Hmmm... I thought that I had an awkward shaped room for a home theatre.
With the throw distance you will be restricted to, you may not quite get a 110" screen on the opposite wall to the seating but with about 3m eyes to the screen, you may not want it that big anyway. The sky light is up to you but if it were me, I would either install a plywood sliding shutter or replace the diffuser with something solid like mdf so that you can use it again one day if you ever decide to.
There are some okay looking velvet curtains always for sale on eBay that seem to be economical, I have been thinking about getting some of these myself.
Looking good for those with projectors that havent the dynamic range to do HDR justice ; no conversion back to SDR REC709 like the pana but full WCG No need for any fury integral like the competition.. one link less in the hdmi chain which is great.
A few years back, I was lucky enough to get a copy of the "share" version of the QUAD mix on a DVD, encoded as a PCM DVD-A. I listened to both the 5.1 SACD and this 4.1 (yes they added LFE) Quad mix. To my surprise, both had their strong and weak points. Overall, I would have to say I like the QUAD mix just that bit more. The SACD seemed to lack some of the back phantoms. What I did get was a real time understanding of is why the changes were made for the 5.1 mix.
You have to keep in mind, the original QUAD mix was done in the early 1970s and done in a time before we really understood why QUAD was not the best solution for MC music. Simply put - there are things the system can do really well, and things it can't. It is quite well documented that side phantoms are one of those things that don't work well with human hearing even when four identical speakers are used in the proper +/-45 degree locations for both front and back. Humans have just 2 ears and those ears are on the sides of our heads and do not move. Sounds coming in from some angles (whilst the mix intends them to be heard a certain way) won't be. Sometimes what you do hear is certain sounds been torn apart with more mids being heard from the surrounds and more highs being heard from the fronts.
Both are clever and worth owning, so if this disc allows you to hear both versions, totally worth the price of admission in my opinion.
The main reason for Pink Floyd's DSOTM BDA being number one on the QuadraphonicQuad website poll is that it contains both a 5.1 and Quad mix of that classic album. Quite a few members there prefer the Quad over the 5.1. The SACD contains only a 5.1 mix. Same for the BDA and SACD releases of Wish You Were Here (5.1 & Quad vs 5.1)
My Denon AVR- X7200WA doesn't play quad FLAC (I've got all my MCH music converted and on a server for a better playback experience) but my quads were only playing back as stereo with no rear channel info. I had to add a silent centre channel and the Denon plays that back correctly, 5.0 with silent centre = quad.
I wrote a little app to auto find all my quad FLACS and convert to 5.0 as I have quite a few. The new Chicago Quadio (9 BDA disc box set) and a lot of old 70s quad releases plus some newer BDA and SACD quads too. If anyone wants the quad conversion app PM me and I'll whack It on the web for download. It (currently) only runs on Windows.