Poll: Do the Visual Aesthetics of Audio Gear Affect Perceptions of Sonics?

I dont think so at all. Most probably have no idea how senses can affect eachother.

And I dont see how testing audiophiles would make a difference. When testing experts in other fields like wine tasting they dont perform flawlessly either.

 

Yeah, but isn't the operating principle here more along the lines of "have you 'had it in the ear before?'"




.

 

My audio/video system is a feast to all of my senses, I eat it up.

 

I am a Cyrus fan. I dont think you can uglier gear!!

 

My poor Cyrus ;^(

 

You only have an amp, think of poor old me, amp, cd player, and two power supplies. Its a horror show! Sounds great though

 

If only Steve Jobs had designed sound gear.....

 

I cant tell if this is a joke on the McIntosh brand or not.

 

Yes, as a matter of fact I would be interested in a nice solid state amplifier with a row of glowing KT 88's on top just for ornamentation .

 

I would never buy gear because it looks a certain way.
Gear has one purpose---to sound great.
I will spend years with stuff all over the room looking like a mess---tuning and tuning---trying different setups---moving speakers a quarter of an inch looking for the "loading spot."
Finally I get perfect sound and you would swear the band is alive and playing right there in the room with you "live".
I consider this stage one.
Then I go to work making it look great.
I may have to hide things in a cabinet and close the doors to avoid seeing how ugly the gear is.
But after I have absolute knock you down audio perfection, then I want visual perfection.
To settle for anything even a smidgen less would be an audio crime.
My current system is utter audio perfection which from the first note sends you straight to audio heaven.
Now all I need are some giant blue meters and I will be all set, ha ha.
Just my two cents.

 

Back in 1989: I hate to admit this but the cool look of vintage Mac gear - specifically the MC240 and MC-60 monoblocks - are what got me into audio. And the sonics, of course, but I was blown away by both of them. It made my dad's Akai receiver look so ... bleh. And the McIntosh also made it sound meh!

My first tube amp - a Dynaco 70 - was a disappointment in looks when the guy with the Mac amps brought it out. Brown?!?! Well I was on my way.

 

I voted No. Sound is sound. (Cue DiNiro in ‘Deer Hunter’ gesturing with a 30.06 rifle shell in his hand saying “This is this”.)

Things like stereo equipment have to coexist in ones living environment and that influences aesthetic considerations. It matters the appearance of hardware and how it does or doesn’t harmonize with the room & furnishings it which it is in.

Equipment placed in an audiophile’s listening room/man cave is usually different from considerations for equipment place in open view in a living room. WAF. Heck, even my own aesthetic won’t go for making hifi toys a focal point of a living room. But even saying this, it is purely a matter of taste - there’s pride of ownership in quality stereo gear so maybe it should be displayed. I’d feel instantly at home visiting a place like this.

But sound of gear and buying of gear is not separated from how the equipment looks for me. Meaning it can sound great and look terrible and I can’t ignore the looks and buy it for the sound. D’agostino amps, for example, no matter how they might sound I find the looks comical. Looks like it was cribbed right from David Lynch’s visuals used for the movie “Dune”.

Looks don’t affect perception of sound. But it can effect the proclivity to buy.

 

No! But visual appearance sure looks purty. Sometimes kissing the pretty date at the dance doesn't always produce fireworks.

 

My problem with a lot of brands like McIntosh and D’Agostino is their design is surface level only, and the aesthetic is just form over function. The whole WAF thing is not only a sexist term, but largely inaccurate. The real issue is something like that D’Agostino does not integrate into any home, because it’s so utterly attention grabbing, that anyone who could care less about its function is offended by its presence. I’d propose the more accurate term here would be “livibility” of the object.

I will say the Cyrus stuff is also ugly and poorly aged aesthetically, but there’s a flair for function and simplicity that shows a concern for the user that most brands don’t have. I kind of hate parts of my Pioneer SX-750s design because although it has a retro cool look, the volume knob is buried and functional knobs are clearly placed by engineers not designers. I’d love a nice set of Rams designed Braun amps, or something clearly influenced by them like the Apt stuff. Those are both timeless and functional, with a high livibility factor.

 

I understand some of the answers posted though different from mine, I think that the question may be interpreted differently by some. I personally had to go back and change my answer. I may see a speaker or a component and feel or think that it may sound good but it all comes down to the ultimate test of listening to it. So the appearance may affect my expectations but not the sound itself.

 

Gear that looks good help making the environment more pleasant and this enriches the whole listening experience.