If one didn't need the VP160 to play as loud or as low as a VP180 or M80, couldn't the crossovers in the VP160 be tweaked to produce a sonic match for an M80 as well?

I would have think it already is. It's just not an exact match, the same driver compliment.

I would say sonically it is an exact match or pretty darn close to these ears, except for the whole not as low or loud thing.

AVJ, as Rick and Jason indicate, it's already close as possible to a match for the M80; no "tweaking" would be feasible. The only differences would be maybe 2-3Hz less bass extension and less ability to play extremely loud levels(unlikely to be used)in the mid-range and treble because of the single mid-range driver and tweeter.

I am using the VP160 with M80s and for a center channel, it is a pretty close sonic match and realistically since you are not going to get much, if any sound below the low-end capability of the speaker anyway, even running it in a "full range" capacity, it will easily handle whatever you throw at it.

I believe most would agree that with any horizontal center channel even with the same company design is never going to be perfect timbre match to the L/R speakers anyway. In this case only another M80 will provide that. The horizontal design especially those with smaller drivers are considerably more affected by positioning. From my experience, the big benefit of full range models like the 160 and 180 is that they seem to be less affected by those positioning limitations.

I understand the compromises of a horizontal centre and I have no doubt that the VP160 already blends quite well with M80's. However, the VP160 was specifically designed to sonically match the M60, which sounds different from the M80, so there must still be some room for adjustment in order to produce an even closer match to the M80.

I realize the VP180 already exists, and IMHO does match the M80 extremely well, but I'm thinking there is still a place for a "VP170" for M80 owners willing to sacrifice a tiny bit of max SPL and low frequency response in order to acheive slightly better off axis performance. I know, I know, by all accounts this mystical speaker has arrived in the VP160, but again, the VP160 cannot possibly match the M80 equally well if it was designed to match the M60.

That's getting pretty specific, and I think anyone looking for that mystical speaker should simply bite the bullet and make the space for an M80 center.

Bad choice of words on my part. I meant in relation to the VP180 not the M80. As you say, there simply is no substitute for a third M80 for centre.

The frequency graphs show the VP180 still tracking a bit flatter than the vP160, which has a baby bump around 70-150Hz. If they could come out with another centre that sounds even closer to the VP180 (without the same max SPL or low freq abilities of course) but with the off axis of a VP160, then that would be the cat's meow. Either way, the VP160 has gotten me so curious I may have try one out.

Has it been stated by anyone who HAS a VP180 and/or a VP160 that the VP180 has inferior off axis capabilities?

No problems off axis with my vp180

Not really, but theory says it should. That said, if it isn't noticable to me in real world listening then it doesn't really matter as much, at least to me.

Well, I do get some dropoff, but nothing I can't live with. The thing is, the VP180 sounds so good and matches the M80's so well that I don't think I'm willing to sacrifice the sound just to address the dropoff. In my mind, there'd be no point to having great off axis performance if the sonic match isn't as good. Hence my desire for a VP170

Again, there doesn't appear to be a good reason to believe that the sonic match wouldn't be at least as good.

I do not own a VP180 but last year I tried out the VP180 and I said the 180 had some off axis limitations like all other inline horizontal designs that I have tried, the db level was down 1-2 at my one seat; the VP160 reaches this area and only down by less than 0.5 db. But let it also be said I am not measuring scientifically, only using the trusty ol' RS meter held in front of me while listening to various movies and music and averaging the readings, so YMMV.

Yep, I got pretty much the same results you did with the VP160, at most -1db substantially off-axis. With reference to the 160, I am curious to know what design changes that the guys at Axiom made to improve on this since one would think with the dual tweeter design of the 150 and 180 and their placement in the cabinet that any off-axis issues would be pretty much eliminated. I haven't had the opportunity to compare the 160 to the 180 but it certainly is noticeably superior in this area to the 150.

It has to do with the all horizontal alignment of the drivers on the VP150/180. With all the drivers in the same plane it has a beaming/straight out horizontal pattern, the trade off is this design offers good vertical dispersion for top or bottom mounting of the speaker over/under the screen. The VP160 and its WT/MW design offers better off axis horizontal dispersion like a standard vertical speaker but doesn't offer the vertical dispersion of the horizontal layout, so some may find the sound doesn't come from the center of the screen but below/above where the speaker is located; I notice this from time to time with my VP160, depending on material, I think an M2 above the screen would anchor dialogue to the center.

Casey, as Jason points out, contrary to what might be expected simply by looking at them, speakers with drivers aligned horizontally have good vertical dispersion, while speakers with drivers aligned vertically have better horizontal dispersion. This has been well-recognized in the industry for years and has been adopted by competitors well before this. For example, note the Paradigm line-up of center speakers here , which use this configuration in even the less expensive models.

So, no entirely new technology is involved here, although as Ian has explained, changes, including crossover slopes, were necessary in adapting the M60 components to the W T/M W configuration.

From my own experimentation over the years with several center channel models(including a VP150), regardless of size or configuration, placing the center channel above the screen as opposed to below it and tilting it towards the listening position, in comparing one design to the other, seems to negate many of the limitations talked about here. Combine that with the superior horizontal dispersion of the VP160 and I believe I have the best of both worlds. I, personally in my setup, never really cared for the sound of the speaker below the screen anyway and it never seemed to sound as good to me. I guess it always gets back to Alan's previous article of how center channels can be affected by positioning in various environments. I know it is not possible for everyone to be able to place a speaker in this elevated position, especially ones of the size of the 160/180, but if you can, I believe it provides better overall dispersion.

I have tried the dual method as well, above and below, and in the end, I always went back to the tried and true method above(speaker above monitor, tilted towards listening spot).

In the end, with this hobby, it always boils down to experimentation and playing around until one is satisfied with what sounds best to them.In this case, luckily, we have the tools with which to play.

I'd agree. Tilting up or down can be very helpful in cases where placing the speaker at ear level may be impractical or(as I pointed out in another thread)where raising the speaker may create a problem with room boundary reflections.

I just got my 160 set up, because I had to reinforce my stand on top of my TV. "It's like lifting a little kid up there".

My first impression is" WoW, this thing is huge" it's two !50's put together.BUT......the sound it creates, with the M80's is WoW again. The seamless sounstage (I have only heard of this before!)and it seams to make the M80's have an even more powerful sound...if that can be had.

I have it above my 55"TV on an Omni stand, with my M80's ontop of my subs on each side.I am in heaven, and Rick...I think I have #1 because my serial# is 001. thanks Axiom, you made my year again, it is that good!

Very good, Shawn; enjoy.