In light of the ongoing bass debate in the 950 forum, I thought this might be an interesting topic to pursue. Plus, I have a dream of one day doing this so I'd like to do research plenty ahead of the game. Sure, the components may change over the next ten or more years but the laws of physics won't!

If you're building a dedicated room like RAF recently did (hope RAF doesn't mind this link) , what things would you consider mandatory, and what would just be nice to have? Also, given free reign for the room, how would you approach certain known issues, such as the great bass debate has revealed? Would something like carpeted/padded walls be a good idea? Would you maybe employ long heavy curtains to prevent sound reflection from your shelves of media? Some sound relfection is good, isn't it? How much damping is too much? What about keeping the sound confined in your home so you don't entertain the whole neigborhood? Would you put in windows so your home looks normal from the outside or just put the whole thing underground in the basement?

I realize a lot of these things depend greatly on the room characteristics and the ears of the listener so, for the sake of argument, let's pretend you're creating a space in a house you're designing. What would you guys do? What would be your "ideal" room?

Edit: Also, what about lighting, power distribution, seating, and component placement? I'd like to avoid getting in to specific component discussions in this thread, and focus purely on room design and layout.

[This message has been edited by Owl's_Warder (edited March 15, 2002).]

I haven't done much with this sort of thing, although I've done enough acoustical calculations to know that it's in many ways more dark art than science. Your comment about the link to RAF's site reminded me of an old 6-part (edit: OK, 5-part plus photo gallery and addendum...) article on dvdfile.com that you might enjoy: Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream Theater . It gets into a lot of the room design and construction stuff that you are asking about.

------------------
Gonk

[This message has been edited by gonk (edited March 15, 2002).]

A good place to start is The Master Handbook of Acoustics: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0071360972/smrhometheatonli



------------------
Nigel Pond
SMR Home Theatre
SMR Forums
SMR Group
HighFidelityReview

Since the thought of me having a dedicated room is so far out of reach for now and the next decade probably, I'd say my biggest concern is to have a 100% upgradable ROOM, not just equipment. To do that, my initial thought would be to have complete access to the backs of every wall in the room, sort of like having a room within a room. Example (not acoustically correct!!!) would be the outer room would be 20'x20', while the inner theater would be 16'x16'. I think to be somewhat future-proof and to make upgrading a more plausible task, the space between the walls would be perfect.

But, then again, in 10 years, maybe I'll just need a virtual reality neural net connection straight into my cerebral cortex, thereby negating the need for the faux walls. . .

S.

Edit: I just read the whole bass debate and decided I should design my room around a parametrically equalized bass tube. . .j/k.

I'm posting this here as it seems more about the room design than bass treatment (which I know absolutely nothing about). I desire perfect sound, but I require uber comfortable/user friendly space, even in my ideal home theater. For instance, while I would love to have the room acoustically optimized, I will have a wet bar with hardwood, which I doubt would fit in the ideal environment. And while I would be aesthetically happy with large acoustic panels covered in a solid color cloth on the walls, I doubt I would be willing to have seat number 5 obstructed by an acoustic treatment of any sort (I could just see offering obsview tickets to a friend during the superbowl. . . ).

I never thought I'd say it, but even at the age of 27, my desire to have in your face cool stuff, like 6 foot tall monitors for all 7 channels is rapidly waning. I could see my theater with inwall or onwall speakers for all surrounds and using an EQ to improve problems vs a difficult treatment to solve the problem.

So to add a little more to my original post, my first consideration would be upgradability and soundproofing, with my second consideration being a blend of performance with aesthetics, with aesthetics probably winning 6 out of 10 times. The WAF should be good in that way, at least. . .

S^2.



[This message has been edited by MrSandman (edited March 21, 2002).]

Is your 5 speaker setup similar to this? And where would you position the 6th and 7th speakers?:

3.4 Surround placement for DVD-Audio listening

The multichannel music programs on DVD-Audio discs are mixed under different circumstances from movie soundtracks. Films are mixed in large rooms called dubbing theaters that are sized and configured like actual cinemas, while DVD-Audio music programs are typically mixed in much smaller recording studios.

As shown in Figure 13, dubbing theaters (and cinemas) use multiple surround speakers arranged along the sides and rear, mounted high to create a diffuse, enveloping surround soundfield. The advice we've given so far for placing surround speakers is aimed at duplicating this effect at home. In most DVD-Audio mixing facilities, however, there are five identical speakers arranged at ear level in a circle around the mixer.
Figure13

Figure 13: Film soundtracks and DVD-Audio music programs are mixed under different conditions.

Chances are that you will be pleased by the sound of multichannel DVD-Audio programs with your surround speakers optimally placed for movie playback. However, if you wish to more closely replicate what mixers hear when preparing music for DVD-Audio releases, you have two choices. One is to effect a compromise by lowering your surround speakers to a height of four or five feet from the floor to split the difference between the diffuseness desired for film sound and the more direct radiation preferred for surround sound music.

