Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

On Oct 15, 9:47*pm, Boon wrote:

I think makes you the bottom in our
relationship.

"at least" he has bottom!

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

On 15/10/2010 22:19, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Fed Up Lurker wrote:
This is my own personel subjective opinion on the issue
of the aesthetics of expensive audio hardware.
There are many who feel the "hi-end" is worth every penny,
but I'm not one of those.
Back in the good old days if we do a correlation with the auto
world, we could find the audio equivalent of a Corvette Stingray,
A Bentley Azure, Jensen Interceptor, or an Aston Martin DB5.
Something that had "The look", an instant appeal. Now sadly
missing from the world of audio hardware.

**You're not looking hard enough. Whilst there are abundant examples of
audio horrors, like this monstrosity:

http://www.stereophile.com/integratedamps/201mf/

Which looks like it was designed by a Chinese farm worker. Form follows
function has been tossed out, whilst being substituted with gold plating and
cheap knobs accompanied by fake Allen head bolts. The thing, both inside and
outside, make me want to puke.


Yep! I've got the non-Nu Vista version of that, and it is quite clever
how they managed to make it look so tacky. But then I bought it for what
it does, at a fraction (a quarter I think) of what they were asking at
launch.

Snip your examples of beauty - I'm sure they're lovely to your eye; I
think they look peculiar, and can't see at all how the form follows
function. I gather you design amplifiers, so I'd guess you know, but it
does strike me that some design decisions have been made to make them
look good to some, rather than efficiency or even performance.

FWIW I've always liked NAD, but never seen to need to pay for their
expensive range.

Rob

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

"Boon" wrote in message
...
On Oct 15, 4:17 pm, "Fed Up Lurker"
wrote:

Did you really have them playing in your system? If you did then you
would've taken a few pictures of yourself posing beside them. upload
the pix to something like Flickr, I only suggest this so as to cast aside
any doubts some may have....

Or, you could look at my blog (the one you said that you read, heh
heh) and see the evidence.

Hi Boonie
There is no evidence on your blog? There is nothing to show that you
have actually demo'd those speakers. There maybe doubting Thomas's
who may try to suggest you looked up an expensive model that is unlikely
to ever be heard by any in these groups and concocted a "review"?
Please post a link to the "evidence" just so as to squash any doubts.
And Boonie, you haven't been able to form a counter argument or
supply a pic, you just resort to silliness. You even use "LOL" and "heh
heh".
Just on your few posts an image has been conjured up of an individual
who veers from raging indignation to cackling and giggling as you type?
Calm down and relax....

I Live in Austria, I'll be having a word with one or two peeps...

When you're proven wrong, will you be a man about it and admit it?

What am I to be proven wrong about? You post claiming you've demo'd
a pair of speakers and acrediting them with capabilites, I voice my doubts!

I don't really live in Austria.
What are you having for lunch today?

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

"Rob" wrote in message

Snip your examples of beauty - I'm sure they're lovely to your eye; I
think they look peculiar, and can't see at all how the form follows
function. I gather you design amplifiers, so I'd guess you know, but it
does strike me that some design decisions have been made to make them look
good to some, rather than efficiency or even performance.

My views exactly.

FWIW I've always liked NAD, but never seen to need to pay for their
expensive range.

I've never seen the need to pay for anyone's expensive ranges. As the price
goes up more and more of the cost is justified on "aesthetics", snob-appeal
and hype, not perfprmance.

Previously I mentioned Naim as a good looking amplifier, I'd also like to
mention Quad 22 and 33 control units and the Armstrong 500 series as being
particularly attractive to my eye.

David.

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

On 16/10/2010 10:41, David Looser wrote:
wrote in message



FWIW I've always liked NAD, but never seen to need to pay for their
expensive range.

I've never seen the need to pay for anyone's expensive ranges. As the price
goes up more and more of the cost is justified on "aesthetics", snob-appeal
and hype, not perfprmance.

Previously I mentioned Naim as a good looking amplifier, I'd also like to
mention Quad 22 and 33 control units and the Armstrong 500 series as being
particularly attractive to my eye.


