Well, the first prototype is designed, cut and built, and heading into the testing room! What do you think?


Side view


Front view

Saaaaaaaaaweeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!

Woo Hoo!

Amie, could we get the measurements and driver complement (even though this may not be the final version)?

I'm sorry to say I'm not really sold on the appearance. Still, what can you do with an WT/MW with the same size drivers--which should obviously be the goal to match the M60s.

Question: What do you think?

Answer: One word, AWESOME! May it's off-axis performance and speech intelligibility be with you! Love it!

p.s. Is this prototype sealed or ported?

I wonder if there would eventually be an in/on wall version, or in-cabinet version, if it would not be too deep. The in-cabinet VP180 was too deep for my wall. There was heating duct work in the way. But, I might be interested in that. I suppose, that it might be possible that I could build an outer frame on the wall, using 2x2 or 2x4's though so it wouldn't go so deep. Angle it up just a little too, while I'm at it.

I'm sold. I want one.

Let me add;

Thanks for sharing, Amie! It's great that you're soliciting user-feedback in the design process!

I should say that too, as the jerk who critiqued on reply number 3. It's very cool that you're showing off prototypes to the community.

Great feedback so far - thank you! Critiques are definitely welcomed or we wouldn't have asked I'm waiting for the 'measurement' answer . . .

Mark,

It is 292mm x 600 mm x 335 mm (11.5” x 23.625” x 13.2”) HWD. The drivers are identical to the M60. It is only the tweeter face plate that has changed. We wanted to keep the height to a minimum but also keep the tweeter above the 5.25”.

This looks great! The design looks like it will be better for off axis viewing than most center channels, yet it is not too tall and deep to cause placement issues with regards to the display. Hopefully there is great dialog intelligibility (even off axis) and yet it will have a flat frequency response and tonal characteristic closely matching the m60's and m80's.

Nice! and thanks Ian/Amie for asking our opinions.

Ian, have you considered using a notched faceplate on the tweeter to narrow the cabinet(allowing more placement options for some people)?

I appreciate the comment that one objective was to minimize height. The height as listed here would defininately trip the WAF alarm.

Thank you, Amie and Ian, for sharing this interesting news, and especially for soliciting feedback.

I'm delighted to hear that it has the same driver compliment as the M60.

The proportions of the speaker make me wonder about having an angle cut on the front edge of the vertical sides, but I know that is not consistent with the look or assembly of the rest of the line.

Ian, good luck with the testing. I hope it's a winner.

So a bit smaller than the volume of an M60, or is that made up for by the non-tapering bottom?

I have 14 inches of clearance from the front of my wall (under the tv) to the duct work inside the wall. With depth being 13.2 inches, it'd almost be an exact fit.

Very nice. I'll be interested to hear comparisons to the VP180.

Nice!

I'd be interested to find out how well it will do in a dual center VP180-VP160 combination.

If y'all get a chance to try that can you report back?

I like it. Personally, I prefer the higher and deeper profile of this prototype as opposed to the usual longer, narrow center channels which tend to have limitations especially with wide angle dispersion and the usual overabundance of sound in the 300-500 hz range which makes voices sound unnatural. This one looks more like a large bookshelf speaker on its side.

One obvious item not mentioned is the price. Since it falls between the VP180 and 150, I gather we are to assume the price will fall somewhere in that range as well?

I think I have died and gone to heaven, this looks like it could be the center channel I have been dreaming of. I'll take 2 right now.

It's a bit tallish, but using the existing unmodified drivers(the tweeter apparently is the one with the QS4 face plate)limits the extent to which the height could be minimized. It would be nice if it could be lowered an inch or so, but this would require modifying the tweeter and 5.25" face plates to fit more closely together.

Enclosure size apart, however, this promises to be an excellent sounding center when development is complete. I'd guess that a likely price would be around $540.

Ian, if you're of a mind to do a little more experimentation in this area, one of the thoughts that I've mentioned here in the past was a smaller W T/M W using two 5.25" woofers, the QS4 form of tweeter faceplate and the 4" mid-range from the QS4.

Great idea. Looks a bit like my Frankencenterspeaker:

1 Merak (Axiom made) trapezoidal anti standing wave cabinet
2 Axiom 6.5" drivers
1 tweeter, capacitor and resistor array from a Reference 3a de Capo mm speaker
1 modified Radio Shack super tweeter

[img:center][/img]

and another with the Merak horn loaded tweeter

[img:center][/img]

That there is one burly speaker! Measuring, its about 1.5" taller than my M2s. I think this is a love 'em or hate'em format.

I don't know which would be harder to fit into a setup the VP180, which is mondo wide, or this guy.

I wouldn't mind a little shorter and a little longer, but please don't make it deeper.

Brian, Ian is a excellent designer(certainly superior to the Russian designer Ivan)but he can't make it both shorter and longer.

Edit: Oh, you mean...

Ohh. How about shorter, and wider?

You got it; and I agree.

Although I understand that this speaker target people who seek better off-axis response, I have to agree with this statement. People that couldn't fit a VP180 will have a hard time with this one. Physics are physics so I guess the volume is needed for a good full range center. I'm sure something can be done on the tweeter face plate in order to make the speaker shorter and a bit wider.

If it was me... I would spread the width out another 5 or 6 inches and add another midrange keeping the tweeder dead center. This would shorten the heigth by about 2 inches and keep the asthetic look of a tradional center ( long and narrow ). Only my opinion though as I dont really care for the box look. But I did stay at a holiday inn express last night. LOL

I thought it would be a size between the 150 and 180, I don't like the boxy look but that is just me.

Looks great. Like everyone else, wondering if it's possible to reduce the height a bit without pushing the drivers too close to the tapered edges and making it unmanufacturable.

I tried doodling up something where the tapered edges were at left and right rather than top and bottom but then you end up with long vinyl seams.

Anyways, thanks very much for giving us an early look.

What about putting the tweeter and mid range beside each other?

W-M-T-W

I also like the idea earlier of W-M-T-M-W, if the extra mid didn't color the sound. I know it'd add to the cost a bit. Maybe $600 instead of $540. But I think people would like it better.

heh... and do the HORRIBLENESS of a straight line center again? But that would be WRONG!

I don't think my VP180 is HORRIBLE, but I agree, no point of doing that.

I think the proportions would look a little better, to my eye at least, IF it was a little wider, perhaps providing room for ports at either end.

Then again a lot of centers are not ported, reason being?

Regardless of my nitpicking this will be another reason to drive north.

Hi Wayne:
I'm guessing it has to do with how often they are "fitted" into a TV stand.

Sorry i really don't like the apparence,
They looks like teenager project made in a basement in the 80's.

how about having a longer & slimmer shape to be more friendly with flat screen set-up ?

I think there is a propostion H&W problem, less height & wider could help ?

But I'm volunter to test a Beta unit a home (for free ).

How many ports does this speaker have and where are they located?

