Aesthetics why are they not important?

[Anonymous]

unpublished

 

[Anonymous]

unpublished

 

[Anonymous]

unpublished

 

[Anonymous]

unpublished

 

[BenLaw]

Since when did 'aesthetics' mean 'colour'? I'd still like to know what in earth your first post was meant to mean.

As an amateur semiotician, I'd argue that "colour" and "aesthetics" are related (if not perfectly synonymous) terms.

Colour is no less a signifier than shape, size, or any other aesthetic component. Indeed, in some examples, colour can be the most important signifier.

Nevertheless, "Girls like pretty things while men value performance" distinctions are fairly crude.

Yeah, my problem was the ridiculous reduction of the argument to your last line. Coming as an alternative or elaboration to the first post, which subject to some clarification seems pretty sexist.

 

[Anonymous]

unpublished

 

[BenLaw]

Style dates quickly , they are some classics like the Technics su900 power amps , useless needle meters that still look good but imagine if they had used the LED's available at the time , the Marantz and Denon oiled ? displays look really good now , but will they in 5 years ?

Take a look at Ben Laws "Hi-Fi" link and tell me those premire cd and amps don't look cool as feck and will still do 20 years from now , hope he dosnt mind me saying his kit is drop dead gorgeous

James

Certainly not going to be offended by a compliment! Thanks. It can be pretty tricky to maintain aesthetic appeal when mixing and matching between manufacturers. Otherwise, it is possible to combine aesthetics and peformance, depending on individual taste and priorities.

 

[Anonymous]

unpublished

 

[Anonymous]

unpublished

 

[Anonymous]

unpublished

 

[Anonymous]

unpublished

 

[Anonymous]

unpublished

 

[iQ Speakers]

CnoEvil

I think you can always see quality, and make an assumption that it "should" sound good.

Wheather the quality looking product also look good is another matter.

The Deviale amp both exudes quality and looks stunning.

 

[Anonymous]

unpublished

 

[matt49]

A question within a question - does anyone else think that the way a component looks, often gives a big clue as to how it will sound? eg, Focal and Sonus Faber.

Interesting question!

Obviously this would, as your examples imply, only apply to speakers. With speakers, you can obviously draw some inferences from the appearance to the sound signature. Size is important, of course. Perhaps also (and more hesitantly) the shape of the cabinet. Sonus faber cabinets, often wrongly dismissed as bling, are designed to break down internal standing waves (hence the shape) and to be non-resonant (hence the sandwich construction using solid wood). A perfect marriage of form and function, IMO.

By the same token the BBC 'thin wall' design has its own sound signature, which does some things well, but not others.

:cheers:

Matt

 

[Diamond Joe]

As an amateur semiotician,

Hands up, who had to look up what semiotician meant?!!!

 

[CnoEvil]

Obviously this would, as your examples imply, only apply to speakers.

I'm not so sure.

I think other components often look like they will sound - eg, Pathos vs Cyrus.

I also suspect the Devialet sounds like it looks.....Clean, modern, precise and nicely judged, with no rough edges.

 

[matt49]

Obviously this would, as your examples imply, only apply to speakers.

I'm not so sure.

I think other components often look like they will sound - eg, Pathos vs Cyrus.

I also suspect the Devialet sounds like it looks.....Clean, modern, precise and nicely judged, with no rough edges.

I see where you're going. But I'd make a distinction. With the speakers, I'm talking about a causal link between the cabinet's construction and the sound. I think with the amps you're talking about an analogical connection.

You could build an amp that looked totally different from a Devialet, but if it had the same techonology inside, it would sound exactly the same. But that doesn't apply to speaker cabinets.

Having said that, there are good reasons why Devialet build their amps that way: a marriage of form and function. The stuff inside is mainly circuit boards, and circuit boards are flat (or flattish): the flat shape of the casing simply mirrors what's inside. Also the shape gives a relatively high ratio of surface area to volume, which is good for heat dissipation. And the heavy metal case helps with that too. The case is, by design, a heatsink.

Matt

 

[iQ Speakers]

You both obviously missed my earlier post! Caught up in black magic...

You can see, judge quality by the look. It can still be aesthetically challenged.

The Devialet uses it's looks to shout about its cutting edge differences.

 

[hammill]

As an amateur semiotician,

Hands up, who had to look up what semiotician meant?!!!

Umberto Eco (name of the rose, travels in hyperreality) is a semiotician, as is the crime solving priest Paulo Baldi in the eponymous radio drama.

 

[hammill]

As an amateur semiotician,

Hands up, who had to look up what semiotician meant?!!!

Umberto Eco (name of the rose, travels in hyperreality) is a semiotician, as is the crime solving priest Paulo Baldi in the eponymous radio drama.

 

[matt49]

You both obviously missed my earlier post! Caught up in black magic...

