordinary viewing? Like if you had a blind panel watching ordinary content (not observing test patterns), do you think they would be able to distinguish better from best, for example at 8’, 10’, and 13.5’? Or good from better?


That's a really good suggestion and I wish I would have done it when I had all the samples out. In this context and at this time I can really only speak to when I compared the DreamScreen UltraWeave V7 vs the SoundMax 4K at full screen sizes. The v7 I rated as "OK" and the SoundMax 4K as "Better", so a two tier difference. At my seating distance of 11' to a 123" screen I could tell the difference in sharpness, but just barely. My wife could too. She has slightly worse vision than I do with glasses on. I'd say the difference between "OK" and "Good" would be hard to tell from most seating distances. Going from "Good" to "Better" might be a bit more noticeable but still probably hard to tell. Although, my inclination is that the jump from "Better" to "Best" would be noticeable. 

It is going to come down FOV so I hope my 44 degree FOV can be extrapolated for you. I hope this is helpful


----------



## Hawks07

kungfuman said:


> hi @PixelPusher15 , i have just received an fixed frame xy screen with the soundmax but only just seen some posts about the black backing so wondering if this is something i need. the back of my screen is painted black and the speakers are dark also. i have been using a Seymour XD for a couple of years and can't say i've noticed any poor effects of not having a black backing. in your tests, the one without the backing, what was behind that? light colored surface or something dark? also, apart from the slight 10% increase in contrast, did you see any negatives without the backing, such as blooming, loss of sharpness?


If it is black behind your screen then you don’t need the black backing. 
I use my XY screen without it and there are no negatives.


----------



## reed_wright

PixelPusher15 said:


> That's a really good suggestion and I wish I would have done it when I had all the samples out. In this context and at this time I can really only speak to when I compared the DreamScreen UltraWeave V7 vs the SoundMax 4K at full screen sizes. The v7 I rated as "OK" and the SoundMax 4K as "Better", so a two tier difference. At my seating distance of 11' to a 123" screen I could tell the difference in sharpness, but just barely. My wife could too. She has slightly worse vision than I do with glasses on. I'd say the difference between "OK" and "Good" would be hard to tell from most seating distances. Going from "Good" to "Better" might be a bit more noticeable but still probably hard to tell. Although, my inclination is that the jump from "Better" to "Best" would be noticeable.
> 
> It is going to come down FOV so I hope my 44 degree FOV can be extrapolated for you. I hope this is helpful


This is very helpful. The v7 to 4k comparison puts things in perspective for me. Thank you very much for sharing this report and for all the work that went into it.


----------



## hokeyplyr48

If you add the black backing, just to be safe, are there any tangible downsides? I was planning on adding the black spandex. I compared the data that PixelPusher had with the backing / without and it’s pretty negligible. Contrast seems to improve. Would it drastically decrease brightness?


----------



## PixelPusher15

hokeyplyr48 said:


> If you add the black backing, just to be safe, are there any tangible downsides? I was planning on adding the black spandex. I compared the data that PixelPusher had with the backing / without and it’s pretty negligible. Contrast seems to improve. Would it drastically decrease brightness?


I actually did a few tests to see how much a black backing would reduce brightness in my setup and it was rather negligible. If you see a larger reduction than this then I'd say it is more an indication of how much you _need_ a black backing. 

Material​w/o BBw/ BBSevertson SAT-4K82.181.6Silver Ticket Acoustic WAB86.686.3Silver Ticket Acoustic WVS82.882.7Stewart Harmony G280.379.9XY Screens Sound Max 4K96.696.7XY Screens Sound Max 8K83.883.6


----------



## flyers10

@PixelPusher15 if were looking at the Seymour UF, Screen Excellence Neo and Stewart Harmony G2, what would you pick?


----------



## Hawks07

flyers10 said:


> @PixelPusher15 if were looking at the Seymour UF, Screen Excellence Neo and Stewart Harmony G2, what would you pick?


Have you also considered the XY screen? What is your seating distance?


----------



## flyers10

Hawks07 said:


> Have you also considered the XY screen? What is your seating distance?


7 feet 4 inches

I was emailing them and they said needed 150mm (6 inches) from screen to speakers. I can only do 1 to 2 inches. When asked how far need to sit from screen to not see weave they couldn't give me an answer; just said it depends on screen size. Seemed odd as other brands have that info. Also $65 for a sample seemed high.


----------



## Hawks07

flyers10 said:


> 7 feet 4 inches
> 
> I was emailing them and they said needed 150mm (6 inches) from screen to speakers. I can only do 1 to 2 inches. When asked how far need to sit from screen to not see weave they couldn't give me an answer; just said it depends on screen size. Seemed odd as other brands have that info. Also $65 for a sample seemed high.


That price is high for a sample, I think I paid $30. 
Too bad I still don’t have mine, I sent it to another member. 
I would have to check my XY screen from that distance but I am sure you could see some weave. 
Also, is there any way you could just install the screen on some 2x4s attached to the wall to give you more distance?


----------



## flyers10

Hawks07 said:


> That price is high for a sample, I think I paid $30.
> Too bad I still don’t have mine, I sent it to another member.
> I would have to check my XY screen from that distance but I am sure you could see some weave.
> Also, is there any way you could just install the screen on some 2x4s attached to the wall to give you more distance?


Doing a false wall with bookshelf speakers. I might have 1 inch extra to spare, that's about it. Small room.


----------



## squared80

Weaves are much more forgiving, generally. It's the microperfs that can cause the issues if the speakers don't have 12" (ideally) of space.


----------



## scottdvm

flyers10 said:


> 7 feet 4 inches
> 
> I was emailing them and they said needed 150mm (6 inches) from screen to speakers. I can only do 1 to 2 inches. When asked how far need to sit from screen to not see weave they couldn't give me an answer; just said it depends on screen size. Seemed odd as other brands have that info. Also $65 for a sample seemed high.


I have the Soundmax 4K and I can just start to see the weave at 7'; it's very noticeable at 6'. If you're eyes are sharper than mine (highly likely), 7'4" might be pushing it.

For what it's worth, my speakers are 2" from the screen and sound fine.


----------



## Tristan Stoker

So I ordered my Stewart screen and was looking for a way to get a 35cm gap. Saw this on youtube and it looks like they are using some type of shelf bracket. I haven't received my screen yet but I am wondering what they had to do to make that work.


----------



## nathan_h

There is a great thread about minimal screen walls you can check out. Minimalist Approach to Screen Wall


----------



## geoff2802

Hey Andy, 
Thanks for preparing and sharing this excellent body of knowledge. 
Re: “I had a bit of trouble with this screen at first. I couldn’t find an orientation without visible moire. I eventually emailed XY Screens and they helped correct the orientation, which eliminated the moire.”
I’m ordering some material from XY and wondering what orientation you ended up using? 
My projector is a Sony 4K. Sscreen width with be roughly 3.3 metres with a 2.39 aspect ratio. Throw will be roughly 5.2 metres and seating distance roughly 3.2 metres from screen. 
I plan to go with the 8K fabric (noting your comment is specific to the 4K). 
Thanks in advance,
Geoff.


----------



## PixelPusher15

geoff2802 said:


> Hey Andy,
> Thanks for preparing and sharing this excellent body of knowledge.
> Re: “I had a bit of trouble with this screen at first. I couldn’t find an orientation without visible moire. I eventually emailed XY Screens and they helped correct the orientation, which eliminated the moire.”
> I’m ordering some material from XY and wondering what orientation you ended up using?
> My projector is a Sony 4K. Sscreen width with be roughly 3.3 metres with a 2.39 aspect ratio. Throw will be roughly 5.2 metres and seating distance roughly 3.2 metres from screen.
> I plan to go with the 8K fabric (noting your comment is specific to the 4K).
> Thanks in advance,
> Geoff.


That's a wide screen. Which Sony? I'd be a bit concerned about brightness with the 8K unless you're using a DCR lens.

This was the image XY Screens sent me to help with orientation for the 4K screen. I've seen this comment I made about orientation has been brought up a few times here and elsewhere. I think it's important to note that this is really just a concern with the sample orientation. When they send the screen it will be a bit more obvious since the screen is cut to size and doesn't need to be rotated for use.


----------



## geoff2802

Hey Andy,
It’s the VW270: VPL-VW270ES 4K Home Cinema Projector - 4K SXRD - Sony Pro

Not a very bright projector, although I have full control of the ambient light in the room - no windows and a single solid door. 
Do you think brightness will be a problem?


----------



## PixelPusher15

geoff2802 said:


> Hey Andy,
> It’s the VW270: VPL-VW270ES 4K Home Cinema Projector - 4K SXRD - Sony Pro
> 
> Not a very bright projector, although I have full control of the ambient light in the room - no windows and a single solid door.
> Do you think brightness will be a problem?


I for sure think it could be a problem. I guess it depends on how bright you like it. That Sony looks to only put out around 1300 lumens in its brighter settings, and that's with a fresh bulb. 1300 lumens on a 150" 16x9 screen (the net of a 3.3m scope screen without a lens) will result in a peak brightness of 13.8fL. Most consider 16fL the standard for SDR, while a lot of people want at least 22fL for HDR. Even the SoundMax 4K screen will be pressed for light at 15.77 fL. As I said, it depends on your tastes. Some like a dimmer image but I'd say most like even more than 16fL nowadays based on what I've seen.


----------



## nathan_h

geoff2802 said:


> Hey Andy,
> It’s the VW270: VPL-VW270ES 4K Home Cinema Projector - 4K SXRD - Sony Pro
> 
> Not a very bright projector, although I have full control of the ambient light in the room - no windows and a single solid door.
> Do you think brightness will be a problem?





PixelPusher15 said:


> I for sure think it could be a problem. I guess it depends on how bright you like it. That Sony looks to only put out around 1300 lumens in its brighter settings, and that's with a fresh bulb. 1300 lumens on a 150" 16x9 screen (the net of a 3.3m scope screen without a lens) will result in a peak brightness of 13.8fL. Most consider 16fL the standard for SDR, while a lot of people want at least 22fL for HDR. Even the SoundMax 4K screen will be pressed for light at 15.77 fL. As I said, it depends on your tastes. Some like a dimmer image but I'd say most like even more than 16fL nowadays based on what I've seen.


Yes that will be a disappointing projector for that screen size. Brand new, it won't even reach the specification for normal theater brightness for traditional SDR (ie, 1080p HDTV) content. And projectors just get more dim over time. That is, the brightest it will ever be is when the lamp is brand new and you are running it in the highest power mode. And, even then, it won't meet the required brightness for a correct movie experience.

TLDR, it will look just okay with HD, and only when the bulb is brand new and you are using the highest power mode that is the most noisy and burns out the bulb the most quickly.

---

And if you are interested in 4k content, so called UHD, with the wider color gamut and high dynamic range, you will not be able to do anything useful with 4k content on such a system.

---

Getting a higher gain screen can help a little, but unless you choose to sacrifice audio (either through a high gain microperf screen OR by using a solid high gain screen and putting the speakers around the screen and not behind the screen), you will not get close to what you need on a screen that large with that projector.

There are two solutions:

1). A smaller screen. This is the easy and cheap and highest quality solution. Just sit a little closer and it will LOOK just as large.
2). A higher output projector. This either means a lower quality projector at the same price OR a higher priced projector. (Or a middle ground choice like the Epson laser units.)


----------



## KensingtonPark

Tristan Stoker said:


> So I ordered my Stewart screen and was looking for a way to get a 35cm gap. Saw this on youtube and it looks like they are using some type of shelf bracket. I haven't received my screen yet but I am wondering what they had to do to make that work.
> View attachment 3280236


Could you send me a link to that? I ended up doing something similar but definitely more homemade. U can see the link to my home theater below. I also used a Stewart.


----------



## geoff2802

Thanks Andy. That rules out the XY 8K. The XY 4K might be ok. 
I see there are several fabrics with higher gain and, unsurprisingly, they affect the audio more. 
I’m planning to have a small gap of 4 - 6” between the speakers and screen, so micro perf is probably out. The wall behind the screen is a dark colour, so I won’t use a backing material. 
I’m not after a really bright image. Alternative fabric suggestions are very welcome. Must be DIY friendly. Cheers


----------



## nathan_h

geoff2802 said:


> Thanks Andy. That rules out the XY 8K. The XY 4K might be ok.
> I see there are several fabrics with higher gain and, unsurprisingly, they affect the audio more.
> I’m planning to have a small gap of 4 - 6” between the speakers and screen, so micro perf is probably out. The wall behind the screen is a dark colour, so I won’t use a backing material.
> I’m not after a really bright image. Alternative fabric suggestions are very welcome. Must be DIY friendly. Cheers


There is no fabric that will get you what you need. I wish there was. I would use it, too.


----------



## hokeyplyr48

Probably a dumb question, but for the XY 4k screen, is there a front side / back side? Or does it not matter? Given my previous mishaps with spandex, I'm questioning every step of the way to ensure I'm doing it right.


----------



## scottdvm

hokeyplyr48 said:


> Probably a dumb question, but for the XY 4k screen, is there a front side / back side?


Yes, and it's marked which is which.


----------



## geoff2802

nathan_h said:


> There is no fabric that will get you what you need. I wish there was. I would use it, too.


Yes. It’s just a matter of finding a compromise. I can project a smaller image as I’ll be sitting fairly close (around 3.2m from screen).


----------



## hokeyplyr48

scottdvm said:


> Yes, and it's marked which is which.


What does this marking look like and where is it? I have it completely unrolled on my floor and there are no markings anywhere. I have only lifted up the sides on either side partially and haven't flipped it completely over, so unless it's marked dead center on the fabric, I'm not seeing a mark anywhere?


----------



## Tristan Stoker

KensingtonPark said:


> Could you send me a link to that? I ended up doing something similar but definitely more homemade. U can see the link to my home theater below. I also used a Stewart.


Go to 8:20. I think they just wing nutted the project support bar to the end of those two brackets. They inverted the same brackets for the bottom left/right corners and likely wing nutted the magnets. I think I am going to do the exact same thing when my screen comes in.


----------



## scottdvm

hokeyplyr48 said:


> What does this marking look like and where is it? I have it completely unrolled on my floor and there are no markings anywhere. I have only lifted up the sides on either side partially and haven't flipped it completely over, so unless it's marked dead center on the fabric, I'm not seeing a mark anywhere?


Mine had a sticker at the edge that said "this side toward front" or something like that. I'm pretty sure when I unrolled it that the outside of the roll (so the side that would be facing down towards the floor when you unroll it) was the front.


----------



## kdawg2391044

Has anyone put the XY Sound Max 4k fabric over a custom wood frame such as the ones that are shown in the DIY Spandex threads? I got quotes for fabric + their thin bezel frame ($800 shipped to US for 16:9 120" which isnt bad) and just fabric ($300 shipped) and I could save quite a bit of money doing the DIY frame. It looks like they use a rod along the fabric and springs to add tension evenly along the edges but I dont have a reference for where these points would have to be on the DIY frame to stretch/add the correct amount of tension.


----------



## scottdvm

kdawg2391044 said:


> Has anyone put the XY Sound Max 4k fabric over a custom wood frame such as the ones that are shown in the DIY Spandex threads? I got quotes for fabric + their thin bezel frame ($800 shipped to US for 16:9 120" which isnt bad) and just fabric ($300 shipped) and I could save quite a bit of money doing the DIY frame. It looks like they use a rod along the fabric and springs to add tension evenly along the edges but I dont have a reference for where these points would have to be on the DIY frame to stretch/add the correct amount of tension.


This might be what you're looking for.








