Silver Ticket STR-169100-WAB vs STR-169100-WVS

The short answer

The weave is the only recorded difference between these two rows, and neither sheet publishes what it does to the sound or the picture — so this is a choice between two sheets that document the same screen. Buy the STR-169100-WAB while the tracked gap is this wide: the WVS's finer micro-perf weave is all the extra outlay buys, and no figure on either sheet says what that is. Everything else on the two sheets matches field for field — fixed-frame 100-inch 16:9, 1.1 gain, an 80° half-gain angle, acoustically transparent, aluminum frame, 30 lb.

Reading the numbers honestly

Held side by side, our normalized rows differ in exactly one place. Both state fixed-frame construction, a wall-mount install, a 100-inch 16:9 diagonal with an 87.125 × 49-inch viewable area, 1.1 gain, an 80° half-gain viewing angle, acoustically_transparent = TRUE, a washable surface, an aluminum frame in black and a 30 lb weight. The single differing field is material type: perforated AT (WAB) against micro perf AT (WVS) — our enum's labels for what Silver Ticket's own copy describes as a woven material and a finer weave. Two context gaps matter here. First, the identical 1.1 gain and 80° half-gain angle are stated with no measurement standard or mounting condition attached — and the 80° is degrees FROM CENTER, the convention this field uses, the same property Silver Ticket also publishes as a 160° cone. It is a series-level disclosure repeated across two different weaves, so the stated optics cannot separate them and we won't pretend they do. Second, neither row records the acoustic loss its weave costs (no attenuation figure in decibels on either sheet), which is the one number that would tell you what the finer weave buys.

The weave is the only recorded difference between these two rows, and neither sheet publishes what it does to the sound or the picture — so this is a choice between two sheets that document the same screen. Buy the STR-169100-WAB while the tracked gap is this wide: the WVS's finer micro-perf weave is all the extra outlay buys, and no figure on either sheet says what that is. Everything else on the two sheets matches field for field — fixed-frame 100-inch 16:9, 1.1 gain, an 80° half-gain angle, acoustically transparent, aluminum frame, 30 lb.

• Deliberately size-matched: same STR series, same 100-inch 16:9 diagonal, same 87.125 × 49-inch viewable area — the variant ambiguity that muddies most screen comparisons is off the table, leaving the material code as the only variable.
• Every stated optical figure is identical across two different weaves — 1.1 gain and an 80° half-gain angle on both, stored as degrees from center from Silver Ticket's published 160° cone — and neither carries a measurement standard or mounting condition, so the sheets cannot tell these screens apart optically and we say so rather than read a difference into two identical numbers.
• The single differing field in our normalized data is material type: perforated AT (WAB) against micro perf AT (WVS) — enum labels for what the manufacturer's own text calls a woven material and a finer weave. Both state acoustically_transparent = TRUE, a stated yes rather than an assumed default, since our booleans are three-state.
• Neither row records the acoustic loss its weave costs — no attenuation figure in decibels on either sheet — so whatever the tracked figures do (a $130 spread today), what the finer weave buys is undocumented on both sides.
• The build is stated identically down to the hardware: fixed-frame construction, wall-mount installation, an aluminum frame in black, a washable surface and a 30 lb weight on both rows.

More Projector Screens comparisons