Anywho, I have no issues about it's height whatsoever. If you want or your room needs a shorter center they already provide so many other options like the VP150, VP180 or VP100. Speaker design is all about trade-offs and you can't have everything. This sort of horizontal driver complement has the ability to offer so many benefits. Hopefully all this will be realized in the testing phase. My advice if it sounds the best don't worry about the dimensions, you already have 3 centers which would fit other placement needs. I love the idea you guys are playing with this.

Like BlueJays said, it's all about compromise. If you want longer and slimmer, there's the 150 or the on-walls. This one's for the freaks who want an WT/MW design.

Folks, I wouldn't make final judgments on the appearance based on these photos. Those are not the best photos (no offense meant to the photographer). It is difficult for me to tell if the top front edge is a straight bevel or a notch. I assume it is a bevel but it looks like a notch due to reflections.

I, for one, am thrilled to see Axiom making a W T/M W center channel. Another option for the customer. If it is not for you, you still have several other Axiom options that should satisfy.

My vote is a "BRAVO"

Amie or Ian (Ivan):
Is this meant to be a replacement model, or is it "in addition" to the current ones offered?

Everyone's a critic nowadays!

The VP100, VP150 and VP180 all have that slimmer profile of various sizes you are talking about. One of the key aspects of this design is having the tweeter above the bandwith limited midrange driver. This is critical for its dispersion. One of the trade-offs will be of course a taller cabinet compared to the others.

Well, ya see, I have this friend who is a professional photographer. He's really good at it so I'm spoiled. I tend to measure all photos against his work. Thus, you can blame him for my critical opinion.

I would approximate the cabinet could be made an inch, or so, narrower with a notched tweeter faceplate. Having the centre-to-centre distance as small as poss between the mid and tweet should also improve the SQ from what I've read(may not be audible, but at least it reduces the height if nothing else). Reducing the height, if possible, would make the speaker desirable to more buyers. I don't agree with statements about just getting one of the other centres as I think they are different animals(excluding the 180) and I don't really think a buyer would "cross shop" between the smaller centres and either the 160 or 180 once they have done their research.

Another way to look at the height is to question .... whether this height is a necessity to achieve the best SQ ........ or ..... is it just a result of the limitation of using the existing drivers ........
If the answer is "limitations", then I believe faceplate re-design would open up a lot more possibilities for Axiom line of speakers ......

For me, I guess H:W ratio of 1:3 would be more appealing.

Since we're all chiming in on 'wish lists,' how about a redesign of the vp 100 or 150 to have a similar W-M^T-W compliment, using the 5.25" W and 4" M, along with the 1" T to go with my M22's? It seems like I can use a little more than my vp 100, but I'm not sold on the 150's configuration with the tweeters on the outside.

I think you'd be sacrificing midrange and timbre vs. the other Axiom speakers based on a gut feeling by doing that.

I know, I know. How about a generic box with a bunch of holes in it where we could just put the speakers where ever we wanted them?

Go with the VP160 and it's dedicated 5.25" midrange driver . It would be a better match than using the 4" as the midrange with the M22. The crucial midrange of each speaker would share the same driver then. One difference being with the VP160, the 5.25" would be more bandwith limited than on the M22 with anything below the crossover point being handled by the larger 6" woofers flanked on each side.

I think I agree. The configuration I suggest would be a 3-way that would x-over to the 4" for midrange. I suppose this could be limiting. Although I don't think there would be any timbre difficulties since many people use QS 4's with M22's and they have the 4" driver. I am interested to see how this new center evoloves.

I know Axiom has mentioned before they like the midrange capabilities of the 5.25". More so than the 6.5 but I don't think they ever mentioned the 4". One driver complement a fellow member JohnK suggested was a dual 4" in a WM(^T^)MW.

Ahh, now you're really shaking things up. Would the woofers be the 5.25" drivers? If so, it would be like a baby 180. This could be interesting as it would lengthen the box. Looking at the 180 prototype, I do think it appears too 'boxy.'

Now that's an important question and one I could not answer.

As a former owner of QS4s as well as a current owner of M50s, M80s, etc, etc, etc, etc, I prefer the midrange of the 5.25>3>6.5>4. Bearing in mind, of course, that my 5.25" mids are v2s, the 3s are v3s, the 6.5s are v1s, and the 4s were v2s.

Brian, keep in mind that the main purpose of the new design is to have the tweeter and mid-range aligned vertically, and putting the tweeter and mid-range beside each other would defeat this purpose. This would be little different acoustically from taking the M60 and setting it on its side.

Several Axiom competitors offer such a W T/M W arrangement, such as Aperion , Paradigm and PSB .

Yes, a couple years ago Blue Jay(aka Dr. horse)and I discussed center speaker designs and one of the suggestions I mentioned was an arrangement for a W T/MM W, which would use the tweeter and two 4" mid-ranges grouped as closely as possible in a triangular configuration. This was pure speculation, and the benefits(if any)of such an arrangement are unclear, beyond doubling up the mid-range drivers.

I might note that the competitors' W T/M W speakers that I linked above do make use of 4-4 1/2" mid-ranges which helps keep enclosure height down.

OK, it's clunky looking. Focal JM Lab Electras look a bit better.


and of course the B&W Nautilus center speaker raises the tweeter above the driver line



and of course the idea of my Frankenspeaker DIY project using Axiom 6.5" drivers is the tweeter is above the speaker line. Axiom could place the 5.25" driver where the horn tweeter is and raise its tweeter to where the supertweeter sits.

[img:center][/img]

I think it would make the unit look much better and get rid of the bulk.

I've never cared for the stand-alone tweeter on top of the cabinet. It looks, to me, like they forgot it and said "oh well, lets just nail it down up here." But, that's just my personal perspective. YMMV.

Looks a little phallic to me?

How about using an overlap like the in-wall VP100? You'd probably have to extend the back to keep the same cab volume, but then you could shrink the vertical, which is what I'm keying off of.

I have the same opinion of "offboard" tweeters, Jack. I just don't see it happening from this company, thankfully.

A huge part of the look and feel of Axiom speakers comes directly from their manufacturing process. I happen to think they've pushed the boundaries nicely and are making good-looking speaker cabinets despite the constraints of their CNC-routed laminated MDF fold-and-glue process. I'm sure there have been many iterations to that process over the years, each one bringing another measure of refinement to the look.

I don't mind the look if there can be an advantage acoustically.

now, only the price will stop me from buying it....but the paradigm cc690 look very gorgeous too....

And the audio results of the new VP160 are.....?

Haven't heard anything. Must be back to the drawing board time.

Interesting PMB.

CNC? fold and glue? The VP 160 prototype definitely looks clunky and primitive. I hope the finished product looks better. The prototype presents as a bit amateurish in appearance. Aesthetics count,though perhaps in this case they are dictated by audio engineering requirements, though it sure doesn't look like it.

Friends, we all really like the folks at Axiom and their products. I think they're entitled to an honest review of the appearance of this center speaker effort. The market will be ruthless unless the sound quality and tech specs are so stand-out as to make up for its looks.

