Help Matching Surround Back speakers to SDA-1Cs in Home Theater

Larry Chanin

Hi All,

I could use some advice on matching surround back speakers to my SDA-1Cs for a home theater setup.

By way of background let me describe my current setup and what I’m trying to achieve. We’ve just moved into a new home and I plan to upgrade my home theater which is comprised almost entirely of Polk Audio speakers. I’m running a 7.1 system with a Lexicon MC-8 processor and 220 watt Parasound amplifiers on each of the seven channels. I’ve got SDA-1Cs that I bought new in 1987 that I plan to continue to use as my mains. While most serious home theater enthusiasts might replace of these elderly speakers, I have an emotional attachment to them that defies logic. They are unmodified and have their original drivers. They are matched with a CS400I center channel, f/x500is for the side surrounds and two M3Iis in the rear for my surround back channels. The only non-Polk is a Carver Knight Shadow subwoofer which is very similar to Sunfire’s smaller subwoofers. (My signature below links to a description of my old setup.)

I’m prepared to upgrade to higher performance speakers (such as the LSis) but not ultra high-end. As far as matching my speakers I am not very familiar with the various types of compatible tweeters. However, based on information that used to be posted on the Polk Audio web site, I am fairly sure that my center channel and side surrounds match up with the SDAs. For my first upgrade I was planning on replacing the M3IIs on the rear wall with high performance In-Wall speakers. I also plan to upgrade my subwoofer to two tube type subwoofers (HSU or SVS).

Since Polk has started to manufacturer higher performance speakers I naturally thought I would go with their new line. All my speakers will be hidden behind acoustically transparent walls or in columns. To hide the rear speakers I first considered the LC265is In-Walls (20”x8”)which are supposed to timber match with Polk’s performance LSi series. However, after talking to a local high-end dealer, who I was surprised to hear was familiar with SDAs, I now realize that it is likely the tweeters in the LSi and LCi line will not match with the SDAs.

The dealer suggested some fairly small (10”x7”) In-Walls made by Snell Acoustics at $550 a pair. These have 1” textile (Kortec) dome tweeters which the dealer thought would match with the SDAs. They don’t have back boxes and the tweeter don't swivel.

Snell of course makes larger, fancier In-Walls with sealed enclosures about the size of Polk’s LC265is that go for $1,800 a pair. I’d like to go bigger, but $1,800 could be a waste of money since the speakers will be behind the listeners and human hearing isn’t as acute coming from the rear.

I’ve also considered Polk’s mass-market In-Walls, the RC85is (14”x10”) at $390 a pair. They have metalized soft dome tweeters that swivel. They don’t have back boxes, but the tweeters pivot.

I apologize for the lengthy posting, but I would greatly appreciate any advice regarding suitable rear surrounds that match up with SDA-1Cs, either the speakers I've mentioned or others.

Thanks in advance.

Larry

jdhdiggs

Originally posted by Larry Chanin
However, after talking to a local high-end dealer, who I was surprised to hear was familiar with SDAs, I now realize that it is likely the tweeters in the LSi and LCi line will not match with the SDAs.

Someone posted a while back that the LSi series was the best accoustic match for virtually all SDA's. Unfortunately I can not find that post.

I have heard the entire series of RTx speakers teeters and I feel that from what I have heard from the LSi's, they match the closest but not perfectly. If this is only for HT, I might use the current midline (since timbre matching the rears is less important IMHO) FXi5's should do allright. I would try anf find some FX500i's just to match your non-SDA speaks from E-bay.

Since it seems like you are trying to stay with inwalls, the RC85i's would be allright...

Hope I didn't confuse you too much..

PolkWannabie

Are you set on having in walls as opposed to on walls or on stands ?

dorokusai

There have been comments both ways for complimentary speakers for the SDA's, but LSi is typically the choice.

The 1C uses the SL2000, which is not as dynamic as the venerable SL3000 tweeter used in some other SDA models. The LSi Vifa is the best match for the SL3000 SDA's, because both are very accurate and flat. That being the case, it may not be so imperitive to use the LSi tweeter, and you could try the aforementioned RCi series. I replaced the SL2000's in my 1C's, with the new silk replacement, RD-0194-1/5. I believe the new tweeter to be much much better, IMO.

