Do you care about how your equipment looks?

[David Matz]

Quick poll here: Wondering how much people care about the looks of their speakers and electronics. Some people say that clx and soundlab are heinous looking, but they sure sound awesome.

Would you settle for a lesser piece of gear because it looks better?

How much more - $ or % of price - more would you pay for something to look better?

Personally, I don't care one bit about looks.

 

[amey01]

There is no poll attached.

Anyway - personally, I do not care about looks - but only up to a point.

Generally - I would not settle for a lesser piece of equipment because of looks, but I certainly would if I found the look extremely offensive. There are very few brands for which I have a disdain for the looks - but quite simply there are some that I just wouldn't have in my house. For instance - I would not have a Garrard turntable or Tannoy Westminster no matter how good they sounded!

The look would count for more when there are design elements that I believe look cheap, kitsch or that are simply not commensurate with a high sound quality design.

Sound quality is of course my primary criterion, but there are others I consider - especially when purchasing something of such high value as high-end audio. They are:

Sound quality
Appearance
Quality
Fit/Finish
Quality of design
Features/connections
Longevity
Reliability
Reputation
Longevity of design (ie. I wouldn't buy something from a manufacturer that has a reputation for superseded designs every other year)
Customer support

So yes, when I'm paying what they ask for high-end audio, I expect a little more than good sound - I expect good sound AS WELL as reasonable appearance, reasonable build, reliability, a long lasting/timeless design, outstanding customer support and everything to be well thought out.

 

[Feltran]

I wouldn't buy a low quality piece of gear just because it looked good, but looks are important to me and if there are two products that fit my needs equally well, I'll pay a significant premium for the one that looks better. This doesn't apply just to audio equipment. I've been known to sometimes pay hundreds of dollars extra for a product I prefer the looks of.

There have also been a couple of cases where I bought a product I thought was ugly because there wasn't a comparable product that looked nicer, but those cases are less common than paying extra for nicer looking stuff.

 

[tonepub]

The more a piece of equipment costs, the more I'd like aesthetic beauty as well as good sound.

Don't care how budget gear looks as long as it sounds good, but as the price tag goes up, it's nice to see stuff that looks really cool too.

 

[JonFo]

While I also would rather have a nicer looking piece over one that's not, performance always trumps everything for me.

Since my non-speaker gear sits in an equipment room, it's even less relevant what it looks like.

With the amount of automation I have now, I rarely ever need to interact with the front panels. So the 'main view' of my gear in the equipment room is actually the back-ends of each box, as that's where all the connections are.

For speakers, aesthetics are probably more important, as they literally have to be in the field of view. But there too, I will chose performance over looks. The Monoliths are nothing if not visually imposing

So I might pay a few percent more for a better-looking model, if that was the only difference. So a custom finish or my preference of color.

When I order my CLX's (someday), it will be in a custom Purple aniline that matches my theater. That's the level of cost-delta I'd put up with.

 

[Beakman]

If form follows function, I don't care what it looks like. The CLX looks, In my personal opinion, like a real doggeroo but I am sure if I had the scratch and felt it sounded better than more aesthetic looking speakers, I'd have a pair.
As far as zooty lights, scalloped faceplates, superfluous fins, et al, I consider a double edged sword: sure it looks nice and can inspire cupidity but it only detracts from the true value of function and can easily become dated before its time. Sure, aesthetics are part of the hi-fi experience as with my Mac MR78, possibly an exception to the form/function equation however I ultimately distrust a pretty face.

 

[asindc]

Yes.

I dare say that almost everyone else does as well. A conscious avoidance of "style" is, in and of itself, a style choice.

I would not buy an inferior product for aesthetic (or any other) reasons. But all else equal, the more stylish product gets the nod.

 

[amey01]

If form follows function, I don't care what it looks like.

That's a more eloquent way of saying what I said. Very true. Like you say, the CLX is (in my opinion) ugly, but I'd still buy it because form indeed does follow function. The same can't be said for the fake heatsinks on Rotel kit or the stupid bits of metal tacked on to the front of Pass!

 

[Craig]

My 2 channel system rests on an open audio rack in my living room and is somewhat of a focal point. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has arranged their room around their audio gear. So yes, I value the appearance of the equipment. But I find that a well engineered and well built piece of audio gear to me is inherently attractive anyway and appreciate fine metal machining, attention to detail, finishing and woodwork. And whether or not cables make a sonic difference I like them to look nice. After all it is a visual part of my living room.