I converted my spandex screen to a vinyl coated woven...


Thought I'd share my experience on how I converted my spandex screen to an XY Screens SoundMax 4K screen and wrapped it. It was kinda tricky and in case others run into the same issues I thought this could help. Reason I moved on from spandex? Wanted a higher gain so I could use the manual...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## hokeyplyr48

Yea I’ve got it all laid out on the floor now and am planning on doing like the post above. Going to use thumb tacks to secure it to the wooden frame. Hoping it goes as well as PixelPusher’s.


----------



## hokeyplyr48

I emailed Wendy at XY screens and she confirmed via a photo I took which side is which. @scottdvm you were correct in that the side that faces outward when it’s rolled up, meaning the side facing my carpet is the projection side. Essentially how they described it, the side that feels rough, not smooth, is the projected side.

here’s the picture I sent and what she annotated and sent back:








Same image, but with flash on:










My question to the group now is how tight should I stretch the black spandex as the backing layer? I’ve read in some places to stretch fairly tightly to minimize acoustic impact, others say just enough to mitigate any wrinkles. I loathe attaching this stuff to the frame, so I only want to do it once.


----------



## PixelPusher15

hokeyplyr48 said:


> I emailed Wendy at XY screens and she confirmed via a photo I took which side is which. @scottdvm you were correct in that the side that faces outward when it’s rolled up, meaning the side facing my carpet is the projection side. Essentially how they described it, the side that feels rough, not smooth, is the projected side.
> 
> here’s the picture I sent and what she annotated and sent back:
> View attachment 3282501
> 
> Same image, but with flash on:
> View attachment 3282502
> 
> 
> 
> My question to the group now is how tight should I stretch the black spandex as the backing layer? I’ve read in some places to stretch fairly tightly to minimize acoustic impact, others say just enough to mitigate any wrinkles. I loathe attaching this stuff to the frame, so I only want to do it once.


Give that spandex a good stretch. Don’t go crazy so it damages the fabric but you want a good stretch on the backing.


----------



## geoff2802

I've ordered the 4K fabric from XY. They cut and shipped in a single day. Now in the hands of Fedex. 
Gloria has been very responsive and helpful throughout - I recommend emailing her at the address Andy provided if you have any questions or interest in their products. Price was reasonable and consistent with other posts here. 
I'm making a timber frame. Will share impressions when I have it up and running.


----------



## hokeyplyr48

Black spandex applied. Hoping to install the Soundmax 4K over the weekend over top.


----------



## graticular

graticular said:


> Will email Gloria. I couldn't find any reference to the black backing but will see what they say.


The screen duly arrived, Gloria being super-helpful. I'm delighted with the screen and the image is super sharp, the only slight negative is the black backing (which Gloria was rather apologetic about). It is very stretchy and attached to the back of the Ultra-thin bezel frame using velcro, so it is very loose and flapping, and sits away from the screen fabric.
Incidentally I am now selling my Seymour XD 100" screen so if anyone in the UK is interested please pm me.


----------



## scottyb

Grat 

How far behind the screen on your speakers?


----------



## graticular

scottyb said:


> Grat
> 
> How far behind the screen on your speakers?


About 3-4 inches


----------



## geoff2802

The XY 4K fabric arrived and I see that it is very light-weight and it looks a bit delicate. 
Does anyone have experience stapling this fabric to a timber frame? 
Any tips would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## graticular

geoff2802 said:


> The XY 4K fabric arrived and I see that it is very light-weight and it looks a bit delicate.
> Does anyone have experience stapling this fabric to a timber frame?
> Any tips would be greatly appreciated.


Mine came with the frame, but when putting it all together the fabric seemed pretty robust. Even with the frame and rather good suspension system with rods it was difficult to get stretched properly. I thick you need low expectations in terms of avoiding wrinkles.
There seem to be various strategies. The one with the frame was to fit one or 2 springs in the centre of each side, then 4 in each corner, then fill in the gaps, and then undo the corners and re-stretch at the end. At all times keeping things balanced across sides. There are some XY videos showing this. This may well be the best method.
Earlier I covered my room with 4ftx2ft wooden frames covered with black velvet using staples. Here I used a slightly different pattern, just starting in the centre of each side and working out to the corners which were done last. Throughout keeping it balanced and always pulling hard diagonally away from the centre. of the screen. However the velvet was much easier as there is some stretch, unlike the XY 4K.
I think you should be prepared to to constantly adjust, and be prepared to remove and replace lots of staples, and pull hard. The fabric will need supporting in the centre as you go so it starts flat.
Hope these thoughts help.


----------



## PixelPusher15

geoff2802 said:


> The XY 4K fabric arrived and I see that it is very light-weight and it looks a bit delicate.
> Does anyone have experience stapling this fabric to a timber frame?
> Any tips would be greatly appreciated.


I attached mine to a wood frame with thumb tacks so it could be adjusted as I moved vs staples which are a pain to pull out once in. I wouldn't consider the material delicate IMO. It's pretty stiff and actually kinda difficult to pull taught. I agree with @graticular, be prepared to adjust as you go.


----------



## hokeyplyr48

Also a vote for it being stiff and not delicate. It didn’t really stretch much, but I did pull it to get al the wrinkles out which took a fair bit of effort.


----------



## graticular

graticular said:


> The screen duly arrived, Gloria being super-helpful. I'm delighted with the screen and the image is super sharp, the only slight negative is the black backing (which Gloria was rather apologetic about). It is very stretchy and attached to the back of the Ultra-thin bezel frame using velcro, so it is very loose and flapping, and sits away from the screen fabric.
> Incidentally I am now selling my Seymour XD 100" screen so if anyone in the UK is interested please pm me.


Further to the above I have now found that the loose black backing can be resolved to a large extent using 2 sided 2 inch sticky tape in between the velcro strips. This seems to work well.


----------



## geoff2802

graticular said:


> Mine came with the frame, but when putting it all together the fabric seemed pretty robust. Even with the frame and rather good suspension system with rods it was difficult to get stretched properly. I thick you need low expectations in terms of avoiding wrinkles.
> There seem to be various strategies. The one with the frame was to fit one or 2 springs in the centre of each side, then 4 in each corner, then fill in the gaps, and then undo the corners and re-stretch at the end. At all times keeping things balanced across sides. There are some XY videos showing this. This may well be the best method.
> Earlier I covered my room with 4ftx2ft wooden frames covered with black velvet using staples. Here I used a slightly different pattern, just starting in the centre of each side and working out to the corners which were done last. Throughout keeping it balanced and always pulling hard diagonally away from the centre. of the screen. However the velvet was much easier as there is some stretch, unlike the XY 4K.
> I think you should be prepared to to constantly adjust, and be prepared to remove and replace lots of staples, and pull hard. The fabric will need supporting in the centre as you go so it starts flat.
> Hope these thoughts help.





PixelPusher15 said:


> I attached mine to a wood frame with thumb tacks so it could be adjusted as I moved vs staples which are a pain to pull out once in. I wouldn't consider the material delicate IMO. It's pretty stiff and actually kinda difficult to pull taught. I agree with @graticular, be prepared to adjust as you go.





hokeyplyr48 said:


> Also a vote for it being stiff and not delicate. It didn’t really stretch much, but I did pull it to get al the wrinkles out which took a fair bit of effort.


You’re are right about the fabric. Once laid out on a clean sheet on the floor, I can see it’s pretty tough. Thanks for the tips and I’ll have a go at securing it to the frame today.


----------



## geoff2802

The result….
XY 4K fabric fixed to the timber 3.4 x 1.5m timber frame I made. I used the technique of working from centre of the edges outwards to corners, which worked well. High effort required to tension the fabric adequately, as you guys pointed out. 
PixelPusher, I concur with your recommendation on this screen fabric. Impressive PQ with my Sony VW270 pj and the combination is plenty bright enough In my room.


----------



## graticular

Looks good - well done!


----------



## Krbass

Has anyone ever used white spandex behind a microperf to help hide any of the perforations? I am looking at a Severtson CWMP, I need the gain for my NX7 to light up a 150" 16:9 image.


----------



## hokeyplyr48

Nicely done! I’ve had mine done for weeks but no way to test it as JVC said my projector was defective and it needed to be replaced…and they won’t have stock until July or August


----------



## Hawks07

hokeyplyr48 said:


> Nicely done! I’ve had mine done for weeks but no way to test it as JVC said my projector was defective and it needed to be replaced…and they won’t have stock until July or August


That stinks. It will be worth the wait however. I am pairing my NZ8 with the XY and it looks fantastic.


----------



## hokeyplyr48

Hawks07 said:


> That stinks. It will be worth the wait however. I am pairing my NZ8 with the XY and it looks fantastic.


That’s good to hear as that’ll be my exact combination. I’ve also got the DCR to squeeze out a few more lumens.


----------



## nathan_h

Krbass said:


> Has anyone ever used white spandex behind a microperf to help hide any of the perforations? I am looking at a Severtson CWMP, I need the gain for my NX7 to light up a 150" 16:9 image.


Most people can’t see the perfs from more than ten feet away, and few people sit that close to a 150” screen. Are you sure it’s a problem?


----------



## Krbass

nathan_h said:


> Most people can’t see the perfs from more than ten feet away, and few people sit that close to a 150” screen. Are you sure it’s a problem?


I will prob be ok, eyes in first row should be at 12'


----------



## nathan_h

Krbass said:


> I will prob be ok, eyes in first row should be at 12'


I would guess that works. You can test it yourself with a free sample from Severtson. They ship pretty quickly. Everyone's eyes are different, so what works for you might not work for me, and vice versa. 

You could retrofit later if needed but hopefully you can either determine it is fine or is it not fine via a test before purchase, so you don't need to look into that.


----------



## geoff2802

hokeyplyr48 said:


> Nicely done! I’ve had mine done for weeks but no way to test it as JVC said my projector was defective and it needed to be replaced…and they won’t have stock until July or August


Very frustrating. 
I think you're likely to enjoy the combination.


----------



## b_scott

thanks for all this! I am wondering since I have a milliskin white on black spandex DIY screen - since it's like .7, if I did upgrade to a higher gain material if that would be detrimental in a fully blacked out basement, and show the black bars a lot more prominently? overall giving the blacks a more grey appearance? I am mostly only looking at other material because I have an Epson 5040 and trying to do 3D but it's so dim...

I supposed I could recal my regular viewing, but then would have a higher gain to work with solely for 3D


----------



## flyers10

b_scott said:


> thanks for all this! I am wondering since I have a milliskin white on black spandex DIY screen - since it's like .7, if I did upgrade to a higher gain material if that would be detrimental in a fully blacked out basement, and show the black bars a lot more prominently? overall giving the blacks a more grey appearance? I am mostly only looking at other material because I have an Epson 5040 and trying to do 3D but it's so dim...
> 
> I supposed I could recal my regular viewing, but then would have a higher gain to work with solely for 3D


Many use in a blacked out room the Stewart Studiotek 130 G4 which has one of the higher gains for an AT screen. You'll be fine. May need to consider viewing distance though so don't see the perf holes.


----------



## b_scott

flyers10 said:


> Many use in a blacked out room the Stewart Studiotek 130 G4 which has one of the higher gains for an AT screen. You'll be fine. May need to consider viewing distance though so don't see the perf holes.


Thanks.

A) would the higher gain risk greying out my blacks?
B) can I get it as material or do I need to buy a pre-made screen? My screen now is 133" and I sit about 11' back.


----------



## Schurter

Carl's flex white m/p is not available anymore


----------



## PixelPusher15

b_scott said:


> Thanks.
> 
> A) would the higher gain risk greying out my blacks?
> B) can I get it as material or do I need to buy a pre-made screen? My screen now is 133" and I sit about 11' back.


If your room is treated with low reflectivity dark materials and has no ambient light then the on screen contrast will stay the same, it will just shift upward in brightness. Your 5040 has a manual iris that you can adjust to bring things back down and actually increase contrast. When I made the change from a grey 0.5 gain screen to a 0.8 gain screen I actually targeted the same nit level (70nits) but with the 0.8 gain screen, I was able to hit it with a 30% increase in contrast by using the iris. 

What material are you considering?


----------



## b_scott

PixelPusher15 said:


> If your room is treated with low reflectivity dark materials and has no ambient light then the on screen contrast will stay the same, it will just shift upward in brightness. Your 5040 has a manual iris that you can adjust to bring things back down and actually increase contrast. When I made the change from a grey 0.5 gain screen to a 0.8 gain screen I actually targeted the same nit level (70nits) but with the 0.8 gain screen, I was able to hit it with a 30% increase in contrast by using the iris.
> 
> What material are you considering?


Thank you. I would be looking at something likely woven, maybe perf (though my kids sit at like 5 feet sometimes so perf might be bad) that has better gain then spandex but won't kill my blacks. I am coming from Spandex which cost me $120 so I'm not really looking to spend 20x that, especially since I already built the frame I just need fabric. In white most likely. I already use my iris.


----------



## PixelPusher15

b_scott said:


> Thank you. I would be looking at something likely woven, maybe perf (though my kids sit at like 5 feet sometimes so perf might be bad) that has better gain then spandex but won't kill my blacks. I am coming from Spandex which cost me $120 so I'm not really looking to spend 20x that, especially since I already built the frame I just need fabric.


XY Screens SoundMax 4K, just the material should do it for you. Shouldn't be too costly and you can attach it to your existing frame. I wouldn't use perforated at 11' anyway, the perforations are visible to me.


----------



## b_scott

PixelPusher15 said:


> XY Screens SoundMax 4K, just the material should do it for you. Shouldn't be too costly and you can attach it to your existing frame. I wouldn't use perforated at 11' anyway, the perforations are visible to me.


Thank you!!


----------



## b_scott

PixelPusher15 said:


> XY Screens SoundMax 4K, just the material should do it for you. Shouldn't be too costly and you can attach it to your existing frame. I wouldn't use perforated at 11' anyway, the perforations are visible to me.


Sorry, further questions on this. so right now I have white on black, milliskin spandex. If I got this material would I just remove all that and stretch/staple only this fabric with no backing?


----------



## PixelPusher15

b_scott said:


> Sorry, further questions on this. so right now I have white on black, milliskin spandex. If I got this material would I just remove all that and stretch/staple only this fabric with no backing?


Depends. If the area behind your screen is black and matte then you'd be most likely fine without a backing. That's what I've got. If you have anything less than that then use a black backing. A single well-stretched layer of black milliskin would work well. XY also sells black backing.


----------



## b_scott

PixelPusher15 said:


> Depends. If the area behind your screen is black and matte then you'd be most likely fine without a backing. That's what I've got. If you have anything less than that then use a black backing. A single well-stretched layer of black milliskin would work well. XY also sells black backing.


Thanks! I would just leave my black milliskin attached then.

this XY stuff is kinda hard to figure pricing on or how to order certain sizes. It's from Asia and it's not intuitive...


----------



## hokeyplyr48

Yea you just have to email them the size you want and they come back with a quote. I ordered a 146”x67” (fabric only) and it was $430 shipped.


----------



## b_scott

hokeyplyr48 said:


> Yea you just have to email them the size you want and they come back with a quote. I ordered a 146”x67” (fabric only) and it was $430 shipped.


Thanks! Mine's about 133" so that sounds close to what I'd need. Are you satisfied with it?


----------



## Schurter

@PixelPusher15

Your thoughts on the xy 4k screen and jvc x950

I understand a higher gain screen is a better option,
My room is black out ,light control 
140inch 2.39 screen, I have carls flex white screen now and very happy the hdr scene the bright scene I close my eyes, kinda thing, so going from a .9g to .8g screen. 

