Bruce's 9.4.2 Dedicated Screening Room

diverdog

Active Member
9.4.2 or 9.2.4?
Originally my intention was 9.4.2 to stay within 16 channels. But on further though I think my room is big enough that the Atmos rear pair could play nicely with the backs. I'm going to install 4 Atmos since the additional cost is trivial compared to the project cost. I'll experiment and see if I like the rear pair. If so I will use a miniDSP HD to expand the channel count and manage the subs
 

diverdog

Active Member
Screen sizing and placement. I prefer a horizontal width of around 50 degrees. At 10' viewing distance a 130" diagonal 16:9 screen does it. I'm going with a 16:9 because the majority of programming I watch is in that format. In scope I'll mask top and bottom. I laid out the screen size on the wall and with a 45" eye height both my wife and I agreed that the 130" field of view was good horizontally and vertically placed 17" off the room floor. This works great for LCR speaker placement as ear height is only a few inches below the center of the screen. Inside edge of wide blue tape is 16:9, green tape shows scope size.
 

Attachments

  • Screen layout.jpg
    Screen layout.jpg
    212.8 KB · Views: 39

Triggaaar

Distinguished Member
Screen sizing and placement. I prefer a horizontal width of around 50 degrees. At 10' viewing distance a 130" diagonal 16:9 screen does it. I'm going with a 16:9 because the majority of programming I watch is in that format. In scope I'll mask top and bottom.
What kind of thing do you watch in 16:9 format?

Switching from that to a smaller scope for epic films is far from ideal.
 

diverdog

Active Member
What kind of thing do you watch in 16:9 format?

Switching from that to a smaller scope for epic films is far from ideal.
Sports and most TV drama is 16:9. I'm not losing anything from scope because 50 degrees horizontal is as wide as I find comfortable (~ 113" at 10'). Cropping top and bottom on a 16:9 maximizes both formats
 

Triggaaar

Distinguished Member
Sports and most TV drama is 16:9. I'm not losing anything from scope because 50 degrees horizontal is as wide as I find comfortable (~ 113" at 10').
If your comfort is limited by that width, and not by the height, then that's very unusual, and I'd think probably an incorrect assumption. Plenty of testing has been done on this, and human vision is suited to a lot more width than height.

You are losing something, because when you watch some tv drama and the screen is massive, and then you decide to watch an epic blockbuster, you're suddenly getting a smaller screen, which is not the intention of the director.


Cropping top and bottom on a 16:9 maximizes both formats
If 9'5" is the maximum width you can get in your room, then you're maximising what you can fit in your room due to room limitations, which is all you can do. But if you can fit wider, then you're not maximising scope format.

If that's what's you want to go with, that's cool, we each have different tastes and make personal choices on how we want our room. But it's better for me to point these things out before the room is built, than after.
 

diverdog

Active Member
If 9'5" is the maximum width you can get in your room, then you're maximising what you can fit in your room due to room limitations, which is all you can do. But if you can fit wider, then you're not maximising scope format.
I could get a much bigger screen in my room but for me it would degrade the experience. A 10' viewing distance places the seats in a good place to minimize bass nulls. It is also 7' off the rear wall, enough space to implement back speakers and diffusion.

I know that for me (and evidently a lot of other folks as most professional designers target it too) a 50 degree horizontal viewing angle provides an immersive experience without excessive eye and head movement. (BTW THX recommends a 36-40 degree viewing angle.) At 10' viewing that's a 9'5" screen width no matter what the format is. The resulting vertical dimension is just calculated from the width and aspect ratio. The 16:9 image height is within the recommended 30 degree maximum. As for the taller 16:9 image diminishing the scope image I don't find that to be the case when I watch on my 85" TV in the living room. I do wish that the scope image was bigger but I forget about comparing it in a couple of minutes.

Of course, this is a personal preference. At a commercial theater some people sit very close to the screen, some in the middle and some in the back. Although I think those in the back are more interested in snogging than the movie! LOL
 

Triggaaar

Distinguished Member
I could get a much bigger screen in my room but for me it would degrade the experience. A 10' viewing distance places the seats in a good place to minimize bass nulls. It is also 7' off the rear wall, enough space to implement back speakers and diffusion.
Yeah 10' is good and avoiding nulls an added bonus. My position is very similar.



I know that for me (and evidently a lot of other folks as most professional designers target it too) a 50 degree horizontal viewing angle provides an immersive experience without excessive eye and head movement.

