I just purchased the received the VP-160. I really like it, but because I already have M80V3 towers, I am thinking that the VP-180 will blend better and give me a bigger sound than the VP-160. My amp can certainly drive it, so that's no problem. I've read a little comparing the 2, but love the big sound and imaging of the M80's. Can anyone give me some advice on this? Who has compared the VP-160 and VP-180 and what can I really expect to gain going from the VP-160 to the VP-180?

Thanks in advance!

VoicOfReason I've read a little comparing the 2, but love the big sound and imaging of the M80's. Can anyone give me some advice on this?

Thanks in advance!

It's great too here that you have such a profound likening too the sounds that your M80's are producing.
Some members in the past have spoken about this and have stated, if at all possible you might consider going with a third M80 as your center channel. Since this is probable only an option if your setup would include a projector, otherwise most likely this won't be a viable option for you. That being said, a VP-180 is for the most part a M80 on the horizontal, sounding perhaps a little different ( may be considered somewhat subjective) than the vertical standing M80. Read your own sentence at the top of my post, there just might lie your answer.

Peter, if by "bigger" you're referring to wide dispersion, the W T/M W design of the VP-160 is superior in that respect. If you're referring to the very loudest sound level, the VP-180 would have a slightly higher maximum, but keep in mind that the center speaker should be calibrated to balance the others, not play louder. If the VP-160 already does this, more maximum loudness capability isn't a relevant factor.

Good point about "bigger". What I meant by "bigger" was soundstage and bass output. I guess to be more specific, I want to know what is better about the VP-180, not in terms of specs, but for those who have heard it, what do they best about the VP-180 compared to the VP-160. This will perhaps help me the most make up my mind.

Seeing how you are already thinking you need / want "bigger" and there is something available that is "bigger", you should probably just get the VP180 and be done with it. I believe what you are going through is somewhat of a psychological conundrum, and nothing anyone can tell you about this choice will help you make up your mind. Your mind is already made up (wanting bigger), and now you are now just looking for confirmation to support your decision.

What do you think JP?

I have the 160, have not heard the 180. I bought the 160 because I am limited in space. I just didn't have the room for a 180. Both width and depth. - Keep in mind that the 160 is ported to the front, so you can place it right up tight to the rear wall. The 180 on the other hand is ported to the rear and you will need at least 12" of free space behind it.

Good luck....

Interesting psycho-analysis... but I've already heard of reasons why the VP-160 is preferable to the VP-180, or is almost as good as the VP-180. What I'm looking for are things that VP-180 clearly does better in terms of subjective opinion. I have heard time and again that the VP-160 has better off-axis response, and it is obviously cheaper and smaller. I'm trying to get both sides of the picture so my decision is a good one. In other words, I've already tried to talk myself of the VP-160 and now I'm trying to talk myself into the VP-180. At the end of the day, I can compare the 2 and decide which to go with. Make sense?

Peter I have had our VP180 for a year this month and can't be happier with the soundstage it provides with the M80s, I'm not pushing the button to trade it in on a VP160 anytime soon.

The rear port on the Axiom VP180 center speaker model as all other Axiom ported audio speaker models needs only a minimum of 2" of space to breath freely. Additional space might be needed to adjust bass response to your taste and the acoustic of your room.

I have two Axiom VP180 installed in my dedicated Home Theatre room: the one above my front projection screen is only 3 " away from the wall and the one below the projection screen is 7" away from the wall. I could not be happier with their superb performance.

Thank you. So, to both of you that just posted, does the VP-180 have a sound very much like the M80 (if you have heard the M80)? I really like the soundstage of the M80 and am hoping that the VP-180 sounds almost just the same. Does it? Thanks again.

Without actually being able to compare the two and although used for a different purpose, I suppose the closest example would be comparing the M60s to M80s in a L/R configuration. I have had both, moving from M60s to M80s and, quite frankly and at least in my application, I was surprised how similar they sounded. For some of the reasons already mentioned (space and weight issues)I bought the VP160 instead of the VP180 and I couldn't be happier. Remember, compared to most other center channels, the VP160 is very big and that cabinet size, of course, will have a big bearing on what you are hearing. That is why the difference between the VP150 and 160 will be much more profound than any differences between the 160 and 180.

In addition, the design difference in the 160 with the vertical arrangement of the tweeter and mid-range as opposed to the horizontal arrangement of the 180, in my comparisons of other center channels with these two designs, the design of the 160, based on my totally unscientific study, will give you a little better consistent horizontal dispersion than the 180.

I believe, in the end, any perceived differences between the two may not be as much as one might think.

This should be an interesting comparison. I have the VP-160 currently and just ordered a VP-180. I'll post my comparison here if I remember.

On a related note, what are you (who have VP-180's) setting their crossover at?

I have liked the sound of my SVS sub with a 60hz M80 crossover setting. However, I also REALLY like the sound of the M80's with a 40hz crossover, even though I lose a little bit of subwoofer oomph. I have a pretty big room with cathedral ceilings. It's really a terrible room. So, for the VP-180, I'm guessing 40hz would sound pretty nice in concert with 40hz crossover for the M80's.