It's nice to see another SDA/ Parasound fan. You could pick up a pair of either line, from Crutchfield, and make your own on-site decision. The speakers are 100% returnable, and refundable, so your loss is zero for the in-house demo.

Larry Chanin

Originally posted by jdhdiggs


If this is only for HT, I might use the current midline (since timbre matching the rears is less important IMHO) FXi5's should do allright. I would try anf find some FX500i's just to match your non-SDA speaks from E-bay.

Hi jdhdiggs,

Thanks for the response.

As you know there are a lot of different thoughts on direct radiating versus dipoles for various surround configurations. I believe a lot depends on the type of preamplifier/processor you are using, the type of sound on the movie sound track (direct sounds, i.e. flyovers vs. ambiance sounds, i.e., wind, rain, etc.) and of course, your personal preferences.

In my case my Lexicon derives true stereo surround back channels, not a single mono rear channel. Therefore, I like to use direct radiating surround speakers, set widely apart in the rear to maintain the stereo imaging. This also improves the panning of direct type sounds from the front direct radiating array to the rear direct radiating surrounds. In other words you want to be able to localize that helicopter flying overhead.

On the other hand movies also have ambiance effects where the object is to not be able to localize the source of the sound. In these cases a dipole speaker, which relies on bouncing sounds off the walls, is better. The advantage of having a good 7.1 setup over a 5.1 setup is that you don't have to choose one type of surround speaker over an other. You can use both types to address the appropriate content in the movie soundtrack.

Therefore I'd want select the direct radiating surrounds in the rear.

Thanks again.

Larry

Larry Chanin

Originally posted by PolkWannabie
Are you set on having in walls as opposed to on walls or on stands ?

Hi wannabie,

Thanks for your interest.

As I mentioned, my home theater design will be concealing all the other speakers, so it didn't make sense to me me to go through this effort and then hang the rear surrounds out in the open. In addition, the room layout is such that I can't locate columns in the rear in which to hide On-Wall speakers.

Larry

jdhdiggs

Originally posted by Larry Chanin
Hi wannabie,

Thanks for your interest.

As I mentioned, my home theater design will be concealing all the other speakers, so it didn't make sense to me me to go through this effort and then hang the rear surrounds out in the open. In addition, the room layout is such that I can't locate columns in the rear in which to hide On-Wall speakers.

Larry

SOunds like it's the RC85i's then...

Larry Chanin

Originally posted by dorokusai
There have been comments both ways for complimentary speakers for the SDA's, but LSi is typically the choice.

The 1C uses the SL2000, which is not as dynamic as the venerable SL3000 tweeter used in some other SDA models. The LSi Vifa is the best match for the SL3000 SDA's, because both are very accurate and flat. That being the case, it may not be so imperitive to use the LSi tweeter, and you could try the aforementioned RCi series. I replaced the SL2000's in my 1C's, with the new silk replacement, RD-0194-1/5. I believe the new tweeter to be much much better, IMO.

Hi dorokusai,

Thanks for your response. It's good to talk to an other SDA-1C owner. Did you replace the tweeters because they had worn out, or because you had heard good things about the silk replacements? Was it difficult to replace them? What is involved?

Do you have a idea whether the replacement tweeters are a closer match to the new LSi tweeters over the old SL2000s?

You could pick up a pair of either line, from Crutchfield, and make your own on-site decision. The speakers are 100% returnable, and refundable, so your loss is zero for the in-house demo.

Interesting idea. However, With In-Walls I would be cutting different sized holes in the wall. My wall is double layers of drywall so that could be a pain. To make matters more "interesting" the LC265is have an optional Performance Enclosure that is 55"x14". Furthermore, Polk recommends having an entire stud bay open to install the enclosure. In my case thats a hole that is about 10' tall. Quite a large hole to improve bass response by a few dB. :rolleyes:

Larry

Larry Chanin

Originally posted by jdhdiggs
SOunds like it's the RC85i's then...

Hi,

Well, assuming that the tweeters in the RC85is and the LC265i are both "close enough" to the SL2000s, then I guess it boils down to a value judgement of whether the LC265is are worth more than $900 in MSRP (without the enclosures).

