I respectfully disagree. Although the drivers and tweeter are familiar, the cabinet looks ungainly. Its proportions just don't look right to me. The top looks like an architectural coping.

Now, everyone is entitled to his own opinion. Some may find it beautiful. I'm just saying ...

Well, yeah... it looks a bit... well... not as well proportioned as the others. I expected this, of course, with the otherwise no compromise T/M configuration. I think it's valid to offer some criticism at this point on the design.

How about a robotic center channel that looks like a mouth opening and closing with what the actor is saying?

Let's not forget that it IS a prototype.

If I were building something to enable listening tests, I wouldn't likely spend much time on aesthetics, lest the whole thing gets thrown out for a design mod.

I agree. I recognize that it is a prototype but visually, it is not appealing to me. SQ is king but if it doesn't shake up the sound too much, I would consider lengthening it purely for aesthetic reasons even though it is not required to fit the drivers. Height vs. length it isn't to short of the ever pleasing Phi ratio but the depth to the rear seems to be making it look a bit too boxy.

I'd love to be able to counter the above by saying how great it sounds, but of course, I haven't heard it yet so I don't think they will mind hearing our comments on the aesthetics. Why else show us pictures, inevitable driver configuration arguments aside. heheheh

Does this cabinet make my butt look big?

In all seriousness, though, I don't think Ian is crying in the corner due to anybody's criticism. We are all potential customers and if the universal reaction was "ick" then I'm sure he'd make some tweaks before going to market with it. "Ick" is not the universal reaction, though, so I have a feeling the basic form factor won't change much, especially considering the fact that the ultimate design goal is great sound.

+1. Excellent, noteworthy point.

Having met Ian and done a brief psychiatric assessment when he wasn't looking, I can agree that his skin meets the minimum thickness requirement for successful public discourse, including received criticism.

When the lights go out all that matters is the sound quality. I think it looks fine like it is. Now if the height can be decreased slightly yet still keep the same driver configuration with the tweeter over the midrange and flanked by the woofers (hopefully the same size drivers as the m60's so that there is a seamless integration between the m60's or m80's and the vp160), then great. That may improve the WAF so that it is easier to purchase. If the width or depth has to be increased then the choice should be the width, as long as we don't go as far as the vp180. That should make placement on a TV stand, with a display easier.

Ajax,

It is true that the VP160 is designed for a unique purpose and particular customer bent.

The VP160 is going to end up being boxy looking compared to the other designs but that is the nature of the beast. The idea is to keep every detail as close as possible to the matching fronts, in this case the M60s. This means we want the same tweeter and 5.25” as in the M60 and we want the tweeter above the 5.25”. Our other three centre channels will remain the longer slimmer design.

This said we have managed to shave the height down to 10 7/8” which will help a bit with that boxiness.

WMTMW will probably make a great vertical center chaneel (for those who have the space and wife's approval) ......