Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

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?
 

"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.

Such as?

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.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, clearly some people must like the
appearance of the things you don't, otherwise they wouldn't be on the
market. But what do you like?, you haven't given any examples of your taste.

Personally I think that "form follows function" as far as audio kit is
concerned. The most important thing with audio kit is the performance, then
the ergonomics with the aesthetics following on from those. I've always
liked the look of Naim amplifiers, even though I was never convinced that
they were worth the money. But too much "high-end" stuff looks as though a
"designer" has been at work on the visuals, usually with fairly off-putting
results (IMO).

David.

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

For every example you provide, there are probably 100 pieces that are
downright gorgeous. Then again, you complained that my T&Fs were too
good-looking. So you're just one of those grumpy audio guys who hates
everything.

If you've gotten to the point where you hate much more than you love,
it's time to swallow lead and just be done with it. No one really
cares what you think anymore.

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

Hi Boonie,
Are you still sulking? Yet again you are conjuring up an image
of yourself thumping your laptop in petulent indignation.
Now try to relax.....

"Boon" wrote in message
...
For every example you provide, there are probably 100 pieces that are
downright gorgeous. Then again, you complained that my T&Fs were too
good-looking. So you're just one of those grumpy audio guys who hates
everything.

Well, actually I didn't complain I just pointed out that you made claims
for their performance that just isn't possible with their specs, not even
the OEM makes those claims. You just copied their specs from their site
and *you* made the claims about their bass.
They seem to be standard 5 inch metel drivers comeserate with
an enclosure of those dimensions, the OEM's specifications state they
are minus 6db at 44hz, that won't be a brickwall drop, the roff off would
have began well before, probably at 250hz, which is standard for stand
mounts of those dimensions. So how could they sound as you describe?
You need to do some homework on loudspeakers, start by typing into google:
Thiele Small Parameters

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

If you've gotten to the point where you hate much more than you love,
it's time to swallow lead and just be done with it. No one really
cares what you think anymore.


But you care, it seems that my opinion arouses much passion in you?

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

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.

But then, we have this, quite beautiful, creation:

http://halcro.com/productsDM88.php

Form follows funtion with some utterly beautiful design touches applied with
great restraint. Both inside and outside, this design shows how well a
product can be designed.

Here is a product that first caught my eye many years ago, as a delightful
example of how well a design can be implemented:

http://www.thevintageknob.org/THEVAU...ON/LECSON.html

Again, form follows function in a slightly whimsical form. One of the best
looking audio products of all time, IMO.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

On Oct 15, 3:50*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 15, 1:46*pm, Boon wrote:

For every example you provide, there are probably 100 pieces that are
downright gorgeous. Then again, you complained that my T&Fs were too
good-looking. So you're just one of those grumpy audio guys who hates
everything.

If you've gotten to the point where you hate much more than you love,
it's time to swallow lead and just be done with it. No one really
cares what you think anymore.

*Doctor, cure thyself.

....says the guy who spends his weekends playing Chicken Little,
scrutinizing right-wing blogs and whining about all the terrible
things going on in our government. ROTFLMAO!

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

snip

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

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


That is indeed an excellent example. Alarmingly the reviewer refers to it's
"aesthetic refinement"?? If Johnny Atkinson is reading this...... tut tut.

snip

But then, we have this, quite beautiful, creation:

http://halcro.com/productsDM88.php

Well, the link is indeed to a description of a power amp, but the image
I saw appeared to be one of those trouser press things or maybe a vanity
unit awaiting a sink to be fitted?

snip

Here is a product that first caught my eye many years ago, as a delightful
example of how well a design can be implemented:

http://www.thevintageknob.org/THEVAU...ON/LECSON.html


Pipes!

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

On Oct 15, 4:17*pm, "Fed Up Lurker"
wrote:
Hi Boonie,
Are you still sulking? Yet again you are conjuring up an image
of yourself thumping your laptop in petulent indignation.
Now try to relax.....

You're just another grumpy old man who spends too much time on the
Internet and thinks he says things others take seriously.

You and Scott should LOVE each other. LoL!

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

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?

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

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.

