For HT use, you are right - a perforated screen is preferrable, and it is indeed the very configuration of all dubbing stages. It solves the problem on having the three speakers at equal height, among other things. Ideally, such a screen should be motorized (or movable) so that it is out of the way of the speakers when listening to music however. All perforated screens attenuate the high frequencies to some degree (some are better in this regard), and the screen itself can act as an interfering boundry to the sound from the speakers. With a motorized screen and three identical front speakers, you would have an ideal setup for both cinema and multi-channel music.

Well, at least you guys did not fall out laughing too hard. I’m trying to figure out how to approach my husband. “Um, I was just wondering if there is some way,,,,,just maybe,,,,,,,(smiles sweetly),,,,,,(makes sure she just fed him lobster),,,,,,we can take one of my two vinnea’s, turn it on its side and temporarily rig it to hang just over the top edge of the 60” LCD screen to see how it sounds,,,,,,140 pounds isn’t that difficult is it?,,,,,,,,(beams at him).”
Think it will work?!

Yes, my center is currently d'appolito, and the Beethoven’s, would look (passable) on its side (except a heck of a size for a center) with grill on, with an extra 2-3 inches on one end of flat wood beyond the grille (normally the base when upright). IF dispersion turned out not to be an issue, I would be willing to do this! (if the quality increase warrented). The maestro is the largest center VA makes. (I’d have to research other manf, trying to match the sound to the VA’s in a larger center config). (unless VA could fab me a custom center Beethoven, naw they wouldn’t would they? I could call!).

Since the display here is 60” LCD RP, (vs a FP with a screen) the only methods are: literally hang it from the ceiling at the top edge of the LCD, or have 2 floorstanders to L of the screen, one R, with one of the L’s pulling center duty.

I found a view of one without its grill,,, http://www.soundsperfection.co.uk/vienna.html
looking at it (in theory) I really don’t know what that array on its side would sound like. Right now my husband hung the maestro center without my input, and he hung it too high over the back center of the LCD (and its prob. 50 pds). He theorized since its back from the front plane of the display, - too low it would radiate from below and bounce off the back of the display losing energy. But he gave it far too much clearance. Which reduced my front soundstage, it really (has) to come down to bring it more in line with the L/R. I will never have the 3 (in this room) on the same height to floor plane, wish I could but it is just not possible. Right now the center is back behind the (distance to listener) plane of the LR’s and much higher. If I could work a Beethoven across the front center he would have to bring the DTL plane of the center forward flush with top of the screen simply to be able to fit the cabinetry of the larger speaker in that corner, bringing it more in line with the l/r’s. (and that’s a force for him (I could not get him too with the maestro) which would benefit me acoustically. The question is would I gain more in range and soundstage than I would lose due to dispersion.
(I may never pull this one off, but can have fun trying.

forgive guys its been such a two weeks I'm slightly overboard tonight contemplating how to improve my favorite pasttime, - for a total change of pace.

Not THAT would be a novel marital spat!! I'd love to be a fly on the wall to hear a "disagreement" about soundstage!. Does Texas recognize disagreements about soundstage as grounds for divorce?

You might try two centers, one on each side of the screen. I've heard setups like that that sounded very nice.

Of COURSE: Texas is a no-fault state. So it’d be “Judge, it’s not my fault, I care about sound across the fronts more than he does!” …..Just kidding as usual its my fault it turned out too high….I was not here when he placed the shelf he built for it. And because he had already ix-nayed my ideas to bring it forward flush with the front edge of the screen (as an overkill shelf-depth for looks in that area) (and one of my arguments for that setup was…if the grill’s not flush it will radiate and effectively some sound with that speaker set back will end up being bounced off the back of the display. Since I worried about that issue so much, - He laid it high to avoid my issue while I was out, - without wiring it and listening. SO now the center’s 4 feet back from the L/R plane and additionally too high. The speakers had a better stage when an open rack was sitting left to the screen as a temp setup with the center speaker on the top shelf of the left axis rack. That’s why I even thought of placing two B’s to the left, it would be the equivalent of what we had before the display stand was built, (but really that would prob look stranger, - than boxing the display round with 3 Beethoven’s. He’s already agreed with me center needs to come down, - and if I could talk him into the larger Beethoven, - cabinetry would force him to hang it flush and bottom edge at top of screen, - alleviating somewhat two of current problems.

