[Skylab]

I prefer gear that looks nice, although the majority of my gear is just a "blinking black box" as far as my wife is concerned. And of course, sound quality is FAR more important.

That said, there is one component where looks are pretty important, but not as much for me as for the wife - speakers. Everyone sees these, not just me. While my speakers are huge by civilian standards, they are actually quite compact (given their 275 lb each weight) for a reference/statement loudspeaker. When I bought them, this DID factor in. My wife would not have accepted a truly ugly looking speaker. But I think the N800's look very nice:

 

[Mister Crash]

Aesthetics are very important to me, but what's becoming more important to me is size/weight. I'd like to keep things under a certain weight because I tend to move around a lot. Power amps that weigh 200 pounds each are troubling even to look at for me.

If something has fantastic sound quality and has looks that I find disagreeable, I would pass and try to find something that sounds just as good but looks better, even if it is more expensive.

 

[Hopstretch]

I enjoy the challenge of finding gear that both sounds good (to me) and looks good (to me). It's the cherry on top!

 

[vcoheda]

it helps if it looks nice.

 

[Acrog]

to bad that the best looking and best sounding components usually mean lots of $$$

 

[rosgr63]

Lean and Mean!

 

[Ferrari]

My main focus is SQ when I make (DIY) things, however at the same time I don’t ignore aesthetics.

If one can make something that’s good for the ears, why not make something that’s good for the eyes at the same time?

SQ and easthetics can be very good hand in hand, why not?

 

[milezone]

refinement and minimalism over functionless anonymous forms generating unnecessary costs.

 

[Clarkmc2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here's my kind of aesthetics:

Are those Cicadas? They must sound wonderful (I am prejudiced - a single driver fan) and look beautiful, nicely understated. The amp looks to be as aesthetically minimal as it is electrically minimal. Form follows function! As Moth speakers and amps climbed in price, they tended to be examples of what I was talking about. Click the thumbnails for what I consider seriously bad taste.

Are those 2A3s? The ultimate low power triode?

 

[Sherwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarkmc2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Are those Cicadas? They must sound wonderful (I am prejudiced - a single driver fan) and look beautiful, nicely understated. The amp looks to be as aesthetically minimal as it is electrically minimal. Form follows function! As Moth speakers and amps climbed in price, they tended to be examples of what I was talking about. Click the thumbnails for what I consider seriously bad taste. Are those 2A3s? The ultimate low power triode?

Cicadas they are, and 2a3s as well. While i can't confess to have extensive experience with any other triode than the 2a3 and 300b, I am extremely partial to them. 3 watts makes the cicadas sing just fine.

I'm glad you like them, but I must admit it's rather ironic -- I picked them up less than two weeks ago from their former home at Bradley college in Peoria, IL, no doubt less than 10 minutes from you.

 

[GuyDebord]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarkmc2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Are those Cicadas? They must sound wonderful (I am prejudiced - a single driver fan) and look beautiful, nicely understated. The amp looks to be as aesthetically minimal as it is electrically minimal. Form follows function! As Moth speakers and amps climbed in price, they tended to be examples of what I was talking about. Click the thumbnails for what I consider seriously bad taste. Are those 2A3s? The ultimate low power triode?

Man! that Moth gear is ugly as hell! thats over-designed retro NOT minimal!!!! and certainly NOT understated either!!!!
Only if it was the best of the best i would consider it (and I dont know)... those pictures sure help make a case for the OP's question...

 

[pedalhead]

I appreciate, and would prefer, good aesthetics in most things. But, quality of build, rather than aesthetics, comes first for me. Shoddy build quality in pretty much any product suggests to me that shoddy performance is likely. My home-built IB subwoofers are an exception to my rule though, as they sound incredible but look like they were thrown together by a monkey

.

 

[jcx]

where do power meters fit on functionality - frivolous eye candy axis?

any high end headphone amps with power meters ala McIntosh:

Product Details

Rackmount handles?

Glass as any part of case?

pointy cone feet - way not functional!

Someone's buying this stuff despite the professed "minimal/functional" aesthetic

 

[Sherwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuyDebord /img/forum/go_quote.gif Man! that Moth gear is ugly as hell! thats over-designed retro NOT minimal!!!! and certainly NOT understated either!!!! Only if it was the best of the best i would consider it (and I dont know)... those pictures sure help make a case for the OP's question...

It is pretty close to "the best of the best", especially at the crazy low prices Craig asked for it.

Nonetheless, those products are on the outer edge of gaudy for Moth. I personally prefer the look of MY moth gear, but it's an acquired taste for many.

 

[atothex]

I like the gaudy...
black box with blue light yawn shoot me now.