You know, Scott, you keep saying really stupid things to me, and I
just shoot them down all day long. I think makes you the bottom in our
relationship.

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.

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

On Oct 16, 3:59*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?

Yes, there is. There are quite a few posts about receiving them,
unpacking them and setting them up, all with photos. In a couple of
the entries, there are congratulatory comments from the US distributor
on purchasing them. Duh.

There is nothing to show that you
have actually demo'd those speakers.

Demo'd? What the hell are you talking about? I own a pair. They're in
my listening room.

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"?

So far you're the only one. And you're a bit thick in the head it
seems. I have no desire to prove anything to someone like you. I've
been on RAO for 12 years, and most of the people there know me, have
been to my house or know me on a professional level. When I say I have
a new piece of equipment, there is no reason to doubt me because many
of these people know me and know what I do. And then you come along
and request proof that I've demo'd them? LoL.

Please post a link to the "evidence" just so as to squash any doubts.

It's been given to you already. I'm not jumping through hoops for an
Internet dweeb such as yourself. Either you can follow directions or
you can't.

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".

Because you're a clown. You make me laugh.

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....

You like to tell people to calm down and relax. You like to pretend
that you know what they look like while they're sitting at their
keyboards. Of course this is what you WANT them to look like because
you like to fantasize that you're so clever that you send people into
fits by your mere words.

But you're not clever, are you. In fact, I've watched you make mistake
after mistake while responding to me as if you don't really understand
what I'm telling you .That's a real newbie move, just like when you
invoked Godwin's Law on your very first response to me. I had a good
laugh at that as well.


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?

That I currently own a pair of T&F ARTs, of course. That's what we're
talking about. My, you're obtuse. You're just backpedaling after you
realized that my blog had all the evidence you needed...the very blog
that you reported you've already seen.

You post claiming you've demo'd
a pair of speakers and acrediting them with capabilites, I voice my doubts!

And no one cares.


I don't really live in Austria.

I noticed. I also noticed that your absurd claim, after trashing T&F
speakers, that you have someone on the inside that would tell you if I
had a pair or not. So you've been caught in two lies now.

What are you having for lunch today?

Your credibility, it seems.

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

On Oct 15, 10:15*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Oct 15, 9:47*pm, Boon wrote:

*I think makes you the bottom in our

relationship.

"at least" he has bottom!

At least he's hit bottom...which is why he had to trade his Toyota
Avalon for a used Chevy Cobalt.

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

"Boon" wrote in message
news:b38763e1-3bd6-4d41-85a2-

snip

You were "touching" yourself when you typed all that,
we know you was, you're that type.........

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

snip

The modern 'silver or black' aren't my taste in appearance.


You took long enough, better late than never....

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

On Oct 16, 11:46*am, "Fed Up Lurker"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message

news:b38763e1-3bd6-4d41-85a2-

snip

You were "touching" yourself when you typed all that,
we know you was, you're that type.........

In other words, you just tanked big time. Buh-bye, Internet loser.

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

"Boon" wrote in message


On Oct 16, 11:46 am, "Fed Up Lurker"
wrote:

"Boon" wrote in message

news:b38763e1-3bd6-4d41-85a2-

snip

You were "touching" yourself when you typed all that,
we know you was, you're that type.........

In other words, you just tanked big time. Buh-bye,
Internet loser.

Yet another good example of why to *not* cross post from RAO.

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

On Oct 16, 2:42*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 15, 6:47*pm, Boon wrote:





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.

* It's pretty clear to me that you have no idea why Quads don't
benefit from big heavy stands or spikes etc.
*Do you want to take a guess or continue to act the ignorant fool?

All the engineering know-how in the world won't get you past the fact
that your Quads sounded awful because you set them up improperly. I
did notice that you had them set up in a diagonal arrangement...I
guess you were so impressed with the sound of my system set up that
way that you had to copy it. That's why your current indignation is so
hard to believe--you once followed everything I told you about audio
and actively sought my advice, until you started ruining RAO with your
political spamming and your doltish behavior. When I called you on it,
I instantly became an audio fraud. You possess a profound lack of
credibility. You always have.


