I think the look matters most when it comes to speakers. most of us are staring right at our speakers if we're in the sweet spot. I don't think I could ever live with gigantic panels (e.g.soundlabs) no matter how good they sounded. otherwise it should be said that good looking gear which doesn't sound great will be found out pretty much immediately and go the way of the dodo...
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).