I need my speakers in the 4" space or closer . 

I am about 13ft from the screen, 

I have a sample of the Silverton mp. Would there be any others your recommend


----------



## hokeyplyr48

b_scott said:


> Thanks! Mine's about 133" so that sounds close to what I'd need. Are you satisfied with it?


No clue  still waiting on my replacement NZ8. Mounted and hung this while I’ve been waiting. So I just sit here daily looking at it…


----------



## diablo900t

I've been investigating an acoustic transparent screen, and came across this thread. Right now I an NZ7 paired with a motorized 125" 16:9 Elite Screens Tab Tension Cinewhite UHD-B screen (1.3 gain), with an OLED on the wall for gaming. My room is about 19x17, and I'm looking at going to a larger scope screen, but also don't want a significantly smaller 16:9 image. My speakers are HDI 3800 towers and an HDI 4500 center. The tweeter of the towers is 40" from the floor, and the center is 24". My center is also angled up maybe 25-30 degrees on a platform.

I'm trying to weight the tradeoffs...moving to acoustic transparent means I'd either have to build a false wall (at least 2 feet deep), and replace the center with a tower, or mount the screen on the wall and use an in-wall center. The wall the screen is on is an exterior wall, so I'm not even sure an in-wall would work. This would bring my seat distance to about 9 feet, maybe a little closer. I also would be losing a lot of brightness, and have to run the projector in high laser all the time (which is noticeably louder). The only way to combat this would be to also buy an anamorphic lens to make up for all the brightness loss in lower gain screens.

I guess my question to this group...is the improvement for having a matched center that big of a game changer vs. the better image quality / bigger screen?


----------



## PixelPusher15

diablo900t said:


> I've been investigating an acoustic transparent screen, and came across this thread. Right now I an NZ7 paired with a motorized 125" 16:9 Elite Screens Tab Tension Cinewhite UHD-B screen (1.3 gain), with an OLED on the wall for gaming. My room is about 19x17, and I'm looking at going to a larger scope screen, but also don't want a significantly smaller 16:9 image. My speakers are HDI 3800 towers and an HDI 4500 center. The tweeter of the towers is 40" from the floor, and the center is 24". My center is also angled up maybe 25-30 degrees on a platform.
> 
> I'm trying to weight the tradeoffs...moving to acoustic transparent means I'd either have to build a false wall (at least 2 feet deep), and replace the center with a tower, or mount the screen on the wall and use an in-wall center. The wall the screen is on is an exterior wall, so I'm not even sure an in-wall would work. This would bring my seat distance to about 9 feet, maybe a little closer. I also would be losing a lot of brightness, and have to run the projector in high laser all the time (which is noticeably louder). The only way to combat this would be to also buy an anamorphic lens to make up for all the brightness loss in lower gain screens.
> 
> I guess my question to this group...is the improvement for having a matched center that big of a game changer vs. the better image quality / bigger screen?


The bigger improvement, to me, is having the speaker behind the screen. Assuming your center seat is your main seat then I don't think there will be a huge gain from the center to the tower.

How are your DIY skills? For a couple hundred bucks you can probably build a spandex screen for your desired size and then experiment with how you like it. Its gain will likely be in the 0.65-0.7 range so less than some other options but if you like the size and brightness then you'll know the other options will work even better.


----------



## Enchy

diablo900t said:


> The wall the screen is on is an exterior wall, so I'm not even sure an in-wall would work.


I have in-walls on an exterior wall with 0 issues.

As to your other question, that depends on your priorities. If you're already using an OLED for some things and a JVC PJ for others, it seems that PQ is probably your highest concern. In that case I'd not make any compromises in PQ. I'm using a JVC rs640 with a .7 gain screen at 14' throw distance running on low lamp and I don't feel like I'm lacking brightness, but everyone's preference is different. I went from a unity gain screen to the .7 gain screen and was happy to take the brightness hit to add the immersion of having my speakers behind the screen, but not everyone would be happy to do that.


----------



## diablo900t

PixelPusher15 said:


> The bigger improvement, to me, is having the speaker behind the screen. Assuming your center seat is your main seat then I don't think there will be a huge gain from the center to the tower.
> 
> How are your DIY skills? For a couple hundred bucks you can probably build a spandex screen for your desired size and then experiment with how you like it. Its gain will likely be in the 0.65-0.7 range so less than some other options but if you like the size and brightness then you'll know the other options will work even better.


Correct, main seat is dead center.

My DIY skills are pretty limited  which is why a project like this is a bit of a costly endeavor too.

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk


----------



## diablo900t

Enchy said:


> I have in-walls on an exterior wall with 0 issues.
> 
> As to your other question, that depends on your priorities. If you're already using an OLED for some things and a JVC PJ for others, it seems that PQ is probably your highest concern. In that case I'd not make any compromises in PQ. I'm using a JVC rs640 with a .7 gain screen at 14' throw distance running on low lamp and I don't feel like I'm lacking brightness, but everyone's preference is different. I went from a unity gain screen to the .7 gain screen and was happy to take the brightness hit to add the immersion of having my speakers behind the screen, but not everyone would be happy to do that.


That's good to hear about the in wall. That's much easier to consider as a solution, but the gain is still the big question mark.

I use the OLED mostly for gaming, but occasional TV shows. 

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk


----------



## Technology3456

PixelPusher15 said:


> The bigger improvement, to me, is having the speaker behind the screen. Assuming your center seat is your main seat then I don't think there will be a huge gain from the center to the tower.


Does this mean your center seat is _not_ your main seat, or?


----------



## scottyb

diablo900t said:


> I've been investigating an acoustic transparent screen, and came across this thread. Right now I an NZ7 paired with a motorized 125" 16:9 Elite Screens Tab Tension Cinewhite UHD-B screen (1.3 gain), with an OLED on the wall for gaming. My room is about 19x17, and I'm looking at going to a larger scope screen, but also don't want a significantly smaller 16:9 image. My speakers are HDI 3800 towers and an HDI 4500 center. The tweeter of the towers is 40" from the floor, and the center is 24". My center is also angled up maybe 25-30 degrees on a platform.
> 
> I'm trying to weight the tradeoffs...moving to acoustic transparent means I'd either have to build a false wall (at least 2 feet deep), and replace the center with a tower, or mount the screen on the wall and use an in-wall center. The wall the screen is on is an exterior wall, so I'm not even sure an in-wall would work. This would bring my seat distance to about 9 feet, maybe a little closer. I also would be losing a lot of brightness, and have to run the projector in high laser all the time (which is noticeably louder). The only way to combat this would be to also buy an anamorphic lens to make up for all the brightness loss in lower gain screens.
> 
> I guess my question to this group...is the improvement for having a matched center that big of a game changer vs. the better image quality / bigger screen?


Getting an Acoustically Transparent screen is the biggest improvement we've made in our HT and we have had a front projection for at least 15 years, probably longer.


----------



## KensingtonPark

scottyb said:


> Getting an Acoustically Transparent screen is the biggest improvement we've made in our HT and we have had a front projection for at least 15 years, probably longer.


I totally agree. I even made compromises (screen distance from speaker is a little tight for a microperf) and I could not be happier with the result. Until I did this, I dreamed of replacing my projector with one of those giant microLED panels. Now, since I would have to give up my speaker behind the screen, I would not even consider it!


----------



## PixelPusher15

Technology3456 said:


> Does this mean your center seat is _not_ your main seat, or?


Kinda, lol. I have a 4 person couch.


----------



## scottyb

KensingtonPark said:


> I totally agree. I even made compromises (screen distance from speaker is a little tight for a microperf) and I could not be happier with the result. Until I did this, I dreamed of replacing my projector with one of those giant microLED panels. Now, since I would have to give up my speaker behind the screen, I would not even consider it!


How close are your speakers because I was debating on doing a microperf Also 

Right now we have a woven screen


----------



## Technology3456

PixelPusher15 said:


> Kinda, lol. I have a 4 person couch.


Got it. But when you sit right in the center, you dont notice much difference between ear level center tower, and a center channel below the screen? I no longer am dictated by the projector which screen to get, so Im wondering whether to go AT or not. I asked about it before and got some good responses, but seems like people are pretty split on it.


----------



## diablo900t

scottyb said:


> Getting an Acoustically Transparent screen is the biggest improvement we've made in our HT and we have had a front projection for at least 15 years, probably longer.


What was the biggest improvement for you? Sound quality? Immersion?

I could see having all speakers behind a velvet wall helping immersion in a big way.

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk


----------



## scottyb

Probably immersion. Having the sound come from the screen, there is ZERO disconnect when people speak. The speaker below the screen every so often you can tell. And now we went to a 2:35 screen also which makes it even better.


----------



## KensingtonPark

scottyb said:


> How close are your speakers because I was debating on doing a microperf Also
> 
> Right now we have a woven screen


I only have the center channel behind the screen; it’s 6 inches away. The link to the My Home Theater in my signature shows how I went about doing it. I perceive no negative effects, although I have not measured (and maybe don’t want to know if I can’t hear it!).


----------



## scottyb

KensingtonPark said:


> I only have the center channel behind the screen; it’s 6 inches away. The link to the My Home Theater in my signature shows how I went about doing it. I perceive no negative effects, although I have not measured (and maybe don’t want to know if I can’t hear it!).


What a great looking room!!

And I may just get that Microperf screen!!


----------



## b_scott

hokeyplyr48 said:


> No clue  still waiting on my replacement NZ8. Mounted and hung this while I’ve been waiting. So I just sit here daily looking at it…


Sorry to hear that. Did you make a DIY wood frame or did you put the material on something else? If you wrapped it around the edges, how well does it wrap and pull tight? thanks!


----------



## Schurter

I am sure I missed it, at what seating distance are the Seymore screen smooth


----------



## PixelPusher15

Schurter said:


> I am sure I missed it, at what seating distance are the Seymore screen smooth


Check the spreadsheet at the bottom for texture notes: https://pixelht.com/25-acoustically-transparent-screen-materials-reviewed-and-measured/

Somewhere between 10 and 13.5' based on my notes. I can't recall specifically where it got smooth but I'd say 11-12' trying to be more precise.


----------



## Schurter

If you were 12/13 - 14ft, xy vs xd . 

Pros / cons 

I have samples of both coming


----------



## Hawks07

Schurter said:


> If you were 12/13 - 14ft, xy vs xd .
> 
> Pros / cons
> 
> I have samples of both coming


I could see some weave at 12ft with the XD. You may not at that distance and at 13-14 ft. probably not until you try. 
The XD was maybe a smidge brighter but barely. 
Other than that the XY is much smoother and much cheaper. 
I really can’t see anybody buying an XD over the XY but definitely try out the samples for yourself.


----------



## scottyb

Hawks07 said:


> I could see some weave at 12ft with the XD. You may not at that distance and at 13-14 ft. probably not until you try.
> The XD was maybe a smidge brighter but barely.
> Other than that the XY is much smoother and much cheaper.
> I really can’t see anybody buying an XD over the XY but definitely try out the samples for yourself.


The only issue is, a fellow member ordered some samples of the XY for me, himself and another member and he said they were different colors. He inquired about that and she said it was normal. I’ll try to find the info but it kept me from persuing the XY screen.


----------



## howiee

Both me and my better half saw weave with XD at a little over 13'. Not excessive by any means, but noticeable. Particularly during bright panning scenes and white parts of the image - clouds, snow, close up of a white shirt etc. To me it looks more like a slight shimmering and is quite subtle.


----------



## Schurter

howiee said:


> Both me and my better half saw weave with XD at a little over 13'. Not excessive by any means, but noticeable. Particularly during bright panning scenes and white parts of the image - clouds, snow, close up of a white shirt etc. To me it looks more like a slight shimmering and is quite subtle.


I have ordered samples of both xd and xy and payed for larger samples 2x2 size, 

I also have Severtson CWMP . 
Only reason I am saying away from the Severtson, I'll have to redo my whole space for the screen, If I want the correct distance behind and in front 😅


----------



## Hawks07

scottyb said:


> The only issue is, a fellow member ordered some samples of the XY for me, himself and another member and he said they were different colors. He inquired about that and she said it was normal. I’ll try to find the info but it kept me from persuing the XY screen.


That’s weird, I have ordered three of the SoundMax 4k screens and they have all been identical.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Hawks07 said:


> That’s weird, I have ordered three of the SoundMax 4k screens and they have all been identical.


I’ve ordered two and they were nearly identical. The Elite AcousticPro UHD material that has the identical weave was warmer yet the gain was nearly the same. The warmer Elite screen wasn’t so off that I’d be worried about getting a good calibration. Wouldn’t stop me from ordering


----------



## Hawks07

There definitely can be some sample variance along with just flat out bad samples. 
I received a bad sample from DreamScreen where the color was way off.


----------



## kdawg2391044

scottyb said:


> The only issue is, a fellow member ordered some samples of the XY for me, himself and another member and he said they were different colors. He inquired about that and she said it was normal. I’ll try to find the info but it kept me from persuing the XY screen.


Did that get taken up to XY to ask why there was a discrepancy? I just got my sample of the XY 4k and 8k and def leaning towards 4k since it seems to be brighter/tighter weave than the 8k. Also, for those doing any DIY screens with the XY material, has anyone developed a way to tighten the screen without using something permanent like stapling it? The frame they sell uses like a rod and springs to pull on the rod across the fabric. I suppose I could ask if they could ship the material with the rods and springs and make my own grooves in wooden frame?


----------



## scottyb

Here is the conversation with XY screens:

That is awesome. BTW I just opened them and notice one of the samples look different than the other 2 so I email them and got a quick reply with a concerning message

"Yes, they are different batches, the yellower one more often, but sometime the whiter one, some I put two of them, And the whiter one will become to yellow later after the time went by( belong to the Normal oxidation ), in case we have some misapprehensive in the later of the other."

That is the response from XY screens. Two other forum members and I ordered samples together to save on shipping. I didn't even have my guy send me the sample because of this response. Not trying to bash XY because I would have liked a brighter screen, just passing along information.


----------



## PixelPusher15

scottyb said:


> Here is the conversation with XY screens:
> 
> That is awesome. BTW I just opened them and notice one of the samples look different than the other 2 so I email them and got a quick reply with a concerning message
> 
> "Yes, they are different batches, the yellower one more often, but sometime the whiter one, some I put two of them, And the whiter one will become to yellow later after the time went by( belong to the Normal oxidation ), in case we have some misapprehensive in the later of the other."
> 
> That is the response from XY screens. Two other forum members and I ordered samples together to save on shipping. I didn't even have my guy send me the sample because of this response. Not trying to bash XY because I would have liked a brighter screen, just passing along information.


I've seen this sort of thing mentioned about spandex as well. That is yellowed over time. That is harder to trace though since there are multiple spandex manufacturers. I've wondered how many screens out there do this slowly over time and it is a) not noticeable, and b) still calibrat-able. If it doesn't drift faster than my projector's calibration, still maintains its gain, and is able to be properly calibrated against then....so what? At least for me. For others that may not calibrate their projectors as often then I can understand not wanting something else moving on them.


----------



## b_scott

Did some testing with some samples. Left is Silver Ticket WVS, right is Elite AcousticPro UHD. background is my matte milliskin. Note there is black milliskin behind all.

I forgot to take a pic of blank white screen with these. In person, I would say these are pretty comparable, but I would give the edge to Elite if pressed on brightness. I have found that Amazon has a DIY fabric only 135" option for the acoustic 1080P3 (same as the UHD) which is a couple inches over my current screen size - I'm wondering if it can stretch just a little bit to get around the edges of my screen to attach it. It's only $235 or something for the fabric, which is way better than the $800-1000 asking price for the framed version.