The LCs will nicely handle the 200+ wattage of my amps and they have a Wall Distance Toggle that adjusts the frequency response in situations where the speaker is forced to be installed closer than two feet to a wall. (My situation.) BUT... is this worth $900?

Oh well, its always better to have more options rather than less.

Larry

jdhdiggs

Be sure to report back your findings...

dorokusai

Larry - The SL2000 replacement is drop in, very simple. If you do wish to "upgrade", just drop me a line, I can walk you through the process via phone or otherwise.

I replaced them because when I finally started setting up my 2CH rig, they just had too much edge and sibilance. My current/recent listening demo's have been great lately, and the SL2000 was just too harsh for my ears.

F1Nut(Polk), my neighbor, has the SDA2.3TL's, which have the SL3000....and I listen fairly often on his gear. Russman(Polk) hosted an event for the Polk forum in his Texas home, which I flew down to attend...and he had few original tweeters in house period. SDA CRS+ and SDA SRS 2 all of which had the current silk dome replacement. They sounded fantastic.....anyways...blah blah it is probably from that experience that I began to enjoy a nice silk dome again. Voila' presto chango.

As far as the in-walls go, I didn't mean to express a hole cutting adventure When I tested out in-walls, I used cheap speaker boxes set atop small ladders to "test" them. We cut a couple MDF baffles for mounting, then used the speaker boxes for cabinet volume. It certainly wasn't ideal, but it allowed me to find the best spot, and not cut holes. When they were installed, in-wall baffles from Sonance were used. Wood Technology offers an even more flexible in-wall baffle, which is what I would choose these days. They sound great to this very day. I know a couple more things now, so I most likely wouldn't do that again.

The nicely made enclosure that Polk offers, is great, but moreso for new construction. We demo'd those at Polk HQ last year, with enclosure, and they sound very good.

Is the SL2000 replacement close enough? Hmmm, that's tough and probably a loaded question. I think the SL/RD tweeter is closer to the RTi/RCi than the LSi/LCi...just my opinion.

Larry Chanin

Originally posted by jdhdiggs
Be sure to report back your findings...

Hi,

As soon as I figure out what I'm doing you guys will be the first to know.

My dealer came out this afternoon to check out the shell of my home theater. I suggested to him that if I was going to go for the smaller Snell I might as well buy the comparable smaller Polk and save some money. I asked him to quote me a price on the larger Snell, closer to the size of the LC265i. I suspect they'll come in at close to two grand. Which will put them out of contention.

I can get the LC265is with the Performance Enclosures for $1,200 delivered, but to tell you the truth I'm not crazy about ripping out at least 55" of double thick drywall. I had a conversation with Ken Swauger at Polk Customer Service about retrofitting the enclosures. As usual he was very responsive. However, the travel on the mounting cams on the LC265i are not long enough to accomodate 1-1/4" of drywall plus 1/2" for the enclosure baffle, so I would have to figure out a "work-around".

Larry

Larry Chanin

Originally posted by dorokusai
Larry - The SL2000 replacement is drop in, very simple. If you do wish to "upgrade", just drop me a line, I can walk you through the process via phone or otherwise.

Hi,

Thanks, although I currently don't plan on doing the replacement anytime soon, it's good to know I've got someone to hold my hand through the process. Can I assume by your comment that "replacement is drop in" that I need not worry about messing around with the crossovers?

As far as the in-walls go, I didn't mean to express a hole cutting adventure When I tested out in-walls, I used cheap speaker boxes set atop small ladders to "test" them. We cut a couple MDF baffles for mounting, then used the speaker boxes for cabinet volume. It certainly wasn't ideal, but it allowed me to find the best spot, and not cut holes. When they were installed, in-wall baffles from Sonance were used. Wood Technology offers an even more flexible in-wall baffle, which is what I would choose these days. They sound great to this very day. I know a couple more things now, so I most likely wouldn't do that again.

The nicely made enclosure that Polk offers, is great, but moreso for new construction. We demo'd those at Polk HQ last year, with enclosure, and they sound very good.

Thanks for the information. I don't have much flexibilty in yhe location of the In-Walls in my rear wall, so I don't have much room for experimentation. Perhaps more importantly, I'm too lazy to go through all that work. However, the Wood Technology Sound Chamber SC-1 seems extremely reasonable and with my rudimentary carpentry skills I know that I would spend more making temporary MDF baffles. If the SC-1 would fit the LC265is I might be inclined to go ahead and use them in lieu of the Polk enclosures. Do I have this right, the SC-1s fit in four pieces through the speaker hole opening and they fit between the stud via friction without mounting hardware?

