Can someone comment on how this would sound?
I don't have the option of vertically placing an M22 center but i could place it horizontally.

Would it be better to just get the VP150 center?

This is the interesting thread that has sparked my interest:
AVSForum - 3 M22's as Center

Read point #5.

http://www.axiomaudio.com/boards/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=180247&fpart=1

Omar, there's been considerable discussion of that here. The advantage of the vertical M22 center in having wider and smoother horizontal dispersion is lost when it's placed horizontally and in addition the pattern would be different left/right. Whether these factors would make the VP150 preferable if both were horizontal isn't clear. I've never heard the VP150. My tests five years ago when I got my M22s included horizontal positioning, and it certainly wasn't unacceptable, but neither did it appear to have any benefit over the typical horizontal MTM center.

What about a M2 for a center it is only a few inches taller than the VP series.

I have tried pretty much all imaginable center channel configurations using M22s and the full VP series I own; 2 M22s on their side with tweeters on either end worked very well. The version you are speaking of with only one on its' side does not work as JohnK has indicated. I have run the VP100 and the VP150 in parallel, one above and one below with very good results as was a vertical M22 center quite good but very locateable.

If you must have only one center speaker and height is an issue I wouldn't hesitate to use either the VP100 or VP150.

Mojo,

your comment "we don't recommend this at all" is said quite a bit with the M22 centre, even with vertical positioning, and I have to disagree with most of your comments on your list.

#4 is basically what I am using (but with dual m2s) and it sounds great. #6 is what mdrew is using, and I am sure if he didn't think it sounded good, he wouldn't continue to use it.

Hi Robb,

Help me understand what you disagree with.

I wrote "we don't recommend this at all" for a single M22 located horizontally below the screen and dual M22s on each side of the TV. The respective reasons were poor imaging and "phasey" response.

I also wrote "we don't recommend this" for a single M22 oriented vertically because the sound field was too "narrow". BTW, these were not subtle differences.

Which of the above do you disagree with and why?

What else do you disagree with and why?

I don't doubt your dual M2s sound great. But we never "tested" with M2s or even dual 22s in a vertical configuration for that matter. Maybe someday you can invite me over so I can hear your M2s .

With regard to mdrew, I don't doubt that it sounds good. Maybe his are spaced further apart or he is further away from them. But has mdrew ever tried an A/B with a VP100 or VP150 or M44s ?

The point I'm trying to make in the last two paragraphs is that one doesn't know what sounds better until one tries it. I thought my Boses sounded good until I did the A/B with the 80s. The fun part of course is trying all of these different configurations out and learning from them. Sure, they're not scientific but people can take them for what they're worth.

Maybe you can join us next time. The more opinions the richer the experience.

I indeed would love to join in on the next session. I think that it is, on the most part, supposed to be a personal preference correct? When you say the words "we don't recommend this", to someone who is just browsing the board, they will see that comment as written in stone. I think the wording "we don't prefer this" should be substituted.

The only points I disagree with are #4 and #6. Like I said above, my dual M2 centres are essentially a single M22. #6 I have no personal experience with so I am going by mdrew and all the experiments he went through with regards to spacing between the dual M22s.

Isn't a recommendation just a statement of your own personal preference? If I were to recommend to you to buy a Camry over an Accord am I not just stating my own preference? It is still up to the individual to look at all possibilities and decide what they want. Now if enough people recommend to not try this or that, then there might be something to it, yes/no?

Dual M2s are not a single M22 especially when split top and bottom, running split up allows the sound to envelop the screen area better so to not be localized as the single M22 was. But as you said, it was just our preference and in my environment.

Everything stated about speakers has to be taken with a grain of salt as they will sound slightly different in everyone's own environment. Just as the EP400 was much better suited to my place than Mojos. It almost worked for HT on its own.

Robb,

Your point is well-taken. A newbie on the boards may read a post by someone who has a few thousand posts and take that someone's words for gospel because that someone may be seen as an expert to the newbie. I'll certainly try to remember the verbal distinction. Like Jason said however, the two words are very synonymous and coupled with my memory, which is like an BBRAM chip with a bad battery, you may just have to remind me again.

I'd suggest that possibly the disagreement on what's been referred to as point #4 is in part at least semantics. One purpose of a center speaker arrangement is to localize the center channel material as precisely as possible to the center of the screen(ideally to an area as small as the mouth of the actor speaking). A different objective is that the speaker or speakers should have as wide and smooth a horizontal dispersion as possible, both for listeners not in the center and for the reflections from the side walls, regardless of listener positioning. So, the center channel material should be both highly localized and widely dispersed, and there's no inconsistency between these objectives.

Well summated mojo.
I've expressed similar comments in the past and been admonished for it.
We just keep chugging along.

Actually John, in this case, the 22 sounded like a column of sound. It was very unnatural. When someone is talking to me, I don't perceive the sound as originating from a small area of their face. It sounds "bigger" and more resonant than that. The 150 adequately imitates this effect. The 22 that we heard on the other hand sounded like a very narrow, vertical line source.