I was planing around with speaker placement today, 3 M22's behind an acoustically transparent screen. The screen is mounted higher than generally recommended but it's where I like it, flush to the 7' ceiling.

Centering the speakers vertically behind the screen made the sound field too high, setting them at ear height (below the lower frame of the screen) made the voices seem out of place.

After much trial and even more error, the configuration that sounds best is the M22's placed a bit below the vertical center of the screen with the tweeter at the bottom. Upside down from normal.

I can't think of any technical reason I can't use them this way. There is no reason I can't is there?

If sounds good then why does it matter?

There are speakers out there with the tweeter mounted below the woofers and I see and know of no reason why the M22 couldn't be mounted this way, the tweeter diffuser will still work properly.

If you wanted to try to keep the M22s 'properly' oriented I would try to angle them down from behind the screen so that the tweeter is pointed towards the listening position, beyond that as long as they sound good while upside down go with it.

No reason if it sounds better that way. Apparently a combination of having the tweeters closer to ear level and projecting differently above axis(i.e., when normally upright)leads to that result.

I'm going to have the same problem with my 7 foot ceiling on my downstairs ht project. I haven't given up on it, just need more time and money. My original intention was to mount in-cabinet M80's upside down behind an AT screen (Or M60's). I've even given some thought lately about mounting 3 VP160's vertically behind this screen. It'd take up much less screen space. I know there are arguments about sound dispersion with centers, but if the horrizontal dispersion problem is ultimately fixed with the VP160, I don't see why they wouldn't work as execellent behind the screen speakers?

VP160's used vertically, mounted between wall studs, where there is plenty of space, like in my 10 inch wall between HT and garage, that I can adjust wall to fit 13.66 inch deep speakers, by extending out a few inches on garage side. (That 55 year old wall needs to be replaced anyway with new material.) With an acoustically transparent screen in front of them.

Anyway, any thoughts on using these horizontal speakers vertically? Anyone? Going once. Going twice....

Thanks all.

I just wanted to make sure the dilithium flux transmogrifiers wouldn't be knocked out of alignment by inverting the speaker box.

CatBrat:

How big is your room? Mine is 7' x 14 x 22' and the M22's can easily achieve a volume comfortably above any reasonable definition of enjoyable loudness (even as defined by my teenaged kids).

Paired with a good sub the M22's are a killer setup for a lot less than M80's

My room approx. dimensions are 7 x 11 x 15. Much smaller than yours. I've got M22's in my living room. I really don't want M22's also behind my screen. I'm craving the bit of bass and clarity that the M22's can't deliver, because of speaker and smaller box size. So, it's not about trying to make something work.

I haven't yet heard anybody say. Damn, I sure wasted my money on upgrading to a bigger speaker. I should of stayed with the M22's because these M80's sure don't sound any better. Have you?

Brian, if you're seriously considering using the VP160 mounted vertically, that would undo the design efforts made to create a center speaker with smoother and wider horizontal dispersion. It would take the tweeter and mid-range back to the side-by-side configuration that was being done away with. It wouldn't sound terrible, but would be a partial waste of the potential this new unit has.

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.

You should be OK, but I would worry about T Rexs popping out of your screen from time to time.

I can try the VP160 on its end and let you know.....I have already flipped it upside down with the tweeter on the bottom and it made no difference to my ears, nor Mojo's.

Say hi to Mojo for us!

Looks like Jason's got his Mojo workin'.

Ditto what Mark said Jason!