Kipnis Studio Standard home theater shows what $6 million can buy

Just in case you missed it, Engadget HD caught sight of this doozy of a "home theater" yesterday, which shows you just how much $6 million can buy. While it's not clear exactly how all that money was allocated (we're guessing some must have went to the construction of the space itself), the so-called Kipnis Studio Standard certainly doesn't hide its excess, starting with a 18- x 10-foot Stewart screen that should have your visitors acting like they've just discovered the monolith from 2001 in no time. Filling out all that space is a Sony SRX-S110 4K projector that upscales Blu-ray and HD DVD movies from their measly 1080p native resolution, which gets paired with an audio system that we won't even begin to describe. Of course, the setup isn't entirely for personal pleasure, and the man behind it is hoping to use it as a showcase to sell similar home theaters to others looking to spare no expense. No takers just yet though, it seems.

[Via Engadget HD]

[John @ Feb 7th 2008 3:51PM]

As they say, if you've got it, flaunt it.

[mike @ Feb 7th 2008 6:04PM]

IS it just me, or does anyone else notice that this image is totally CG?

[required @ Feb 7th 2008 6:52PM]

It's better that way so that when the tech becomes outdated you simply update the texture maps and alter models as needed.

[Nick @ Feb 8th 2008 10:15AM]

were you expecting the company to drop 6 million on a showroom?

[hen @ Feb 7th 2008 3:53PM]

how do you get to the DVDs behind the speakers then?

[letstakeawalk @ Feb 7th 2008 5:20PM]

Ha! These are the drivers - in the install you wouldn't see a thing.

[richardofthe1000yaos @ Feb 7th 2008 8:12PM]

you tell your man-servant to fetch them for you.

[zargon @ Feb 7th 2008 3:53PM]

That is beyond over kill for that room.

[mcheddadi @ Feb 7th 2008 3:53PM]

I'll take 300$ headphones over that, kthxbai!

[nathan.wong @ Feb 7th 2008 3:56PM]

All that money must have gone to all those amps they have lining the floor! Why so many? Do they really need 50,000 watts for their subwoofers? Are they thinking they're in some car cruising the strip?

[Fernando @ Feb 7th 2008 3:56PM]

The real question is can it play my BetaMax and 8 Tracks??

[Dave @ Feb 7th 2008 3:58PM]

My mouth is still open, I'd be happy if I had that room empty.

[Henry @ Feb 7th 2008 4:03PM]

Upscales to what? 4k?

[NavyMSU @ Feb 7th 2008 4:03PM]

Actually - It upscales 1080i to QuadHD (the latest marketing term for 4kx2k).

I read this article before seeing it on Engadget, and it said that the extremely expensive projector is not HDCP compliant, so he uses component cables (which we all know are capable of 1080p, but without HDCP, the players won't transmit 1080p over component (they will downscale to 1080i (or worse, 720p).

You should read the scathing comments on the original site, the guy is an idiot who doesn't know what to do with his money, he thinks people will pay him for his overkill.

[Reader @ Feb 7th 2008 6:31PM]

If there's one like him, there's likely another...

[Meccalangelo @ Feb 7th 2008 4:05PM]

PS3 and separate Bluray player....Pointless!

[zargon @ Feb 7th 2008 4:12PM]

The new High-End BD players are worth getting over a PS3 for BD playback.

Plus, with the round of new BD players coming out that are finally 2.0, the PS3 is looking less and less worth while buying to just use as a PS3. The PS3 luckily held the honor of best BD player for a little only due to its ability to be upgraded and being driven by essentially a computer, which allowed it a few more luxuries at the time. That time however has passed, with players like the Panasonic DMP-BD50, the PS3 will be an after thought and transition back to being a gaming system that just happens to play Blu-ray.

[Punchy @ Feb 7th 2008 4:25PM]

PS3 will be 2.0 capable with firmware revision download via it's wireless capabilities.

For me the PS3 is still the best most cost effective start to any home theater set up period.

Punchy

[Tony Rayo @ Feb 7th 2008 5:14PM]

I still find the PS3 provides a better picture (DiVX/XViD/DVD/Blu-Ray) than any other dedicated device I own with the same output/cables/etc. If you want to buy a new Blu-Ray 2.x player that can do less than a possible soon to be 300 - 350$ PS3 be my guest, but the picture is looking fine to me.

- Tony R.

[BigD145 @ Feb 7th 2008 4:07PM]

I'd rather buy myself, and everyone in my family, a house. This only shows how badly the income divide has become.

[Meltz @ Feb 7th 2008 4:12PM]

Ratatoullie FTW
(yeah i probably didn't spell that right)

[System48 @ Feb 7th 2008 4:13PM]

Should've gotten a Bose sound system. :-)

[zargon @ Feb 7th 2008 4:19PM]

Yeah, a Bose sound bar. Would have cut down on all those speakers!

[Sam @ Feb 7th 2008 4:25PM]

All that and he's watching ratatouille

[Billy Gun @ Feb 7th 2008 4:26PM]

Did they tried to use Microsoft Media Center? There is no need to keep the DVD's that way anymore.

[chris @ Feb 7th 2008 4:31PM]

to whoever pointed out about the cost of all the speakers, then just imagine the electricity bill for running this monster of a setup

[Glen @ Feb 7th 2008 4:32PM]

Can they install this in my Airbus A380?

