Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

"Rob" wrote in message
eb.com...
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.

**You need to see how they've (the Halcro DM88) been put together. Then it
makes sense. And yes, they are stunning to look at, IMO. Of course, with the
cost of the industrial design exercise, they'd want to look damned good.
Romour has it that the cost was just under 7 figures (Australian) for
industrial design alone.

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.

**I don't design amps, though I do fix them. Hence the reference to the MF
M3. It is a ghastly POS, where all pretense to restraint has been banished.
Worse, the inside is arguably an example of the same bad design. I can live
with an ugly amplifier, provided the manufacturer has designed it for
specific reasons. The M3 lacks any kind of common-sense to it's design.
Inside and out.


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

**NAD has pretty much always been a good example of basic, honest design,
with uninspired aesthetics. Given the value for money of the product, I take
no issue. In any case, my Scottish heritage prevents me from paying for
anything that doesn't contribute to the overall sound quality, reliability
or longevity. IOW: I detest 'bling' for it's own sake.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

On Oct 16, 4:59*am, "Fed Up Lurker"
wrote:
"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.

I have talked with two of his friends who have been over at his house.
they say that he has them, and he has heard them.

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

On Oct 16, 7:32*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Oct 16, 4:59*am, "Fed Up Lurker"
wrote:





"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.

I have talked with two of his friends who have been over at his house.
they say that he has them, and he has heard them.

Oh, Art. I'm sorry I'm all the time mean to you.

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

On Oct 16, 8:39*pm, Boon wrote:
On Oct 16, 7:32*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:



On Oct 16, 4:59*am, "Fed Up Lurker"
wrote:

"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.

I have talked with two of his friends who have been over at his house.
they say that he has them, and he has heard them.

Oh, Art. I'm sorry I'm all the time mean to you.

LOL!!!

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
news:d12411c6-f23b-4e29-82b3-


snip
I have talked with two of his friends who have been over at his house.
they say that he has them, and he has heard them.

I found them on his blog, but he is still a nutter!

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

You're not in lastest issue of HFN?

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

"Trevor Wilson" wrote

**You need to see how they've (the Halcro DM88) been put together. Then it
makes sense. And yes, they are stunning to look at, IMO.

I'd have chosen the words "odd" or "strange" to describe their appearance,
not "stunning"

Of course, with the cost of the industrial design exercise, they'd want to
look damned good. Romour has it that the cost was just under 7 figures
(Australian) for industrial design alone.

Besides the fact that they look anything but "damned good" I'd stay well
clear of any product (especially a low-volume production product such as
this and even more a power amplifier) where a 7 figure sum had been spent on
the appearance. Audio power amplifiers are there to be heard and not seen.

In any case, my Scottish heritage prevents me from paying for anything
that doesn't contribute to the overall sound quality, reliability or
longevity. IOW: I detest 'bling' for it's own sake.

Which seems at odds with your apparent approval of a 7 figure sum being
spent on the appearance of the DM88.

David.

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

In article , Fed Up Lurker
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

You're not in lastest issue of HFN?

Nope. That is the 'yearbook' issue. They tend to want a "highlights of the
year" or "round up". But I tend to be doing my own "one sloooow thing at a
time". :-) And, there is no guarantee that I'll manage one item per month.
Not really a 'journalist' in any organised sense. There will be something
in the next issue IIUC. Should be on audio DIY.

FWIW during the last month I've been doing an analysis of the 320kb/sec BBC
Proms stream experiment. Involved a lot of program-writing and
number-crunching, but the results are quite curious. ...I've been wondering
if the BBC is run by Time Lords. ;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
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?
 

On 17/10/2010 01:10, Trevor Wilson wrote:
wrote in message
eb.com...
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.

**You need to see how they've (the Halcro DM88) been put together. Then it
makes sense. And yes, they are stunning to look at, IMO. Of course, with the
cost of the industrial design exercise, they'd want to look damned good.
Romour has it that the cost was just under 7 figures (Australian) for
industrial design alone.


OK of course. I have no problem if that's what people are prepared to
pay, although in my quieter moments I think it's a daft world that
produces such puff :-)

The important point for me is that you look at the engineering, and
think: 'yep, that's pretty ingenious'.

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.

**I don't design amps, though I do fix them. Hence the reference to the MF
M3. It is a ghastly POS, where all pretense to restraint has been banished.
Worse, the inside is arguably an example of the same bad design. I can live
with an ugly amplifier, provided the manufacturer has designed it for
specific reasons. The M3 lacks any kind of common-sense to it's design.
Inside and out.


Now you mention it is is the inside that bothers me. I'd have hoped that
MF could design the insides of an amplifier properly.


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

**NAD has pretty much always been a good example of basic, honest design,
with uninspired aesthetics. Given the value for money of the product, I take
no issue. In any case, my Scottish heritage prevents me from paying for
anything that doesn't contribute to the overall sound quality, reliability
or longevity. IOW: I detest 'bling' for it's own sake.


I do like design, but it's not the main thing. About 5 years I bought a
Mac computer, because I could afford it, and the Windows PC was becoming
too time consuming and unreliable. In a way the Mac is bonkers - on/off
switch is on the back for example. But I like the way it looks - it
obviously does matter to me to a point, especially if it does anything
else, such as its function, well.

Rob

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote

Besides the fact that they look anything but "damned good" I'd stay well
clear of any product (especially a low-volume production product such
as this and even more a power amplifier) where a 7 figure sum had been
spent on the appearance. Audio power amplifiers are there to be heard
and not seen.

I have mixed feelings about that. I admit that things I've build myself
tend to look awful. And make a swishing noise when tilted as all the
components slide about inside the case. ;- However I think it makes
sense to ensure commercial equipment looks good and is easy to use. People
will have it in their home as 'furniture' and it often has to visible to be
easily adjusted, etc.

I've been trying to remember who did the production and appearance design
for the 500. In terms of visual design this is an interesting case (pun).
It was electrically/internally essentially the same as the 400. The 400
sold very poorly as people disliked what it looked like. So Armstrong got a
well regarded designer to re-do the case and front. This was the 500 which
then sold like hot cakes.

That in turn allowed the price to be reduced, further increasing sales. And
at one time Comet was selling 521s for *less* than they paid for them. Used
them as a loss leader to get people to come - and buy speakers or a tuner
when buying the amp.

So appearance clearly matters if you want units to sell.

The 600 case/front design was done by John Twydell and Barry Hope. Looked
very nice IMO, and a neat way to use both sides of a normal metal chassis.
But was a nightmare to fit together until modded later! 8-]

Slainte,

Jim

--
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