Keeping Up Appearances

[Ducatista47]

I have no intention of this being a poll. Just interested in how my fellow audio travellers feel about this unimportant issue.

One to ten, percentage, whatever, any quantifiable observation, how important is the appearance of an audio component to you?

I ask because 1) Thinking about it because of a recent thread about a speaker builder who highly values the selling power of speakers as fine furniture, and 2) I fall in the 100% sound quality 0% looks category, which might be unusual. I am an it's-all-about-the-music fellow, without apologies, so the idea of a furniture aspect to reproducing the magic of music seems bizzare to me, at least to any extent beyond necessity to fulfil the sonic function.

I am reminded that Nelson Pass is amused that the extremely utilitarian and unvarying appearance of his sonically magnificent First Watt amps is being copied by other designers. I am fairly sure they are hoping for association through similarity, rather than an artistic " less is more" Mies zeitgeist.

If it is desirous to bring factors such as WAF into this, fine, but I would be curious how the balance would shift if it were not a factor at all.

[SEAWOLF97]

for me ...I'd say about 80% performance and 50% appearance. yeah, I know that doesn't add up unless
I'm seeking 130% satisfaction (which I usually do) . It's a highly variable ratio. ;)

sold a little pair of speakers yesterday to a local buyer originally from France. The PhaseTech's he came out to see were beautiful walnut and he liked them , but asked if I also was running an ad for some British Missions ? YUP.

So we auditioned the black Missions also. His reaction ?

"The Missions are better sounding, for only a little more money , BUT I couldn't stand to look at them"

He bought the walnut PT's.


I have to admit tho, that looks are why the L7's are no longer here. They were pretty good sounding, but fugly to the point that they hurt my eyes.

[hjames]

In the home theater system, only the speakers and monitor show - the rest is hidden in a nice Salamander cabinet I got via a yard sale super cheap.
Upstairs things are more visible - tubes and sources are more visible - but look reasonably good, thank goodness.

Sound comes first - but good looks are helpful,
otherwise I have to hide them ...

And I absolutely agree with Tom - there is no place in my home for black "wood" -
if its wood, I want the beauty of the wood to show!




I have no intention of this being a poll. Just interested in how my fellow audio travellers feel about this unimportant issue.

One to ten, percentage, whatever, any quantifiable observation, how important is the appearance of an audio component to you?

I ask because 1) Thinking about it because of a recent thread about a speaker builder who highly values the selling power of speakers as fine furniture, and 2) I fall in the 100% sound quality 0% looks category, which might be unusual. I am an it's-all-about-the-music fellow, without apologies, so the idea of a furniture aspect to reproducing the magic of music seems bizzare to me, at least to any extent beyond necessity to fulfil the sonic function.

I am reminded that Nelson Pass is amused that the extremely utilitarian and unvarying appearance of his sonically magnificent First Watt amps is being copied by other designers. I am fairly sure they are hoping for association through similarity, rather than an artistic " less is more" Mies zeitgeist.

If it is desirous to bring factors such as WAF into this, fine, but I would be curious how the balance would shift if it were not a factor at all.

[grumpy]

Sound
Appearance/Style (what's cool/sexy/well-designed for some is ... not for others)
Weight vs function (not a hard rule)
Intuitive operation (should not need a manual for daily functionality... ever)
Reliable operation (should do what it's supposed to... Worse with firmware inside ... Not fond of poorly tested user interfaces)
Reliability/Robustness (I want to use it without kid gloves)
Touch (if it feels like crap... there's a good chance I won't enjoy it)
Technology (old or new, can be a turn off or on)

100% Smile factor (does it give me joy to use it?)
... Which sort of rolls up all of the above...

[DavidF]

I have never bought a car solely on looks- aesthetics. Ditto with audio equipment.

It is likely, however, that I have always considered the looks to some extent. Maybe a little sometimes but also maybe a lot other times. Looks can even be the deciding factor with between two similar products.

I live under budgets. I have to be a value shopper. I am more for function-over-form in most instances. Nothing I use in the audio chain (save the speakers) is anything but basic black. Since the equipment is in a spare room it really doesn’t have to be anything else. It rarely gets looked at by anyone but me.

I know others are like me in that respect. I am sure, though, that there are others that would have clear speaker enclosures to showcase some notable vintage drivers, if that were practical. I am not immune from such theatrics, to be sure. Just this morning I was thinking I could buy this turntable just on its looks.

63094

Achates turntable http://www.artisanfidelity.com/Achates-Idler-Drive.html

[honkytonkwillie]

Count me in with the 80% performance / 50% appearance team.

Postman this morning brought me my second little Fiio class D amp.
63093
Bought more for it's looks, as reviews of it's sound quality converge towards flat, dry, and typical class D. It's intended job is to trickle out 56dB of background music and look good doing so.

No matter how cheap or awesome the $20 Lepai amps might be, those hideous little boxes will not be seen in my house.

I'm vain like that.

[BMWCCA]

Not really much out there more plain than a 4345 with the grilles on. I bought them for the sound potential.

But I have to admit I was taken by the black ash baffle and the wood lenses, even if I never take the covers off!

[SEAWOLF97]

So we auditioned the black Missions also. His reaction ?

"The Missions are better sounding, for only a little more money , BUT I couldn't stand to look at them"

He bought the walnut PT's.