[letstakeawalk @ Feb 7th 2008 5:25PM]

I might have a card for you. I have some guys who did an install in the surplus Buran I picked up...next we're gonna rig up the Hubble as a projector.

[Allen @ Feb 7th 2008 4:34PM]

most of the money is tied up in speakers and the projector, but I have a better idea for all this:

Media Center PC. You get the LG Blu-Ray Writer/HD DVD Reader, an 8800GT, and a surround receiver, then just put all your movies on your 10 terabyte RAID 0 hard drive.

Add a PS3 and Xbox 360.

Done. No triple everything.

[Billy Gun @ Feb 7th 2008 4:52PM]

Allen, You can add two or even more video cards using SLI, and add Blu-ray or HD DVD movies on the hard drive and use it on the Media Center... It will be all there.. TV(cable card), movies, music, radio, photos..

[still sdh @ Feb 7th 2008 4:39PM]

I'd feel like the equipment was observing me rather than the other way around.

[Blayne @ Feb 7th 2008 4:44PM]

That's just wrong.

[matthew @ Feb 7th 2008 4:45PM]

Kipnis spends $6 million home theater studio and about $2 on their web site. Rather pathetic, if you ask me.

[robert @ Feb 7th 2008 4:46PM]

$6M and it only seats 2 comfy? looks like the middle seat ain't that roomy! And where's the oh-so necessary recliner??

[mmh @ Feb 7th 2008 4:49PM]

$6 million can get you more than a lifetime's worth of new releases at your friendly local $10 admission cinema.

[Rickard @ Feb 7th 2008 4:54PM]

Taken the considerable price, there isn't a whole lot of webpage to the deal
http://www.kipnis-studios.com/The_Kipnis_Studio_Standard/KSS.html

I couldn't help laughing, I thought these websites for since long dead...

[Jim @ Feb 7th 2008 4:57PM]

This makes me hate people

[jimmywash @ Feb 7th 2008 5:01PM]

Am I the only one who thinks the audio set up is terribly unattractive?

[nathan.wong @ Feb 7th 2008 5:25PM]

Absolutely not. The room looks cluttered and messy. It looks like you should bow to the speaker gods. Very unattractive and uninviting.

[ZeroCorpse @ Feb 7th 2008 5:07PM]

For $6 million I'll buy a small movie theater.

[pwcsquared @ Feb 7th 2008 11:09PM]

Are you implying that it is not already a theater? :)

[anonymouspimp @ Feb 7th 2008 5:12PM]

Maybe i'm wrong... but I feel like for a small fraction of that cost, I could build something where the average (maybe above average) consumer wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two.

I'd totally have better furniture and a popcorn machine in there too.

[William @ Feb 7th 2008 5:20PM]

I can Say I have a much better setup, and it only cost me little shy of 200k, and my projector is HDCP compliant. Sure I don't have 50k watts of power flowing through my floor, but I can seat 15 people. have access to 2000 of my favorite DVD's, and have 5Tb for the Misc video I find on the Internet.

[Rich @ Feb 7th 2008 5:26PM]

Imagine playing Duck Hunt on that thing!

[nathan.wong @ Feb 7th 2008 5:27PM]

Personally I would have put Martin Logans all around and have the electrostatic goodness. Each speaker would have its own Descent subwoofer.

[nathan.wong @ Feb 7th 2008 5:27PM]

Personally I would have put Martin Logans all around and have the electrostatic goodness. Each speaker would have its own Descent subwoofer.

[Tony Rayo @ Feb 7th 2008 5:31PM]

Wow, the sad thing is too, with all of this theater-grade hardware his audio setup includes Vacuum Tube Amplifiers! WTF?

- Tony R.

[Tom @ Feb 8th 2008 4:07AM]

The sad thing is, you probably don't know what an amplifier is!

[Tony Rayo @ Feb 8th 2008 6:03AM]

I in fact do and have built/repaired several myself. I don't know why people think my comment should be low ranked as vacuum tube technology has been around for more than a hundred years and don't provide the best quality for analog or digital quality. Not to mention they are very unreliable and prone to breakdown as anyone with a very old radio knows.

- Tony R.

[Tom @ Feb 8th 2008 11:28AM]

Hmmm.... looking at my unopened, never repaired 1968 Ampeg tube amp that works perfectly, I'd have to disagree with you. Sounds better than any solid state I've played, and if it's still kickin' after 40 years problem-free, tubes are pretty reliable. I think your comparison of high-end audiophile gear to an old radio is way off base, and it seems that your only tube experience is that same broken old radio. Try out a nice tube-powered headphone amp and compare it to a solid-state one. The difference is clear.

You might not like the tonality or the synergistic qualities of a tube amp with your specific gear, but that's all you can say. Vintage tube gear is still around producing absolutely wonderful music in exceedingly high quality. And just because it's been around for a hundred years doesn't mean jack - the internal combustion engine has been around for quite a while, as with arc welding, the wheel, incandescent light bulbs, photographic film, hell Coca-Cola has been around longer than vacuum tubes. Don't even TRY to play the "old technology" game - it's just an excuse for not knowing what you're talking about.