Is the SL2000 replacement close enough? Hmmm, that's tough and probably a loaded question. I think the SL/RD tweeter is closer to the RTi/RCi than the LSi/LCi...just my opinion.

I didn't intend to ask a controversial question. To help me with my decision I was hoping that in the event I ever replace my tweeters that I would be getting closer to the SDAs. However, I appreciate the difficulty in answering the question and value your opinion. In any event the focus of my question on timber matching is probably a bit overly simplistic. It erroneouly suggests that timber matching is the most important consideration when selecting a surround speaker. The fact that the LC265i can handle more power is certainly a consideration in a moderately sized home theater, as is the build quality and other "high-end" features.

I've got to smoke this over a bit, but if I had to make a decision at this moment I think I would go with the LC265is and the Wood Technology sound chambers.

Thanks again for your helpful insights.

Larry

dorokusai

Thanks, although I currently don't plan on doing the replacement anytime soon, it's good to know I've got someone to hold my hand through the process. Can I assume by your comment that "replacement is drop in" that I need not worry about messing around with the crossovers?

Correct.

Thanks for the information. I don't have much flexibilty in yhe location of the In-Walls in my rear wall, so I don't have much room for experimentation. Perhaps more importantly, I'm too lazy to go through all that work. However, the Wood Technology Sound Chamber SC-1 seems extremely reasonable and with my rudimentary carpentry skills I know that I would spend more making temporary MDF baffles. If the SC-1 would fit the LC265is I might be inclined to go ahead and use them in lieu of the Polk enclosures. Do I have this right, the SC-1s fit in four pieces through the speaker hole opening and they fit between the stud via friction without mounting hardware?

Correct. They are foldable and may be trimmed down depending on application.

I didn't intend to ask a controversial question. To help me with my decision I was hoping that in the event I ever replace my tweeters that I would be getting closer to the SDAs. However, I appreciate the difficulty in answering the question and value your opinion. In any event the focus of my question on timber matching is probably a bit overly simplistic. It erroneouly suggests that timber matching is the most important consideration when selecting a surround speaker. The fact that the LC265i can handle more power is certainly a consideration in a moderately sized home theater, as is the build quality and other "high-end" features.

I've got to smoke this over a bit, but if I had to make a decision at this moment I think I would go with the LC265is and the Wood Technology sound chambers.

I think that would be a fine choice. I think that the use of the Parasound amps, would also lead you into a higher power handling speaker from the beginning. You won't be pushing 220w thru them cont., but the transients may spike at times....and it's always good to have more than you need, in all respects.

Larry Chanin

Thanks for everyone's help. When I finally make my decision I'll post all the gory details of the installation.

Larry

Larry Chanin

Originally posted by Larry Chanin

I've got to smoke this over a bit, but if I had to make a decision at this moment I think I would go with the LC265is and the Wood Technology sound chambers.

Hi All,

Here's an update.

I contacted Wood Technologies to see if it was feasible to pursue this approach. They were very responsive, but the answer is no, I can't use their Sound Chambers. Here's their response:

From: Wood Technology

Thank you for your interest in our Sound Chambers. I will try to answer your questions:

The Sound Chamber is not an "enclosure". Most inwall speaker manufacturers design speakers to use a studwall for the enclosure, based on approx. 8' high x 14.5" wide x 3.5" deep.

You will find most in-wall speaker manufacturers don't address what should be inside the stud wall for sound absorbsion. That's where the Sound Chamber comes in. It is very important that frequencies above 120 Hertz eminating from the rear (of speaker) get absorbed. If those frequencies are not absorbed, they will reflect back at the speaker cone(s) and cause distortion, phase irregularities and cancellation.

The Polks you are considering are too large for our Sound Chambers. We reccommend using speakers no larger that a single woofer. Don't let that discourage you from the Polks, as they are one of the finest in-wall speakers you can get. If you want to stay with the Polks, I suggest two options for your installation:

1. Use the Polk enclosure, as it has sound absorbtion material in it.

2. Don't use the enclosure, and purchase 1" thick open-cell, melamine (fire resistant) acoustic foam. You can find it on line. This is the same material we make Sound Chambers from. Get enough to span between the studs and about 3' high. You should be able to use a staple gun to secure to the studs.

