![](/boards/images/icons/default/book.gif) Re: Sneak Peak: VP160 Prototype
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 11,458
shareholder in the making
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 11,458 |
Amie or Ian (Ivan): Is this meant to be a replacement model, or is it "in addition" to the current ones offered?
::::::: No disrespect to Axiom, but my favorite woofer is my yellow lab :::::::
|
|
|
![](/boards/images/icons/default/book.gif) Re: Sneak Peak: VP160 Prototype
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 11,458
shareholder in the making
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 11,458 |
Those are not the best photos Everyone's a critic nowadays! ![wink wink](/boards/images/graemlins/default/wink.gif)
::::::: No disrespect to Axiom, but my favorite woofer is my yellow lab :::::::
|
|
|
![](/boards/images/icons/default/book.gif) Re: Sneak Peak: VP160 Prototype
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,116
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,116 |
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 ). 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.
I’m armed and I’m drinking. You don’t want to listen to advice from me, amigo.
-Max Payne
|
|
|
![](/boards/images/icons/default/book.gif) Re: Sneak Peak: VP160 Prototype
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,331
axiomite
|
axiomite
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,331 |
Those are not the best photos Everyone's a critic nowadays! 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. ![grin grin](/boards/images/graemlins/default/grin.gif)
Jack
"People generally quarrel because they cannot argue." - G. K. Chesterton
|
|
|
![](/boards/images/icons/default/book.gif) Re: Sneak Peak: VP160 Prototype
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,928
axiomite
|
axiomite
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,928 |
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.
Half of communication is listening. You can't listen with your mouth.
|
|
|
![](/boards/images/icons/default/book.gif) Re: Sneak Peak: VP160 Prototype
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 31
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 31 |
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.
There are times when you can afford .......... but cannot buy!!
|
|
|
![](/boards/images/icons/default/book.gif) Re: Sneak Peak: VP160 Prototype
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 64
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 64 |
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.
|
|
|
![](/boards/images/icons/default/book.gif) Re: Sneak Peak: VP160 Prototype
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 18,044
shareholder in the making
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 18,044 |
I think you'd be sacrificing midrange and timbre vs. the other Axiom speakers based on a gut feeling by doing that.
I am the Doctor, and THIS... is my SPOON!
|
|
|
![](/boards/images/icons/default/book.gif) Re: Sneak Peak: VP160 Prototype
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,015
axiomite
|
axiomite
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,015 |
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?
|
|
|
![](/boards/images/icons/default/book.gif) Re: Sneak Peak: VP160 Prototype
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,116
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,116 |
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. Go with the VP160 and it's dedicated 5.25" midrange driver ![cool cool](/boards/images/graemlins/default/cool.gif) . 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’m armed and I’m drinking. You don’t want to listen to advice from me, amigo.
-Max Payne
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics24,958
Posts442,560
Members15,628
|
Most Online2,699 Aug 8th, 2024
|
|
0 members (),
2,259
guests, and
1
robot. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|