I did notice the thing that pixel said about the Elite being slightly warmer.

edit: I read a user conversation with Elite and they had said that the 1080p3 and UHD were pretty close to identical, but seems like that's not true with the measurements shown on the first page. .80 vs much lower.... maybe I'll just look into 135" UHD. Wish I could just buy the material.

@PixelPusher15 I've also written your contact for XY to get an estimate on material for 8K for my size.


----------



## hokeyplyr48

b_scott said:


> Sorry to hear that. Did you make a DIY wood frame or did you put the material on something else? If you wrapped it around the edges, how well does it wrap and pull tight? thanks!


Yes, I made a DIY wooden frame using the mississippiman format.

I wouldn’t say it’s easy to pull tight. Definitely harder than spandex. But it’s not impossible. I found the most difficult part was pulling down at an angle to keep it taught both vertically and horizontally (ie the spacing as you started working towards the edges)


----------



## b_scott

very nice!


----------



## KensingtonPark

hokeyplyr48 said:


> Yes, I made a DIY wooden frame using the mississippiman format.
> 
> I wouldn’t say it’s easy to pull tight. Definitely harder than spandex. But it’s not impossible. I found the most difficult part was pulling down at an angle to keep it taught both vertically and horizontally (ie the spacing as you started working towards the edges)
> 
> View attachment 3307335
> 
> View attachment 3307333


This is really nice! I wish I had seen this before doing mine; it would have made it much easier to plan!


----------



## nathan_h

scottyb said:


> Here is the conversation with XY screens:
> 
> That is awesome. BTW I just opened them and notice one of the samples look different than the other 2 so I email them and got a quick reply with a concerning message
> 
> "Yes, they are different batches, the yellower one more often, but sometime the whiter one, some I put two of them, And the whiter one will become to yellow later after the time went by( belong to the Normal oxidation ), in case we have some misapprehensive in the later of the other."
> 
> That is the response from XY screens. Two other forum members and I ordered samples together to save on shipping. I didn't even have my guy send me the sample because of this response. Not trying to bash XY because I would have liked a brighter screen, just passing along information.


Well that’s interesting.

As a reference post, the time someone posted about this happening to a Seymour screen, Seymour said it was a defect and they replaced the screen.


----------



## scottyb

hokeyplyr48 said:


> Yes, I made a DIY wooden frame using the mississippiman format.
> 
> I wouldn’t say it’s easy to pull tight. Definitely harder than spandex. But it’s not impossible. I found the most difficult part was pulling down at an angle to keep it taught both vertically and horizontally (ie the spacing as you started working towards the edges)
> 
> View attachment 3307335
> 
> View attachment 3307333


You are talented!! Looks great!!


----------



## Schurter

Sanity check, 

I am really really considering AT Screen, 

I am looking very hard at the xy 4k screen and have samples coming 

I have Severtson CWMP sample plus there other AT Screen material. 

Everything that I have read about the xd screen I'll see the texture, I am in the 12/13ft seating distance plus with the small bump in gain its not worth it, 

So question. I have the xd samples in my shopping cart, do I buy it , that's the question 

My project is x950 jvc 
On 140inch 2.39 screen qith the xy 4k screen and 1500L on paper I can hit 26ft lumens, 

That will probably be more then I need and run low lamp. 


Sorry long question


----------



## howiee

Schurter said:


> So question. I have the xd samples in my shopping cart, do I buy it , that's the question


I'd hang on for the samples to arrive.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Schurter said:


> Sanity check,
> 
> I am really really considering AT Screen,
> 
> I am looking very hard at the xy 4k screen and have samples coming
> 
> I have Severtson CWMP sample plus there other AT Screen material.
> 
> Everything that I have read about the xd screen I'll see the texture, I am in the 12/13ft seating distance plus with the small bump in gain its not worth it,
> 
> So question. I have the xd samples in my shopping cart, do I buy it , that's the question
> 
> My project is x950 jvc
> On 140inch 2.39 screen qith the xy 4k screen and 1500L on paper I can hit 26ft lumens,
> 
> That will probably be more then I need and run low lamp.
> 
> 
> Sorry long question


If you’re considering anything, get the samples.


----------



## Schurter

Agree 

Last night I watched a movie deep water horizon 

The 
Severtson BWAT over top my Carl's flexiwhite 
Is a no. It turned the white board light grey

Also had the 
Severtson Cinema White 1.3 MP in the other corner, 
The whites are very close 
Others colors a little off, 
I don't think I could see the holes 

Ordered the Seymour stamps


----------



## Technology3456

Schurter said:


> deep water horizon


Underrated excellent film I feel.


----------



## b_scott

@PixelPusher15 please check your PMs  Would you still recommend the XY 4K? And over the 8K?

Also is it necessary to align the weave to not get a moire? I already have black milliskin spandex, and I'm wondering if that is good enough for backing rather than getting something new.


----------



## Schurter

Xy sound max 5 left 
Xy 4k right 

In my opinion max 5 is a close match to the carls flex white, the white is white, 

The 4k it's almost dirt white?


----------



## scottyb

Schurter said:


> Xy sound max 5 left
> Xy 4k right
> 
> In my opinion max 5 is a close match to the carls flex white, the white is white,
> 
> The 4k it's almost dirt white?
> View attachment 3309580


I would keep what you have. Not much of a difference if any.


----------



## Schurter

scottyb said:


> I would keep what you have. Not much of a difference if any.


Only reason I am thinking of changing is my jtr 212ht clones, put them behind the screen


----------



## scottyb

Oh,
I didn’t know you don’t have an AT screen right now.
I highly recommend going AT!!


----------



## Schurter

After going over the data , If I have all the brands correct, the screens with MP have there acoustic challenges , I believe a saw 7db drop 16k 

Can these drops be eq out ? 
I so have bigger speakers on amps 
Avm 60 so I have more control 

Looking for feedback


----------



## scottyb

"Looking for feedback"

Pun intended?


----------



## Schurter

Lol


----------



## Enchy

Schurter said:


> After going over the data , If I have all the brands correct, the screens with MP have there acoustic challenges , I believe a saw 7db drop 16k
> 
> Can these drops be eq out ?
> I so have bigger speakers on amps
> Avm 60 so I have more control
> 
> Looking for feedback


I would not put a +7db EQ on your tweeter. Very easy way to ruin a speaker. A 7db increase would draw 5x the power.


----------



## Schurter

No no not going to do a


Enchy said:


> I would not put a +7db EQ on your tweeter. Very easy way to ruin a speaker. A 7db increase would draw 5x the power.


Not going to boost 7db , the avm 60 should be able to cut it in half and smooth it out , but that's why I am asking,


----------



## nathan_h

Schurter said:


> After going over the data , If I have all the brands correct, the screens with MP have there acoustic challenges , I believe a saw 7db drop 16k
> 
> Can these drops be eq out ?
> I so have bigger speakers on amps
> Avm 60 so I have more control
> 
> Looking for feedback


If you increase the distance between speaker and screen, there is less of a problem. But really the solution is use a woven screen or buy very high output speakers.


----------



## Schurter

nathan_h said:


> If you increase the distance between speaker and screen, there is less of a problem. But really the solution is use a woven screen or buy very high output speakers.


I should have enough speaker, but I understand what your saying, I am hoping the xd screen is to my liking . 

If not probably Severtson CWMP will be my choice, 

I do have 2ft to play with after going over numbers with speakers / screen size / project distance,


----------



## Nexgen76

I'm in the process of going AT screen because I have in wall speakers now. So far my choice of screen is XY Sound max 4K. I have a 135inch Elite AEON screen that I like the frame. How hard would it be just to add the XY material to my Elite screen frame?

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## PixelPusher15

Nexgen76 said:


> I'm in the process of going AT screen because I have in wall speakers now. So far my choice of screen is XY Sound max 4K. I have a 135inch Elite AEON screen that I like the frame. How hard would it be just to add the XY material to my Elite screen frame?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk


Ask Elite about just the material for the AcousticPro UHD. They’re basically the same material. You can also reach out to XY and ask if they can send you a cut that fits. I thought I recall then saying they can make their material fit to existing frames but I may be thinking of someone else.


----------



## Hawks07

Nexgen76 said:


> I'm in the process of going AT screen because I have in wall speakers now. So far my choice of screen is XY Sound max 4K. I have a 135inch Elite AEON screen that I like the frame. How hard would it be just to add the XY material to my Elite screen frame?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk


Shouldn’t be too hard. XY will cut any size that you want. The XY screens use a spring hook to attach to the frame. As long as there is somewhere to attach the hook it shouldn’t be a problem.


----------



## Nexgen76

Hawks07 said:


> Shouldn’t be too hard. XY will cut any size that you want. The XY screens use a spring hook to attach to the frame. As long as there is somewhere to attach the hook it shouldn’t be a problem.


Looks like XY uses the same system as Elite so it shouldn't be that hard.


----------



## Nexgen76

PixelPusher15 said:


> Ask Elite about just the material for the AcousticPro UHD. They’re basically the same material. You can also reach out to XY and ask if they can send you a cut that fits. I thought I recall then saying they can make their material fit to existing frames but I may be thinking of someone else.


Is it worth it going with XY or they are the very same no matter which one I purchase?


----------



## sumitagarwal

Nexgen76 said:


> Is it worth it going with XY or they are the very same no matter which one I purchase?


I would also like opinions on this question. I'm buying a fresh screen and leaning towards the Elite AEON because my scenario requires a borderless image (due to ceiling height and soffit location, the top right corner of the image must go all the way to the corner where the soffit and ceiling meet).

Additionally I wanted to thank @PixelPusher15 for the incredible work!

For my small contribution to the community I adapted the table here and cleaned up the data a bit for people in my common scenario (in-wall speakers so 4" audio distance, painting wall black so no need for black backing, removed reference measurements), where everything is on a single sheet: Acoustically Transparent Screen Material Report - v2 - 4" - Aug 14 2022


----------



## guzz

I apologize in advance if this has already been addressed or asked, but in the spreadsheet of truth on the texture tab, it shows the elite acousticpro 4k and elite acousticpro 8k. I dont see either of these on elite screens website - only an acousticpro UHD or an acoustipro 1080P3. Can someone please explain this?
Thanks in advance!


----------



## PixelPusher15

guzz said:


> I apologize in advance if this has already been addressed or asked, but in the spreadsheet of truth on the texture tab, it shows the elite acousticpro 4k and elite acousticpro 8k. I dont see either of these on elite screens website - only an acousticpro UHD or an acoustipro 1080P3. Can someone please explain this?
> Thanks in advance!


Looks like they've changed some of the naming up and I may have goofed on the first post calling one Cinema White.

Here are the two materials but I'm honestly not sure which one matches to what I tested now. I know they were sent to me before they were fully released and maybe the naming or which brands they belonged to have changed. 








Sonic AT8 ISF - EPV Screens® Projection Screens for The Custom Installation


An acoustically transparent fine-weaved projection material with black backing attached. The material is designed for Ultra-HD projectors to provide the best projection surface for dedicated home theaters. It has earned the world-renowned ISF Certification for providing a flat spectral response...




epvscreens.com












CineWhite® A8K


The CineWhite® A8K is a multi-layer acoustically transparent front projection screen material designed to improve higher resolution projectors 8K and beyond. The CineWhite® A8K has an ultra-fine knit weave that reduces light loss to provide a bright uniform picture in a dark room environment. It...




elitescreens.com


----------



## guzz

PixelPusher15 said:


> Looks like they've changed some of the naming up and I may have goofed on the first post calling one Cinema White.
> 
> Here are the two materials but I'm honestly not sure which one matches to what I tested now. I know they were sent to me before they were fully released and maybe the naming or which brands they belonged to have changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonic AT8 ISF - EPV Screens® Projection Screens for The Custom Installation
> 
> 
> An acoustically transparent fine-weaved projection material with black backing attached. The material is designed for Ultra-HD projectors to provide the best projection surface for dedicated home theaters. It has earned the world-renowned ISF Certification for providing a flat spectral response...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> epvscreens.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CineWhite® A8K
> 
> 
> The CineWhite® A8K is a multi-layer acoustically transparent front projection screen material designed to improve higher resolution projectors 8K and beyond. The CineWhite® A8K has an ultra-fine knit weave that reduces light loss to provide a bright uniform picture in a dark room environment. It...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elitescreens.com


Thanks so much!!! Really appreciate the help!


----------



## sumitagarwal

Nexgen76 said:


> Is it worth it going with XY or they are the very same no matter which one I purchase?


As a small follow up on my situation: I ended up going with the Elite AcousticPro pretty much for the price and frame design alone. Amazon had an open box 150" for $855, so I jumped on that for the lightweight aluminum frameless screen, and for my initial build out. I figure I can replace the screen material if necessary in the future (couple hundred for Carl's. $1675 for Severtson Cinema White MP).

By contrast Severtson quoted $4560 for their narrow bezel frame with screen.

Down the line I suspect I may try a Severtson Cinema White MP 1.3 gain on top of white spandex to improve brightness and reduce visibility of perforations. I plan on getting a Sony VPL-XW5000ES which might need some brightness help at 150", especially when being used for games.


----------



## grodri02

Hello,,

I been reading the forum since I have the XY screen 4k max. Now Im not so sure if I placed the screen on the correct side since I read here that the projected side is the rougher side of the material. I went to my screen and the rougher side facing the back. Look at the picture l...I took it when I was putting up the screen. The screen did have the tag that said projection side and I m sure I put it that way. But this is making me think twice....
Any help is appreciated.


----------



## hokeyplyr48

Went through this myself. When I emailed them, this was the response: 



> Actually you use hand to touch,which side is smooth and rough is not so diffcult to distinguish? Rough side is the correct projection side.


I had sent them a picture and she added a label indicating which side was which.










So based on your picture, with only being able to see one side but it looking rough, that is the projection side.


----------



## grodri02

Definitely the rougher side is facing the back currently on my screen. I been using it and been happy with the results...then again, ignorance is bliss  Could it be possible that the factory mislabeled the "this side to projection" label and put it on the wrong side? Ultimately, what will I be missing if I am projecting to the smooth side?


----------



## hokeyplyr48

That I have no clue on. I’m not an expert by any means and haven’t done tests comparing the two. Others here might know or you can reach out to them to see what they say.


----------



## Nexgen76

Just curious where you get black backing to go behind XY screen material.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## PixelPusher15

grodri02 said:


> Hello,,
> 
> I been reading the forum since I have the XY screen 4k max. Now Im not so sure if I placed the screen on the correct side since I read here that the projected side is the rougher side of the material. I went to my screen and the rougher side facing the back. Look at the picture l...I took it when I was putting up the screen. The screen did have the tag that said projection side and I m sure I put it that way. But this is making me think twice....
> Any help is appreciated.
> View attachment 3329147





hokeyplyr48 said:


> Went through this myself. When I emailed them, this was the response:
> 
> 
> 
> I had sent them a picture and she added a label indicating which side was which.
> 
> View attachment 3329148
> 
> 
> So based on your picture, with only being able to see one side but it looking rough, that is the projection side.


This topic of which side is correct has confused me a bit since it came up. I then remembered that when I had issues with the SoundMax 4K's orientation causing moire I contacted XY and asked them which direction it should be used in and they replied with this image. This is the smooth side and is the side and orientation that I use. 










I then just went on their site and looked at the photos they have and they again show the smooth side in the same orientation. 
















I'm not sure what is going on with some reps saying to use the rough side but that doesn't appear to be the right side to use.


