[Hershon2000]

My post is serious & wasn't meant as criticism. I usually go to sites like this for forums & reviews but my sole interest is to find any equipment or accessories that will make my system sound better, provided I can afford it. Unlike women, looks of equipment really isn't important to me unless it sticks out like a sore thumb. The problem I personally have is, I see very little that specifically addresses the sound quality or what is so special about the sound quality when I read both reviews & posts online & most of the comments have to do with appearence & build. I'm still not exactly sure what is meant by build. From my personal experience, I've never had anything electronically that I bought new break down on me for at least 5 years, so that to me isn't a concern, if that's what is meant as built. I've also never had any electronic things fall or get hit by accident. So whether something is built like a tank or a paperweight is irrelevant to me.

 

[kuma]

Interesting.

I never thought of Naim as *bling*.
It's antithesys of it.

Grado 'fones are undoubtedly cheaply made yet their special personality makes up more than its humble appearance.

 

[Nerull]

Well, my M^3 is in a plywood box. And it pissed me off every time I looked at it, so I went and got a different box. Sound quality is of course the main concern, but if something is ugly as all hell or cosmetically unsound, it's definately not pleasant. I mean, you should at least have it cosmetically look the way it sounds. It shows the quality that was invested in a product / project, it means that they / you cared enough to make it look pretty inside and out. Which is why I'm making my M^3 pretty, even if it's totally functional.

~Tom

 

[JJ15k]

I have to say that I have felt that in a lot of threads, the poster was focusing on build, appearance because he couldn t hear the difference with his previous equipment.but even reviews like that are informative

 

[tankdriver]

It's just not true that good looking is more important than its sound. I think I speak here for the most, maybe for all Head-Fiers.

For sure this phenomene exists, but at this bunch of people who spending thousands on BOSE or BANG&OLUFSEN. For this companies its all about selling more and more, and good looking gear sells good. Combined with wrong consultation at their shops they make big business.

For me the looking of my gear isn't unimportant (watch my profile), but the sound decides. The nice appearance and well built is a nice gift I think.

 

[Kirosia]

Cmon, we all know looks > sound. How am I supposed to attract the sexy ladies with something that's butt ugly?

 

[Glod]

I believe the American expression is: the proof is in eating the pudding.

To me it is not that important if the eggs are coming from a farm where the hens could walk freely and lay eggs here and there, nor am I particular concerned about if the flower was genetically engineered

. No - to me politics nor popular science matter much when I take in art related impressions via my five sense. I am only interested in if the product in question is in line with my preferences: does it taste good - sound good?

Thus, my recommendation is: attend a meet, go listen to a friends system. Read all there is about your interest at Head-Fi.org.

Trust your own senses.

[size=xx-small]BTW. Eggs by un-stressed hens taste better - IMO i.e.

[/size]

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hershon2000 The problem I personally have is, I see very little that specifically addresses the sound quality or what is so special about the sound quality when I read both reviews & posts online & most of the comments have to do with appearence & build.

You must read different posts than I do, or you interpret them differently than I do. I see tons and tons of posts regarding the sound quality of various components on this forum, from lengthy posts about sound of the K701 vs. the H650, about the sound quality of various amps, about the sound of various CD players, turntables and cartridges, to posts about the sound quality of various cables and power conditioners and whether they make a difference,etc., etc. In fact, while people do often comment on the looks of things, it is amazing to me that someone thinks we don't talk a lot, ad nauseum sometimes, about sound quality. Are you sure you got the right forum?

 

[Hershon2000]

To clarify for the third time, my comments were directed in general to audio sites in general not just this one. In regards to this one, the only forum I read is that of Dedicated Source Components & you can consider my comments directed to that forum as well as other websites. I stand by my remarks, that a majority of what is written on this forum, is not directed towards the actual audio quality or how the audio quality is an improvement over something else. Instead most of the posts concentrate on cosmetic appearence & built. I still don't know what built means or the purpose of built & how this might relate to audio quality (which is not saying it doesn't). To tell me something is built like a tank or something is somewhat flimisly built means nothing to my current frame of reference other then it means something is easier to externally damage by the product falling or being hit which has never happened to me. I've never had any stereo or home theater product with the exception of DVD players & recorders that I've purchased new, not last at least 3-5 years, so I really am not interested in things like that. Again my comments weren't meant as a person attack but just to understand what the purpose is on some of the posts. They almost seem like pissing contests to me.

