Statements behind AT screen?

[PoorboyMike]

I didn't think this was possible but I see that mikela is doing just that.

Just curious because I am currently building a theater that contains a false wall in the front. There is about 5' of space behind the wall. The room itself is about 11' wide and the screen will be 2.35:1 almost from wall to wall. I'll be using the back space for an IB sub, so I only have an area the size of the screen and 2-3' of depth (I still need to be able to get between the outside wall and back screen wall) for the LCR to go.

I originally wanted to use D44's with bass bins but then I'd need to get another amp and a digital cross over. I've also recently started to consider the Khans but I already have all the W4's that I would need. I could sell my D26's to pay for the Neo3s.

Do you think this set up would work or would the open backs be wasted inside the tight confines of the LCR enclosure?

And for my usual overkill question, how close to a "drop in" would RS270s be in place of the 225s?

[BOBinGA]

There would be nothing to gain by using two RS270s except loudness. Two RS270s would require a much bigger box (they are pretty big already) and their low end doesn't go any deeper that the RS225s. Two RS225s will play loud enough to make your ears bleed, so I don't see any advantage in substituting the RS270s in the Statements.

[Curt C]

Sounds to me like you will have sufficient room behind the screen for the Statements to operate properly. I suspect the screen will affect the sound more than the room will.

Sorry, the RS270's will not be a drop in, as they would require both a much larger enclosure, and a crossover change to boot.

I modeled the RS270's against the RS225's early on. The RS270's require a 70% larger enclosure to obtain the same f3/f10 as the RS225. Sure, they will play 3 dB louder, but a more elegant solution presents itself, and which makes this point moot:

Since you will be undoubtedly utilizing a sub, HP the Statements somewhere around 60 Hz. This ameliorates the excursion limitation of the woofers. I suggest they will play as loud as sanity will allow without exceeding excursion.

C

[PoorboyMike]

Thanks Curt.

Yeah, I was pretty sure the 270's wouldn't be a drop in. I am planning on going sealed so I was thinking the box size wouldn't be much more than the standard ported statement. Of course I haven't bothered to model it yet, I was just guestimating. ops:

[Curt C]

You could squeeze the RS270's sealed in the same 100 liter volume as the RS225's vented. With HP filters on, they could go from stupid loud to even stupider loud, but they would actually roll off 10 Hz higher @ 70 Hz compared to the 225's with the filter applied. W/O the filter, they would have an f3 around 50 Hz, but the same excursion limited SPL as the vented RS225's with the filter.

With the crossover modifications (whatever they might entail) an RS270 sealed version is doable, but IMO, little will be gained but aesthetics and bragging rights...

C

[DeathMonk]

Thanks Curt.

Yeah, I was pretty sure the 270's wouldn't be a drop in. I am planning on going sealed so I was thinking the box size wouldn't be much more than the standard ported statement. Of course I haven't bothered to model it yet, I was just guestimating. ops:

Clean out your PMs. I was going to PM you my address last night but your inbox is full

[Curt C]

Clean out your PMs. I was going to PM you my address last night but your inbox is full

PM showed 53 of 70 allowed, and I did receive 3 PM's yesterday. You should have been able to PM me. I did clean it out though.

C

[DeathMonk]

Hehe.. I meant PoorboyMike.. That's why I quoted him silly

[Curt C]

Hehe.. I meant PoorboyMike.. That's why I quoted him silly

You mean I'm supposed to READ other people's posts before I reply??? :E

What a novel thought. I must try it sometime... :rollhead: :rollhead: :rollhead: :rollhead: :rollhead: :rollhead: :rollhead:

C