----------



## scottdvm

I just checked mine (the Soundmax 4K) and the smooth side is toward the projector. That's how it was labeled as well. I haven't had any issues with moire or shimmering.


----------



## scottdvm

Nexgen76 said:


> Just curious where you get black backing to go behind XY screen material.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk


They make a black backing that attaches to the frame the same way as the screen itself (little springs and whatnot). I think you have to specifically order it. I'd bet black spandex would work just as well for less money, just have to figure out how to get it mounted.


----------



## Hawks07

I have my XY screen with the smooth side as the image side and it was labeled that way as well. 
So it does seem like some reps might be confused.


----------



## hokeyplyr48

Well that really sucks. There’s no way in hell I’m taking my screen apart and redoing it. Unfortunately, I can’t at this point as I had to make some cuts in the corners to get them to fold over nicely, so the liklihood of me being able to take it off, flip it over, and line up the corners exactly the right way is very unlikely and would leave me in an irrecoverable state. I’m stuck at this point.

Wonder what I’m missing by having it the wrong way then. Pretty disappointed that my screen came A) absent of any label on which side is which and B) when I reached out, they told me the wrong side. Really irritating, especially considering I can’t fix this and the only way to make it right is to buy it again. If this really is a big deal and I’m leaving a lot on the table, I’ll probably go back to them and push them to send me a replacement since this is entirely on them on both counts


----------



## Hawks07

hokeyplyr48 said:


> Well that really sucks. There’s no way in hell I’m taking my screen apart and redoing it. Unfortunately, I can’t at this point as I had to make some cuts in the corners to get them to fold over nicely, so the liklihood of me being able to take it off, flip it over, and line up the corners exactly the right way is very unlikely and would leave me in an irrecoverable state. I’m stuck at this point.
> 
> Wonder what I’m missing by having it the wrong way then. Pretty disappointed that my screen came A) absent of any label on which side is which and B) when I reached out, they told me the wrong side. Really irritating, especially considering I can’t fix this and the only way to make it right is to buy it again. If this really is a big deal and I’m leaving a lot on the table, I’ll probably go back to them and push them to send me a replacement since this is entirely on them on both counts


That does stink that you can’t flip it. 
Do you still have a sample that you can compare it to? If you can’t see any weave or moire then you might not be missing anything but not knowing will still be frustrating. 
Definitely push for a free replacement or at least a severely discounted one.


----------



## hokeyplyr48

Unfortunately I don’t have the sample any more so nothing that I can compare it to. 

I don’t think I have any weave or moire, but this is my first projector and screen, so I also wouldn’t call myself experienced here to see it or know what I’m missing.

I’ll have to reach out to them to see what their thoughts are.


----------



## ShoutingMan

grodri02 said:


> Hello,,
> 
> I been reading the forum since I have the XY screen 4k max. Now Im not so sure if I placed the screen on the correct side since I read here that the projected side is the rougher side of the material. I went to my screen and the rougher side facing the back. Look at the picture l...I took it when I was putting up the screen. The screen did have the tag that said projection side and I m sure I put it that way. But this is making me think twice....
> Any help is appreciated.
> View attachment 3329147





hokeyplyr48 said:


> Went through this myself. When I emailed them, this was the response:
> 
> 
> 
> I had sent them a picture and she added a label indicating which side was which.
> 
> View attachment 3329148
> 
> 
> So based on your picture, with only being able to see one side but it looking rough, that is the projection side.


Anyone have photos of the XY weave with a ruler or something to give scale? I'm curious how it compares to my SI Series 5 screen.


----------



## Don Stewart

ShoutingMan said:


> Anyone have photos of the XY weave with a ruler or something to give scale? I'm curious how it compares to my SI Series 5 screen.
> 
> View attachment 3330147


I am assuming your scale shown in the photo is in mm.


----------



## jerrolds

Wish I saw this before as I nabbed the Silver Ticket WVS screen, for some reason i thought the WVS was the upgrade to the WAB


----------



## MikeR397

I'm trying to choose a precise screen location in my room. I understand the comb filtering concerns (225” studiotek 130 g4 AT) but have reasons to want to push the screen wall I’m gonna build as far back as possible. My back wall is angled so that I have a potential tight fit on the front left speaker only, see pic…

how detrimental to sound experience (real life not on a computer graph) will a 7” space between the front left speaker and then screen be vs a 12” space? The middle and right speaker can be placed far back as needed. Fwiw, this is a 225” screen, with JTR 215RT speakers behind. The Front of the 2x4’s are where I generally want to mount them into my concrete ceiling, with another set of 2x4 into those to attach the screen mount bracket. This leaves about 7” off the front left, with plenty space for middle and right and a front cap4000 sub.

Am I stressing too much about comb filtering in this situation? I can add whatever insulation material as needed behind the screen and by this speaker as needed to help. Open to thoughts/suggestions, But for other reasons I’m trying to push this screen wall back as far as possible and want the left speaker as far as the left edge of screen as possible for a wide sound stage. TIA!

eta: should I try to minimize toe in also? It doesn’t take much of an angle to point to the middle seats ~19.5ft off the screen wall, and the giant horn on the 215RT should provide a very wide sound image to be flexible, but I get the concerns of shooting sound waves at an angle through micro perf holes. just trying to plan this out best as possible so I don’t need to move the screen wall later!


----------



## KensingtonPark

MikeR397 said:


> I'm trying to choose a precise screen location in my room. I understand the comb filtering concerns (225” studiotek 130 g4 AT) but have reasons to want to push the screen wall I’m gonna build as far back as possible. My back wall is angled so that I have a potential tight fit on the front left speaker only, see pic…
> 
> how detrimental to sound experience (real life not on a computer graph) will a 7” space between the front left speaker and then screen be vs a 12” space? The middle and right speaker can be placed far back as needed. Fwiw, this is a 225” screen, with JTR 215RT speakers behind. The Front of the 2x4’s are where I generally want to mount them into my concrete ceiling, with another set of 2x4 into those to attach the screen mount bracket. This leaves about 7” off the front left, with plenty space for middle and right and a front cap4000 sub.
> 
> Am I stressing too much about comb filtering in this situation? I can add whatever insulation material as needed behind the screen and by this speaker as needed to help. Open to thoughts/suggestions, But for other reasons I’m trying to push this screen wall back as far as possible and want the left speaker as far as the left edge of screen as possible for a wide sound stage. TIA!
> 
> eta: should I try to minimize toe in also? It doesn’t take much of an angle to point to the middle seats ~19.5ft off the screen wall, and the giant horn on the 215RT should provide a very wide sound image to be flexible, but I get the concerns of shooting sound waves at an angle through micro perf holes. just trying to plan this out best as possible so I don’t need to move the screen wall later!


I ended up with a 6" space between the screen and my center channel. It sounds great, but I have never measured it. Also, I only placed one speaker behind my screen (the center), and I don't notice any difference between it and my L/R speakers. I also have the StudioTek 130G4 AT (although much smaller - 120"). See my home theater link in my sig to see what I did. Since I did this in really one single shot and didn't want to have to re-do it, I didn't really even consider putting the L/R behind the screen. The testing that @PixelPusher15 did is pretty compelling, so I would assume that there will be *some* impact to performance; I suspect that the impact is measureable, but it is not discernable to my ears.


----------



## nathan_h

MikeR397 said:


> how detrimental to sound experience (real life not on a computer graph) will a 7” space between the front left speaker and then screen be vs a 12” space?


You can see from the tests that there is a measurable impact. However,Stewart claims it won’t make a difference so one might infer that the audible difference will be minor. And yes lots of insulation behind the screen will be helpful.

(This isn’t the thread for it but given the very large screen size and implied large room I’m surprised you can’t sacrifice a little more space. And I hope you have a light canon for a projector!)


----------



## MikeR397

nathan_h said:


> You can see from the tests that there is a measurable impact. However,Stewart claims it won’t make a difference so one might infer that the audible difference will be minor. And yes lots of insulation behind the screen will be helpful.
> 
> (This isn’t the thread for it but given the very large screen size and implied large room I’m surprised you can’t sacrifice a little more space. And I hope you have a light canon for a projector!)


I have not been able to find Stewart’s official stance on it, and actually left a voicemail on the topic with them yesterday. If you have a link to what Stewart says that would be great.

My build thread is: MikeR397's Dedicated Home Theater Build -... if you are interested. There is lots of discourse on my screen size plan but I’m giving it a go: NZ9, dcr, MadVR envy extreme, full black velvet bat cave . My room (lower garage conversion) is 23.25’ wide, 22.75’ deep on left side and 28.5ft on the deeper right. The 2x4 in the pic with ~9” of space for front left gets me to a 278” throw (projector in other room) and I’m trying to get close as possible to the 1.4 throw ratio the dcr suggests which is 290.84”. My mad vr can fix barrel distortion and I have a potential trick for dcr lens occlusion if that happens, just trying to keep screen wall far back as possible (also for 6 wide row of seating 19ft from screen but this is the viewing angle I want).

Anyway, too much info for this thread, just appreciate the data/thoughts on the severity of a slightly compromised left front speaker at ~7” behind screen (with insulation as needed). Sounds like it’s mostly measument data and not so much real world (6” vs 12” that is) but the effect is true. Room correction can help as will insulation behind screen to some extent.


----------



## MikeR397

I did find this from Stewart:

The engineers at Stewart Filmscreen along with original product testing at the THX labs have come up with what we consider an “elegant yet simple” solution to this law of physics issue. They knew that the spectral response curves of drivers located behind the fabric would be affected in the frequencies above 10k Hz. In collaboration with Tomlinson Holman, a key industry figure for professional acoustics, Stewart designed and implemented the Cinemasonic Processor, a simple, active network which restores attenuated information in the 10 K-20 kHz region. The speakers behind the screen need to be a minimum of 12 inches away from the rear surface for the best performance. They found that if the speakers are closer to the fabric, comb filtering can occur but when installed to specification, minimal attenuation occurs permitting truly transparent audio.






Defining the Difference in Perforated Screens - Stewart


It seems that we thrive on the “who is best” arguments in all walks of life. There is the PC versus MAC conflict and the Ford versus Chevy versus Dodge battles that fuel the NASCAR phenomenon. In our realm of replicating the cinema experience we can look to a more profound group of metrics with w




www.stewartfilmscreen.com





Seems like it says the same thing: all AT screens will cause more attenuation than no screen between, 1’+ eliminates most of it, but at say 4-6” even it’s not a major noticeable issue.

This reminds me of my B&W CM9 towers with a tweeter cover situation. They didn’t come with Tweeter covers to prevent reflection and filtering of the high frequencies, but the real life situation was people and kids would touch the tweeter and instantly ruin them (ask me how I know with 3 kids and their friends!) they have these covers that cover about 12% of the surface of the tweeter which I now have installed and I notice zero difference in real world listening. That said, maybe my ears arnt the sharpest at high frequencies bc I can’t tell much difference in treble between the cm9 and my decoupled tweeter ala the 800 series in the CM10 towers I have upstairs.


----------



## nathan_h

I'm going by memory, but I believe the special audio processor is no longer in use / recommended by Stewart. Between MicroPerf and what room correction/EQ can do, it is no longer needed.

I'm sorry I cannot recall WHERE I read the claim that MicroPerf went far enough in Stewart's estimation that it was no longer necessary to have >1' of space between speaker and screen. I seem to recall they made the somewhat bold claim that a few inches were now all that is needed. (Instrument based testing shows that there is still more impact from being just a few inches versus a full foot from the screen, but maybe it is now within what the consider an acceptable range?)

@Don Stewart himself visits the forum from time to time and can probably point to official info. I didn't find anything on their web site just now while looking but it is vast and I am weak.


----------



## indygreg

What a great thread. Thanks. for anyone who remembers me Peabody’s wayback machine, I still have an Smx screen (whatever happened to Rubin). I am looking at upgrading to a jacket 3100 or 4100 so I am wondering:

- does anyone know what the gain was on the Smx? 
- I see rave reviews of the st130g4 screen but I don’t see much about their perforated g4. does it not stand out like the non-perf version does? Does anyone have experience with it?

I have all active crossovers and can get 12+ inches and I only have 1 speaker behind the screen so I am less concerned about the audio aspects of the screen.


----------



## PixelPusher15

indygreg said:


> What a great thread. Thanks. for anyone who remembers me Peabody’s wayback machine, I still have an Smx screen (whatever happened to Rubin). I am looking at upgrading to a jacket 3100 or 4100 so I am wondering:
> 
> 
> does anyone know what the gain was on the Smx?
> I see rave reviews of the st130g4 screen but I don’t see much about their perforated g4. does it not stand out like the non-perf version does? Does anyone have experience with it?
> 
> I have all active crossovers and can get 12+ inches and I only have 1 speaker behind the screen so I am less concerned about the audio aspects of the screen.


I don't know the gain of the SMX screen. I'm guessing its in the 0.7-0.8 range just based on seeing so many screens measured in that region. 

How close are you to the screen? I wouldn't use a perforated screen under 13'. If you are further than that then it's a good option. You should get a sample to see if you can see the perforations (just don't lay it on top of your white screen. Put something dark behind it when testing). One other thing, the 3100 and 41000 are _a lot_ brighter than that RS600 you have listed on your build site. I'd buy the projector first. You may be satisfied with just the projector upgrade. 

Another idea, if you are seeing some texture from the SMX screen then maybe going with a smoother material may give you a picture quality bump. Try the ST130G4 sample and see how those perfs look to you, but also grab some other samples. I'd look at the XY Screens SoundMax 4K (or Elite AcousticPro UHD), DreamScreen UltraWeave v7, and maybe a good traditional uncoated material like the Seymour Excellence NEO, Stewart Harmony G2, or SilverTicket WVS. Have fun with it. Getting all these samples and testing can be enjoyable, at least to me.


----------



## indygreg

thanks for your thoughts andy. I sit 19’ from the screen. I definitely don’t see any texture today. I was considering a screen upgrade for 2 reasons. 
- I assumed that with hdr you can’t have too much brightness. I read David abrams saying that You should shoot for a minimum of 100 nits and I see unlimited budgets like art throwing massive likens at his screen. But I have no experience with hdr - do I read this right?
- I guess I assumed I could see a noticable improvement in sharpness with a different screen. I had a 720p 777 when I out that screen in.

I will start collecting samples and I agree that it is fun to fiddle with this stuff. I guess that is why we call it a hobby!


----------



## PixelPusher15

indygreg said:


> thanks for your thoughts andy. I sit 19’ from the screen. I definitely don’t see any texture today. I was considering a screen upgrade for 2 reasons.
> 
> I assumed that with hdr you can’t have too much brightness. I read David abrams saying that You should shoot for a minimum of 100 nits and I see unlimited budgets like art throwing massive likens at his screen. But I have no experience with hdr - do I read this right?
> I guess I assumed I could see a noticable improvement in sharpness with a different screen. I had a 720p 777 when I out that screen in.
> 
> I will start collecting samples and I agree that it is fun to fiddle with this stuff. I guess that is why we call it a hobby!


Oh 19', eh!? Yeah, I'd for sure try a microperf. The added gain can only help with either brightness or contrast (closing the iris) with those JVCs. 

You _can_ have too much brightness with HDR. You have to remember that HDR is about Dynamic Range. Projectors have a limited dynamic range that adding more lumens to doesn't change. If you make the highlights brighter, you make the black levels brighter as well. That's where adding brightness will negatively impact the image. Your dark scenes will become a bit washed out.

