Keeping Up Appearances

[Wagner]

Been there. It shouldn't be too much of an assumption to think that most of the equipment purchase decisions in the seventies were based solely on appearance.

I concur; that and frequently accompanying questionable and creatively inflated numbers based on some ad hoc standard

[Mr. Widget]

Been there. It shouldn't be too much of an assumption to think that most of the equipment purchase decisions in the seventies were based solely on appearance.

Yes, but probably no more then than now... in the enthusiat circles, (care being taken to avoid the term audiophile) there is also the technical concept du jour. It might be massive feedback, no feedback, time aligned, reflected sound, infinite baffle, or no baffle...

For the general public design and price are likely the primary concerns with performance a distant third.


Widget

[SEAWOLF97]

I have never bought a car solely on looks- aesthetics.

Some time back, I was burning time in a waiting room and picked up a Car & Driver magazine.
Read the review of a Sebring convertible.


Opening line went ....
"The best thing about this car is it's looks, in fact ...that's the only good thing about this car"


got a good chuckle ....AFAIR , that car sold reasonably well.

[Wagner]

Some time back, I was burning time in a waiting room and picked up a Car & Driver magazine.
Read the review of a Sebring convertible.


Opening line went ....
"The best thing about this car is it's looks, in fact ...that's the only good thing about this car"


got a good chuckle ....AFAIR , that car sold reasonably well.

Tall order replacing that great classic, the LeBaron Convertible!

1996 Chrysler Sebring Convertible:

[Wagner]

1995 Chrysler LeBaron Convertible............YUMMY!:

[SEAWOLF97]

OK, well the TC is widely regarded as mediocre , but it IS a Maserati

somebody figured it out tho ...

A Chrysler TC By Maserati Is Only Worth A Couple iPhones These Days


http://jalopnik.com/a-chrysler-tc-by...one-1446348608

[Ducatista47]

Yes, but probably no more then than now... in the enthusiat circles, (care being taken to avoid the term audiophile) there is also the technical concept du jour. It might be massive feedback, no feedback, time aligned, reflected sound, infinite baffle, or no baffle...

For the general public design and price are likely the primary concerns with performance a distant third.


Widget

Even Stax climbed aboard. No feedback was sweeping the scene when they were about to release their still current solid state amp. They disabled the feedback loop and advertised its no feedback status...and ruined the sound. Fortunately, the #1 Stax hobbyist quickly figured out how to retro the damage, and solder sniffers have been fixing their units with regularity.

The 44xx monitors were all about time align and two way, weren't they? Does anyone still consider them an improvement over the 43xx offerings?

[hjames]

A fiend er/friend GAVE us one ... LeBaron Turbo Convertible ...
No complaints, the price was right, but it drive like a Piece Of ... stuff !

It was a brown color - sloppy automatic -
Think we eventually sold it for $400-500 ...
we were thinning the fleet at the time ...

1995 Chrysler LeBaron Convertible............YUMMY!:

[BMWCCA]

OK, well the TC is widely regarded as mediocre , but it IS a Maserati

somebody figured it out tho ...

A Chrysler TC By Maserati Is Only Worth A Couple iPhones These Days

Careful, that's Titanium Dome's baby you're talking about there!

[SEAWOLF97]

Careful, that's Titanium Dome's baby you're talking about there!

OMG ... in that case I retract everything I said about that great machine. It is worth more than a
couple of iPhones

I concede that it is by far the best American engine, Italian bodied gem sold in the entire 1980's/90.

[BMWCCA]

I concede that it is by far the best American engine, Italian bodied gem sold in the entire 1980's/90.

Probably more Mitsubishi in that engine than anything else, but I care not enough to look it up!