Jakewash has had both, I'm sure he'll respond eventually. If I recall, he did think the 160 was better for off axis, but found both to be excellent with some points going to each in different categories.

JC - good input. I was simply going off my experience with my M80's. I do not have a golden ear, but it was quite clear to me that in my application, they sounded profoundly better with 12" of clearance (or more) from the back wall. This was one of the reasons I moved downward to the M60's. I needed the added floor space. The M60's seam to much more forgiving than the M80's.

I like the sound of that. If I ever get the urge to post on Audioholics I'm going to work it in to the post. Who knows, it could become the new 'similarly good'.

John, and others.

I do not understand why a single tweeter design would have a wider dispersion..

The dual tweeter design, uses the same tweeters, and they are on the same physical plane as the 160. Is there some cancelation between a dual tweeter design, that the single tweeter design does not have to deal with?

Can someone explain the physics to me or link me why the single tweeter is "better", in the mean time i will attempt to google it on my own.

Alex, it isn't single vs dual, it's vertical vs horizontal. Here's a recent article on the topic. There've been quite a few over the years, and Dr. Toole discusses this at some length in his book, illustrating the benefits of a W T/M W as compared to a M T M configuration.

So, the benefit of the 160 over the 180 is that the drivers are not all on the same horizontal plane? As compared to the 180..

Yes; the tweeter and mid-range are in the more desirable(for horizontal dispersion)vertical configuration.

But how does the theory here play out in real-life? On paper, one configuration may be better than another, but I'm not hearing that anyone thinks the VP-180 suffers from this. Am I right?

You're right.

It is probably best for the experts like Ian and Alan to explain the design philosophy and the differences between the two, however, it is important to remember in either case and model in listening these differences are quite subtle.

Absolutely. I'd love to hear from them as far as some of these critiques go of the configuration.

It would be fun to do a blind test at Axiom. I also wonder if sitting distance from the speaker plays a role between the two designs.

My 180 is set to large, and is also set to full range. The speaker is a full range speaker and plays down to 25hz, why not allow it? That's my philosophy anyhow...

Absolutely, that is one of the biggest advantages of having a "full-range" speaker in the center channel position. In the set-up, crossover settings no longer have to be a factor.

My dilemma is that my SVS sub really puts out some tremendous output and so I can't decide whether to have greater output or more even bass output from multiple sources. However, my room gobbles up some this bass when coming from just 1 source. I guess I need to do some tests when the VP180 arrives.

This is my room... notice the Dual EP-600's...
http://www.axiomaudio.com/boards/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=373278#Post373278

subwoofers are there for low frequencies... that's it.. i have my 600's crossovers set to 80hz... Don't over think it man...

Does the VP160 blend well with you M80's? If so, then keep the VP160, since it is a superior design for those sitting off axis. If you think that there may be issues where there isn't a seamless front soundstage, then the VP180 will probably improve on that a bit, since it uses identical drivers, cabinet size (and crossover?). Those are probably the two major issues to consider.

Also if you are not noticing any off-axis differences on how the VP160 sounds, then that is a good thing. It is definitely noticeable on a MTM design. I am planning to upgrade to the VP160 at some point, to be able to have a full range center with better off axis response.

Yeah, I'm asking a question here that is impossible to answer really. I just wish there was a way to send bass to boss sub and main speakers that was better than the LFE+MAIN option. I think it tends to sound muddy this way.

Maybe I could get a smaller sub that is still capable (in addition to my bigger sub) and that could help even out the bass response in my room.

That's pretty much the way it's done. If it sounds muddy, it's probably because the interactions of doing it at all doesn't work in your room.

Prior to adding my second EP-600 i was using 1 EP-600 + a JBL 8" sub.. There is no comparison between the 600/JBL combination to the 600/600 pair... I would tell you to get a second SVS sub like the one you already have, which one do you currently have btw?.. My room is 2400 cubic feet, and opens up to the kitchen as well as the entry way and the formal dining room.... So, my space "gobbles" up bass as well, the second 600 made a world of difference, it's not "in your face" but more filling, the correct amount of sub for the space that i have if you will.

Good luck.

I have the PC13-Ultra SVS sub (BASH version). It is great, but like you said, it isn't as filling as it needs to be. No way in the world I can afford another sub like that right now, though. So, I'll probably just have to look forward to moving someday to a house that has a room that has lower ceilings and/or smaller. How ironic!

Hi Jc,

Thanks for the info on the minimum distance I believe I completely looked of that aspect when setting up my room. I'll play around with the distance to see if it can improve an already amazing sound.

Do you play golf Jc? I lived in Magog/Sherbrooke/lennoxville from 1998-2004 (went to BU and worked around the area), and I'm sure I've not only seen you before, but actually had a conversation with you. I'm thinking Deauville golf range by the karting place. Possible?

Hi Majik,

I used to play golf but I have stopped several years ago. One day, I suddenly realized that I was not enjoying the game. It is understandable and it should have hit me before . . . when the cost of golf balls exceed the one of the green fee; it is time to move on . . .

I know the place you are referring to, it is actually in Omerville (between Deauville and Magog). I never hit golf balls there.

You must have good memories of when you were studying at Bishop's University; former students all have (as per my brother-in-law who studied there).