Yes, but would it sound good, and work well in this situation?
On the plus side of using an in-cabinet VP160 vertically behind an AT screen vs an in-cabinet M60 or M80, are these.
--Shorter cabinet--
VP160 height = 30 inches.
M60 height = 39.75 inches.
M80 height = 39.75 inches.
--Less depth--
VP160 depth = 13.66 inches.
M60 depth = 15.31 inches.
M80 depth = 18 inches.
Also the M60 and M80 would have to be mounted up side down to get the tweeters closer to ear level. Using the VP160 vertically, they could be mounted closer to the bottom of the screen. With a 7 foot ceiling, you almost have to mount the top of the 2.40:1 screen within an inch or 2 of the ceiling, especially when the projector will be shelf mounted next to the ceiling behind the seating position.
I haven't heard either the M60, nor the VP160. The VP160 has reduced cabinet volume. It seems that some graphs that Ian displayed shows where the VP160 was almost an exact match of the M60's sound signature. To me, it would seem if mounted vertically, or horrizontally, that they would sound the same. The problem with most centers is the horrizontal dispursion, which the VP160 was said to correct. Centers never had a problem with vertical dispersion that I know of. So, it would seem to me that the VP160 should present the best dispersion either way and work sonically pleasing mounted in either position.
Now, if this is not the case, then it would be good if Axiom could develop a good speaker for AT screens, allowing for extended cabinet to lay between the studs and baffles over the ports. And with the ability to condentrate the speakers at the correct behind the screen locations. I would think that there would be a market for this.
Last edited by CatBrat; 12/28/11 01:16 PM.