That Eclipse that Art has is a bit difference because it's contrast levels are insane. It has a MUCH higher native dynamic range so you can get those bright brights and dark darks. Even then though, I believe I read that Nigel says the preferred nit level for owners isn't over 150 even though its capable of doing so. 

I think 100 nits is a great target for HDR on these JVCs. I'm now seeing your screen size....yeah, try the ST130G4. I think it'll work well for you.


----------



## hokeyplyr48

I really hate doing this, but I wanted to share some feedback on my experience with XY screens. While their product may be good, if you ever have to talk with them, they'll either give you wrong information and/or completely ignore you. I personally took a different stance a few pages ago saying "eh I wouldn't worry about it, a screen is a screen, CS shouldn't really matter". But karma got me here, and I'll be honest, it's times like these I wish I had gone with the DreamScreen. 

I was happy to order my screen from them based on the feedback/data seen here. It arrived, but unfortunately didn't have the front or back labeled, like most here have been. I reached out to them, and Wendy responded back saying the rough side is the projection side. To confirm, I sent her a picture and she marked it up with the specific rough side and labeled it as the projection side. I wanted to be very clear because mounting it is A) a lot of work, and B) I was going to have to cut it for the corners and I knew this was a one way door decision here, as getting these to line up again, after flipping it, is very improbable. We recently all discussed this here, and it turns out the information she gave me was wrong, and the smooth side is the projection side. I reached out trying to get clarification from her, and also figure out what options exist here, as I had to cut the corners to get them to lay flat like @PixelPusher15 did in another thread on his similar wooden frame. Wendy responded back saying she gave me bad information, and that she got them mixed up with all the other screens they have. Sure, everyone makes mistakes, but it's what you do next that determines the level of customer service here. She asked for pictures to understand what I meant. I sent pictures back on September 19th, and for 3 weeks now I have been emailing trying to get a response, but have been completely ignored. It's become painfully clear that they don't care, and this is my problem now.

So I bought their screen, asked which way faces out twice to confirm, got told wrong information both times, went back to them saying what gives, and they won't even respond now, knowing they screwed up and have to make it right.

Does anyone have an email address they've successfully used? I've been speaking with Wendy as well as their general info email address and can't get a response from either. Want to see if I there's another email address I can try to get a hold of them.

UPDATE: Wendy did get back to me, indicating that they were off for the China National day and a long vacation. Continuing to work through this with her, but it seems like they are wanting me to rebuy it, even at a discount.


----------



## PixelPusher15

hokeyplyr48 said:


> I really hate doing this, but I wanted to share some feedback on my experience with XY screens.


I'd hate it if you _didn't_ share your experience. This company is still a bit of an unknown and while there haven't been a lot of bad comments that I've seen there have been a few really icky ones. I actually pondered OEM'ing their stuff and selling it just because I really like it so much and know their business handlings aren't the smoothest. Never done anything like that though so I chickened out. 

Anyway, I'll PM you to see how I can get you connected with my contact. I've only had good experiences with her and she answered the same question about which side to use but did so correctly. Hopefully, she can do something for you.


----------



## HarryL

I am finally installing my XY 4k screen today. Is the projector viewing the flat side or rough side ?
it sounds like it should be in fact the flat side


----------



## hokeyplyr48

Flat. Rough side is the back side.


----------



## HarryL

Thank you for the confirmation


----------



## dlinsley

@PixelPusher15 any plans to benchmark Seymour's new iteration of UF? The official SeymourAV center stage screen thread!


----------



## MusicFirst

Great thread @PixelPusher15! Much appreciated! 
I did not even know about XY screens.. I was all set to purchase a Seymour XD screen to go with the JVC NZ7 until I heard about the SoundMax 4K screen. Two big differences are obviously price and then being able to see the texture on the XD versus the XY. I’ll be sitting about 12 ft away from the 110” screen in or media room (non-light controlled during the day for weekend sports, and controlled at night for movie watching). It sounds/looks like the XD is slightly brighter, but the XY is slightly better for audio. But it’s about $800 difference for the fixed frame (I don’t have the time or patience to build my own frame). However, that is about a wash because I am getting the NZ7 from Seymour and they will calibrate it for my exact screen. So it really just comes down to being able to see the texture at 12ft and the fact that I will have to have to get the NZ7 calibrated separately.. Decisions, decisions.. It definitely would be “easier” to go with the “all-in-one” Seymour solution, but having owned an XD screen before, the only thing that bothered me was noticing the texture occasionally..


----------



## flyers10

MusicFirst said:


> Great thread @PixelPusher15! Much appreciated!
> I did not even know about XY screens.. I was all set to purchase a Seymour XD screen to go with the JVC NZ7 until I heard about the SoundMax 4K screen. Two big differences are obviously price and then being able to see the texture on the XD versus the XY. I’ll be sitting about 12 ft away from the 110” screen in or media room (non-light controlled during the day for weekend sports, and controlled at night for movie watching). It sounds/looks like the XD is slightly brighter, but the XY is slightly better for audio. But it’s about $800 difference for the fixed frame (I don’t have the time or patience to build my own frame). However, that is about a wash because I am getting the NZ7 from Seymour and they will calibrate it for my exact screen. So it really just comes down to being able to see the texture at 12ft and the fact that I will have to have to get the NZ7 calibrated separately.. Decisions, decisions.. It definitely would be “easier” to go with the “all-in-one” Seymour solution, but having owned an XD screen before, the only thing that bothered me was noticing the texture occasionally..


They calibrate it at an extra cost or included in the projector's price?


----------



## MusicFirst

flyers10 said:


> They calibrate it at an extra cost or included in the projector's price?


Included..


----------



## beaRA

MusicFirst said:


> Great thread @PixelPusher15! Much appreciated!
> I did not even know about XY screens.. I was all set to purchase a Seymour XD screen to go with the JVC NZ7 until I heard about the SoundMax 4K screen. Two big differences are obviously price and then being able to see the texture on the XD versus the XY. I’ll be sitting about 12 ft away from the 110” screen in or media room (non-light controlled during the day for weekend sports, and controlled at night for movie watching). It sounds/looks like the XD is slightly brighter, but the XY is slightly better for audio. But it’s about $800 difference for the fixed frame (I don’t have the time or patience to build my own frame). However, that is about a wash because I am getting the NZ7 from Seymour and they will calibrate it for my exact screen. So it really just comes down to being able to see the texture at 12ft and the fact that I will have to have to get the NZ7 calibrated separately.. Decisions, decisions.. It definitely would be “easier” to go with the “all-in-one” Seymour solution, but having owned an XD screen before, the only thing that bothered me was noticing the texture occasionally..


I'm 10ft from an XD screen. I can definitely see the texture on an all white screen, but I don't notice it during most content.


----------



## MusicFirst

beaRA said:


> I'm 10ft from an XD screen. I can definitely see the texture on an all white screen, but I don't notice it during most content.


Yeah, that was my similar experience when I owned the XD in the past. All things being equal, I would rather not see it all from the seated position, which is why I am leaning towards the cheaper XY. Because everything else seems to be pretty close between the two, besides the price of course..


----------



## PixelPusher15

MusicFirst said:


> Yeah, that was my similar experience when I owned the XD in the past. All things being equal, I would rather not see it all from the seated position, which is why I am leaning towards the cheaper XY. Because everything else seems to be pretty close between the two, besides the price of course..


If you think you'll be bothered by the texture then you kinda have your answer because the XY 4K screen is much smoother. I sit 9.5' away from mine now and the SDE effect from my Epson 5050 is what bothers me now, not the screen material. 

The one plus that XY can't compete with right now is service. Seymour is great. I met Chris this past summer and I honestly wish they had a screen like the XY 4K because I'd happily pay more to get it from them. There is a bit of risk with getting it from XY vs Seymour. Most are happy with the screens they get from them though so....your choice.


----------



## MusicFirst

PixelPusher15 said:


> If you think you'll be bothered by the texture then you kinda have your answer because the XY 4K screen is much smoother. I sit 9.5' away from mine now and the SDE effect from my Epson 5050 is what bothers me now, not the screen material.
> 
> The one plus that XY can't compete with right now is service. Seymour is great. I met Chris this past summer and I honestly wish they had a screen like the XY 4K because I'd happily pay more to get it from them. There is a bit of risk with getting it from XY vs Seymour. Most are happy with the screens they get from them though so....your choice.


Thanks, and couldn’t agree more on all counts.. Funny thing is, even though I noticed the texture before, I’m not sure it bothered me too much. And no one that we had over for sports or movies ever commented on it at all. 
So, I do have to decide how important that is to me versus the great service of Seymour and the convenance of having them calibrate the NZ7 as part of the package deal..
Wish the XD had a smoother surface too, then would be a no-brainer for me too.. 🤔


----------



## PixelPusher15

MusicFirst said:


> Thanks, and couldn’t agree more on all counts.. Funny thing is, even though I noticed the texture before, I’m not sure it bothered me too much. And no one that we had over for sports or movies ever commented on it at all.
> So, I do have to decide how important that is to me versus the great service of Seymour and the convenance of having them calibrate the NZ7 as part of the package deal..
> Wish the XD had a smoother surface too, then would be a no-brainer for me too.. 🤔


For me, if its not in the film and I notice it then it bothers me. But that's just me. 

Another option is Elite. Their AcousticPro UHD material is pretty much identical to the XY SoundMax 4K. They're a bit more of a known quantity but I wouldn't say they have as good of service as Seymour. Pricing is probably between XY and Seymour too.


----------



## MusicFirst

PixelPusher15 said:


> For me, if its not in the film and I notice it then it bothers me. But that's just me.
> 
> Another option is Elite. Their AcousticPro UHD material is pretty much identical to the XY SoundMax 4K. They're a bit more of a known quantity but I wouldn't say they have as good of service as Seymour. Pricing is probably between XY and Seymour too.


Yeah, I hear you.. Question, do you remember if there was a significant difference between the XD and XY with regards to sharpness of the the picture?


----------



## HarryL

I finally finished theater room and got the 130” xy 4K thin bezel screen up. I purchased this mainly off reviews on this forum. I am beyond happy with screen, appearance , packaging and delivery. I am not as sophisticated as many on here but have had a projector for 15 years. I would highly recommend this to anyone considering , it’s everything I expected.

JBL scl-6 , scl-7 and scl-8’s
xy 4K screen 
ht market wavelands 

all have met and or exceeded my expectations 

waiting on 2 rythmik fv18’s to complete set up


----------



## ryanfitz

I have samples of both Seymour xd and XY 4K. They look very similar to me, seymour might be slightly brighter. I’m sitting 14 feet away and don’t see any texture differences. Does anyone have a recommendation between these two?


----------



## Hawks07

ryanfitz said:


> I have samples of both Seymour xd and XY 4K. They look very similar to me, seymour might be slightly brighter. I’m sitting 14 feet away and don’t see any texture differences. Does anyone have a recommendation between these two?


At that distance if you feel the XD is brighter then go with that.


----------



## sumitagarwal

I recently put up an Elite Screens Acousticpro UHD in front of a matte black wall and matte black speakers (Genelec AIW26) and it appears to be working great!

I left off the black backing because I wanted less audio impact and I figured my black wall was enough. But am I really hurting my visual performance by not using it?


----------



## nathan_h

sumitagarwal said:


> I recently put up an Elite Screens Acousticpro UHD in front of a matte black wall and matte black speakers (Genelec AIW26) and it appears to be working great!
> 
> I left off the black backing because I wanted less audio impact and I figured my black wall was enough. But am I really hurting my visual performance by not using it?


It is unlikely to be negatively impacting you.

To test, temporarily hang some back there and see?


----------



## Luis Gabriel Gerena

ryanfitz said:


> I have samples of both Seymour xd and XY 4K. They look very similar to me, seymour might be slightly brighter. I’m sitting 14 feet away and don’t see any texture differences. Does anyone have a recommendation between these two?


After testing many screen samples including xy, Seymour Stewart, silver ticket etc...my favorite two were Stewart and Seymour easily.
I went with Seymour as the price I got from my dealer was fantastic and between it and th Stewart they were equal in my book.


----------



## Hawks07

Luis Gabriel Gerena said:


> After testing many screen samples including xy, Seymour Stewart, silver ticket etc...my favorite two were Stewart and Seymour easily.
> I went with Seymour as the price I got from my dealer was fantastic and between it and th Stewart they were equal in my book.


He’s looking at AT screens however. I believe you have a solid screen listed in your equipment unless you changed it.


----------



## scottyb

I would have to agree with Luis, even on the AT screen. Seymour is one of the best bang for the bucks in HT.


----------



## Luis Gabriel Gerena

Hawks07 said:


> He’s looking at AT screens however. I believe you have a solid screen listed in your equipment unless you changed it.


Yes but I also evaluated AT screens and those were my favorites too from the AT ones. In the end I just prefer non AT screens.


----------



## PixelPusher15

scottyb said:


> I would have to agree with Luis, even on the AT screen. Seymour is one of the best bang for the bucks in HT.


If you’re okay with the weave it is. If you’re not then the XY SoundMax 4K is the ticket.


----------



## aaron186

PixelPusher15 said:


> If you’re okay with the weave it is. If you’re not then the XY SoundMax 4K is the ticket.


Not to hijack this but I was about to purchase a Seymour XD until I read this. I’ll be sitting about 12.5 feet from my screen. Will I notice the texture? I think I could use the higher gain as I’m putting my projector (Sony 6000es) 19.5ft back to avoid head hitting on my back riser row. I’m painting my walls dark grey. Will I need the black back?


----------



## hokeyplyr48

I feel like that might be on the edge of still visible. Best bet is to get a sample and hang it and see if you can see it or not.


----------



## nathan_h

aaron186 said:


> Not to hijack this but I was about to purchase a Seymour XD until I read this. I’ll be sitting about 12.5 feet from my screen. Will I notice the texture? I think I could use the higher gain as I’m putting my projector (Sony 6000es) 19.5ft back to avoid head hitting on my back riser row. I’m painting my walls dark grey. Will I need the black back?


If it is not black behind the screen, then you will likely benefit from the black fabric Seymour offers.

I agree with @hokeyplyr48 : You are probably okay with the weave/distance in that most people don't report an issue at 12 feet or longer BUT some people can still see it, so you should get a FREE sample of the material from Seymour and test with your own eyes in your own room with your own projector.


----------



## aaron186

nathan_h said:


> If it is not black behind the screen, then you will likely benefit from the black fabric Seymour offers.
> 
> I agree with @hokeyplyr48 : You are probably okay with the weave/distance in that most people don't report an issue at 12 feet or longer BUT some people can still see it, so you should get a FREE sample of the material from Seymour and test with your own eyes in your own room with your own projector.


I just requested the sample. I don’t have my projector mounted yet - still building riser and room. Can I test it just by putting the sample on wall and moving to my desired position or do I need to shine the projector on the sample to see if I’ll have issues?

Also,I can just paint black behind screen instead of grey. Will that work?


----------



## nathan_h

aaron186 said:


> I just requested the sample. I don’t have my projector mounted yet - still building riser and room. Can I test it just by putting the sample on wall and moving to my desired position or do I need to shine the projector on the sample to see if I’ll have issues?
> 
> Also,I can just paint black behind screen instead of grey. Will that work?


Yes, painting black behind the screen works. Even better, using cheap black fabric like velvet is even better on the wall behind the screen. Note that if you have speakers with bright colors that will be visible too and need to be addressed.

I suppose you can test the sample in a dark room with a very bright flashlight??? Maybe???? That's a tough one. Personally, I would wait until the room is further along and THEN test the screen. No reason to order a screen before the room is nearly done, anyway. Seymour tends to be able to ship within weeks of an order, sometimes sooner.

