Ugly vs Gogeous speakers


I know speakers should be all about sound but I can't help responding to the look as well and this presents me with a dilemma.

I have owned B&W Nautilus 803's for many years and love the sound and value (excellent sound for reasonable cost). I would love to upgrade but I (and wife) think that the retro Star Wars R2D2 looking speaker (802) is nothing we would have in our living space.

What do others think the best looking / sounding speaker is? Do looks matter to you?

128x128jyprez
@rsf507 

Vivid are ugly - trying to pretend a speaker is a musical instrument or something a giant dog might leave behind is not my idea of aesthetics.
I heard one audiophile say the big Wilson's looked like a stack of ill assorted boxes....
I have owned B&W 801's, 802's, Magnaplanar, 
I now have KEF Ref. 3 and love them.
Excellent sound and beautiful to look at.
@mgattmch I've never seen those before very cool and mid-century modern! In a similar vein there is a Scandinavian speaker maker whose name escapes me that makes a speaker in that shape. It has a bit of an Eames chair look to it and is in wood.
I want the best performance for the money.  Looks aren't entirely irrelevant but they're way down the priorities list.  I definitely agree that vandersteen has the right idea with the cloth exterior with just a little bit of wood.  It looks fine but you aren't paying a lot for a fancy finish. 
More to discover