 

[Fitz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hershon2000 I stand by my remarks, that a majority of what is written on this forum, is not directed towards the actual audio quality or how the audio quality is an improvement over something else.

We're definitely reading different versions of Head-Fi. I don't browse the dedicated source section much, but I just looked through most of the threads currently on the 1st page of it, and I still can't see what you're talking about. There were a few where the first post was mostly just pictures and comments on the build quality / appearance and had impressions further along as they actually had time to listen to the kit, but it was far from the majority and they still overall had more discussion on the SQ than build. Do you have several links to some examples where people are more concerned about everything but sound quality?

The main time I only really see emphasis on build quality / appearance is in special cases like: DIY builds, when new kit somes out that few people (if anybody) has actually been able to listen to yet, and when somebody gets something new and posts some quick pictures before they've listened to it thoroughly enough to comment. Beyond that there's usually much more focus on SQ. Or at least the Head-Fi I've been reading is.

 

[mypasswordis]

I don't get how you *can* get taken seriously when you make comments like your last one, comparing what we do to 'pissing contests'. We definitely do not value looks over sound quality, especially seeing as how some of us spend thousands of dollars on equipment. No, these people do not pay thousands of dollars of their hard-earned money just to have cool looking gadgets lying around the house

We talk about build quality because we're afraid our expensive equipment might all of a sudden stop working. I don't see what's wrong with that.

 

[Hershon2000]

Well I personally don't see the point about posting pictures up before they've heard the damn things. As to the other guy who's totally defensive, if the shoe fits, wear it. I wasn't personally criticising anyone but I totally stand by my remarks. Alot of the posts on here seem to be bragging about their new equipment without saying what's so special about the equipment in terms of sound quality. I don't mind them bragging as long as I know what they're bragging about in regards to audio quality. Or if they do mention sound quality its almost secondary to their post. Again for the millionth time, and you can take this as a personal criticism, I've repeatedly asked what do you mean by build & how does it effect sound quality, and I haven't gotten one straight answer. In regards to things breaking down by natural means which you seem to think is a concern & that build quality will effect, how many of you have actually bought new equipment where there actually was equipment failure within say a 3 year period, excluding any defections in the first month caused by defective equipment? If you're talking about dropping equipment or physically damaging equipment your accidently damaged, sorry I don't identify with that at all & that has never even remotely happened to me & should be of no consideration whatsoever.

 

[Garbz]

Build affecting sound quality only really concerns CDplayer and the plugs on equipment. For instance I used to run Eichmann speaker cables. They sounded nice but the build quality was horrible. Often they didn't make a good electrical contact so I clipped the connectors off and soldered some spades i had on.

With regards to actual equipment not accessories CDplayers usually the heavier the better, same with turntables. In these cases build quality is directly reflected in the sound they put out. There's a reason NAIM's CD5x weighs as much as their poweramp, and it's not only because of the oversized transformer they use.

But the mear existance of Bang and Olufsen (well less so since their products sound good too) and Bose show that integration into the lifestyle is a big decider in purchasing. I won't buy any ugly speakers regardless of how they sound. Especially since everything sounds so similar. And what I mean by that is that you can easily find the same quality of sound in a different component.

 

[Hershon2000]

Thanks for the explanation

 

[dudlew]

As for build quality. I have alot of personal experience with build quality, and its always the cheap stuff that broke.

I had a Sharp Optonica system once where the cd section stopped working 1 month after the one year warranty was up. I had a Sony cd changer that went tempermental after six months. If I stopped using it for a few weeks it worked fine, but after a few hours it stopped reading cds. ANY cds. I also had a Sony discman that went berserk on me after working fine for a few months.

Everything of decent quality that I have bought since has worked flawlessly. Also build quality also has to do with the parts used inside. An amp can be built with cheap everything, and the circuit board layout williy nillie and it will work. but use decent parts, have a well laid out circuit board, and proper shielding, power supplies etc, and you have an amp that will not just sound better but will last longer. This is seen more in the pro world than in the home audio world where if you are serious about sound reinforcment, you wont have Nippon America or Pyramid amps as your mainstay, cause everything about them is cheap. You get QSC, Crown, Bryston, because they are bult better and as a result last longer and sound better too.

So is this clear enough for you Hershon? Build quality matters. It may not always affect sound quality, but more often than not it does, because something put together well, will work better and last longer than something put together hodge podge.

D