Ports on the front seems like a smart idea, though I really shouldn't weigh in since I don't think the VP160 is what I'll be gunning for. I still think I want to try a VP180, perhaps dual VP180 at some point. I can't let JC best my system, after all!

Personally, I think the latter, as it would fit better within many "center channel" spaces on A/V furniture, as well as fit better within the Axiom line between the size of the VP150 and the size of the VP180.

I also agree with Mark .....just to muddy the waters I would love it if the top could be curved a little like a mantle clock.

Prob not possible with the current manufacturing method.

My vote is a bit longer (wider on the horizontal plane). The VP180 is simply too big for many of us, but it does look rather wicked. A compromise for me would be a speaker along the same proportions, but smaller than the VP180.

Call me vain, but I do care what my speakers look like. Even in the days when that "other company" was making speakers and swindling folks in the name a charity, they made a center channel called "the big foot". Everyone was just ranting and raving over this thing. I couldn't buy one because I did not like the way it looked. This prototype resembles it to some degree.

Based on looks alone, I like much more the look of my VP180. The lab results will tell if it will perform better (which the theory indicates that it will off-axis).

First I think you should go with whatever sounds best.
Then, assuming that the SQ will be the same, I would also go with a shorter and longer box as long as it doesn't reach the length of the VP180 which is why some people can't accommodate it.

Many possibilities and experiments to be made...

Edit: took too long to create my post that is basically repeating what Michael is saying

unfortunately, my first impression is that i do not like the way this speaker looks. it looks kind of like a box, but it's not a box... Ian, maybe if you could re-arrange the drivers to make it more symmetrical some how? My initial though was to add a second 5.25" and put the tweeter in the middle... But then it wouldn't have the exact same drivers as the m60..

Sorry to be the negative Nancy in the group, but you deserve honest feedback, so that is what i am giving you.

Yeah, what Mike and Bruno said.

I don't think it's useful to propose a five-driver model. That would only be a tweeter short of the VP180. I totally support the same driver compliment as the M60. Ports on the front. Needs to be "smaller" in the height and width than the VP180, for sure, though.

As we both hear direct and reflected sound (since I don't know of anybody that has an anechoic chamber in their living room), the off-axis response is also important on what the listeners perceive that are also sitting on-axis. A nice uniform off-axis response is a win-win and a design like a WMTW can accomplish.

I think that widening this model and adding front dual ports is an excellent idea for those off us that also are constrained to placing our center channel in an entetainment center.

The added bonus, I think, will be the more aesthically pleasing proportions.

Another thought I had, even though I do like the fact that the drivers exactly mimic the M60, is what if the 3" or 4" driver that Axiom already produces was used as the mid?

Since the VP160 is to match the M60 I would suggest a little extra exposed box on each end to mimic the lower section of the M60 which has more of the finsh exposed below the grille, this in turn would give a longer sleeker and quite possibly more elegant look.

Would/could this extra volume enhance the lower FR of the speaker?