Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , David Looser
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.

It should certainly be easy to use, with a good, logical; yet aesthetically
pleasing layout of controls etc. My point was about power amplifiers, which
do not have controls and can be hidden away. My Quad 405 lives behind a
piece of furniture and rarely sees the light of day.

I like to think the things I build don't look "awful", but when you are
working with an off-the-shelf equipment case and hand tools it's hard to
make anything look "stunning" :-)

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.

The 400 series was just before my time. The first piece of new HiFi kit I
ever bought was a 525 tuner amp and I'll admit the appearance was one of the
factors that caused me to choose that particular item. If the only offering
from Armstrong at that time had been the 400 series I'd probably have gone
for something else. If was less impressed by the circuitry of the 525, in
particular the pre-amp/control amp section. I later replaced it with a more
conventional design with separate RIAA pre-amp (used only on PU input). I
also rewired the tape-out to omit the tone control section and place the
volume control before the tone controls.

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.

I'm not saying it doesn't. But unusual designs that some people call
"stunning" can be a real turn-off to others. A simple, elegant, design such
as the 500 and 600 series is, IMO, far more likely to attract buyers.

David.

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

On Oct 17, 2:02*am, "Fed Up Lurker"
wrote:
"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!

Let's see...you accused me of telling a lie and told two lies in the
process. That's pretty nutty...and downright dumb.

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

On 16 Oct, 15:39, Boon wrote:

And yet everytime you have challenged me on audio subjects, I have
crushed you like a bug into the ground.

There's a reason for that. It has to do with your RAO nickname.

blush Yes, "Witlessmongrel" really nails the essence of Scottieness,
doesn't it?

You're a huge jerk, Scott. Jim Sanders had you pegged, George had you
pegged and I have you pegged. Throw in most of RAO, the Chargers
and the Padres, and the consensus seems to be that you're a huge jerk.
And yet you can't think of anything better to do with your weekend
than hang out with people who criticize and despise you. I wouldn't
trade one minute of my life for yours. Not one second.

Sanders got fed up with Witless too? I didn't realize that. Maybe he
has some traditional gray matter upstairs along with the sand. :-)

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

Witless wants a beatin'.

You're just an ignorant flameboy

Who taught you that musty old slur, Pooch?

who over the years is
only second to George in diminishing this groups ability to host
serious audio discussions

Hey Jenn, look -- Witlessmongrel is feigning willful ignorance just
like duh-Sacky does.

woof! grrrr....

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

On Oct 17, 12:13*pm, Glanbrok wrote:
On 16 Oct, 15:39, Boon wrote:

And yet everytime you have challenged me on audio subjects, I have
crushed you like a bug into the ground.
There's a reason for that. It has to do with your RAO nickname.

blush Yes, "Witlessmongrel" really nails the essence of Scottieness,
doesn't it?

There are so many nicknames that fit Scott.


You're a huge jerk, Scott. Jim Sanders had you pegged, George had you
pegged and I have you pegged. Throw in most of RAO, the Chargers
and the Padres, and the consensus seems to be that you're a huge jerk.
And yet you can't think of anything better to do with your weekend
than hang out with people who criticize and despise you. I wouldn't
trade one minute of my life for yours. Not one second.

Sanders got fed up with Witless too? I didn't realize that. Maybe he
has some traditional gray matter upstairs along with the sand. :-)

I think that was played out on RAO a few years ago. Jim asked Scott to
leave his home after Scott decided to have a political argument with
him. Scott doesn't quite grasp the concept that when you're a guest at
someone's home. you need to leave your Internet manners at the curb.

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

On Oct 17, 12:21*pm, Glanbrok wrote:
Witless wants a beatin'.

You're just an ignorant flameboy

Who taught you that musty old slur, Pooch?

who over the years is
only second to George in diminishing this groups ability to host
serious audio discussions

Hey Jenn, look -- Witlessmongrel is feigning willful ignorance just
like duh-Sacky does.

woof! grrrr....

Not to mention the fact that Scott has never hosted a serious audio
discussion on RAO.

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message



So appearance clearly matters if you want units to sell.

I'm not saying it doesn't. But unusual designs that some people call
"stunning" can be a real turn-off to others.

In essence, that was the problem with the 400. It was a very (allegedly)
'futuristic' look at the time. Evidently, far too much so for most people!
:-)

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?
 

"Boon" wrote in message
news:dfce18ee-c844-4660-9647-

snip

You're a huge jerk, Scott. Jim Sanders had you pegged, George had you
pegged and I have you pegged. Throw in most of RAO, the Chargers group
and the Padres, and the consensus seems to be that you're a huge jerk.
And yet you can't think of anything better to do with your weekend
than hang out with people who criticize and despise you. I wouldn't
trade one minute of my life for yours. Not one second.

Loser.

Dear Boonie,
If we put aside your disasterous decision to purchase extremely
expensive hand polished, low sensitivity, awkward load, narrow
bandwidth stand-mount monitors, and also we will put aside the
obvious reason for posting your glowing but misguided claims
for their performance was to justify to yourself the outlay. And
we will also put aside your desperate obnoxiousness when the
error of your ways was pointed out to you, we will put all that
aside and they won't be raised and we will go direct to the heart
of the matter...
You are a very troubled individual, your issues are deep.
If you need to unload and talk, we are here to listen.

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
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".

Phew! Thats a relief, for a moment I thought the
Julian-who-must-not-be-upset
may have, well, anyway....

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.

Any chance of a hint?
In the last issue you did manage just one disappointing paragraph on nonos.
So doubtful it will be on that subject, even though I've got 3 TDA****
players
which I'd be happy to let you try a bit of NOS'ing on any one (Though Not
the
Aiwa or Marantz CD50, I've done 'em). So what will be the diy subject?


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. ;-

Huh?

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
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


Also there was the snob element and here in UK the "professional
review" brigade who looked after "home territory" products.
I vaguely remember an article from 20 years back or more which
was about marketing 20 years previously in the 70's here in UK.
To use a Jimism - IIRC, it was contradictory, example being Tandy
and the Realistic brand here in UK didn't hit the mark because of
the "pro review" brigade of the time. But to the 70's man in the street
specialist brands and dealers were not the hub, but as you mentioned
Comet, also specifically Dixons and Lasky's - if they stocked it a
product got sales!
Now it's Argos and the iPod, to the man in the street thats Hi-fidelity.