Jump to content

br0d0

Members
  • Content Count

    91
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

51 Good

About br0d0

  • Rank
    50+ Post Club

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Canberra
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I don't know how far along you are with McDJ but GJ Gardner work with Boral for plastering, I believe, and they do provide a sound proofing option. I haven't built with them so don't know how thorough or expensive it is but it looks promising for a volume builder. https://www.usgboral.com/en_au/solutions/plasterboard-systems/cinemazone-sound-reducing-system.html
  2. Ah yeah I see now. So the theatre only has one door but there are other doors on adjacent rooms that separate the theatre from the rest of the house? If you're ok with sound getting as far as those adjacent rooms then all good I guess.
  3. What's your weakest link? I'm not sure how the whole STC > 125Hz plays out in this case but... the last post of the link above from renovate forum touches on a very relevant point IMO: "As always, room is only as good as its weakest link, for most that's going to be windows or doorways, so green glue system would go great as long as you also put the effort into thick doors with double seals and Windows with the wide separated double glazed option. in the scheme of things given the cost of the whole project of building a studio, green glue is very cheap - a grand would probably see you through a whole room. If you have lots of space though a staggered stud wall would work better - pick your target reduction that you can get with your windows and doors, and then build the rest to exceed it by say 5db- if that needs green glue, then yes." What are people's opinions on the premise that a room is only as soundproof as its weakest link and how should this affect the target sound reduction? For example, according to Ted/soundproofingcompany, double drywall with green glue on clips and channel has STC of 71. It would seem that is a waste if only a single door is in place as: http://www.soundproofingcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/SIM-Doors.pdf "Even the best sealed, heavy door described above (see link) will still only get into the low 40s for an STC sound rating. This is the problem with any single door." - Looking at the below graph, if a single door is used you might as well go with resilient channel (STC 49) at the most. Thoughts?
  4. Nice. Just while the photos are up, where did you get those seats?
  5. My understanding, and more knowledgeable people please correct me if I'm wrong, is that, for depths that could pass for a picture, you'd want batts with a density of 48kg/m3. In Australia that's Ultratel (fibreglass I think) or Polymax XHD (polyester). As far as how much (depth) to use and the air-gap behind, I think: 1" batt < 1" batt /w 1" air-gap < 2" batt < 2" batt /w 1" air-gap < 2" batt /w 2" air-gap... That said, my knowledge of how the air-gap affects absorption is limited.
  6. I'm also interested in the glasses and the 3D emitter if willing to separate. Thanks.
  7. I should say that, yeah, it's 4K scope that I'll be optimising for because it looks glorious. I don't think I'll end up masking in my final room for reasons Owen pointed out so the screen size can be decreased if artefacts become an issue.
  8. Interesting. It's all a matter of perspective/personal preference I suppose. At 2.8m, a 100" 16:9 screen gives a 43 degree viewing angle, which is less than the 45 degree angle recommended by 20th Century Fox (wasn't it?). I painted my whole wall to use as a screen so that I could experiment with screen size. I was set on 16:9 but after viewing a lot of 21:9 movies recently I've changed to wanting a CIH setup with a large scope screen. With a CIW setup, one that constantly uses a 16:9 aspect ratio with bars top and bottom for 21:9, I find that the 21:9 image I get is too small for the size of the 16:9 screen that I'm comfortable viewing. IMO, added height is way more uncomfortable to view than added width. With the CIH setup, I find I can put up with as high as 45 degree viewing angle for 16:9 content; ~113" at 3m. Zooming in gives a (roughly) 150" 21:9 (2.40:1) with the same height; ~ 60 degree viewing angle. I'm surprised by how well I tolerate the increase in width of the image. I theorise that the 21:9 image just widens the panorama, which looks amazing, but the action stays in the middle of the screen where it would be if it were 16:9 anyway. Obviously the periphery is used sometimes but head turning doesn't seem to be the issue I expected it to be; a wider image is way more comfortable to deal with for me. I much prefer the look of the 21:9 ratio to the 16:9 and an extremely large 21:9 image looks