Okay, I looked it up, and I'm half right:

It is sad to note that the majority of TC's were equipped with the Mitsubishi V6 (straight out of the LeBaron) and then the 2.2-litre detuned intercooled Turbo II with 160 bhp @ 5200 rpm and 171 lb/ft of torque @ 3600 rpm. The 2.2 8v Turbo fitted with the 3-speed auto (the only choice) it makes for a very leisurely pace to 60mph: 11.0 seconds according to Chrysler to be exact. Part of the blame is the hefty 3355 lb (1375 kg) as-tested weight and the poorly spaced 3 forward gears. Top speed is 124mph. (Road & Track got this engine to "propel" this TC to 60mph in 9.9 seconds).

[SEAWOLF97]

OKAY , let's forget bad cars & back to topic...


I think that JBL has answered Clark's question long ago ..

IF JBL cared ONLY about performance & everything was a black, non-nondescript
monkey coffin, there would have never been Paragon's, Hartsfield's and all the
other attractive products that are so highly sought after these days.

[Mr. Widget]

OKAY , let's forget bad cars & back to topic...


I think that JBL has answered Clark's question long ago ..

IF JBL cared ONLY about performance & everything was a black, non-nondescript
monkey coffin, there would have never been Paragon's, Hartsfield's and all the
other attractive products that are so highly sought after these days.

Thank you.


Widget

[Ducatista47]

True enough, but for me not sonic standout examples. I have never been impressed with the sound of the Ranger (Paragon) in direct comparisons to its contemporaries, like the Olympus/Apollo. Having heard the Hartsfield several times, I think it compares poorly with later JBL top dogs. Maybe I lack historical perspective, because they were both Statement speakers, capital S, but so were/are the two Everests (or is it only the second?). In the day of the Hartsfield, I liked large single driver and coax speakers better. In its defense, the Hartsfield is sometimes misjudged because it was designed as a mono speaker, and that tends to be forgotten I still don't think it was outstanding, but there is that.

I have not been able to hear either Everest, but I am sure they must sound outstanding. Perhaps the statement of Statement JBLs is by definition also a visual one? Their rules, I don't know. I admit I march to a different drummer, but my best audio friend concurs that the Paragon and the Hartsfield are furniture, not sonic statements. I thought so when they came out and I still do. I have heard Metregons sound better than Rangers do.

So I have, in a way, another answer to my question, a corporate one. Even sixty years ago, and through some golden eras of hifi, a statement speaker project involved appearance every bit as much as function. Having aesthetically suffered through fifties, sixties, seventies and beyond furniture trends, I should have known that already. Sales departments often, at least, must have assumed customers wouldn't pay a lot for a speaker unless it went with the furniture they had, or wished they had. I think I entertained a more hopeful assessment from the utilitarian style of exposed bottle tube power amps that ruled until the bipolar transistor era. As an artist, or at least a former one, my disappointment is considerable. R Buckminster Fuller once told me that if an engineering solution is correct in a profound way, its elegance will extend to aesthetic beauty and simplicity as a natural result. Our culture still ignores him in so many ways, to our detriment and peril.

If I seem sensitive on the subject, let me tell you that I witnessed many, many times people chosing paintings for their home based solely on whether they would look good over their couch or not. That is low class behavior, and it disappoints no matter what excuses are given for it, IMO. Like all opinions, it only matters to me, but it matters a lot.

One other angle on this (why don't I move this reply into total unreadability?), since the term "attractive" has been invoked. Attractive is more complex and inclusive than pretty. If a woman, for instance, is deemed attractive she is so much more than pretty. She draws interest on every important level (important to the beholder, of course). I am personally attracted most to women with artistic and most particularly musical talent. So...for me the most attractive woman on Earth is Polly Jean Harvey. She is no beauty, though I think she looks just fine, but as with a speaker I am very turned off by skin deep. Paragons I have found to be skin deep, therefore not at all attractive. Put another way, I would only accept a Paragon in my house if it came with Polly. And it would be the wart of warts and all. I'm not exaggerating.

Does this help explain my position on my own initial question? I can't hope to defend it, but I hope all this helps explain why I am comfortable with the inevitability of my being so far out in left field. Which your generous answers are informing me I most certainly am. Keep them coming.