I did a little research (on Google), and found this:-

http://www.kipnis-studios.com/The_Ki..._Theaters.html
http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-th...-home-theater/
http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/06/a...-home-theater/
http://youtu.be/KptVIB1KYpk

No one willing to voice their opinion?

Kipnis shows us his impressive collection of equipment. But is it home cinema? It's not a room where you could sit back and enjoy the film without constantly being aware of the gear and all the twinkly lights. As impressive as the sound and image may be, it fails to fulfil the primary function of a home cinema; namely to create a room where you can lose yourself in the film.

Theo Kalomirakis builds equally high-end home cinemas with multi-million dollar price tags. They aren't my style; looking more like the Grand Ole Oprey, but at least the equipment is discrete.

My friends over in Leeds I think satisfy the primary function far better. If one wants to throw silly money at the project then the room size and equipment can be scaled up. However, it's the room design that to me is priceless.

Find it too much overkill - all about trying to look good - which in my opinion it doesn't.

If money is no object just buy a cinema!

There are far better home theatres out there.....Price isn't everything...

If I had the money I would have a basement room home theater.
It would be sound proofed have 4K screen 7.1 sound with at least 4 15 inch subs.
Would need air con as well.
Speakers would be thx ultra2 type as well plus the amps to power them.
I think around 10K sound would be great or more.
The Kipnis Studio is nice but I would just rather not see all the equipment in the room or have it all in one place out the way.

I find those that spend excessive amounts (by my standards anyway) never actually enjoy what they're watching or listening to. They're constantly obsessing about the position of the speakers, the clarity of minute background sounds, the spatial separation of the sound stage etc.
They'll keep asking my opinion of different set ups and tweaks. Just shut up and let me watch the movie.

Pointless, absolutely pointless.

This is all time limited technology and will be obsolete in a few years. Money, as they say, down the drain.

For any modern dwelling there is going to be a point where further spend has little effect. If you are not a movie star then what is the point in aspiring to a movies star's disposable income?
My budget was much more modest and I think I have achieved a good sound (certainly a vast improvement over what the TV can do) for around £1000. Would love to spend more, but doubling the spend does not double the quality, the law of diminishing returns applies here.
I'm in the market for a new centre speaker though if anyone has any ideas. Needs to be fairly unobtrusive as it sits in front of the set and be of modest quality.

On the contrary...

I find when you have room for improvement ie. entry model/mid range, you try and get the best out of what you have, this may be by way of small upgrades or fine tuning the system.

After spending thousands over the years I find that I can now just sit back and enjoy because I don't have to think about upgrading or trying to improve the system, basically because to hear any improvement I'd have to spend much more than I'm willing.

If any of you know- or have dealt with- the super rich then you'll be aware that they are rarely tweakers. Theirs is a different mind set. They'll shortlist the best people in the field and then commission a best in class solution. End of story. The owner of a Kalomirakis or similar high-end home cinema is expecting it to be perfect. Sit down. Watch a movie. Wow one's friends. If it doesn't do this, or needs constant adjustment then the installer hasn't done their job right and can expect to hear from the owner's lawyers.

The type I'm talking about are the enthusiastic hobbyists who keep spending their hard earned cash striving for perfection but never really satisfied.
On the other hand there'll be the super rich who spend tens of thousands to have a specialist set it all up for them but wouldn't appreciate the difference in quality with something costing a tenth the amount.

You're talking about a different type of person. A hobbyist. Someone more interested in the kit than the room. Nipkis might fall in to that category if he weren't in the trade.

I get your point about those striving for better and never being satisfied. It's only my opinion based on personal experience in the trade, but I've found a strong correlation between those you describe and the people who don't value the advice and services of skilled professionals. You may not agree. It's just that I have seen so many who would rather buy new hardware than spend 1/10th the money getting there existing gear working properly.

As for the super rich, although I can see where you are going you're making a point that isn't so relaltive to the target market. They play at a different level. So whether one is talking to Kalimorakis, CinemaTech, Casa, Dillon or any of the other mega-budget companies the equipment selection will be from some of the best in the market. In other words, if they were buying a sports car they wouldn't be shown a Scooby or fast Ford alongside the Ferraris, Porsches, Astons, Lambo's and McLarens.

Not impressed at all. too much clutter.....unsightly

I think Kipnis designed his home cinema for function rather than form. So that he can easily take out aging components with new ones, for instance on one of the links he talks about the possibility of taking out the 4K projector and replacing it with the first 8K projector.

What would be the point of an 8K projector? Theres hardly any 4K content let alone 8K?

It is relative though. If you have so much money in the bank that your money earns more in interest in a year than you can spend in that period then spending £100K+ on a system is irrelevant in that context.

For the rest of us, who live in the "real" world, then to an extent you are right, however everyone would still have their own ideas on what constitutes the threshold above which it is a waste of money.

When we built a room over our garage we included a budget for a home theatre system so we had wall-mounted speakers and all the cables were hidden in the walls. I'm sure some on here would say we spent far too much, but for us it is what we wanted and we're really happy with it, it certainly isn't an "obsolete" system.

If I had to hazard a guess, it would be to provide better scaling of the content available. On your second point, the Japanese public broadcaster NHK transmitting 8K content by the end of the decade, in this years Wimbledon the BBC will be using 4K cameras, and I have read somewhere that FIFA will have a 4K feed for next years World Cup.

4k is starting to make it's presence felt.....

NHK intends to start satellite transmission of 4K in Japan by July 2014, in time for the next football World Cup.

Satellite TV provider Eutelsat has a dedicated Ultra HD (4k) TV channel in Europe.

Sky Deutschland has already run tests of 4K, including the taping of a Bundesliga match between Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund using the technology at the end of 2012.

The BBC have already filmed it's new Survival wildlife series in 4k.

I don't mean to decry your taste and I am, to a certain extent a little jealous.
But, whatever you spend it will become obsolete or you will be able to purchase equipment of a similar calibre in the future at much lower cost because that is the way technology goes.
The best comment I ever has about my very medium-Fi set up in the 70s was "Sounds like you are at the cinema". Medium-Fi because with a young family that was all I could afford but that would not hold a candle to my present set-up although my present kit would be classed as mid-range.

There is a lot of 4K content......Nearly all films are filmed in 4K Many of the older ones are successfully being remastered.
What's not established yet is a standard for content. With 4K Tv prices falling this shouldn't be too far off.
Sharp are to introduce a new TV that delivers 4K equivalent pictures on a a 1080p TV using their new Quattron technology. If this is successful it will drive down the price of genuine 4K TV's even quicker.

You can't produce what is not there. It will still be 1080p quality. Just like up scaling SD to HD still only gives SD quality pictures.

I'll bow to your superior knowledge.....Or, maybe, I'll wait and see, before deciding if Sharp know more.....
Sharp Quattron and 4K

I didnt know that, fair enough. I thought it would be a while before its "mainstream" for the average person.

No doubt when there's enough hardware and content for Sky to offer 4K as it's new premium service Sky will ruin the picture quality of it's HD channels just like it currently ruins it's SD broadcasts to make them look crap.

Sadly that is the reality with most things these days, although as a separates system I will just replace what is necessary.