HiFi and looks

[Gusboll]

As can be seen from my kit, looks are not an issue (PMC's are quite pretty), but I do like some of the Primare gear:

 

[Anonymous]

the thread (and AB test you are referring to) you are referring to is very telling.

Yes it is, in so many ways.

Which AB test would that be? Or have I misunderstood the British sense of humour again?

I can't link it, as it breaks house rules, but if you google "Macbook-based active X-over" you should find it.

I hope that doesn't break house rules, apologies if so.

 

[lindsayt]

I seem to be in the minority.

By far my biggest priority is getting sound quality as good as anything ever made for the least amount of money.

Looks are highly subjective anyway.

I take pleasure in buying world class components that many people wouldn't buy because of their unconventional or unfashionable looks because that often means that I can buy them for very affordable prices because there's less people bidding for them.

I can't think of any hi-fi components that I would class as ugly. Ugly in the way that Boris Karloff's Frankenstein's monster is ugly. I can see beauty in well engineered components. Beauty in the form following function.

My hi-fi is just a tool. A tool for getting the best sound from my records as possible. To give me the most enjoyment possible when spending the time to listen to them.

The beauty to me in a good hi-fi system is how beautiful it makes my records sound. If the hi-fi component makes them sound ugly then no matter how beautiful it may be to look at, that component will always remain ugly to me.

I can understand why people want to have a beautiful or handsome wife or husband. That's logical, because of the biological aspects of a romantic relationship. With hi-fi on the other hand, I'm not going to kiss or cuddle or make love with it.

I try not to be an illogical, superficial, shallow person. Which means that attractive, fashionable looks in my hi-fi are not a priority for me.