Thanks,

Kevin

Ken Swauger also sent me the installation instructions for Polk's Performance Enclosures. It looks pretty straight-forward, but of course I would have to cut out large openings in my drywall and figure out how to get the speaker's mounting cams to work with a double layer of drywall.

Larry

dorokusai

That is a very honest response, and is pretty refreshing to read. Thanks for posting the email.

Larry Chanin

Originally posted by dorokusai
That is a very honest response, and is pretty refreshing to read. Thanks for posting the email.

Hi,

Yes, that's exactly what I thought. They even provided two options for consideration.

I'm pretty sure that I could use their chambers with the RC85is, but I'm still thinking that a bigger speaker would be more suitable to my application.

Larry

dorokusai

It sounds as though that would definetly be the best option for you. Bigger is always nice IMO

Larry Chanin

Originally posted by jdhdiggs
Someone posted a while back that the LSi series was the best accoustic match for virtually all SDA's. Unfortunately I can not find that post.

I have heard the entire series of RTx speakers teeters and I feel that from what I have heard from the LSi's, they match the closest but not perfectly.

Hi,

Apparently Matt Polk agrees. Here's a response I receive from him via Ken Swauger. It never hurts to ask the designer of the SDAs his opinion.

Hello Larry,
Here's the response from Matthew Polk:

"Ken -

The SL2000 tweeter was smoother at the top end than both it's
predecessors, the SL1000 and KO10DT. The tweeter in the RCi series would be equally smooth when used in a free standing system such as the RTi's but the in-wall application introduces some roughness in the top end which may not be a good match for the SL2000's in the SDA-1c's. The LCi/LSi is inherently smoother and additional care in the grill design and diffraction considerations makes the LCi in-walls much smoother than the RCi's and a better match to the SL2000's.

-msp"
Regards, Ken

Well this makes it easier to decide which speaker to get, but I'm still trying to grapple with the hassle of tearing out my walls to install the performance enclosures. I spent last night hunting for studs with a stud-finder to make sure I have enough inside clearances. Some of my studs were placed rather close together. I'd hate to buy the speakers and enclosures, rip open the walls only to find out I can't fit them in. :rolleyes:

Larry

Tour2ma

Originally posted by Larry Chanin
In my case my Lexicon derives true stereo surround back channels, not a single mono rear channel. Therefore, I like to use direct radiating surround speakers, set widely apart in the rear to maintain the stereo imaging.

Nothing wrong with wanting to do that. Unfortunately the number of true 7.1 DVD's available is still a fairly small number. Most are 6.1 at best, so both tose rears are seeing the same signal.

If you like the way your 400i and 500i's match, then I would not fret over the rears.

Larry Chanin

Originally posted by Tour2ma


quote:

---

Originally posted by Larry Chanin
In my case my Lexicon derives true stereo surround back channels, not a single mono rear channel. Therefore, I like to use direct radiating surround speakers, set widely apart in the rear to maintain the stereo imaging.

---

Nothing wrong with wanting to do that. Unfortunately the number of true 7.1 DVD's available is still a fairly small number. Most are 6.1 at best, so both tose rears are seeing the same signal.

Hi Tour2ma,

Thanks for your interest.

Actually there are no true 7.1 DVDs available that have 7 DISCRETE channels (plus a LFE channel) encoded in the source. I believe that only DTS encoded soundtracks have true 6.1 discrete channels and EX soundtracks only have 5.1 discrete channels plus a matrixed (derived) surround back channel.

It is a common misconception that soundtracks must have 7.1 discrete channels inorder to fully appreciate a true 7.1 system. What Lexicon's LOGIC7 processing does is EXTRACT a matrixed stereo surround back pair of channels from the discrete side surround channels. This can be done even with a standard 5.1 soundtrack. In fact my favorite movie for demonstrating surround back effects is the stardard 5.1 soundtrack of Saving Private Ryan. What makes this soundtrack so effective is the very aggressive placement of surround effects in the side surround channels. It gives the LOGIC7 processing something to "get it's teeth into".

