Of course. But that determination is not only highly personal, it is also influenced by the performance. It always amazes me how much better looking something becomes when you get pleasure from using it. I am reviewing a speaker at the moment in which this is a real issue. (Be careful in making analogies here, boys.)
It came to mind for me yesterday when I visited a high-end dealer and saw some units from a very-well respected company. I had only seen pics in mags before, but they didn't look any better in person. Lucky for me that I can't afford them anyway!
And yes, it's highly personal, and perhaps someone could grow to love it. However, I'd have to make the investment first, and that is too huge a risk to take.
It is strange,
the look of my audio equipment does not bother me at all, but my sports cars must have that pleasing look.
And no, this is not making up for a part of my anatomy
Cheers
Orb
To me, looks is very important but it is still second behind sound. One of the better looking pieces of equipment I have ever owned was one of the original Krell CD players with the automatic lowering acrylic top --- and it sounded spectacular !!
To me, looks is very important but it is still second behind sound. One of the better looking pieces of equipment I have ever owned was one of the original Krell CD players with the automatic lowering acrylic top --- and it sounded spectacular !!
To me, looks is very important but it is still second behind sound. One of the better looking pieces of equipment I have ever owned was one of the original Krell CD players with the automatic lowering acrylic top --- and it sounded spectacular !!
I also like nice looking gear, but it comes 2nd to me after the sound. I know that my modified Onkyo Pre/Pro is a bit chunky looking and some might say the same about my modified Denon 5910CI. But, they do perform well. I had a Krell CD player at one point, it was nice looking, but not as nice as the MD-10 or MD-20.
I probably would not buy just ugly gear. I know that some do not like the appearance of my OMA New Yorker Prototype speakers (and the OMA Monarch production version of these speakers even less), but I like the way they look (and certainly perform).
I probably would not buy just ugly gear. I know that some do not like the appearance of my OMA New Yorker Prototype speakers (and the OMA Monarch production version of these speakers even less), but I like the way they look (and certainly perform).
in the past i've owned audio art such as the Linn CD-12, Kharma Exquisite Reference 1D's, Mark Levinson #33 monoblocks and #32 preamp, and Tenor Hybrid 300 monoblocks. beauties all.
i currently own a Studer A820 RTR deck; which to me is about as elegant as audio can get. last year i had the new darTZeel NHB-458 monoblocks in my room for a month, stunning to look at.
i love my darTZeel preamp and stereo amp; but i'm not generally a fan of gold anodized casework. but it has typical swiss craftsmanship and sounds heavenly, so it earns it's place in my room.
what can you say about the aesthetics of turntables, i'm not sure i've seen one that did not appeal to me aesthetically on some level. in fact, like tube amps.....turntables that strive for modesty might have the most aesthetic appeal.
OTOH i have also owned the early EMM Labs digital gear (which bettered and replaced the CD-12) which to be generous was a bit homely. i also used the Placette passive RVC (replaced and bettered the ML#32) as my main preamp for 3-4 years, which looked more like a wall wart than audio gear.
and the best sounding source i have yet heard is likely the King/Cello repro unit i use for my Studer, which is just 2 square ugly boxes.
i like aesthetically pleasing gear; but it never influences my aquisition decisions........and i always enjoy it when performance includes elegance.
of course, my listening room is dedicated, and separate from my house.....so WAF is not an issue....if my listening room was my living room i would need to view it differently. my wife has liked the look of some of my gear, and tolerated some. she still laments when i sold my Kharma Exquisite speakers, which she loved the 'look' of.
You've hit on an interesting topic that has many angles.
1. Many believe that the only way to penetrate the "non-audiophile" market is by designing, striking, interior designer and AD approved aka B&O for instance, components
2. Would you rather pay for what's on the inside or have the bells and whistles?
3. Other companies such as LAMM seem to be successful in bucking the trend towards the "black box" trend.
4. A reviewer friend, who now writes for a leading mag, always claimed that manufacturer's used black chassis' to make audiophiles mourn for their dearly departed dollars (A joke)
... Lamm could well be the singular exception. For the most part High End Audio gears are exquisitely designed and painstakingly assembled. Speakers are luxury cabinetry. Even cables are made to look good. There is an aesthetic philosophy in High End.. Big is assumed to be better ... in many instances .. Audiophiles seems to favor heft ...
Many audiophiles would claim that looks are not important to them but it is. For me looks are secondary but important.
If money was no object, and my goal was to obtain the best possible sound I could get, regardless of anything else, then yes, I would have a component or two that I considered to be aethetically unappealing. There are likely several members here who are in the postition of making that same decision. It's no big deal for them to return a piece (likely at a loss) and buy something else. For the average J6P that is not something to be even entertained. We better be sure going in...
As such, aesthetics play an even greater role in our decision.
When you use a computer and a pair of active monitors, you don't have to think about such things much, because you have no components. I do have a little silver aluminum box that translates usb to the other digital formats. It's not ugly, not pretty, just simple. I'm good with that. If I chose components for their looks, I'd choose tubes. I think they look fabulous.
I have a John Hogan 26/300b amplifier. It is made specifically from old magnavox iron with black organ console metal, full of holes, he used black tape to cover the holes and silver markers to label things. Butt ugly, looks like someody's DIY junk, but one of the best sounding amplifiers for the low power DHT SET variety I have ever heard. Hogan, who has passed away, apparently just kept tuning them and tuning them until they sounded good to him, and the old Magnavox organ trannies seem somehow unique in creating a marvelous presentation. I am using the Hogan 300b as a headphone amp for a Stax headphone in Santa Cruz, dreamy.
I guess I don't care as much about appearance since my systems are an alarming array of mismatched pieces, sound comes first, I won't compromise just for appearance, though some of the pieces are really pretty by themselves.
I think all men care about “looks,” irrespective if it’s women, cars, or stereo gear. We can’t truly be in love unless we are happy with how something looks to us. And of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some men are married to women who aren’t allowed in clock shops. Some men drive Yugos. Some men own stereo gear that looks like it was built by a blind man with ten thumbs in his garage. It really boils down to what you can endure and afford.
> Do your components need to be aesthetically pleasing?
An inexpensive component that sounds good and has great value can be excused for being plain or even ugly. On the other hand, if it costs a lot more, it had better look good and sound good.