I've seen plenty of audio gear that is just stunningly beautiful and would be a shame to be hidden in a closet. However, placing audio gear out of site allows one to focus on performance without having to compromise anything for appearance sake.

I don't think the CLX would win any sort of appearance award but overall is decent looking and not at all ugly. Although, I've only seen it in pictures I'm sure I could live with a pair in my room.

 

[Dreamer]

I'm more concerned with the sound that comes out of my rig than the way it looks. So I guess I don't care too much about looks, as long as the gear performs...

However, all that said, I'll admit that the reason I first was turned on by Martin Logan speakers was seeing their ads in magazines as a college student, back in the late 1980's. There wasn't a Martin Logan dealer within a day's drive of me (that I know of), but I thought they looked super-cool, and hoped one day to hear them.

When I graduated, I was lucky enough to get my first job in the Washington DC area, where, in the late '80's, there must have been three or four ML dealers within a few hours drive. The first time I heard MLs (the original Quests and CLS's, I think), I was sold, and vowed to someday own a pair of MLs.

20 years later, I now own 5 ML speakers (one pair each of Sequels and Scenarios, and a Logos Center), and I'm hoping to upgrade sometime in the next year or so to some newer models for my main 2-ch rig (Vista or Vantage). I own several other brands (for "garage" systems, and for "guest room" rigs) but my Logans are the speakers I listen to for really "getting into" the music. The fact that they look as cool as they sound is just an added bonus...

AS far as other associated electronics, I'll admit that the first time I saw (and heard) a Carver C-4000t and M-500t (when I was in college) I was hooked on Carver gear, both for looks and performance, and now I own both. And the same goes for the CArver Silver 7t monoblocks I own--the first time I heard them (in a shop in Manassas VA in the early 1990's I KNEW they would have an important place in my rig because they were a perfect match for my Sequels, both sonically and in terms of cool looks.

I've got a pretty unique looking assemblage of gear, and I think it sounds as singular great as it looks (but there is always room for improvement, of course). I think I have a better-sounding rig than any of my friends from high school or college (that I know of), and I'm pretty happy with the sound of my rig. But I'll admit that when I show off my setup to someone new, I also get a special kick out of their initial reaction to the way my gear LOOKS. The visual "WTF" factor of ML speakers is tremendous, but what REALLY makes me grin is when folks LISTEN to my rig and their face just lights up, like they are really "hearing" their favorite music for the first time...

Looks are important, but to be honest, if my gear looked like a stack of cinder blocks with switches on them, and my speakers looked like a garbage bag stretched across a window screen, I'd be just as happy--if it sounded like my current rig (or better)...

However, I don't care what anyone says, even if I won the lottery tomorrow, I would never own a pair of Wilson speakers. No amount of "audiophile sound" can make up for those heinous aesthetics, IMO...

--Richard

 

[User211]

I think there are only two components in my main system that look great - my Michell "GyroOrbe", Morch DP6, Orpheus and my Austria Analogue amps. The Scott tuner looks nice, too.

The rest is merely OK, including my Ascents, Descent, Air Tight pre, MF Tri-Vista etc.

I think the Ascent/Prodigy "epoch" was a step backward in visuals for ML, but my wife really likes them.

I also think the greatest looking MLs were the CLS and the original Statement (minus the subs) - and the E2.

My opinion on the CLX has varied from "I don't like it" to "like it", and now back to "don't like it". It DOES look awkward, at the end of the day. My wife thinks it sucks, mainly because the MT panel juts out from the front of the speakers. It does in most MLs, and it looks fine, but it looks particularly awkward against the bass panels in the CLX. That, and the "incomplete" surround, will have cost ML sales. Overall, from comments here on MLOC, people simply are not that keen on it's looks. You have to get it into context, though. Compared to a lot of speakers out there, it does look good! It just isn't a CLS.

Enter the stream of CLX aesthetics lovers?

EDIT: dammit, I didn't answer the question - yeah, to an extent! Richard's quote of the day below certainly does have some merit, though

 

[jtwrace]

Looks are important, but to be honest, if my gear looked like a stack of cinder blocks with switches on them, and my speakers looked like a garbage bag stretched across a window screen, I'd be just as happy--if it sounded like my current rig (or better)...
--Richard

The quote of the day! Awesome!