BTW, it was your admired friend Graham who advised to elevate the
quads.
He was right.

You should elevate the Quads. That's why the Arcici stands were so
effective in their day.

You're so clueless about audio that you think my objections to your
rickety footstools are that they elevate the Quads? Are you really
this dumb?

*You're just an ignorant flameboy who over the years is
only second to George in diminishing this groups ability to host
serious audio discussions



*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.

*Yet you consistently deny the benefits of a sub which is basically
essential to complement any bookshelf for true high end audio.

I don't deny the benefits of a sub. But I do think a full-range
speaker is a far better and far more coherent solution.



You know, Scott, you keep saying really stupid things to me, and I
just shoot them down all day long. I think makes you the bottom in our
relationship.

*The bottom has certainly dropped out of your writing skills.

Since you're functionally illiterate, you are no judge.

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

On Oct 16, 2:59*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 16, 8:21*am, Boon wrote:





On Oct 16, 3:59*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?

Yes, there is. There are quite a few posts about receiving them,
unpacking them and setting them up, all with photos. In a couple of
the entries, there are congratulatory comments from the US distributor
on purchasing them. Duh.

*There is nothing to show that you

have actually demo'd those speakers.

Demo'd? What the hell are you talking about? I own a pair. They're in
my listening room.

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"?

So far you're the only one. And you're a bit thick in the head it
seems. I have no desire to prove anything to someone like you. I've
been on RAO for 12 years, and most of the people there know me, have
been to my house or know me on a professional level.

*I don't doubt you have some new speakers. I doubt your claims on
their performance as you've never demonstrated on any gear you've ever
owned any decent bass.

What are my claims to their performance?

*You've made some ridiculous claims on speakers...claiming one set was
flat to 30hz (which the 50 hz spec did not come close to support) only
to amend that claim to require room was required correction to get the
output required.

Name the speaker that I said was flat to 30hz and was actually really
just flat to 50 hz.

I doubt you ever realized how ridiculous that claim was.

Your biggest mistake is saying that I made claims about speaker
performance at all. In reality, I made statements such as "they're
supposed to be flat to blah-blah-blah." I gave you this information to
give you some background on the speaker, not because I was some
salesman trying to get you to buy them. So what I said was not any
sort of claim at all, but the manufacturer's specs. Moron.

This is one of the biggest clues about your Aspergers...you simply
cannot understand things like context. I had you and Art over not to
show off my system, but to allow you guys exposure to some of the
things I was reviewing. Somehow you've twisted this into me wanting to
show off my system and getting your approval. I may have really liked
some of the gear I was reviewing, but that was my opinion. I remember
all three of us really liking the Devores a lot.


You are very often full of audio BS and all you offer in support of
your ridiculous statements is obnoxious attitude.

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.

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.

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

On Oct 16, 3:16*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



On Oct 16, 11:46 am, "Fed Up Lurker"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message

news:b38763e1-3bd6-4d41-85a2-

snip

You were "touching" yourself when you typed all that,
we know you was, you're that type.........

In other words, you just tanked big time. Buh-bye,
Internet loser.

Yet another good example of why to *not* cross post from RAO.

Because you get your ass handed to you?

Hi-end audio hardware aesthetics?
 

"Fed Up Lurker" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

snip

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

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


That is indeed an excellent example. Alarmingly the reviewer refers to
it's
"aesthetic refinement"?? If Johnny Atkinson is reading this...... tut tut.

**Indeed. Deeply disturbing. Every time I look at this POS I almost puke. It
was either designed by or for Chinese peasants.


snip

But then, we have this, quite beautiful, creation:

http://halcro.com/productsDM88.php

Well, the link is indeed to a description of a power amp, but the image
I saw appeared to be one of those trouser press things or maybe a vanity
unit awaiting a sink to be fitted?

**Form follows function. It is a superb example. Just because it does not
look like a black box, it does not deserve condemnation.


snip

Here is a product that first caught my eye many years ago, as a
delightful example of how well a design can be implemented:

http://www.thevintageknob.org/THEVAU...ON/LECSON.html


Pipes!

**For follows function. The Lecson was a very nice example.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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