You can see, judge quality by the look. It can still be aesthetically challenged.

The Devialet uses it's looks to shout about its cutting edge differences.

Yes, Boggit, you're right.

Devialet had (and has) a lot of money behind it and has been able to create a superb design that sets it apart from the crowd and looks stunning. No doubt many people have bought Devialets because they look ravishing, though they also happen to have bought a piece of cutting edge technology that sounds awesome.

Funnily enough, my main system consists of two beautiful pieces of kit: Devialet and Sonus faber. How much did the appearance have to do with my decision to buy them? I don't know. But I'm very happy.

:cheers:

Matt

 

[iQ Speakers]

I don't think the Devialet would have created so much "buzz" if it had of looked normal.

Then again it's lack of large capacitors meant it could, and voilà you have one unique looking and functioning products.

So there, very similar to the origional iPhone.

 

[JMacMan]

Steve Jobs had the right idea ....

You already said it!

Before Steve Jobs, it was all about tech specs and not much about the looks. Mainly because the initial bunch of customers for computers are mostly techies (no offense, I am an engineer too!) but with the internet boom, computers have become essential and the market opened up for people who are willing to dig deeper into pockets if looks can match the tech specs.

In case of HiFi, my current favourite company, B&O does exactly the same as Apple does. But keeping few asides (like Devialet), the way the companies see the consumers for HiFi, especially beyond 500 Pound mark (just a random start point), are the one who care more about the tech specs over the look & appeal.

Except two of my friends, none others are keen on HiFi spending. They are fine buying a much expensive car which will depreciate alot more than HiFi, even when they do not need/use the kind of the power but just buy the way they look.

HiFi is not as big a market as we want to be and not as essetial like a car or a computer. So, the changes, especially in the direction of aesthetics, if at all happen, then it will be at snail pace.

If I have to bet, then it will be on newer brands like Devialet, Oppo, Vivid to breath freshness into design rather than a traditional company making a sudden paradigm shift and focussing on aesthetics. B&O is a traditional design/style focussed company and it is already way ahead than any possible close competition.

I have come across severeal posters (and actual consumers of HiFi), all over internet, ready to dismiss B&O even with out hearing them once, just because they look too stylish and expensive to buy. May be this set of the consumers (who are unwilling to even listen to some thing out of their comfort zone) is the largest pie of the actual consumers of HiFi and the traditional HiFi companies retain their designs (read as ugly boxes) not to loose their customer base.

In all fairness, some of the traditional designs do look very beautiful.

As I own current B&O kit (and am thoroughly delighted with it on all counts) I have to agree with your points wholeheartedly!

I effectively made a decision just on a year ago to make a clean sheet start with a new system, where the priorities for me were natural and authentic sound, modern, yet timless and classic aesthetics, minmal box, rack and cable count, a combined AV/stereo/multi-channel system capble of playing all modern media, peerless R&D, engineering and service/backup behind the product/company, and intelligent use of technologies such as to serve the needs of the end user, rather than expecting the end user to accomodate the technology, and last but not least, to be as free of audiophile hype, voodoo and pseudo science as possible.

Having owned separates with all the attendant HIFi paraphernalia for many decades, it's undoubtedly not only the very best system I've ever owned on sonic grounds (and one of the best I've ever heard) but the ownership satisfaction on all levels is an absolute joy.

Addressing the topic directly, I do find that part of the pleasure of ownerhip is tied in with the aesthetics - absolutely.

As an example, I used to own a Sony CRT Trinitron TV. I could never really complain about the picture much, but it was such an ugly, hulking grey plastic box in the room and I often loathed its aesthetic look, whilst loving the picture quality, and in part because of this, was never quite 110% satisfied as an overall ownership satisfaction thing, and sometimes questioned what I'd paid for it.

Whereas, with the new B&O TV, besides the stunning picture and sound quality, I just often find myself metaphorically drooling with pleasure at the look of the thing when it's turned off, which only cements in my mind, the pleasure of ownership, and the feeling that money spent on the system, has been very well spent indeed.

I could not be happier, as all my hopes/requirements for a new, clean sheet system have been met, and from an ownership experience POV, could not recommend the brand highly enough to those who may have an interest.

JMac 8)

 

[chebby]

We live in a society that - generally - still holds the visual arts in very low regard. Students of art and design are still thought to be on a 'bit of a skive' compared to those studying 'real' subjects (like accountancy or chemistry) and many still consider any care for (or interest in) aesthetics as 'arty farty'.

I think we distrust good design that goes beyond the purely functional and that we have a feeling that great looks (and attention to details in finish and materials) must be diverting money away from something more important. As someone said earlier, "style over substance". Our distrust of pleasing design is inherent in that, very commonly used, phrase. It implies something stylish can't also have equal substance and that you must choose one or the other.