The double center would be something I would think about, but the corner where this all resides has a shorter leg to the right of the display before an opening, and the room is [tiny] 4 floorst. across the front would not fit (they already think I've lost it fitting two. Therefore my passing thought, -could I hang one B side-laid for a center, which sounds overwhelming but if you think about it …truly flush with the display,..it ends up being just a display surrounded by cabinetry. A setup many HO’ have when placing a large screen display into a wall of exsisting built-ins. (Hard to visualize how it would really look if it could improve sound and be acomplished) And you just can't ask your husband to hold 150 pds over his head sideways here there and yonder to 'hear' it.

goodness, i can't remember what i read. 1st, i'd just like to say...in response to SLL, you are a spark of crystal on these shores. i have been to all of sony's and others schools for learning data compression systems (NEC,ATT,Panasonic,etc.). and without going to far there, i must say...digital is here to stay, that being said, you must understand, that if its done in the digital domain...it will always have an encoding process. simply put; i hope, this means a quantifying means of 'looking' at an analogue signal and making 'digits' out of it. digital is the means of using 'packets' of information in some usable means to eventualy 'reproduce' ...something that happened in 'real' time. errrr, if one uses ones and zeros to represent ...music or pictures...or god, god bless her, then one is re-representing that entity with ...numbers; and numbers can never ever give us at the end result what was first put in 'there'. MPEG, itself, is a packet of information that uses an incredible amount of error correction, both pre-signal & post-signal...that attempts to presume what happened in the past. true, even a 35mm picture of abe lincoln cannot give you what he really looked like...but it is so close...because it simply catches the 'light' from around him...noise n all. a digi. snap would be oh-so-clean...but it takes into account things that the eye does not see. to many it 'cleans up' the image', to one who was there and saw where he was standing...he/she might say something like...wait a minute...that vase in the background was barely visible...the wart on his chin...was not so pronounced. digital systems are very good at what they do. they elimanate noise, give us good clean vision...or sound. the reality is...when i was at the bar, there was noise, when abe's friend's were at the photo shoot, there was light falloff...his wart could not be seen so clearly. digital is here to stay. my bosses at cnn yell at me because of artifacts and other things that were not present on our analogue transmission systems...but now we get ...10,12,18 signals on a channel that once only could transmit one. ever watched our 'video phone'...what a technical 'joke'. but i can fly into kosovo with one and set it up and give you the news in 18 hours...the analogue system took days...paperwork...30 pieces of heavy equipment. as an old engineer...i hate digital...as a new waver...it is a blessing. go ask neal young. it is a blessing and a curse. i wish i still had my old 2 inchers from my days as a studio engineer...just couldn't put em in my backpack. rock is dead,
long live rock n roll.
i think i lost sight here...so many comparisions, so little time. i do love questions as yours...keeps me young and keeps me alive. as a postscript to sum it up. in the new 'media', analogue is dead. we now (except for the studio/mastering people) have to live with the'new age'...and the new age media is...digital...digital is numbers. i would now like to refer you to the writings of Langstrom and Niels Borr.
after that, go see a live play and watch a good live band at your local dark horse saloon.
ok, one last ps. their is two places that hold out: 1. the reviving analogue music mastering studios
2. FILM! movies just can't get better here. except for content, which is so much better now than when i grew up. let's keep the oldest analogue signal alive. Light (pps.: the grandfather of film went blind in the 1900's...looking at..the sun)

to charlie, just re-read your statement above. well, i am an audio/video 'enghaneer' and play one on tv,and just gotta say, most of them don't know half of what you know. am retiring in two weeks but youse guys keep me young...again. i helped mitso...whatever...develope their new digital format...well, not the language...the real estate. that little button at the front of a digital panasonic camera...selects frame rate, i did that! wow! we still didn't buy their cameras (they were gonna sue us). and why do we use sony? i hope no one reads this who knows me. cause...it was in the 'best interest' to stay with sony! i almost said why...and cannot in this world of suits. oh yeh, the sony's gggaa-rate! to bad tandberg doesn't make digital cameras (they probably do, i'm not allowed to find out).
postscripe: i know i'm in the south, SH, but is that the 'real' bob lind (with only one i)?

------------------
t higg

oops, bob linds i mean

Except the fact that there were no 35mm cameras. Good digital cameras don't record in compressed format, they merely stream the pixel data to the storage medium for later manipulation, often in 36-48 bit depth per pixel. There are of course issues, and the never ending quest for packing data tighter and tighter is seemingly limitless, but loss due to compression isn't a requirement of digital storage.

No I'm not the REAL Bob Lind. Sorry to disappoint you.

I am the real Bob Lindstrom. That used to mean something in the 80s to computer game fans. Means nothing now, though.

[This message has been edited by boblinds (edited February 16, 2003).]