By the way, in addition to LOGIC7 there are other surround processing decoders that produce stereo surround back channels. Meridan's Trifield process and Dolby's ProLogic II are two others.

If you like the way your 400i and 500i's match, then I would not fret over the rears.

I'm inclined to agree with you that matching the rears is less of an issue that the center channel and side surrounds. For one thing our hearing is much less acute in handling sounds coming from the rear.

Nevertheless much of the fun of the home theater hobby is "fretting" over various details and then trying to make an educated judgement as to which issues are fundamental and which are trivial. While timber-matching across the front speaker array probably is a fundamental issue, as you suggest timber matching in the rear may be approaching the trival. (Especially since I don't have a "Golden Ear." )

As it turns out, according to Mr. Polk, the LSi/LCi tweeters, while not a perfect match to SDAs, is still the closest. So this helps my decision since I like other features the LC265i offers. Now all I have to do is figure out how much pain and stuffering I'm willing to take to install the Performance Enclosures. :rolleyes:

Thanks again for your comments.

Larry

Tour2ma

Not trivial, just not as important as front stage matching. And I didn't say "I" wouldn't fret over the details...

One thing I did not see in your rather complete posts was a description of your HT layout. In particluar the relationship of your listening position(s) to the surround ch's, side and rear. Especially with the rears it has a major impact on the model "style" to choose, i.e., bi/di-pole vs. direct.

dorokusai

Look in his showcase.

Larry Chanin

Originally posted by Tour2ma

One thing I did not see in your rather complete posts was a description of your HT layout. In particluar the relationship of your listening position(s) to the surround ch's, side and rear. Especially with the rears it has a major impact on the model "style" to choose, i.e., bi/di-pole vs. direct.

Hi Tour2ma,

You can see my previous home theater by clicking the WWW button or the link in my signature below. (EDIT: FOR SOME REASON MY SIGNATURE LINK ISN'T APPEARING.)

Here's a link to some concept drawings of the new home theater that is under construction. As I described previously, for my processor I believe that using dipoles for the side surrounds and widely spaced, direct radiating surround back speakers is the best surround approach.


Larry's New Home Theater Concept

I hope you will forgive the fact that these concept drawing are slightly out of sync with one an other. They were drawn during difference phases of my design and haven't been updated yet. Nevertheless, they should give you a good feel for what I'm planning.

The Plan view shows my f/x500i dipoles as triangles inside of columns. This drawing has been superceded somewhat. The rear speaker are being shown as On-Wall speakers rather than In-Wall speakers. I will also omit the columns near the rear of the room to avoid interfering with the rear surrounds. One of the cabinets on the rear wall will be omitted as well to permit moving the equipment racks out of the way of the rear surrounds.

The Left Elevation shows the dipoles in the columns closer to the front. I currently plan to install them in the second set of columns further back from the front.

The Rear Elevation View more accurately depicts my current thoughts.

Larry

Tour2ma

How do you expect me to forgive a drawing that answers every question I could raise???

You look to have plenty of distance from rear surrounds to back row to utilize direct speakers. Carry on, nothing more I can add here...

Except, the forum is set to only allow sig's to show in your first post in a given thread.

Larry Chanin

Originally posted by Tour2ma
How do you expect me to forgive a drawing that answers every question I could raise???

You know what I hate is when you try to do your homework to answer any questions that might possibly arise, only to find out you've screwed up as soon as you finish an element of construction.:rolleyes:

You look to have plenty of distance from rear surrounds to back row to utilize direct speakers. Carry on, nothing more I can add here.

Yes, in my old theater I had about 6 feet of distance. In the new one I'm hoping for at least that, perhaps 7 or 8 feet. My wife repeatedly would ask me why I wasn't putting a third row of seating on the back wall. I'm not sure she appreciated the answer, but I told her that putting seating next to boundaries, such as walls was a NO-NO and a waste of money. I told her it was bad enough the narrowness of the room forced me to place the leftmost seats near the wall.

Except, the forum is set to only allow sig's to show in your first post in a given thread.

Thanks I was scratching my head about that. I would preview my posting and the signature would be there, then when I submitted the posting it would be gone.