way cooler to me. The "best for variety of aspect ratios" question is hard for me to comment on because I don't have screen borders so don't have to mask. I think masking is one downside in a mult-aspect setup but it'd have to be done in both a CIW or CIH setup; depending on your tolerance/if you can be bothered. Another is Nolan movies (that have scenes in both 21:9 and 16:9). This is a real pain/compromise. In my experience (so far), it doesn't add that much to the film for me when a 21:9 increases to a 16:9 on a CIW setup; I noticed it quite a bit in Batman movies. I much prefer any panoramic shot of landscape on a large 21:9 scene; The Martian is great for this. To avoid 16:9 scenes exploding out of the top and bottom of a CIH screen you have to use video playback/processing settings; such as zooming in and cropping on the Oppo 203 in my case. It's a compromise I'm happy to make. At this stage I'm going with a CIH setup with a 55 - 60" degree 21:9 viewing angle and will have to mask the sides of the 16:9... if I can be bothered. It'll be a very dark room.
  9. Would you mind sharing the size of your 16:9 screen and viewing distance by any chance please?
  10. Any chance we can see the rest of the house plan? I'd love to see how you're fitting that space into the design.
  11. Great post. My thoughts: I'm planning on building a dedicated room with clips + hat channel + double dry-wall with green glue in between (not room-in-room). I've been wondering just how much bass absorption I need too and am thinking of implementing the following (but I don't really know if it's too much): - baffle wall behind AT screen (http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/2013322baffle-walls/). This can be deep enough (>=30cm; if you can't go at least 30cm use 45kg/m3) to use fluffy insulation and cover the entire front wall. - riser filled with fluffy - 4 inches of 45kg/m3 insulation (ultratel or polymax XHD) on the back wall with some kind of facing to reflect higher frequencies (link below) - floor-to-ceiling (or under face of soffit) 45kg/m3 superchunks straddling rear corners (maybe?) - soffits filled with fluffy (just the parts without AC duct in it which will be minimal) I've been researching this for about a year now and the old one-size-fits-all treatment plan seemed to be, floor-to-ceiling absorption on the first 1/3 of the room and floor-to-ear-height absorption for the remaing (or something like that). That now seems to have evolved to something more like this which I plan to use (OC703 is American for Ultratel): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/3021830-too-much-acoustic-treatment.html#/topics/3021830?page=1
  12. Does anyone know if there are comparable options in Australia for DIY HT speakers? Options that include the flat pack speaker enclosure, drivers and assembled crossovers? Cheers.
  13. Awesome work! I'll get the energy up to do something like that one day 😲 How do you like the cylindrical sub? I'm considering one (2 actually) over a ported PB model just to save on floor space. And so I can have one up the back somewhere as well as behind the AT screen.
  14. I haven't used it in a while but Emby has a feature to do this. You can store, say, Dolby DTS HD or Atmos trailers in a folder structure and it'll play the appropriate one after detecting the codec. It worked pretty well but, as I said, I haven't used it for a while. I'm pretty sure you could customise it too.
  15. They're all standards/guidelines designed to cram people into a theatre up to the threshold of comfort aren't they? They can help with the MLP at home too though; as a guide. Good discussion about it here, from memory: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-2-35-1-constant-image-height-chat/854721-thx-recommended-viewing-angles.html#post10668346. For example, "... THX or no, one must consider beam spot width, pixel density and size, resolution and the viewer's own preferences as being the primary factors associated with seating distances." - Dennis Erskine Here too: http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/2013314viewing-angles/ Well the viewing angle is the left to right cone so I assume it's more to do with that. It'll be based on personal preference in the end but sitting so close to the screen that pixels can be distinguished isn't really a concern any more; with UHD as you'd have to be crazy close. It came in handy for me, being someone with no projector experience in a home theatre setting. Prior to owning one I was assuming that I'd like the 45 degree viewing angle but found that I actually prefer the screen a bit bigger; 50 to 52 degrees. I calculate a 53 degree viewing angle at 1 x image width which is just above my (current) comfort zone.
×
×
  • Create New...