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).
128x128Ag insider logo xs@2xshadorne

Showing 1 response by jond

I love great looking gear, but it has to sound great too! Some great examples of this are Hovland, Art Audio, and well, I guess that's it. Actually I think that Wavac looks pretty good too, and I love the way Sonus Faber speakers look as well. Also for sources how about Audio Aero or Audiomeca? Well I think with that bunch of gear you could put together a very nice system, eh?