The other alternative is to install and switch between two pairs of surround speakers, one optimized for film playback, and the other, identical to the front speakers, placed at ear level for optimum DVD-Audio playback. This purist (and potentially costly) approach is facilitated on some A/V receiver models by the inclusion of connections and switching for two pairs of surround speakers. However, while this approach may optimize the effect for a listener in the center "sweet spot," those seated off-center may hear too much of one surround speaker or the other.

(I am unable to paste photo, here is a link, and scroll down to fig. 13 http://www.dolby.com/ht/Guide.HomeTheater.0110.html#s3.1
DMC

My speakers are arranged similarly to the "DVD-Audio" layout in 3.4 . My surrounds are dipoles rather than direct radiating, however. The left surround is slightly behind and about three feet above the listening position (the couch). The right surround had to move a few feet farther back because of the front door. As for the surround back channel, I have one dipole speaker on the wall at the back of the room (my couch is about eight feet from the back wall of the room) -- it's basically on the bottom point of the circle in the DVD-Audio diagram.

------------------
gonk -- Saloon Links | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | 950 Review

[This message has been edited by gonk (edited July 28, 2002).]

gonk. A salesperson suggested that I get a direct radiating speaker for the back surround instead of a third dipole. Any comments on a rear dipole versus direct radiating? The sales person suggested a smaller "center" speaker for the rear surround...

------------------

I've seen both dipole and direct radiating suggested for surround back, but never heard an argument that made one clearly better than the other. In my case, the single dipole surround back has worked out very well -- it's a good match to my (identical) surrounds, and it blends in well (diffuse enough to not stand out as "I'm a single speaker back here on the wall, which I think is partly due to it being a dipole). In fact, in my current space, there isn't room for 7.1 (the surrounds and surround backs would start getting absurdly crammed together). If I were doing two surround back channels, I would look into the possibility of using direct radiating, but I wouldn't dismiss dipole even then. For now though, I'm very content to have my solo dipole back there and don't plan to change any time soon.

One thought that occurs to me for a 7.1 speaker arrangement is this: dipole surrounds and direct radiating surround backs, with a switch set up to allow the surround signal to go to the direct radiating instead of the dipoles for 5.1 music (DVD-Audio, SACD). I don't know how much benefit it would offer (could potentially end up with the direct radiating speakers in a bad location for one of the two applications), but I have a lot of interest in direct radiating for multi-channel music surrounds. Call that Friday's random idea of the day...

------------------
gonk -- Saloon Links | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | 950 Review

Some high-end receivers now have built-in switches for this, and something like 14 pairs of binding posts on the rear. Nice feature for those that want it, I think.

It'd be nice if more power amps did this. Perhaps a modified 770, with double sets of binding posts, and a front channel switch to choose between them?

------------------
Matthew J. Hill
matt@idsi.net

I'm amazed sometimes how people seem to think that having a room dedicated to home theater is such a difficult journey. I don't mean that in a bad way. Just that as Owl suggests, doing a little research and preparation makes it a bit easier and affordable. When searching for my home, I made sure that my agent only sent me lisings with a room that was at least 25x12. I found one with a rec room that was 30x12 with brand new dark evergreen carpeting (my favorite color). I contacted a man through a friend I work with who did home theater and sound system installations who suggested exactly what Owl did, curtains. We installed rods in the front and sides of the room (this was after painting the entire room flat black) and then put up valences on the three sides to hide them and covered them with a wallpaper border that had a nice art deco theater look. The curtains were custom cut from a nice heavy black material with a small tasteful pattern and then hung on the rods on each side. In front, a length of curtain was hung on each side and pushed to leave an opening for my Toshiba 65HX81. A small piece of curtain was hung behind the RPTV to cover the wall between the two front pieces of curtain. A five shelf rack from Home Depot went to the left of the TV to hold equipment (that curtain was then split from bottom to the top of the rack to allow access to the equipment)I had sashes made to tie the sides open when needed).Since you don't see the rack, I saved money there. I set up my NHT VT-1 speaker system in the typical 7.1 set-up (I recently added two SB-1 speakers as side surrounds) and placed the sub to the right of the TV. And it sounds awesome. The curtain add just the right dampening effect to the room. I lucked out and got two movie marquees from a local Blockbuster (I just walked in an asked it they ever sold their old ones) while they just happened to be switching to window decals. I was told they couldn't sell them but I could pick them up once they were being thrown away. I gave them my phone number, they called a week later and I got them for free(they run about $650.00 a piece) and hung them on the back wall of the room. Bought a love seat, two recliners and a sofa to match the carpet at a going out of business sale, built and carpeted a riser for the love seat, added rope lighting around the riser, covered the ceiling with those glow in the dark stars you can get at Spencers and I was in business.And it all cost under $5000.00! The curtains were the most expensive item but it does show you that with a little bit of planning, research and luck, you can get it done and enjoy.