Yes, I've liked Quad, Armstrong and Naim. My only issue concerns their
use of (to me) non-conventional interconnects at one time. Now if that's
an engineering call, which I gather it might be, I don't have a problem.

I had some old Cambridge amplifiers a while back, lovely to use,
everything where I'd expect with nicely weighted controls, no thumps or
hums or crackles. I think it's categorised as 'industrial design' -
looked good to me and a just about perfect combination of form and
function.

ATM I've got a Rose pre/power set. Works a treat and well proportioned
cases, with some nice touches (upside down labelling on the rear panel
sockets for example). But the lettering is all dark 'rose' red on black.
I can't read it in normal light - I have to use a torch. Go figure etc.

Rob

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

"Boon" wrote in message
...
On Oct 15, 4:52 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 15, 2:40 pm, Boon wrote:

On Oct 15, 4:17 pm, "Fed Up Lurker"
wrote:

Did you really have them playing in your system? If you did then you
would've taken a few pictures of yourself posing beside them. upload
the pix to something like Flickr, I only suggest this so as to cast
aside
any doubts some may have....

Or, you could look at my blog (the one you said that you read, heh
heh) and see the evidence.

I Live in Austria, I'll be having a word with one or two peeps...

When you're proven wrong, will you be a man about it and admit it?

I noticed Boon refuses to address the salient points made about their
anemic bass response.

That's because I don't hear an anemic bass response. The last time I
heard an anemic bass response was when you tried to set your Quad ESLs
on rickety wooden footstools. THAT was anemic.

I'm sure they would benefit greatly from even a modest subwoofer, but
sub integration is beyond Boons setup knowledge.

Except for the fact that I've reviewed subwoofers and had the
manufacturers stop by to determine if I had set them up properly...and
I had. The proof is in print.

---personal abuse snipped----

For many years I used Quad ESL63s with the excellent REL sub. Did you
"review" this combination? Where can I find the "proof in print"?

GMacK

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message

Snip your examples of beauty - I'm sure they're lovely to your eye; I
think they look peculiar, and can't see at all how the form follows
function. I gather you design amplifiers, so I'd guess you know, but
it does strike me that some design decisions have been made to make
them look good to some, rather than efficiency or even performance.


Previously I mentioned Naim as a good looking amplifier, I'd also like
to mention Quad 22 and 33 control units and the Armstrong 500 series as
being particularly attractive to my eye.

FWIW In terms of ergonomics and appearance I prefer the 600 to the 500,
particularly with the rosewood or walnut. But this may be one of those
topics like SF[1], determined by you age and experience. :-) I certainly
prefer the appearance of amps and tuners with the 'wooden case' look of
some decades ago. The modern 'silver or black' aren't my taste in
appearance.

And I can't help adding that the early Naim amps seemed quite poorly made
to me. They tended to be roughly sawn extrusions with cheap knobs.

Slainte,

Jim

[1] Asimov was once asked "When was the Golden Age of Science Fiction?" by
people arguing about the magazine stories of the 1930's, 40's, etc. His
reply was something like, "Whenever you were aged 14". :-)

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

I suppose I have a unique viewpoint here, having been around with some sight
in the old days of outlandish hi fi, with garish colours and those
rectangular boring silver and black boxes etc.
I always liked the look of the Lecson with its coloured sliders and
corrugated cylinder power amps. However apparently they were not really that
reliable.
Valved equipment had a place as folks still do wax lyrical about the
glowing.

Now I cannot see though, I'd really love to find some boring box with some
switches and knobs with markings that show where they ar set instead of
daft menu driven, soft touch buttoned sleak objects....

