| Search AudioEnz | |
| Articles | |
|
Current
reviews |
|
| News | |
| Community | |
| Buying | |
| About AudioEnz | |
About AudioEnz |
U got the look?
Audio cosmetics - to buy or not to buy
By Max Christoffersen
March 2001
I had to make a quick purchase decision: To buy or not to buy.
The usual criterion came up for analysis: what did it sound like? how reliable was it? what warranty came with it? what features did it have? what did it look like?
Hold on... what did it look like?
What did it matter what it looked like? Well I publicly confess it here: the fact is I like good looking gear. And it is part of the purchase process. Many will deny it, saying sound quality counts the most - audio uber alles! But many will quietly confess that good looking gear gives a better ownership buzz than the audio equivalent of a Trabant.
I appreciate the design quality of great looking audio equipment. And I think many of us do. And over the years there have been some seriously great cosmetic designs in audio. Who doesn't want to own a Krell amp, or a Faroudja scaler, a Meridian processor, VTL tube amps glowing in the dark or Martin Logan speakers?
I asked the question on a home theatre newsgroup just to see what the response was to my dilemma: "Does the cosmetic finish of audio equipment influence your buying decision?"
And the answer was predictable: Yes it does. Typically the answer was, "I'll take a good looking piece of equipment over a bad looking piece of gear - if it does the same job to the same level."
It really is a no-brainer in terms of owning equipment that gives you pride of ownership, but realistically it doesn't matter what it looks like if it sounds good right? Wrong!
The response to the on-line question carried on with some posters saying that gear could look great and do an adequate job and they'd live with happily. But a real stinker of box was just sometimes too much to put up with.
Me, I've got to the point where cosmetics aren't such a big selling point. In fact I really don't want to see my gear at all. My dream system has audio and image only and not a cable, amp, speaker or projector in sight. I only want to see my gear if I have to put a disc in the player. I am really interested now only in the quality of the image and the quality of the audio... I think.
Sure I like equipment that works well ergonomically, but cosmetics are a minor issue because I know sooner or later that the gear is going to be tucked away out of sight.
But I really liked looking at my Plinius SA-100 amp as much as I did hearing it with those big black heat sinks everywhere and the wood grain finish of my Kappa 8's and even the twists and twirls of my Kimber cable - love 'em all.
But really - I know others don't, particularly the women of the house. That's why so much of today's audio appears to be taking a look back over its shoulders at the cosmetic champions of high-tech audio Bang and Olufsen. The European company made equipment that looked better than it sounded and in the process made audio a fashion statement for they way it looked.
A quick look back through the history of audio design and you can even tell the period by the design. Wood, wood and more wood with poorly machined aluminium - the 1970s. Chunky amps with big volume pots and click step controls - early 80s. Slimline - mid-80s. Black black black - the 90s. Small but big - 2000.
So back to the dilemma at hand - to buy or not to buy?
Well the unit was a midi-system shaped CD-R recorder. Formidable technology, great price, excellent product - but wrong shape. I confess, it didn't fit my rack of full-width equipment properly.
And while all my gear will soon be out of sight, as every audio enthusiast knows is never out of mind.
Want to comment on this review? Click here for Feedback