Looks of audio gear

[petzi]

How much do you care about the looks of your audio gear ? Is that important for your purchase decision ? Are you willing to pay a premium for good looking audio gear, or is it only the audiophile qualities that count for you ?

I speak about a good finish in either case, and high-end audiophile sound in either case, too.

[Dave]

I personally couldn't care less how it looks as long as it delivers in the sound dept.

[aashton]

As out of necessity the gear occupies such a prominent position in my room it would drive me mad if it didn't reach a certain standard of finish.

Just my eight farthings - Andrew

[Gary]

If I am spending Big Bucks on an item, I want it to look cool, impressive, awesome. Are they trying to tell me there is $3,000.00 worth of electronics in a CD player and no cash for the finish?

Besides, the marketing department would not stand for that! :D

[petzi]

I understand that if you spend big bucks, you want it to look cool. Let me rephrase the question. If you had these two options, which would you prefer:

A: You are willing to spend significant extra bucks just for the equipment to look cool and impressive.

B. You would rather purchase a product that saves you money but is still excellent from a technical & sonical point of view. It just doesn´t look that impressive to your visitors, it looks like plain hi-fi gear.

I speak about a good finish in either case, and high-end audiophile sound in either case, too.

[Paul Chang]

For me it boils down to whether I can afford the extra cost for good look and how significant the extra is. For example, some loudspeaker manufacturer offers painted black wood (not piano black) as the standard finish and charge something like 5 to 10% extra for optional better finishes. I would do it in a heart beat if I can afford it because I don't listen to music in the dark or close my eyes listening.

Sonically, a pair of black loudspeakers and another in rosewood or maple finish of the same model should sound the same. However, the psychoacoustic experience could be different. Besides, better looking equipment always has higher wife approval factor. :)

[Holy Zoo]

Originally posted by petzi
I understand that if you spend big bucks, you want it to look cool. Let me rephrase the question. If you had these two options, which would you prefer:

A: You are willing to spend significant extra bucks just for the equipment to look cool and impressive.

B. You would rather purchase a product that saves you money but is still excellent from a technical & sonical point of view. It just doesn´t look that impressive to your visitors, it looks like plain hi-fi gear.


Petzi - I can turn this into a poll if you wish. Let me know.

HZ

[Scott Wheeler]

I love the looks of my speakers (Martin Logan CLS IIz) but I bought them based strictly on sound. I wish the rest of my stuff looked as good. Acoustic foam is particularly ugly.

[aashton]

I'm not really sure I can honestly answer this :o I would like to think that I was motivated by sound above most else - but I am having a few doubts. I listened to a fair few speakers and none of them have ever made the impact of the SF's (with the exception of the JM Lab - Grande Utopias, but they are actually bigger than my room :D ). The fact that they have the highest domestic acceptance factor by a country mile of any piece I have ever owned helps.

I remember years ago I had a pair of Accoustat Spectra 1100s delivered - At the end I asked the chap did he want a cup of tea - he asked does your wife know you have ordered these ( she didn't) - he left sharpish ( I nearly followed him an hour later when she got home :o )

(Obviously I am taking my Inspiration from Led Zeppelin today - Ramble On)
All the best - Andrew

[Holy Zoo]

made into a poll!

[Gary]

Originally posted by petzi
I understand that if you spend big bucks, you want it to look cool. Let me rephrase the question. If you had these two options, which would you prefer:

A: You are willing to spend significant extra bucks just for the equipment to look cool and impressive.

B. You would rather purchase a product that saves you money but is still excellent from a technical & sonical point of view. It just doesn´t look that impressive to your visitors, it looks like plain hi-fi gear.

I speak about a good finish in either case, and high-end audiophile sound in either case, too.

Gotcha!

I voted for "does not impress visually" for 2 reasons: Less stealable and the shock factor when someone listens to it! :D

[petzi]

Originally posted by Gary
Gotcha!