Heck, I made the mistake of ordering gear before the room was done once. I ended up with some of the wrong things for how the room worked when completed. I ended up overpaying for stuff whose price went down. And I missed out on some killer deals on the second hand market that popped up in the final months of my build. (The main reason I would get gear before the room is ready is if I find something below 50% of street price, on the second hand market, that I can buy and test, and set aside.....and if it ends up being the wrong thing, I can re-sell it for very little loss.)

I also ended up putting the screen and projector up too soon, before I was really done building the room, and that delayed completion by many months while I watched stuff in a half baked room! But that's a story for a different thread.


----------



## Luis Gabriel Gerena

aaron186 said:


> Not to hijack this but I was about to purchase a Seymour XD until I read this. I’ll be sitting about 12.5 feet from my screen. Will I notice the texture? I think I could use the higher gain as I’m putting my projector (Sony 6000es) 19.5ft back to avoid head hitting on my back riser row. I’m painting my walls dark grey. Will I need the black back?


i still have my samples I think. I will check


----------



## PixelPusher15

aaron186 said:


> I just requested the sample. I don’t have my projector mounted yet - still building riser and room. Can I test it just by putting the sample on wall and moving to my desired position or do I need to shine the projector on the sample to see if I’ll have issues?
> 
> Also,I can just paint black behind screen instead of grey. Will that work?


I would use the projector to test. Its trickier on a sample size. Whatever you see on a small sample will be more apparent on a larger screen. I can easily notice the weave on the XD with full white fields from 11' (this is after seeing it on full screens as well). To test to see if you see the weave use bright video with motion, fast and slow. Panning shots of clouds are usually a good test. It will look like there is film grain that doesn't move with the camera.


----------



## howiee

aaron186 said:


> Not to hijack this but I was about to purchase a Seymour XD until I read this. I’ll be sitting about 12.5 feet from my screen. Will I notice the texture? I think I could use the higher gain as I’m putting my projector (Sony 6000es) 19.5ft back to avoid head hitting on my back riser row. I’m painting my walls dark grey. Will I need the black back?


I could see texture at just over 13' and so could my better half, but only in particular scenes (white clouds etc and some bright panning scenes). I know ppl that can't see texture at 11', so your millage may vary. A sample is the way to go.


----------



## aaron186

howiee said:


> I could see texture at just over 13' and so could my better half, but only in particular scenes (white clouds etc and some bright panning scenes). I know ppl that can't see texture at 11', so your millage may vary. A sample is the way to go.


Curious what you ended up going with for screen? I ordered a sample


----------



## howiee

aaron186 said:


> Curious what you ended up going with for screen? I ordered a sample


Our room is still a good 12 months away. XYZ 4k or Dreamscreen v7 are the front runners if going for an AT screen (probably the former for budget reasons)


----------



## aaron186

I noticed your results had the Seymour XD with a gain of 0.8. They publish a gain of 1.1. I was wondering if other have had similar results with the actual gain being much lower than published. I am placing a Sony 6000es at 19 ft from 140 in scope screen (necessary to avoid hitting head on riser) so I need a high gain screen of 1.1 to hit 100 nits. I was hoping to place my screen directly over in walls. It seems like I might need to get a different screen and/or build the screen out?


----------



## confinoj

I've been using my Dreamscreen V7 for a couple months now in our new basement HT. It was one of the few options (other than XY) that allowed my to go AT and sit at 8.5ft from screen and not see weave/perf plus get the gain I wanted. I was just more comfortable ordering from Dreamscreen. Similar to PixelPusher15 I have noticed that it does not appear as sharp as other materials which is likely exacerbated sitting so close (8.5ft to 120" 16x9). It resolves 4K patterns still and actual video content can look very sharp depending on source quality. It's noticeable primarily with text and graphics so until I start playing something it's fairly evident on the UI of whatever source I'm using. Not sure if more tension on the screen would have any impact on this? I thought Pixelpusher15 had mentioned this at one point. Anyone else bothered by V7 sharpness?

The other issue I have is likely premature to assess but it does sometimes seem like my speakers are truly behind a screen. It's more noticeable for music that movies but for some voices in movies it's noticeable. I say it may be premature as I haven't finished treating the room yet. The screen is in front of an alcove that measures about 10ft feet wide by 3ft deep. Right now the wall behind the screen has 6 panels of OC 703, 4" thick at 48"x24" each but the room itself does not have panels up yet and I will also be filling a good amount of the space behind the screen with pink insulation. Nonetheless it does look like on audyssey measurements there is a good amount of high end roll off due to the screen (attached pic). These are Revel F36s which should measure fairly flat although I don't have a measurement without the screen in place. My expectation was that with room correction this should not be noticeable so I'm hoping it's just due to an untreated room. Has anyone seen reports of people being unhappy with the AT qualities of the V7 once room correction is applied? Can degree of tension on the screen also affect AT qualities? I know I have more work to do and eventually when I get room panels up (arriving in 1-2 weeks) and break out my umik-1 I can get some more data.


----------



## PixelPusher15

confinoj said:


> I've been using my Dreamscreen V7 for a couple months now in our new basement HT. It was one of the few options (other than XY) that allowed my to go AT and sit at 8.5ft from screen and not see weave/perf plus get the gain I wanted. I was just more comfortable ordering from Dreamscreen. Similar to PixelPusher15 I have noticed that it does not appear as sharp as other materials which is likely exacerbated sitting so close (8.5ft to 120" 16x9). It resolves 4K patterns still and actual video content can look very sharp depending on source quality. It's noticeable primarily with text and graphics so until I start playing something it's fairly evident on the UI of whatever source I'm using. Not sure if more tension on the screen would have any impact on this? I thought Pixelpusher15 had mentioned this at one point. Anyone else bothered by V7 sharpness?
> 
> The other issue I have is likely premature to assess but it does sometimes seem like my speakers are truly behind a screen. It's more noticeable for music that movies but for some voices in movies it's noticeable. I say it may be premature as I haven't finished treating the room yet. The screen is in front of an alcove that measures about 10ft feet wide by 3ft deep. Right now the wall behind the screen has 6 panels of OC 703, 4" thick at 48"x24" each but the room itself does not have panels up yet and I will also be filling a good amount of the space behind the screen with pink insulation. Nonetheless it does look like on audyssey measurements there is a good amount of high end roll off due to the screen (attached pic). These are Revel F36s which should measure fairly flat although I don't have a measurement without the screen in place. My expectation was that with room correction this should not be noticeable so I'm hoping it's just due to an untreated room. Has anyone seen reports of people being unhappy with the AT qualities of the V7 once room correction is applied? Can degree of tension on the screen also affect AT qualities? I know I have more work to do and eventually when I get room panels up (arriving in 1-2 weeks) and break out my umik-1 I can get some more data.


I did find the v7 to be less sharp than the coated woven materials. As long as you don't see the texture, they will be sharper. I attribute this to light being able to penetrate into the fibers and be scattered to adjacent fibers. I can see it in pretty much every uncoated material. I just had a couple over last week and we went through all the popular materials here. They too saw that the v7 was softer compared to the XY 4K. I tested tensioning the v7 quite a bit and it did help some but it still wasn't as sharp IMO. This was testing on two full-size screens, BTW. 

In regard to your speakers. I did not test off-axis response but that could impact what you are hearing. The v7 is a pretty thick material and while it tests well on-axis I would not be surprised if it is attenuating more off-axis vs some other thinner materials. If you have a well-treated area behind the screen (very dark/black) then I have reason to believe a a thinner material without a black backing would be more transparent, whether that be an uncoated or coated material. Once you get your UMIK-1 you could try to test the off axis response and see how it changes with and without the screen. That could give you more insight into what's happening.


----------



## ng4ever

Thanks for this test really helped!


Good things my eyes are not really good. 

It sucks but at the same time does have an advantage.


----------



## Q&A

scottyb said:


> Here is the conversation with XY screens:
> 
> That is awesome. BTW I just opened them and notice one of the samples look different than the other 2 so I email them and got a quick reply with a concerning message
> 
> "Yes, they are different batches, the yellower one more often, but sometime the whiter one, some I put two of them, And the whiter one will become to yellow later after the time went by( belong to the Normal oxidation ), in case we have some misapprehensive in the later of the other."
> 
> That is the response from XY screens. Two other forum members and I ordered samples together to save on shipping. I didn't even have my guy send me the sample because of this response. Not trying to bash XY because I would have liked a brighter screen, just passing along information.


What a great thread. Just wondering if anyone else has had issues with the "yellower" XY screens, or with XY screens that came white, but oxidized and turned yellow. Thanks!


----------



## confinoj

confinoj said:


> I've been using my Dreamscreen V7 for a couple months now in our new basement HT. It was one of the few options (other than XY) that allowed my to go AT and sit at 8.5ft from screen and not see weave/perf plus get the gain I wanted. I was just more comfortable ordering from Dreamscreen. Similar to PixelPusher15 I have noticed that it does not appear as sharp as other materials which is likely exacerbated sitting so close (8.5ft to 120" 16x9). It resolves 4K patterns still and actual video content can look very sharp depending on source quality. It's noticeable primarily with text and graphics so until I start playing something it's fairly evident on the UI of whatever source I'm using. Not sure if more tension on the screen would have any impact on this? I thought Pixelpusher15 had mentioned this at one point. Anyone else bothered by V7 sharpness?
> 
> The other issue I have is likely premature to assess but it does sometimes seem like my speakers are truly behind a screen. It's more noticeable for music that movies but for some voices in movies it's noticeable. I say it may be premature as I haven't finished treating the room yet. The screen is in front of an alcove that measures about 10ft feet wide by 3ft deep. Right now the wall behind the screen has 6 panels of OC 703, 4" thick at 48"x24" each but the room itself does not have panels up yet and I will also be filling a good amount of the space behind the screen with pink insulation. Nonetheless it does look like on audyssey measurements there is a good amount of high end roll off due to the screen (attached pic). These are Revel F36s which should measure fairly flat although I don't have a measurement without the screen in place. My expectation was that with room correction this should not be noticeable so I'm hoping it's just due to an untreated room. Has anyone seen reports of people being unhappy with the AT qualities of the V7 once room correction is applied? Can degree of tension on the screen also affect AT qualities? I know I have more work to do and eventually when I get room panels up (arriving in 1-2 weeks) and break out my umik-1 I can get some more data.


Just to follow up on the audio part of my post my assessment was indeed pre-mature. I put all my GIK acoustic panels up over the past week and audio now sounds excellent so it was the room not the screen which makes more sense. I still haven't filled the space behind the screen with insulation for bass trapping yet or even re-run Audyssey yet but there is already a marked improvement and will get even better.


----------



## ShoutingMan

PixelPusher15 said:


> The original post has been updated with all of my new measurements, findings and commentary. My website has also been updated which contains the embedded frequency charts.
> 
> *Thank you very much to those that helped along the way!*
> 
> I'm going to be completely honest, this took a lot of time and I don't have any more to give to it at this point. I'm really happy with where it ended up but for right now there won't be any redos. I am planning on doing a small comparison between some spandex samples I am getting in but that might not even happen. In the future, I can see adding some screen samples to this list with much less work. My process has been documented and should be repeatable. I'm perfectly happy to take suggestions for that possible future comparison. There are materials I couldn't get my hands on that I wanted to (SI Maestro and some from Elunevision). I'm sure there are others out there too.
> 
> My theater spent a lot of time in disarray and I'm really looking forward to getting my new screen installed, kicking back, and binge watching a ton of movies I've been sitting on waiting for the new screen.
> 
> 🤘


Sorry for a year-late question, but is the July 2021 website entry the latest/greatest? First post says to see this Oct 2021 update, but the Oct 2021 link doesn’t work (“Sorry, you are not allowed to preview drafts.”). And the July web date precedes this update by a few months.

Thanks.


----------



## ShoutingMan

TL;DR
What screen samples should I get, if I want to upgrade to finer weave and more-unity gain from a SI Maestro?


I’ve finally got 4K in my theater with my new-to-me NX7. I’m starting to think about upgrading screens. My SI Maestro 1.1 gain still looks great. But even with HD projection, I could see the weave structure in “snow field” type scenes in my front row (about 12 feet distance). So I’m interested in a little finer weave and maybe a gain closer to unity (since the Maestro’s 1.1 is probably closer to 0.7 or 0.8 in truth). 

Screen is close to speakers so I think I need a weave (vs microperf).

My budget is probably <$3000, though getting under $1000 would be great. I’d love to see my SI to help offset but I don’t know if that’s realistic.

I’ve talked with Adrian of Stewart Screens this summer (at the AudioLive event) and he said they‘ve got a new woven screen coming. But I can’t find anything about it; maybe I misunderstood him?

My timeline is maybe sometime next year. I’m in no hurry. Starting to think about thinking about it.


----------



## nathan_h

Aside from the recommendations in @PixelPusher15 article, accessible on his web site even though the link in the first post of this thread to the specific article is broken right now, I would say that the usual suspects for some gain in a woven screen with reliable quality and customer service for a turnkey offering in your budget boils down to Seymour XD material. 

And if that has texture that is still visible for your eyes, then the UF material (now called gen 2) is likely not visible for you and would be the next best choice though with gain similar to what you already have. 

Best to get a sample of each (free for that asking) and see how they look in your room. (Remember, if you hold them up to your screen, to put a black sheet between the sample and your existing screen.)


----------



## PixelPusher15

ShoutingMan said:


> Sorry for a year-late question, but is the July 2021 website entry the latest/greatest? First post says to see this Oct 2021 update, but the Oct 2021 link doesn’t work (“Sorry, you are not allowed to preview drafts.”). And the July web date precedes this update by a few months.
> 
> Thanks.


My website is up to date even though it says July 5th. That is the original publish date. That link on the post you quoted was wrong and I updated it...thanks for pointing it out!



ShoutingMan said:


> TL;DR
> What screen samples should I get, if I want to upgrade to finer weave and more-unity gain from a SI Maestro?
> 
> 
> I’ve finally got 4K in my theater with my new-to-me NX7. I’m starting to think about upgrading screens. My SI Maestro 1.1 gain still looks great. But even with HD projection, I could see the weave structure in “snow field” type scenes in my front row (about 12 feet distance). So I’m interested in a little finer weave and maybe a gain closer to unity (since the Maestro’s 1.1 is probably closer to 0.7 or 0.8 in truth).
> 
> Screen is close to speakers so I think I need a weave (vs microperf).
> 
> My budget is probably <$3000, though getting under $1000 would be great. I’d love to see my SI to help offset but I don’t know if that’s realistic.
> 
> I’ve talked with Adrian of Stewart Screens this summer (at the AudioLive event) and he said they‘ve got a new woven screen coming. But I can’t find anything about it; maybe I misunderstood him?
> 
> My timeline is maybe sometime next year. I’m in no hurry. Starting to think about thinking about it.


Any of the uncoated materials will have a less noticeable weave. Seymour UF, Silver Ticket WVS, Stewart Harmony G2 (this was new in 2021), Elite AcousticPro 1080P3, etc. These all max out around 0.7 gain. The only three I really recommend that are on the brighter side and have low texture are the XY Screens SoundMax 4K, Elite AcousticPro UHD, and DreamScreen UltraWeave v7. If you are trying to get away from seeing weave on a coated material like you have now then I'd avoid the Seymour XD and SilverTicket WAB. Get samples if you're curious, of course.

Interesting development for this thread is that I recently found out that Rose Brand has a new spandex material that is supposed to be brighter and heavier weight than the standard spandex.