Larry

HBombToo

Larry I have not seen a post from you for a while and welcome back. I thought I recalled you were in the DC area but now you show Sarasota... am I nuts or something? As usaual I always learn from your posts!

HBomb

Larry Chanin

Originally posted by HBombToo
Larry I have not seen a post from you for a while and welcome back. I thought I recalled you were in the DC area but now you show Sarasota... am I nuts or something? As usaual I always learn from your posts!

HBomb

Hi HBomb,

I'm flattered that you remember me.

No, you're not nuts, I used to live in the Washington, DC area, but I recently took an early retirement and moved to a new home in Sarasota, Florida. I found a suitable floor plan and a builder to make the necessary structural modifications. So I'm lov'n life in a subtropical paradise and I'm building my dream home theater too. What more could you ask for?!!:cool:

I'm gratified that you feel my posts are useful to you, but I learn as well from the folks on this forum, not to mention from an occasional email from Matt Polk.

Regards,

Larry

Larry Chanin

Originally posted by jdhdiggs
Be sure to report back your findings...

Hi All,

Well, I'm back to report some of my findings. First, let me say that despite the added cost, I went ahead with the LC265is with the performance enclosures. As I mentioned my dealer gave me what I thought was a good price of $1,200 for everything delivered. He even didn't charge me for the sales tax. However, he wasn't aware of how large and heavy the enclosures were and he got a little sticker shock when he received the freight charges.

I can report on how the installation went. However, since my home theater is far from complete I won't be able to report on the more important issue of how it sounds for quite some time.

Well, when I received the package there was a large hole in one of the enclosure boxes. The good news was that the enclosures weren't damaged. The bad news was that some of the hardware had fallen out.

Since I had to cut a large hole in the drywall tight into a tri-corner, I decided that I needed to buy one of those Craftman "Dremel" type gizmoes with a drywall attachment and a long flexible extension. I doubt I could have done this project without it. I used the drywall attachment to cut in the open and used the flexible extension to cut in the corners.

I had about a thousand dollars worth of video and audio cable prewired in behind the wall where I was cutting, but the drill depth was adjusted so that I was never cutting more than the thickness of one layer of drywall. I had two types of stud finders, but the double thickness of drywall plus the wires in the walls made finding the exact location of the studs rather problematic.

After cutting my first opening, a 60" x 16" hole in two layers of drywall, I received my first surprise. No I didn't cut any wires.
I found that the piping to the shower in the adjacent bathroom was in the stud bay that I had cut into. The copper piping and supporting struts occupied part of the depth of the wall that the enclosure was to be recessed in. This caused me a problem, but solved an other problem.

You may recall in a previous posting I mentioned that the enclosure/speaker combination couldn't be mounted in double thick drywall because the speaker mounting cams weren't long enough to clear the drywall and enclosure thickness. The piping obstruction forced me to adjust the mounting depth of the enclosure to only one layer of drywall. As a result the cams worked. I found that the 60" hole I had cut was not long enough to easily get access to the mounting brackets which were screwed into the studs. As a result I'm missing a lot of skin of my knuckles. After getting the enclosure fastened I reinstalled the drywall cutout using drywall repair clips and acoustic caulk to fill the seams. Then I used the drywall router to cut the hole for the speaker.

The second hole had its own set of new challenges. It turned out it had an extra stud between the normal stud spacing. This stud made it totally impossible to mount the enclosure at any depth. To make it even more interesting the stud had all six zones of my lighting system mounted to it. Fortunately the stud wasn't load bearing. So I had to unstaple the live wiring from the stud, and use a saber saw to cut a huge 66" notch in it. Then I restapled the wiring to the remaining portion of the stud. Now I could get the enclosure in the wall, but the width between the remaining studs was too wide. So I had to screw two new studs to the inside of the stud bay. I reattached the drywall cutout. This time I didn't need the drywall clips because I could drive drywall screws into the new studs.

All in all this took me, with my rudimentary carpentry skills, about five days to complete. This included literally going back to the drawing board (computer) to draw scale drawings of how I was going to pull this off. I did my trial and error on the computer by cutting and moving virtual studs. It would have been easy to do prior to closing in the room, but I would not recommend doing a retro-fit to those faint of heart.

Larry

Tour2ma

Good read, Larry.

I hope you are documenting this project photographically as well...