I voted for "does not impress visually" for 2 reasons: Less stealable and the shock factor when someone listens to it! :D

I sympathize :)

[Joseph]

I've always made the sonics the first priority. Good looks are a bonus.

[Paul Chang]

Originally posted by Gary


Gotcha!

I voted for "does not impress visually" for 2 reasons: Less stealable and the shock factor when someone listens to it! :D Gary,

With the exception of the loudspeakers and speaker cables, you can achieve both by throwing everything in a vault. What the heck, put your whole listening room in a big vault then your audio system but the speakers in a smaller vault. ;)

[Ben]

Originally posted by Gary
If I am spending Big Bucks on an item, I want it to look cool, impressive, awesome. Are they trying to tell me there is $3,000.00 worth of electronics in a CD player and no cash for the finish?

Besides, the marketing department would not stand for that! :D


I second that emotion.

[Dan C]

I'd rather save money. Heck, I don't have much of a choice in that! But this is another reason why vintage is cool. So much old stuff from the 60's and 70's looks mighty fine. I don't want a 'vintage' CDP though. I'll take humble black boxes for modern performance there.

Dan C

[Gary]

Originally posted by Paul Chang
Gary,
With the exception of the loudspeakers and speaker cables, you can achieve both by throwing everything in a vault. What the heck, put your whole listening room in a big vault then your audio system but the speakers in a smaller vault. ;)

Lets not talk about my Tube Guilt or Stereo Paranoia, ok....? ;)

[Tullman]

Originally posted by Gary


Gotcha!

I voted for "does not impress visually" for 2 reasons: Less stealable and the shock factor when someone listens to it! :D

Hey Gary, If you want something less stealable get speakers that weigh 200lbs each.:D

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Tullman


Hey Gary, If you want something less stealable get speakers that weigh 200lbs each.:D

...or make sure you are insured to the hilt! Had a friend who lost $30K worth of audio and video equipment while he was on holidays. Unfortunately he negleted to renew his insurance policy before he went away. Ouch.:(

[KeithH]

Good looks in components are a nice touch, but certainly not a vital characteristic for me. Performance is what counts. I use NAD Classic Series amps in my two system (C 350 in one and C 370/C 270 biamped set-up in the other), so obviously looks don't matter to me. :)

[Paul Chang]

Originally posted by Dan C
I'd rather save money. Heck, I don't have much of a choice in that! But this is another reason why vintage is cool. So much old stuff from the 60's and 70's looks mighty fine. I don't want a 'vintage' CDP though. I'll take humble black boxes for modern performance there.

Dan C Dan,

I agree that many vintage gears look great. I think they look more than "might fine". But would you buy them if they look ugly? If there are two vintage amps of the same model - one with rusted beat-up chasis and the other in prestine condition. The better looking one costs say 10% more. Which one would you pick? What about a 20% or 30% mark-up? What if Steve put his signature on the better one? :cool:

[Dan C]

Originally posted by Paul Chang
Dan,

I agree that many vintage gears look great. I think they look more than "might fine". But would you buy them if they look ugly? If there are two vintage amps of the same model - one with rusted beat-up chasis and the other in prestine condition. The better looking one costs say 10% more. Which one would you pick? What about a 20% or 30% mark-up? What if Steve put his signature on the better one? :cool:

Well, depends on a few things. If they both need restoration, I'd go for the beat up one since the tech would probably clean it up. If the 'prestine' unit was in great working order, then I'd try and spring for that.
Now if I was able to afford one of those wonderful Macs of Steve's and he put his John Hancock on it, that would be cool! (but I seriously doubt Steve would have the heart to write on vintage gear :D )

How about some gear signed by Saul Marantz or Avery Fisher?!

Dan C

[Elton]

Buy it for what it does, but , if look cool too, GOOD TIMES!:cool:

[cjk1026]

I've always thought function breeds good looks and not necessarily vice versa.

[Nick Satullo]

Keep making those cool black boxes.