122" Boost, IFR from Rose Brand


A breakthrough heavy weight stretch fabric with the most 4-way stretch possible in a Flame Retardant fabric. Versatile and sturdy, Boost will be the choice fabric for all stretch applications.




www.rosebrand.com






https://www.rosebrand.com/downloads/Projection-Boost-112.pdf


That PDF has this:










> Projection has become a staple in performance, integrating seamlessly with scenic and lighting design. These standardized gain test results are a tool for helping to choose among Rose Brand’s projection substrates. Many are materials specifically for high resolution projection, but also included are fabrics for more abstract lighting effects. As projection professionals know, gain/viewing angle is only one of many factors to consider when selecting a projection surface.
> 
> Fabrics were tested using a Panasonic PT-RZ370 projector, a Sekonic spot meter, and a Datacolor Syder 5 Elite software and color sensor suite.
> 
> The projector was mounted 6 feet from the surface under test. A quarter circle with a 6 foot radius was marked on the floor with measurement positions established at 15 degree increments: on-axis, 15, 30, 45, 60 and 75 degrees. The brightness of the surface under test was measured from each of these positions and color analysis was done on axis. Each of the fabrics now has a preset Windows color calibration profile available for the Panasonic projector used in the tests.
> 
> Projector Settings were as follows: 6 foot throw distance. Standard Picture Mode. All Pic Controls Set to Zero or Neutral. Color Temp is Set to Default. Noise Reduction Off.


I've got a sample of it coming today. Hopefully, they sent me


----------



## flyers10

Andy, any plans to test the updated Seymour UF2 material?


----------



## nathan_h

PixelPusher15 said:


> Any of the uncoated materials will have a less noticeable weave. Seymour UF, Silver Ticket WVS, Stewart Harmony G2 (this was new in 2021), Elite AcousticPro UHD, etc. These all max out around 0.7 gain. The only three I really recommend that are on the brighter side and have low texture are the XY Screens SoundMax 4K, Elite AcousticPro UHD, and DreamScreen UltraWeave v7.


This is a great list. I had an AcousticPro UHD screen for a short time at a short distance and did not notice any weave from my seating distance. I didn't notice that it had more gain. But I wasn't short on gain given the small screen size (120" max is what I can fit, and I think I had a 110" version of the Elite screen) but needed ALR in an all white room so it had to go. But I may be modifying the room in the future and be back to a white screen.....


----------



## PixelPusher15

flyers10 said:


> Andy, any plans to test the updated Seymour UF2 material?


Not right now. Too many other things in life going on. I really only got the new spandex because there were measurements that were almost too good to believe. Well, I threw the sample up next to my SoundMax 4K and it’s noticeably dimmer. So not 0.8 gain. Oh well.


----------



## jaysoffian

IMPORTANT: what you're about tor read, unlike PixelPusher15's measurements, is completely subjective and totally unscientific. If that's triggering for you, please just skip to the next post. 

I currently have a Silver Ticket 16x9 100" screen in white matte. I'm switching to AT, so I ordered their sample pack. I only wanted to know whether the 25% increased cost of the WVS material was worth it over the WAB material. PixelPusher15's careful measurements tell me the two ST AT materials are very close visually and acoustically. Measurements from @Dominic Chan in this post tell me I can expect about a 25% decrease in gain on the WAB material (0.74) compared to their matte white (0.99).

You can definitely see the difference between the materials up close. Matte white on top, WAB on the left, WVS on the right, photographed in my dining room under 2700K Cree LED light bulbs on my iPhone 13:










So then my question was whether I could tell the difference between the two AT materials in my HT from 9' away. And the answer is: projecting an actual motion picture image instead of a frozen still, I basically can't. There's an apparent slight hit in brightness on the WVS material over the WAB, which matches up with PixelPusher15's measurements.

Now, again, unscientific, I taped these on top of my existing screen using only the black backing from the sample pack between them and my screen. Obviously when I get the real screen there won't be a matte white screen behind it.

My subjective opinion at the minimum distance (using my 51 year old 20/20 corrected vision) for the WAB material before you can no longer see the texture matches up with PixelPusher15's... around 8 feet. At 9 feet I couldn't see it anymore. So after all this, I decided to just order the WAB screen.

The photos below are from my iPhone 13 are at whatever exposure it decided upon. The photos are all from different distances, zoomed different amounts, and different angles. Image is being projected by a JVC RS520 from an AppleTV in SDR playing MKV rips of TG Maverick (4K), Rocketeer (1080p) and Star Wars despecialized edition. WVS is on the left and the WAB on the right (opposite from above).

Video


----------



## PixelPusher15

jaysoffian said:


> IMPORTANT: what you're about tor read, unlike PixelPusher15's measurements, is completely subjective and totally unscientific. If that's triggering for you, please just skip to the next post.
> 
> I currently have an ST 16x9" 100" screen in white matte. I'm switching to AT, so I ordered their sample pack. I only wanted to know whether the 25% increased cost of the WVS material was worth it over the WAB material. PixelPusher15's careful measurements tell me the two ST AT materials are very close visually and acoustically. Measurements from @Dominic Chan in this post tell me I can expect about a 25% decrease in gain on the WAB material (0.74) compared to their matte white (0.99).
> 
> You can definitely see the difference between the materials up close. Matte white on top, WAB on the left, WVS on the right, capturing in my dining room under 2700K Cree LED light bulbs on my iPhone 13:
> 
> View attachment 3375633
> 
> 
> So then my question was whether I could tell the difference between the two AT materials in my HT from 9' away. And the answer is: projecting an actual motion picture image instead of a frozen still, I basically can't. There's an apparent slight hit in brightness on the WVS material over the WAB, which matches up with PixelPusher15's measurements.
> 
> Now, again, unscientific, I taped these on top of my existing screen. I probably should have put something black besides the black cloth between my screen and the two materials.
> 
> My subjective opinion at the minimum distance (using my 51 year old 20/20 corrected vision) for the WAB material before you can no longer see the texture matches up with PixelPusher15's... around 8 feet. At 9 feet I couldn't see it anymore. So after all this, I decided to just order the WAB screen.
> 
> The photo below are from my iPhone 13 are at whatever exposure it decided upon. The photos are all from different distances, zoomed different amounts, and different angles. Image is being projected by a JVC RS520 from an AppleTV in SDR playing MKV rips of TG Maverick (4K), Rocketeer (1080p) and Star Wars despecialized edition. WVS is on the left and the WAB on the right (opposite from above).
> 
> View attachment 3375652
> View attachment 3375653
> View attachment 3375654
> View attachment 3375655
> View attachment 3375656
> View attachment 3375657
> View attachment 3375658
> View attachment 3375660
> View attachment 3375659
> View attachment 3375661
> View attachment 3375662
> View attachment 3375663
> View attachment 3375664
> View attachment 3375665
> View attachment 3375667
> View attachment 3375666
> View attachment 3375668
> View attachment 3375670
> View attachment 3375669


Nice post. Your photos _really _show why its important to put a black material behind the AT screens when comparing to each other and a solid screen. Would be pretty misleading if you didn't.


----------



## nathan_h

jaysoffian said:


> I only wanted to know whether the 25% increased cost of the WVS material was worth it over the WAB material.


I take it from your real world viewing that the increased cost of WVS didn't make much sense?


----------



## jaysoffian

nathan_h said:


> I take it from your real world viewing that the increased cost of WVS didn't make much sense?


Correct. Neither my wife nor I could tell the difference from 9' away and kept forgetting which was which. Since they measure so similarly, I just went with the cheaper and very slightly brighter material. Maybe at 8' with a 4K projector and if I had 20/10 or 20/15 vision I'd want the WVS material. But at 9' real world viewing on a faux 4K projector? Wasn't worth the additional cost. Especially since everything is a compromise, it's good enough! Ship it!


----------



## nathan_h

jaysoffian said:


> Correct. Neither my wife nor I could tell the difference from 9' away and kept forgetting which was which. Since they measure so similarly, I just went with the cheaper and very slightly brighter material. Maybe at 8' with a 4K projector and if I had 20/10 or 20/15 vision I'd want the WVS material. But at 9' real world viewing on a faux 4K projector? Wasn't worth the additional cost. Especially since everything is a compromise, it's good enough! Ship it!


You have convinced me to try samples of both. Thanks!


----------



## jaysoffian

nathan_h said:


> You have convinced me to try samples of both. Thanks!


The sample pack comes with all of their screen materials. I ordered it late on Dec 14th, it shipped the next day and was in my mailbox on Dec 19th. I'm glad I waited to see them both before ordering the screen (which I did yesterday).


----------



## ShoutingMan

jaysoffian said:


> IMPORTANT: what you're about tor read, unlike PixelPusher15's measurements, is completely subjective and totally unscientific. If that's triggering for you, please just skip to the next post.
> 
> I currently have an ST 16x9 100" screen in white matte. I'm switching to AT, so I ordered their sample pack. I only wanted to know whether the 25% increased cost of the WVS material was worth it over the WAB material. PixelPusher15's careful measurements tell me the two ST AT materials are very close visually and acoustically. Measurements from @Dominic Chan in this post tell me I can expect about a 25% decrease in gain on the WAB material (0.74) compared to their matte white (0.99).
> 
> You can definitely see the difference between the materials up close. Matte white on top, WAB on the left, WVS on the right, photographed in my dining room under 2700K Cree LED light bulbs on my iPhone 13:
> 
> View attachment 3375633
> 
> 
> …


Is there supposed to be a visual difference between the two AT materials? They look identical to me on my iPad screen, except the right being more translucent (less visibly opaque). Or is that the point, the left one reflects more light because it’s less transmissible?


----------



## jaysoffian

ShoutingMan said:


> Is there supposed to be a visual difference between the two AT materials? They look identical to me on my iPad screen,


WVS on the left, WAB on the right (except the first photo in my dining room which is reversed). They looked identical to me too which is why I went with the cheaper one (WAB). Optically, they measure very closely:












> except the right being more translucent (less visibly opaque). Or is that the point, the left one reflects more light because it’s less transmissible?


I think WAB is more opaque (less translucent) which is why the black backing under it appears brighter in the brightest scenes. Less light is reaching the black backing under it.

The advantages to WVS (AFAICT) are:

1) It measured slightly better acoustically using the metric PixelPusher15 chose to sort on (lower std dev from 4"). So it "colors" the frequency response of the speaker less than WAB. But this advantage disappears if the speaker is 12" behind the screen.










I don't mean to impugn PixelPusher15's measurements but I do wonder a bit about the accuracy and precision of the attenuation measurements. Is 0.2 std dev within the margin of error? Why would WAB perform worse at 4 inches but better at 12 inches?

2) It has a finer weave/texture which may be important if you're sitting closer to the screen than 9' or so:










So... WVS is more expensive, does worse optically, does slightly better acoustically, but only when closer than 12" to the speaker. I'd stick with WAB. Unless I were sitting really close.

But also... the sample pack is only like $6, so order it and see for yourself before buying a screen.


----------



## squared80

jaysoffian said:


> Correct. Neither my wife nor I could tell the difference from 9' away and kept forgetting which was which. Since they measure so similarly, I just went with the cheaper and very slightly brighter material. Maybe at 8' with a 4K projector and if I had 20/10 or 20/15 vision I'd want the WVS material. But at 9' real world viewing on a faux 4K projector? Wasn't worth the additional cost. Especially since everything is a compromise, it's good enough! Ship it!


Interesting, in that when I was choosing between the WVS and WAB earlier this year, they were both the exact same price.


----------



## harrisu

Just found this thread. Made a post in your actual other site and then found this thread. 

I very recently had the pleasure to go and watch Avatar the way of water in Dolby Cinema and was blown away with video as well as audio quality. Throughout the movie, not once I saw any screen artifact. Screen basically disappeared and I was very impressed with the contrast and brightness. 
I myself have been using Severtson Cinema White MicroPerf which has 1.3 gain (1.17 after perf). Its a very good material but it doesn't completely disappear on me. Specially in HDR in bright scenes, I can see the screen artifact. Please note that I don't see the perforation but the screen material itself. What ever they are using to give extra .3 gain seems to become visible. So the extra bright scenes in HDR should make you go wow but in my case, it makes me see the screen material and pull me out of the movie. Please note that I don't have the black backing behind the screen since my speakers are 18" away from screen.
Going to unity gain will most likely fix this issue but I really want to see if there is another screen material that can do the job with 1.3 gain? I was hoping that ST 130 would be the one but the first post of this thread gave an edge to Severson over ST 130. Post also mentioned that may be it was a bad sample.
Wondering if others have any opinion on ST 130 Perf? 
Please note that my room is a dedicated HT room and is covered with black velvet up to 3 feet all around the screen (Top wall/ left/right and bottom). In fact, I have black velvet fully covering the bottom from screen to MLP to provide the best environment. Rest of walls are painted black using Rosco TV Black paint.
MLP is 9.5 feet away from 130" 2.40 screen. 

Much appreciated.


----------



## harrisu

jaysoffian said:


> WVS on the left, WAB on the right (except the first photo in my dining room which is reversed). They looked identical to me too which is why I went with the cheaper one (WAB). Optically, they measure very closely:
> 
> View attachment 3376042
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think WAB is more opaque (less translucent) which is why the black backing under it appears brighter in the brightest scenes. Less light is reaching the black backing under it.
> 
> The advantages to WVS (AFAICT) are:
> 
> 1) It measured slightly better acoustically using the metric PixelPusher15 chose to sort on (lower std dev from 4"). So it "colors" the frequency response of the speaker less than WAB. But this advantage disappears if the speaker is 12" behind the screen.
> 
> View attachment 3376044
> 
> 
> I don't mean to impugn PixelPusher15's measurements but I do wonder a bit about the accuracy and precision of the attenuation measurements. Is 0.2 std dev within the margin of error? Why would WAB perform worse at 4 inches but better at 12 inches?
> 
> 2) It has a finer weave/texture which may be important if you're sitting closer to the screen than 9' or so:
> 
> View attachment 3376045
> 
> 
> So... WVS is more expensive, does worse optically, does slightly better acoustically, but only when closer than 12" to the speaker. I'd stick with WAB. Unless I were sitting really close.
> 
> But also... the sample pack is only like $6, so order it and see for yourself before buying a screen.


So you went from ST 1.0 gain to Silver Ticket .7 gain. May I ask why you didn't go to ST perf route?


----------



## jaysoffian

harrisu said:


> So you went from ST 1.0 gain to Silver Ticket .7 gain. May I ask why you didn't go to ST perf route?


Merry Christmas. I think you're asking about the Stewart StudioTek screens, either the 100 or 130. They were never under consideration. Stewart screens are locked away behind a dealer model and I can't even find pricing. I don't have patience for that sort of thing.


----------



## harrisu

jaysoffian said:


> Merry Christmas. I think you're asking about the Stewart StudioTek screens, either the 100 or 130. They were never under consideration. Stewart screens are locked away behind a dealer model and I can't even find pricing. I don't have patience for that sort of thing.


Merry Christmas to you too. Got it. Totally understandable. Was just wondering why you didn't go for Stewart specially when you were using their non AT version. How did you like their non AT version. May be AT version is very similar in performance but less bright.


----------



## jaysoffian

harrisu said:


> Merry Christmas to you too. Got it. Totally understandable. Was just wondering why you didn't go for Stewart specially when you were using their non AT version. How did you like their non AT version. May be AT version is very similar in performance but less bright.


My current screen is a Silver Ticket (ST) matte white, not a Stewart StudioTek (also ST I now realize). Sorry for the confusion.


----------