But why make it look different from the rest of the line? Slap a woodgrain finish on that, and it looks (relatively) similar to the rest of the lineup.

2x6, you are certainly entitled to your opinion and to express that opinion. That's all, we who don't quite see it the same as you, have done.

I consider aesthetics to be important, just not as important as performance and this speaker's performance, at this point, is an unknown. I do not find the prototype to be "beautiful," but neither do I find it's appearance to be a deal breaker. On the other hand, regardless of performance, which I'm sure is stellar, I would not have the Nautilus in my house. I just don't care for it.

Oh, good point, Ken.

Peter's point is well-taken; part of what enables Axiom to produce excellent products at reasonable prices is their manufacturing process. Absent a complete redesign of the entire line, having consistency between models is both a branding as well as an efficiency issue.

People have been clamoring for a W-T/M-W center design from Axiom for years. Now that Ian is working on one, the feedback he gets is "looks clunky"?

When Amie posted the PROTOTYPE pictures my first thought was "cool!". My second thought, about a nanosecond later, was "they'll be sorry".

I tend to agree with Jack about the outboard tweeters.

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) ......

Could not agree more. Not only are our opinions valid, both pro and con, I would think they would be of some value, however minor.

??? my wife won't approve of that !!

Definitely a little boxy but a welcome addition to the lineup. I like the look of the vp180 better. I wonder which will perform better?

It's not as trapezoidal as I'd expect an Axiom center channel to be. It sort of looks like my old toy chest.

I would guarantee that the VP180 will perform better. It's really the no compromises center channel. It's got the larger cabinet volume.

I'm a big fan of outboard tweeters, as long as they come in matched pairs.

Wohooo!! Can we call it shorty now?

Thanks Ian. Yes, I think those who find the prototype "boxy" will find the 10 7/8" height more satisfying.

Ian, looking at the pictures of the prototype, it did appear that the top and bottom of the enclosure could be a little closer to the drivers so as to allow a small height reduction.

Since even the VP150 is about 4" wider than the prototype, it would seem that adding several inches to the width would reduce the impression of "boxiness" to those who object(which doesn't include me). This would also get the internal volume closer to that of the M60 for purposes of bass tuning. Of course, the woofers should remain as close together as possible.

JohnK,

This is a good point. We could put a port at each end of the front baffle (they are currently on the rear baffle). The question becomes should we go for a bit boxy but compact or proportionally more sleek but larger?

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?

Sure, Jason; enclosure volume is a key spec in tuning it for bass extension. This would help in achieving what Ian stated above as an intention to keep "every detail" as close as possible to the M60.

I know the volume is a key spec for bass tuning, I was thinking about this extra volume possibly causing an issue for proper tuning, but I guess the ends could always be sealed off if a smaller cabinet size is required.

No; it needs to be bigger to more closely match the M60 bass capability.

Most importantly, does it come in anything but black?

They're calling it the Model T60.

Then i'm waiting for Model T60v3

It just hit me that the VP160 looks a lot like the old Rocket RSC200...

That's the one I was referring to earlier Nick......

That was my first thought when I saw the VP160.

One difference would be the cabinet shape for internal standing waves.

That 321 speaker employs a totally different aluminum cone 6.5" bass drivers, a 4" midrange and a vifa tweeter. Different cabinet and surely a different crossover because of all this. That equates to a totally different speaker. To me it doesn't even look like the VP160.

I agree. They have the same driver configuration W T/M W, but beyond that, they don't really look alike, IMHO. With different shape, internal volume, and drivers, they probably will not sound alike.

I think the original comment was related to the look and the size (that why it was called Bigfoot), not the sound. In this regard, they do look alike (WT/MW and big enclosure).

Within those limitations, I agree.

Yea, I was just commenting on the similarities. There are a number of differences of course.

Correct Bruno, it was that first glance and initial reaction to the BOXY look, see it elsewhere just never from Axiom.

I think it looks fine,but to be sure , just send it my way in mansfield beech and I'll give it good test. With pics.

It's been 3 weeks since this was brought to our attention, I wonder how the listening tests are going...........

I second the motion. I'm guessing that there are sound quality issues?

Seriously? "Sound quality issues"? To me, that seems like a pretty pejorative statement, especially considering our nearly complete lack of information about the R&D process of either this speaker or Axiom in general.

How about if we give Ian and Co. the benefit of the doubt instead of punishing him for sharing information on the forum?

Like, totally correct, Tom! Or... we could throw him in the lake and see if he floats?

Well. You do have a point there. And as much as I weigh today, I'd probably float really well. Just thinking out loud....silently. Ok, ok, so it's not sound quality issues. Then it must be dispersion problems.

Actually, we're just really into testing here

But you're right, we're long overdue with an update, so here are two new pics for you:



And I swear nobody was hurt in the making of this second image, although you may think the VP150 got pounced on seconds after this shot was taken . . . and if that's too much anthropomorphism for the day, just ignore me!

NOM NOM NOM NOM

That helps a lot, btw. Damn, that's a big speaker. Can we maybe get a shot of it with a VP180?

Asking the guys, Ken. I thought the VP150 helped a lot too.

I like it a lot better now. Looks like it got a little shorter.

Cool! Thanks, Amie.

I agree with Ken, and have to wonder whether it is "enough smaller" than the VP180 to make a difference. i.e. if you think the VP180 is "too big", is this going to make a difference?

I thought the point was to have a center speaker to better match the m60's, not to necessarily be smaller or larger than any other existing speaker?

I think there's a lot of different points...

Thousand points of laaaght...

Dang, I wish I wasn't born a pessimist! So before I say the ugly little comical thing I was going to say right off the bat is, "This speaker looks like it's going to sound really good."

Now for the ugly little comical thing. "I like to run my speakers without the grills on them. So far, my cat hasn't punished one of the speakers with her claws, etc. (If that happens, I'll just pay to have it replaced). But she definitely can't resist sticking her paws into smallish looking holes. Those port holes will definitely be a cat paw poker attraction." Oh, well. ::ducks and runs the other way::

Well, for the number of times Ray has said "Sell the Wife", I'll just throw "Get rid of the Cat" out there.

Thanks for sharing, Amie. Have listening tests already been done, and if this is the final prototype, is is possible to share measurements (size, not FR!)?

I want something that can eat my VP150, but maybe not swallow it whole. This might be exactly right!

this talk reminds me of the fact that i've never been able to find a good explanation about why my M80's cabinets vibrate, but still i can't hear any problem with sound quality even when the sound levels are high.

does anyone have the answer to that?

I'm just the picture transfer girl today, Mark - I'll leave it for the boys to weigh in with measurements (but not likely until tomorrow because everyone is in transit somewhere today it seems!)

Next pic with the VP180 is ready:

I thought the point was to silence the rabble clamoring for a W-T/M-W configuration regardless of how it might sound. I don't remember anybody saying the VP180 doesn't "match the M60's" well.

