I really don't care much about looks. My room is an aesthetic disaster, so putting a lot of effort into the looks of my equipment really isn't a priority. I'll buy a butt-ugly piece of gear if it's sonically superior to a pretty unit. Fortunately, my gear is both good-looking and -sounding, so I guess I'm lucky in that regard.
How important is the Look in audiophile gear?
I saw a post today about B&O. Some were dissing this gear as just made to look good. I was about to do some dissing myself and then I wondered how much of the cost of other high end audio gear might be down to the "Look"? (Impressive looking rather than boringly functional.)
Is the "Look" closer to 20% or 80% of the cost on ultra high end gear? How much are you willing to spend on "Look" relative to cost that goes into purely audible qualities? Does the "Look" give you a feeling of how amazingly good it should sound? Does "Look" enhance the listening experience in the same way a well presented meal is more enjoyable to eat?
Examples of "Look": large silvery tube amps openly exposed on a silvery mount, massive turntables with visible big wheels/levers/belts, shiny imposing isolation feet, exotic spikes and stands, ultra thick cables made from exotic materials, futuristic speaker shapes (other than a plain mdf box).
Is the "Look" closer to 20% or 80% of the cost on ultra high end gear? How much are you willing to spend on "Look" relative to cost that goes into purely audible qualities? Does the "Look" give you a feeling of how amazingly good it should sound? Does "Look" enhance the listening experience in the same way a well presented meal is more enjoyable to eat?
Examples of "Look": large silvery tube amps openly exposed on a silvery mount, massive turntables with visible big wheels/levers/belts, shiny imposing isolation feet, exotic spikes and stands, ultra thick cables made from exotic materials, futuristic speaker shapes (other than a plain mdf box).