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Fed Up Lurker" wrote in message
...
This is my own personel subjective opinion on the issue
of the aesthetics of expensive audio hardware.
There are many who feel the "hi-end" is worth every penny,
but I'm not one of those.
Back in the good old days if we do a correlation with the auto
world, we could find the audio equivalent of a Corvette Stingray,
A Bentley Azure, Jensen Interceptor, or an Aston Martin DB5.
Something that had "The look", an instant appeal. Now sadly
missing from the world of audio hardware.
But where did it all go wrong with audio hardware?
Above is just to annoy you with another of my YT clips this is
just some examples (of many) that I feel are seriously lacking
in aesthetics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTmOrl27HzE

It's just my personnel subjective opinion of the ergonomic
unattractiveness of expensive "hi-end" audio hardware.
http://www.ergonomics4schools.com/lzone/aesthetics.htm

http://cache.jalopnik.com/assets/res...uar-E-Type.jpg
http://imagecache6.allposters.com/LR...6/WKOL000Z.jpg
http://sturtevant.com/reed/db5-007a.jpg
http://cache.jalopnik.com/assets/ima...rceptor-SX.jpg
http://autooboz.omega.kz/foto/bentle...zure(1997).jpg

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

On Oct 16, 5:44*am, "Geoff Mackenzie" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message

...



On Oct 15, 4:52 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 15, 2:40 pm, Boon wrote:

On Oct 15, 4:17 pm, "Fed Up Lurker"
wrote:

Did you really have them playing in your system? If you did then you
would've taken a few pictures of yourself posing beside them. upload
the pix to something like Flickr, I only suggest this so as to cast
aside
any doubts some may have....

Or, you could look at my blog (the one you said that you read, heh
heh) and see the evidence.

I Live in Austria, I'll be having a word with one or two peeps...

When you're proven wrong, will you be a man about it and admit it?

*I noticed Boon refuses to address the salient points made about their
anemic bass response.

That's because I don't hear an anemic bass response. The last time I
heard an anemic bass response was when you tried to set your Quad ESLs
on rickety wooden footstools. THAT was anemic.

*I'm sure they would benefit greatly from even a modest subwoofer, but
sub integration is beyond Boons setup knowledge.

Except for the fact that I've reviewed subwoofers and had the
manufacturers stop by to determine if I had set them up properly...and
I had. The proof is in print.

---personal abuse snipped----

For many years I used Quad ESL63s with the excellent REL sub. *Did you
"review" this combination? *

No, I did not.

Where can I find the "proof in print"?

Of something I didn't do? Hmmm.

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in

FWIW In terms of ergonomics and appearance I prefer the 600 to the 500,
particularly with the rosewood or walnut. But this may be one of those
topics like SF[1], determined by you age and experience. :-) I certainly
prefer the appearance of amps and tuners with the 'wooden case' look of
some decades ago. The modern 'silver or black' aren't my taste in
appearance.

To my eyes the 500 series, particularly the 525 tuner-amp, was the best
looking. Also the tuning was much smoother in the 500 series than the rather
plasticy feel to the tuning in the 600 series tuners. Having said that the
performance of the 600 series was notably better. And I agree with you
totally about wooden cases (preferably real wood). There was a time when TV
cabinets were wood and they looked ever so much better than these
cheap-n-nasty plastic cases we get these days. And if it *has* to be plastic
then IMO it should be black plastic, silver just looks cheap and shoddy to
me.

And I can't help adding that the early Naim amps seemed quite poorly made
to me. They tended to be roughly sawn extrusions with cheap knobs.

Well I've only ever seen them, never tried to use them, so you may be right.
I just liked the simple,frill-free, look.


[1] Asimov was once asked "When was the Golden Age of Science Fiction?" by
people arguing about the magazine stories of the 1930's, 40's, etc. His
reply was something like, "Whenever you were aged 14". :-)

Probably true about the "golden age" of just about anything. I've recently
had a long-running argument with a friend about the "golden age" of TV
programmes. He is convinced that they were mostly great until about 1980 and
then went downhill and have stayed there. My pointing out some of the real
crap that was aired in the pre-1980 period and some of the first-class stuff
that can be found in the schedules today cuts no ice with him. Of course
there's far more rubbish on today than there ever was, but that's because
there are far more channels than there ever were. In proportion I don't
think things have changed much, and the best TV of today stands comparison
with the best of any era IMO.

David.