I'm going to wait until Mark buys one and reviews it. Then, I'm going to besmirch his credibility due to his square room. After that, I'll probably patiently read a whole boatload of VP150 bashing, much of it from people who've never heard one.

Yeah, I'm grumpy today. Sorry.

Sounds about like my thoughts, Tom...

But also funny.

Looking at the two together, I might actually do better with a VP180 in that it sits a little lower. Might be nmore difficult to get past the CFO though.

Either way, it's great to have options!

And Amie, when someone has a chance to get measurements, make sure it's in inches and not that Anti-American Socialist Commie Metric stuff.

Tom, I guess I'm right there with 'ya buddy.

Beer?

You mean we can't measure in beer caps or counting the number layers of hockey tape?

Nope.

I WILL, however accept something akin to:

"This speaker measure 8.2 pucks high, 9.9 pucks deep and 17.4 pucks wide. It will fit on a standard shelf that measures 11 by 21 Timmies".

Although Dan and Mark bring up excellent easy-to-understand measuring options, I'm still smarting over some comments made in the Shoutbox about our beloved national institution, Canadian Tire, by he-who-shall-remain-anonymous. Because of those ill-advised words, we will not be giving measurements in inches. We will be giving them in Canadian Tire Money, and you'll have to figure out the conversion to 'US Customary Units' yourself!

<faux FredK sig>
----------------------------------
"Metric. It works boys."
</faux FredK sig>

Does this involve us Ameriicuhns having to walk into a place called "Princess Auto"?

Oooh, now you're invoking the wrath of bridgman . . . backing away slowly . . .

I don't know about the sound but on looks only I think it looks much better, much less boxy. I hope it does well during the listening tests. Good luck!

But, Volvo has been proving that "boxy is good" for decades.

Good call on the puck equivalencies, Mark.

AAAAHHHH! Proportions are much more satisfying. Well done.

Jack has now been "satisfied" by the pictures of the speaker and its exposed ports.

Just sayin'

Looks good.

must be a trade secret!

can I buy the first one?

My legal first name may be John, but unlike "Big John," I have no port fetish. It is merely the proportions which are satisfying. I'm completely neutral regarding the ports.

For the youthfully uninitiated, we used to have a very nice forum member named Big John who made some unfortunate remark about the attractiveness of the ports in the speakers/subwoofers which we relentlessly and mercilessly never allowed him to forget. Still miss him. He was a good guy.

In all fairness, Amie, I started the Canadian Tire thing. Not that I don't like seeing Fred get bitch-slapped, but I'd rather it be for his own mischief. Generally speaking, if there's someone here dissing Canada, it's usually me. Please know that I am always smiling when I do it. Ha! "You people" make me laugh.

Probably because we have no idea what you're talking about, JB!

J.B.

Funny you should bring that up at this time. I am writing a piece on the unintuitive workings of cabinet bracing later this month. It will answer your question.

I guess you are right. somewhere I thought I read something about driver size and numbers matching the m60's so I thought that may have been the goal.

In any event, I think this is definitely a welcome addition to the axiom center channel line up!

I wonder how it will compare to the vp180 or vp150 in listening tests?

I'm just await for 2 events to come to a convergence.

1) The in-cabinet version is available.
2) I have the $500-600 available to purchase it.

I bet this would sound fine /dandy /groovy /far-out /awesome /bitchin' /good with my current setup.

That looks at least 10x better than the original prototype. Nice work!

Really, Peter? Because I think it looks 17% worse than the original prototype.

I calculated 17.86% myself.

Amie, the newer prototype is looking good(to be precise, 73.47% better). From the relative proportions it appears to be roughly 31" wide.

Brian, even if you were "born a pessimist" there's no need for "guessing" about possible problems here. As has been pointed out several times, the W T/M W configuration is well-established as a superior horizontal center design by several Axiom competitors, some at significantly higher prices. There's no reason to believe that Ian and his colleagues won't also be successful in implementing it using M60 components.

Someone doesn't like you doing that...

Whadido? WHADIDO?

Roh-rooh . . . how do I unban someone? Apologies to Fred!

That I have no doubt. I was just poking fun at the holes in the front of it. I know my cat will be poking her paws in them, if I leave them uncovered. As for the layout, it probably makes more sense not to veer away from the suggested driver configuration.

I felt something tickling my arm while I was sleeping. Brushed it off. Laid there for a while. Then was thinking, yetch, must be a spider or something. So, I got up turned the light on, and yup, a spider. About 1/2 dollar size. Grabbed him with a kleenix and flushed him away. Now I can't get back to sleep. Stupid spider!

The cats are starting the takeover. They're looking to make it look "natural".

You don't let your cats watch crime shows for tips, do you?

just play some movie or some music at a loud level and, with your hand, touch lightly the sides of your main front speakers (mine are M80s) and you'll very easily feel the vibrations;
vibrations usually translate as sound and that is why cabinets are braced (sometimes heavily) to keep the sound clean, uncorrupted by cabinet vibrations. cabinet vibrations translate as distortion.

one usually can have quite a good idea of the amount of bracing in a speaker cabinet by listening to the sound when you hit it with your knuckles. ideally, it should be "dead".

by "unintuitive" i suppose you mean "in a scientific manner", and not by drawing lots in a hat...

I haven't seen the article Ian is working on yet, but Alan did a post about this once (last post on this page:)

http://www.axiomaudio.com/boards/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7375

Quoting him:

Now i understand, thanks a lot, Amie

i read something quite funny in this article: "http://www.axiomaudio.com/distortion.html", where it says:
"The first group of eight listeners (average 92 dB SPL playback level) ranged in age from 20 to 60 (+/-3 dB) and included a mix of male and female auditioners..."

Gotta love Alan's sense of humour!

Just wondering if the subwoofers are also wedged internally to counter the resonance??

The new proportions look much better on the latest prototype VP160, imo.

Sarang, Steve tells me I'm not understanding your question so I had better clarify . . . are you asking if the subs have bracing, or if they have the same wedge shape as the bookshelf, floorstanding and center channel speakers?

Amie, what I meant to ask was that contrary to the wedge shape of the floorstanders, center channels and bookshelf speakers, axiom subwoofers do not have anti-standing wave enclosure design (wedge shape) to counter the resonances. Are the resonances eliminated by some other means in the subwoofers?

Sarang, the EP600 and EP800 DO have the ASW cabinets. I see what you mean about the others, though.

My guess is, like a good bran muffin, the LF just passes right through it. No shaping necessary. The box is sized to control air pressure.

I give! You rule! You squeezed a scat reference into a tech thread. Brilliant!

Sarang,

Since the subwoofers are only producing very long wave lengths it mitigates the need for the anti-symmetrical cabinet design. There could be aesthetic reasons for following the same design though.

Oh sure, ban a guy while he's off for dental surgery.

No Bob, I did not have the surgery at Canadian tire after drinking 4 Timmies as anesthetics.