The 50 degree angle is recommended for scope, with the idea that people will have smaller for 16:9. That's what Anthony Grimani recommends (not 50 degrees for 16:9).


(BTW THX recommends a 36-40 degree viewing angle.)

No, that's incorrect. They recommend 36 degrees for the back row of a THX cinema, and 50 degrees for the centre row. So they allow for more than 50 degrees for the forward rows.


At 10' viewing that's a 9'5" screen width no matter what the format is. The resulting vertical dimension is just calculated from the width and aspect ratio. The 16:9 image height is within the recommended 30 degree maximum.
You're pushing maximum vertical with the 16:9 content, but nowhere near maximum horizontally. If that's what you want, that of course is fine, as long as you're aware of the compromises.

As for the taller 16:9 image diminishing the scope image I don't find that to be the case when I watch on my 85" TV in the living room. I do wish that the scope image was bigger but I forget about comparing it in a couple of minutes.
It's not ideal to be watching Bridgerton on a massive screen, and then have to switch to a smaller screen to watch the latest blockbuster, but if that's a compromise you have to make that's ok.

My screen is closer to 16:9 than scope, but I'll mask down 16:9 content so that films are bigger, and then use the extra height for IMAX.
 

diverdog

Active Member
I think we are talking past each other. Since the defining dimension for me is a 50 degrees horizontal I have two possible choices, a scope screen that will be 9' 5" wide and 4' high. I can mask the sides for 16:9 and have a 7' 1" wide image with a 39 degree viewing angle. Or a 9' 5" wide x 5' 4" high 16:9 screen that I can mask for 9' 5" x 4' scope image.

If I wanted a wider viewing angle it would make sense to have a scope screen and mask the sides as the vertical viewing angle for 16:9 would be uncomfortable.

"New cinemas built to THX specifications have a minimum viewing angle of 36 degrees from the last row of seats. The viewing angle ‘sweet spot’ seems to be around 45-50 degrees where SMPTE, THX and 20th Century Fox recommendations converge. This matches quite closely with CEDIA’s 43 degree viewing angle recommendation for 2.4:1 ‘Cinemascope’ content as per CEB-23. For reference 43 degrees is 3x picture height using a 2.35:1 screen."

For me it's a no brainer. The 16:9 screen gives me both aspect ratios with no compromise on my preferred viewing angles.
 

Praetorpwj

Active Member
I think we are talking past each other. Since the defining dimension for me is a 50 degrees horizontal I have two possible choices, a scope screen that will be 9' 5" wide and 4' high. I can mask the sides for 16:9 and have a 7' 1" wide image with a 39 degree viewing angle. Or a 9' 5" wide x 5' 4" high 16:9 screen that I can mask for 9' 5" x 4' scope image.

If I wanted a wider viewing angle it would make sense to have a scope screen and mask the sides as the vertical viewing angle for 16:9 would be uncomfortable.

"New cinemas built to THX specifications have a minimum viewing angle of 36 degrees from the last row of seats. The viewing angle ‘sweet spot’ seems to be around 45-50 degrees where SMPTE, THX and 20th Century Fox recommendations converge. This matches quite closely with CEDIA’s 43 degree viewing angle recommendation for 2.4:1 ‘Cinemascope’ content as per CEB-23. For reference 43 degrees is 3x picture height using a 2.35:1 screen."

For me it's a no brainer. The 16:9 screen gives me both aspect ratios with no compromise on my preferred viewing angles.
This is more or less what I currently have (16:9 screen approx 2.9m wide masked to scope viewed from 3.3m).

It’s the most flexible arrangement. Most stuff I watch in the masked screen either scoped or zoomed in. Remove top and bottom masking for IMAX material. Remove bottom only for enlarged 4K 16:9 material.
 

diverdog

Active Member
This is more or less what I currently have (16:9 screen approx 2.9m wide masked to scope viewed from 3.3m).

It’s the most flexible arrangement. Most stuff I watch in the masked screen either scoped or zoomed in. Remove top and bottom masking for IMAX material. Remove bottom only for enlarged 4K 16:9 material.
Thanks for the input. You must be a pretty smart guy! LOL Although following engineering guidelines is usually a good idea, image size and format are a personal choice for a private room.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Panasonic 2022 OLED TV hands-on, Picture Settings Discussions, Hi-Fi and AV News & More
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom