Hi douglas,
I agree that a highly aesthetic product will tend to come with high build quality (though...even that, depending on interpretation...may be something of a tautology).
I simply meant to point out that most audiophiles in this forum would be quite aware of the divide between aesthetics and sound quality.
As in most areas of consumer products aesthetics and performance are expected to go hand in hand.
Sure. But the audiophile community - such as those in this forum - generally comprises people very picky about sound quality. It’s long been obvious, and often a point of contention by audiophiles, that mere good looks
don’t provide good sound quality. That is after all why audiophiles tend to disparage nice looking, life-style products - e.g. bose, beats headphones etc and others - as style over sound quality.
Only use of hundreds of audio components has revealed what I consider a significant departure from the aesthetics and performance linkage.
Again...it hardly takes experience with hundreds of audio components to notice the disparity between looks and performance. It’s been noticed by most audiophiles for a long time. It was quickly obvious to me when I got heavily into high end audio in the 90’s, and my long experience since with many products wan’t necessary to augment that conclusion. It’s true now the same way it was true when I first got into this hobby.
And most audiophiles - again of the type that inhabit discussions like these - have had long experience hearing lots of different equipment - from their own, friends, at audio shows, dealers, etc. We all have "boy this looks nicely made" but "wow that was disappointing sound" experiences.
I can’t imagine - and I see no evidence - that anyone in this thread is under the misapprehension that good looks entails good sound. Whether we are talking speakers or any other gear.