Sarang, Ian pointed out the major reason why subs, for the most part, don't make use of non-parallel sides for the enclosure. The small "room" that the inside of the enclosure forms follows the same room mode rules as do our listening rooms. If the modes that would exist in that "room" are well above the frequencies that the sub actually plays, then reducing or spreading them out wouldn't be of benefit. For example, calculate the modes for a room say 1.2'x1.5'x1.8', or more conveniently, use a calculator such as this one . Note that the resulting standing waves inside the subwoofer "room" are all in the mid-range and far above what frequencies are actually played.

For loudspeakers though you would want to avoid resonance frequencies in the mid-range at the very least. For subwoofers though how can it be a bad thing to raise the resonant frequency?

That said some of the best possible performing loudspeakers like the Revel Salon 2 have very, very inert cabinets, on the opposite spectrum, the Infinity Primus are basically hallow cabinets but still offer very good performance. Controlling cabinet resonance I think would depend on a lot of factors and not one that is a matter of being absolute. Its like a lot of tradeoffs in loudspeaker design.

That is awesome, I want one! When do you think it will be available Ian?

That really dwarfs the 150, which will work out great using the 160 above the TV screen and 150 below, can't wait!

BlueJays1,

The points you are making are exactly what I am going to cover in my upcoming newsletter piece on bracing. It seems like it is going to be a very timely article given the current discussion.

Hey, I explained it first. Ian just didn't use the Bran Muffin analogy. I guess I lost points for not being staff or not being the slightest bit eloquent.

Ian is, admittedly, much more knowledgeable than I and he has Shania Twain's Summer Home on the other side of his lake. I can't compete with that.
I humbly concede.

Here is an AES publication on this very topic. JohnK probably already has it in his collection .

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5163

Oh yeah....now we're talking! Much mo betta..

Loving it, I can't wait to get a chance to hear/buy this speaker.

All of a sudden My wife Tina is getting agitated and she doesn't even know why. She must feel the "disturbance in the force". Looks real good so far!

Still waiting patiently for more on this, hoping it will be ready for purchasing soon; Santa could use one.

Hi Jason,

We are very close now on finishing the design. I think we will make it in time.

Cheers,

Looks better than picture on page one of this forum.
Putting vent ports on face it's wise (easier for common design for the in/on wall or cabinet future version).
It's also make them less boxy look.
Good Job!
Can i have a beta unit for test ??...free ... pleeease

Agreed ^, looking good!

I just sat here and read through this entire thread. Haven't been on here in a while.

I am crossing my fingers that this new center will be a nice improvement over the vp150 and get carried over to the on/in-wall series. I WILL upgrade my on wall vp150 if this happens. Maybe widen the cabinet for the on walls some since it will have less depth. I'm sure I am just dreaming though!

Crossing fingers!

My best guess is, that the in-cabinet will be the closest they will come to an in/on-wall VP160. I say this because they haven't produced any in/on-wall M60 or M80. Apparently the cabinet volume is necessary for them to work correctly.

Dang, I was hoping this would be my Christmas present for this year! I might have to get a new TV instead, you guys are making me jealous with the LCD,Plasma.....all I have is a Panasonic 55" rear projection, which is on it's second bulb.

I hear you, brother.

Just filmed this yesterday for the newsletter:

looks very good Mr. and Mrs. Axiom...

;-)

Yay, Debbie!

Awesome, Amie!

Has a price been announced yet?

Nice job on the video, Deb!

Alan

Just wondering, what are the dimensions and weight of the VP160?

WooHoo, looking like things are nearly ready!!

@Mark, price is $570 and pre-order pricing will be announced in the newsletter which we're trying to get out Monday or Tuesday at the latest.

@casey:

Dimens. H W D (inches):
11.5" x 30" x 13.66"

Dimens. H W D (mm):
292 x 760 x 347

Weight (lbs) each
47.6 lbs

Weight (kg) each
21.591 kg

And if you'll pardon the quality, here's a shot I took with my cellphone on the 'set' of the video that catches a bit of the side:

Very nice. You guys don't do anything small.

Nice!
Is there a target date for availability, or am I just jumping the gun here?

wow, just beautiful!

One more question that I previously forgot to ask: When will one be able to order custom finishes?

It could not have come out better. Really great job Axiom.

Maybe I'll have a VP180 above the screen, a VP180 below the screen, and a VP160 in the middle of the screen, to really anchor the dialogue.

We're targeting January 25th for shipping them out, and preorders (including custom finishes) by Tuesday, so they would be able to ship on the 25th as well. Great to get everyone's feedback - thank you!

Agreed!

It was a pleasure to meet Debbie at the GTG. She not only knows what she's talking about, but she's beautiful, too (like the Amie's ).

Where do I submit my resume for a job at the plant? HEHE

Luv It!

now...should I upgrade my projector or this??

tough choice!

Very good timing.
Now I need to decide if I want the VP180 or VP160 to go with my M80. Will it be a big difference between the 2?

Note, that as announced in the newsletter today, the pre-order price will be $460 rather than $570 until January 5th.

As to the specs, the weight is shown as precisely the same 21.591kg as the M60, which is unlikely because of the different enclosure, so this might not actually be a current measurement.

It would also be interesting to have the crossover frequencies, and comments from Ian, Alan or Andrew on the history of the design process.

Not that I can afford it right now, but I'm asking for others that might be interested.

Can a pre-pay be done for the in-cabinet VP160 model now, then wait for it? (I'm assuming that there will be an in-cabinet model.)

@ JohnK, thanks for the sharp eye! I've updated the VP160 weight:

Weight (lbs) each 43.2 lbs
Weight (kg) each 19.59 kg

@CatBrat: good question and the answer is yes, you can prepay for the VP160 in-cabinet version now as well as the regular version.

I never got my newsletter!

Only the cool people get it.

Concerning the VP160 in-cabinet model.

The VP160 is going to be a tight fit, but I think I can make it work without major renovation. From stud to stud, I have 30 1/4 inches. From backside of drywall to heat duct rising from furnace, I have about 13 inches. would probably need to frame the outside of wall with 2x2's to gain a couple inches clearance from heating duct. I don't think the area around the duct itself produces much heat, but I'd probably add some insulation to seperate the 2 just in case. Here's some pictures. of where it'd have to go. The VP150 is fairly centered, off by about 1 inch.

There is a floor just under this spot, so building a support under the speaker here presents no problem.

I might purchase one of these, but I'll probably wait until the last day before I place an order. (Marking my calander.) Do you think it'll really make that much of a difference with my 2 pairs of M22 mains and EP350? I can always send it back if I don't notice that big of a difference, I guess. Probably never see one at this $460 price again.

Hmm . . .you should have just a slight clearance to that pipe - tight fit, but a fit! You don't need to worry about the heat affecting the speaker - the heat from a heat duct isn't enough to do any damage to the speaker.

Thanks Amie. The reason I need to wait is I'm having a basement wall being braced from the outside on Jan 3rd. And some pest control for silverfish done on the 6th. That leaves me just a little over what I need for this speaker. If there are no additional expenses by Jan 5th, then I'll call in a pre-order for the in-cabinet version.

I was just wondering how to make a look-alike wood border for the in-cabinet version, like the on-wall speakers have, with the least amount of work and expense.

One idea I have is to use some 2 to 3 inch dowels, 45 degree angle corners. Then sand down the portion where it makes contact with the speaker and with the wall. Then stain a proper wood finish. Then mount the wood to the wall around the opening. Then mount the in-cabinet speaker to the wood (with a brace underneath the speaker from the backside).

Just wondering, when plugging in the numbers for a "custom" finish,in this case "high-gloss black piano", in the pre-order box, the total seems to be based on what would be the regular price and not calculated on the pre-order base price, is that correct?

The upcharge is based on the model (you'll see it's the same as the M60 in this case), but the upcharge is being calculated on the promo price, not the regular price.

JohnK,

The design goal for the VP160 was to be a seamless match for M60s. This would seem somewhat straightforward since all the drivers are the same, but because the driver configuration is not identical this means adjustments to the cross-over need to be made to compensate for off-axis variations. To do this we do not really change the cross-over points, but we do adjust the slopes.

Below is a graph showing a comparison of both the listening window response (an average of the curves in a narrow sphere around the forward axis) and the sound power (an average of on-axis and all off-axis measurements).

For the double blind listen testing we used a 3rd M60 to compare to the VP160 to ensure a proper blend across the front was achieved.

How well do you think the VP160 would blend with a VP150 for a over/under screen center channel set up? I love the over/under set up and would prefer to stick with it. I don't have room for a VP160 over my screen, so the VP150 would have to stay and work with a VP160 under the screen. Currently, the VP150 works quite well with 2 M22s - output level is within 1 DB.

I'm hoping the Vp160 works well enough that you won't feel the need to have the second center over the screen.

It's probably about anchoring the sound to the center of the screen. I've attempted to do this with an M2 over the screen, but a bigger speaker would be more effective.

I dunno Jay.... I thought I was pretty happy running two M22's till I put the VP over the screen. It does take some time angling the thing to direct towards the seating location, but once I had it figured out, it made a very significant improvement. And if you've followed my thoughts and opinions on sound over the years here, you'll know that I don't get terribly excited over small details. I am happy enough to not really need to make a change, but I had planned to move the M22's to the Wide channels and was just waiting for this new center (as the 180 is simply too big for my room). I'll just have to order one and give it a whirl I reckon....

I do remember when you installed the upper and I can remember my own experiments with dual centers and I would agree it does make an improvement. I also know that my experience with the VP180 made me realize just how much a great center can add to the experience.

I am willing to bet this will be something you will have to try for yourself to know if you like it or not.

Ya, you are right of course. I'm just going to have to order one. I need to give Axiom a call and find out what stain and finish my other speakers are so I can match them.

I can let you know what I think when mine arrives....I still have my M22's just not my VP150. I can try to mount my VP100 up high to attempt a similar scenario, but it still comes down to your preference and room.

Ian, thanks for the info. Obviously the design goal has been met. This should be a popular choice for anyone looking for a horizontal center to go with the M60s or any other mains with a similarly wide and smooth response.

Ian,
It is nice to see the curve matching the M60. This center speaker is design to match the M60 based on the driver configuration. The question is how much is it matching the M80? I know that the recommendation will be to match the M80 with the VP180, but in many applications it will not be possible. Thanks to the port on the front (nice idea), the VP160 is more flexible in terms of placement in cabinet or closer to back wall.
I would like to hear what Axiom has to say about the M80 and VP160 match.
It is clear that it is possible to match the M60 with the bigger VP180 and I am assuming that the VP160 would match well with the M80. Am I right?

I would expect the match with the M80s would still be more than adequate. Realistically speaking, and I may be wrong, other than Paradigm and Axiom, I have yet to see another speaker manufacturer out there, regardless of price, offer a center channel that is of the size and number of drivers that match their floor standing models. The vast majority of the CC models tend to be of the small size with the matching smaller drivers that exist in the L/R models which these various manufacturers claim offers a "seamless" transition. From my own experience, it just not possible to do this especially when these small center channels are very influenced by their limited cabinet size, positioning and little "low end" sound capability.

I am sure the VP160 would be easily up to the task.

It'll be interesting also to see how the VP160 will sound with my 2 pair of M22 mains with EP350. Panning from side to side "might" be noticeable, but maybe not by that much. I'm hopeful for deeper male vocals and better bass guitar. I plan on setting L/R M22's to small (Cut off at 80hz), and VP160 center to Large (no cutoff).

Prior to obtaining my current M80s, I had M22s as my mains. Because of the cabinet and driver size of the VP160, I would suspect there would be a natural noticeable difference since even if you had, for example, both the M22s and VP160 set for an 80HZ cutoff, of course, as you know, these crossovers are gradual and you would still hear some direct sounding bass(60>80HZ) in the VP160 that the M22s are not capable of producing to the same degree anyway. In my opinion, the VP160 set to LARGE would probably even be more noticeable. (M60s/80s here we come?).

Not for this room. The speakers are forced to be too close together. M50's with M22's paired up on top would be the biggest I'd be willing to go. I'm trying to get other projects done, so purchases for this room will be few and far between.

saillard and michael d,

Since your questions are in the same vein I would like to take the liberty to just cover them together. Mixing our various fronts and centres together will certainly work just fine as the timbre characteristics are the same in all of our products. The introduction of the VP180 and now the VP160 are really just putting a finer point on the little details. So the VP180 is an exact match to the M80s and the VP160 is an exact match to the M60s. I hate to bring it up but I guess connecting these dots means a centre for the M50s would have to be next.

It is really a matter of practicality. If your particular environment does not allow for the keeping it all the same (M80s with VP180 or M60s with VP160) then it is no problem to mix it up; your system will perform wonderfully.

Does a new center for the M50 will replace the actual VP150/100 ? I guess it would be a smaller box including 2 6.5" driver and i tweeter, like the VP100 but a little bigger.

Sigh... It's been almost exactly 5 years since I ordered all the speakers for my home theatre and now I just pre-ordered the VP160. I'll miss my VP150, but can't wait to hear it matched to my M60's. Too bad my home theatre is shutdown for a major renovation so I won't be able to try it out for a few months, but I just had to take advantage of the pre-order price.

Curse you Axiom for encouraging my upgradeitis!

Bayne, Welcome back, long time no read!

You can come over to my place and listen to the VP160 which should be delivered TOMORROW!!!!!!!!(YES, I typed that right) It was actually on truck for delivery today but I wasn't home

Bayne, long time no see; welcome back! It's good to see that you're still enjoying your Axioms. Apparently you'll also be able to enjoy Jason's for the next few months.

I just ordered mine, but how did you manage to get yours early Jason?

I would like to know some more about the dimensions. How much of a slope is there to the back. The vp 180 is just too big for my current arrangement. Basically i would like to know how high the rear is.

Socketman,

The rear is 9.75" (247mm) high.