I have to admit tho, that looks are why the L7's are no longer here. They were pretty good sounding, but fugly to the point that they hurt my eyes.




And I absolutely agree with Tom - there is no place in my home for black "wood" -
if its wood, I want the beauty of the wood to show!

I think this is where they get it :eek:

[BMWCCA]

And I absolutely agree with Tom - there is no place in my home for black "wood" -
if its wood, I want the beauty of the wood to show!

Some prefer "wood", some prefer blue. I really like the black in these:

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/BMWCCA1/4345-14-2s.jpg (http://s31.photobucket.com/user/BMWCCA1/media/4345-14-2s.jpg.html)

[hjames]

Yes, but the CABINETS are gorgeous walnut (as they should be!)


Some prefer "wood", some prefer blue. I really like the black in these:

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/BMWCCA1/4345-14-2s.jpg (http://s31.photobucket.com/user/BMWCCA1/media/4345-14-2s.jpg.html)

[rusty jefferson]

....2) I fall in the 100% sound quality 0% looks category, which might be unusual. I am an it's-all-about-the-music fellow, without apologies, so the idea of a furniture aspect to reproducing the magic of music seems bizzare to me, at least to any extent beyond necessity to fulfil the sonic function......


Ditto for me.

I appreciate the high aesthetic products, I just can't afford things that sound good, and look good. :)

[Ducatista47]

Ditto for me.

I appreciate the high aesthetic products, I just can't afford things that sound good, and look good. :)

Then again, you may not be missing much. I have personally heard/observed very few Plain Jane electronics and speakers that had a great reputation for sound but did not deliver, but legions of pretty gear highly touted that was not even good. The recent shows were full of pretty, expensive gear that was no better than the offerings at Best Buy, and more often than not worse. The audio business has learned that a lot of customers are really looking for illusion and status. They have become expert at supplying the demand.

And how can one not be impressed by an up close and personal experience with a pair of 4345s? I like the looks just fine, and a demonstration trots out "beauty is as beauty does" as well. Definitely one of those units that looks technically impressive, which has to count for something. A really large floorstander HAS to be a thing of beauty on some meaningful level. I was prepared to not be impressed by a pair of EV Patricians, but I couldn't prevent it. They are just so damn big!

[Mr. Widget]

I have never bought a car solely on looks- aesthetics. Ditto with audio equipment.

It is likely, however, that I have always considered the looks to some extent. Maybe a little sometimes but also maybe a lot other times. Looks can even be the deciding factor with between two similar products.
+1

Sound quality absolutely comes first, but if it is housed in an ugly box it better be an easily hidden product or I will have a tough time bringing it home... that said, I think the 1400 Arrays are damned goofy looking, but they are so good sounding (in my opinion) that I've kept them even though I'm not in love with their aesthetics.


Widget

[Wagner]

Just interested in how my fellow audio travellers feel about this unimportant issue.

One to ten, percentage, whatever, any quantifiable observation, how important is the appearance of an audio component to you?


It is important to me only in the fact that it took me too damn long to realize it is of absolutely no importance.*

I could care less at this stage in the game. I missed out on many wonderful opportunities and chances to own some good equipment because I listened too often with my eyes and my mind was distracted by prejudices regarding how I thought things should look. Most of these preconceptions being the result of my impressionable "man I want that but don't have the money" teenage years. Years of drooling over audio rags didn't help either.

Do not misunderstand, I love well designed and handsome industrial art and a lot of equipment is just that; but it would only be an influence on a buying decision if it were a coincidental "icing on the cake" a bonus to an equally nice circuit, or sound, in the case of a loudspeaker.

I like good looking equipment (keeping in mind that beauty is in the eye of the beholder) and enjoy treats like quality veneers and heavy metals. But I would never buy or reject a piece based on looks today. New or used.

One exception might be if a piece is so ragged, damaged or soiled I just couldn't bear to look at it. Even then it would have to be pretty bad and beyond the reach of my meager abilities to restore and renew.

So the best I can do is to say that in my case the importance of appearance would have to rate @ <5%

* (well, almost http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/smilies/smile.gif)

[DavidF]

"...I could care less at this stage in the game. I missed out on many wonderful opportunities and chances to own some good equipment because I listened too often with my eyes and my mind was distracted by prejudices regarding how I thought things should look. Most of these preconceptions being the result of my impressionable "man I want that but don't have the money" teenage years. Years of drooling over audio rags didn't help either..."

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.

[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. :eek:

[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. :eek:

Tall order replacing that great classic, the LeBaron Convertible! :D

1996 Chrysler Sebring Convertible:

http://www.autosbynet.com/carimages/P1762.jpg

[Wagner]

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

http://images.gtcarlot.com/pictures/30583190.jpg

[SEAWOLF97]

OK, well the TC is widely regarded as mediocre , but it IS a Maserati :dont-know:

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-maserati-is-only-worth-a-couple-iphone-1446348608)


http://jalopnik.com/a-chrysler-tc-by-maserati-is-only-worth-a-couple-iphone-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!:

http://images.gtcarlot.com/pictures/30583190.jpg

[BMWCCA]

OK, well the TC is widely regarded as mediocre , but it IS a Maserati :dont-know:

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-maserati-is-only-worth-a-couple-iphone-1446348608)

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

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

[BMWCCA]

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

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]

63166True 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.