Did Santa deliver it today?

Thanks for the offer. I might have to take you up on it, but may decide to wait as it'll give me more motivation to get our renovations completed as soon as possible.

Thanks Ian. Guess i will have to go for a vp 150, just not enough room at this point.

Richard

Santa delivered.





Is it really the VP160...........

Looks like a box of foam to me.... ya damn tease.

So which stand, or stands goes with the 160? I just realized I can't make one, so I'll have to buy one.

I'm unboxing my M22'sV3 tomorrow. Ahhh...what lies beneath.

it looks like this model speaks french.

bonjour Monsieur!

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL !

Hi, En effet il se débrouille super bien en français and also excels en musique, en trames sonores and all other languages. Another superb Axiom product which I had a chance to audition (blind test) last Tuesday.

je n'ai pas de place pour un canal centre.
à moins qu'il ne me vienne une idée brillante (ce qui est très râre), j'ai maintenant terminé la mise à jour de mon système AV.

J.B., J'utilise 2 enceintes centrales; une sur un support et l'autre suspendue du plafond. Suspendre votre enceinte centrale du plafond ne serait pas un option ?

comme tu peut le voir sur cette photo, le seul endroit où je pourrais placer l'enceinte centrale serait de la suspendre du plafond:
http://gellidius.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d4a52ra

mais cette pièce est trop étroite (9 pi.) pour que ça en vaille la peine.
en réalité, à cause de cette étroitesse, il n'y a qu'une seule place, le centre, où je puisse avoir du bon son, et le fauteuil à droite est rârement utilisé.

Or get a different TV stand!

the reason i don't need a center speaker is the fact that the great majority of the time i'm all alone watching movies or TV and i sit right at the center.
the right side chair is rarely used, a max of 3 hours a week, all in one sitting.

as i'm always sitting dead center, the dialog is always dead center too.
the dialog is also very easily understandable.

if i really needed a center speaker, then i would surely install one, most probably suspend it from the ceiling, as JC suggested.

I usually sit in the center of my setup also. My remote allows me to rotate between the different audio formats. I find surround setting with my 3.1 setup to be much improved over stereo sound only.

if you look at my room, you'll see that i can easily do both:
use the remote towards the rack at the left and do some changes by hand, as the rack is at arm's length.

for me, this arrangement is ideal.

My point is, a real center speaker sounds better than a phantom center speaker.

could very well be, i don't know.

Yes,mainly for movies!

I'm not so sure about this. (Not that i have evidence to the contrary, either).

A phantom center would be perfectly matched to the mains, of course, since it's created by the mains. And if you're sitting dead center, I don't see issues with dispersion of sound.

To me, the benefits of using a separate center involve anchoring the dialog to the center image when people are sitting outside of the sweet spot, and having the ability to "bump up" the center by a few decibels to increase intelligibility of poorly-mixed soundtracks (though some receivers might allow the phantom channel level to be bumped as well.... I don't know)

Amazing how people that don't have centers say it doesn't sound any better with one. lol.

All the extensive testing I did of various center speakers and using a phantom center fits exactly with what you say Mark. There can be benefits as you mention, however there can also be issues especially with tone changing between the speakers even identical ones.

@ J. B. I wouldn’t even think of using a center speaker in your setup. It certainly wouldn’t be worth the money and IMO based on a similar setup I had it would likely sound worse than a phantom center because it would localize the center channel too much. The only thing that will sound more seamless than what you have now are headphones, but then you’ll lose the midbass punch, so stick with what you’ve got.

grunt, that's what i tend to believe would happen too.

that would create a kind of distortion:
for someone sitting in front of the RF speaker, sounds from the LF speaker would move over towards the RF speaker, but the sound from the CF would not move as much as the rest.
is my thinking right?

Jacques, in the past I did a fair amount of experimenting with a phantom center and found it very satisfactory in the circumstances you describe. Two advantages of a separate center speaker are that the center image is anchored to the center even for listening off the center axis and that the ability to increase the center volume independent of the mains helps with low-level movie dialog. Neither of these appear to be significant for you. You report no problem with hearing dialog and you're positioned in the center anyway.

If a listener to the phantom center moves to the side the image stays in front of him and also moves to the side, but no farther out than the speaker on that side.

You guys are speaking from a perspective of tonal match and off-axis viewing. I'm speaking from a perspective of switching back and forth and determining which one sounds the best.

I am going to say it depends on the movie mix. I am a 2 channel movie guy and most movies sound pretty darn good. Pixar's The Incredibles is astonishing. Watch the scene where Mr. Incredible goes to see Edna for a new suit. Poorly mixed movies (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen) can leave the dialog very recessed and having the ability to bump up the center would be nice.

I'm not sure if I'm missing your point, but I have a VP150.

Is Jason the only one to do a listening test on the new VP160?

I'm anxious to hear more reviews so I can try to decide between the VP160 and VP180 during the promotional period!

How the sound moves relative to speaker/listening position will depend on how it’s mixed. Not all sound coming from the mains is the same. A door closing off stage left is still going to come from the left speaker no matter where you sit if it was mixed that way. Anything that is mixed evenly between the two mains, often drummers and lead singers in bands and much movie dialogue will move closer to the nearest main speaker. How great this effect is depends on how far apart your speakers are, how off center you sit and how far from the screen you sit. In your case you can’t get very far off center, your mains aren’t very far apart both of which will help to keep the front soundstage imaged around the screen.

Sitting very close can make the sound seem more like it’s coming from the speaker itself rather than a generalized soundfield centered around the screen. However, this also holds true for a center speaker where if you sit very close the center, since it often has less blending with the mains, than they have with each other, can sound like a point source. So you end up hearing the speaker as distinct and separate from the rest of the sound field. This is most likely to happen with a vertical speaker. On the other hand if you have a horizontal center and sit very close it can blur the imaging especially of a stereo recording being played back in multi-channel. This can also happen with things like movie dialogue where it should sound like it’s coming from a particular character on each side of the screen but instead gets all blended together by a horizontal center.

To give you a perspective I have 3 M80s as L/C/R. I often turn off my center M80 when listening to well mastered music where I want the surround speakers engaged but don’t want the issues a center can cause for a well mastered front soundstage. I also often have to tweak things when watching things on Netflix, which I only get in two channel, because the receiver in multi-channel pulls all the dialogue to the center while leaving the music and sound effects alone. With my mains over 12 feet apart what I end up with is much of the sound field collapsing to the center speaker. Instead I switch over to Dolby PLIIx and use the controls to adjust the width of the center image so it blends with the rest of the soundstage.

If you or anyone is interested I’m sure somewhere around here are the lengthy comments I made while testing center speakers in my apartment and house. I’ve tried a VP150, single M22s, double M22s (both vertical (each side of the screen and above and below the screen) and horizontal), single M2, a vertical upright M80 and a vertical upside-down M80 and phantom M80s. The results were so dependent on the situation, room, seating, speaker position, source material etc. . ., that the only generalization I can make is if you need/want a center speaker getting one identical to your mains, or as closely sonically matched, is almost always going to sound best, but even this isn’t an absolute. So there just isn’t any simple - things always sound better with a center speaker solution.

thanks for the short but very interesting reading. :-)

It is nice to see someone who has played around with this stuff as much as I have. In the end, despite all, I think going back several years ago when THX was more in vogue, I believe their concept still applies today that in listening to both music and movies in a multi-channel format, the optimum way of hearing the sound as intended was to have identical speakers in their appropriate position for ALL channels. Of course, in the vast majority of home theater set-ups, this is just not possible,hence, the development of horizontal center channels and to a less extent multi-driver surrounds like the QWS4s/QS8s which, in the end, are still compromises and more affected by room acoustics and positioning. The QS series and speakers of their type, of course, are designed to replicate the multi-speaker surround set-up in theaters that is just not possible in the vast majority of homes.

Bump.

I agree!

In a perfect room identical full range speakers would be the best possible setup. Unfortunately not many people have access, even when purpose built, to perfect rooms so they must as you say compromise.

I wish I had the money to at least approach non-compromise.

Yes Mark, I am the only one , I have a pre-production VP160, they won't be ready for shipping till about the end of January.

Well, then YOU have to compare it to a VP180!

Get crackin'!

Jason probably had to sign a NDA.

He probably signed it under his pseudonym, bbigwyres.

I will have to get a hold of Icehawk27 to be able to compare it with the VP180, which is in the works. I will guess the VP160 will be shipping to all before this comparison happens.

I did get a SHHHH order from Amie

Just curious. How many VT160 speakers were sold through the pre-order process? Is this a number that Axiom can share with us?

Although we normally wouldn't share a number like that, I feel comfortable making an exception just this once. There were no VT160s sold at all.;) We've been surprised at the number of VP160s, though, right up until the end of the day yesterday!

You tell 'em Amie!
We don't take no stinkin spellin errrs, round hear.

I was just relieved at the easy out ;0)

Grrrr. Hisss hisss. Booooooo.

I know of 4 that were presold plus mine so that makes 5

Add mine to that tally. Can't wait to get it. Replacing a vp100.

The VP160 does look interesting but I'm running M80's. I would think the VP180 could also benefit from raised tweeters.

tj, Axiom did VERY extensive development on the VP180. It is already the best it can be.

Mine's on order, too. So that makes 7!

TJ, there's no inconsistency in using the VP160 with M80s. You might find it to be as good or better than the VP180.

Indeed. There is no rule that if one of your speakers has an 8 in its name then the rest should, as well.

TJ, I HAVE the VP160, the first of its kind in the general public and it works seemlessly with my M80v2's, from what I can remember of when I ran a M60 as a center(briefly) the VP160 is working just as well

Now that's good news!

I was having the same dilema since I have M80. I have enough room for VP180 but choose to go with the VP160 because IMO it looks better for off-axis seating.
So, it is 8 so far for the VP160 pre-order.

::puts away crayons::

Ordered a 160 tonight, can't wait.

Right on, Rick! I am eager to hear how you like it.

based on comments here, it sounds like the VP160 is destine for greatness. Now I'm wishing I waited for the VP160 before buying my center channel

That just gives you something to look forward to for the next big upgrade.

New MCACC microphone ordered from Pioneer site. $61.94.

expensive kitty!lol

Yeah, well I really can't blame her. If I were her I would of gone for the bigger cords too.

Has the in-cabinet VP160 arrived yet?

No, I don't see anything out there yet.

Ok. Let's try again tomorrow.

"Coming Soon" to a HT near you!

Has anyone else received their VP160 yet?

It says ships in 3 business days, so a few might already have it?
Getting ready to order one and was just wondering if any more user reviews...

Thx!

Dana

I'm getting the custom finish so I'm not expecting an email until February.

They did post when they would be available and i'm sure someone will post the actual date.

If not I'll give you a possibly incorrect date Jan 25th.

The in-cabinet, I'm guessing probably 1 to 3 months later.

January 25th is correct!

Five days and counting, can't wait.

I can feel all the excitment, can't wait for everyone to get their own.

Now? Are they shipping now?

Try this:



Maybe it will ship faster.

I've got that picture too. Let's see if it helps.

Today is the day!

Ooooh nelly, they're on the roll! Pic on Facebook . . . Pic here too!

No Boston cherry

no Cherry/Chestnut either

Any idea when the in-cabinet VP160's might start shipping? I see this as a install once and leave it there forever type of installation.

Here comes the changing of the finish . . .



Debbie is keeping a close eye on things!

Catbrat - I'm trying to get an audience with my husband to find out about the in-cabinet version. In my twenties, this was easier . . .

You mean like this?



"Yoo hoo!"

Exactly! LOL!

Updates! updates!

In-cabinet: shipping early next week.
Cherry/Chestnut: cut, built, and heading off to be stained shortly!

Wow! very impressed

Yes. Those ARE nice legs!

Hmm . . . FordPrefect, don't peek:

Wow. That is soon! I was expecting it to be much later. Thanks for the update!

Oops I looked!

Can I watch it get stained?

It's the last time I ask *you-know-who* for info!!

I guess "you-know-who" is better than "whats-his-name".

He must be a busy man today, then.

LOL!

Yup, everyone is absolutely hopping! So exciting!

Debbie is probably hopping just to stay warm!

LOL.

I think I see mine in that line up....

And Amie's working hard to warm up the audience. Doing a good job too. I think there's drool dripping from the bottom of my monitor.

Now, if I wanted to get you drooling, I'd have posted this one . . .

I think it's time for streaming video direct from the factory.

Whimper, whimper....

Strange, I don't see any pink ones.

That last one was over the top Amie. You've got poor Catbrat wimpering like a dog.

Which one is mine???

Was it this one?



So hard to say goodbye . . .

I can't wait to say hello!

(hit's the *like* button)

You can rest assured that I will love it as much as you do.

I know I should be excited, but my renovations aren't yet complete and so my VP160 will be sitting silent in the corner with the rest of my speakers for a month or so. Sad really. Very sad.

Was this the funniest post of the day? We're on it, I promise! Tee hee!

All right, smarty pants at Axiom,
Glad to hear that my speaker is on the way. However, there's already one problem with the Axiom VP160 center speaker that I can already discern, even prior to my having received or heard it:
***If the propaganda braying is accurate, it'll mean that I may have to spend extra loot for new Axiom front or satellite speakers. Oh my God, the filthy lucre hits just keep coming!!!!!!!!!

I'm going to be using one with my 8 year old M80Tis.

I bought M60s to go along with them, my guilt at not spending more is overwhelming.......







....oh wait... I did.

*Happy Sigh* . . . our plan is working! LOL!

You mean you're trying to make money?!

We're trying to spread the good sound around! Silly!

Oh. My bad.

What? Did somebody say speakers?

When are we going to see the mystery device? and the amps...I could use the latter for the M80's specifically.

No sneak peak?