|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.182.27.248
With the exception of couple (Italian) companies why no one cares how loudspeakers look? The most prominent piece of equipment will sit in the middle of your room - most are black monolithic boxes, or worse yet, ugly super-expensive coffins with the Ferrari paint on them. Maybe the hiend would gain more popularity if the manufacturers have more 'style' or wives and girlfriends would be more receptive to your next purchase...
I built some of the most ugliest speakers, ever developed (copies of the Wilson watt/puppies). I am tired of looking at them, and will instead of buying the new pair - recycle them into the piece of art! Why not?
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
Follow Ups:
-t
From the annals of "What Were They Thinking".
nt
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
For dynamic speakers, almost any time designers try to get away from a box the result is awful.
B&O have almost always managed to make smart looking speakers.
The cowpushers were pretty fuggin' hideous... sounded great though, the baffle shape with floor reinforcement worked really nicely.
Bass is supposed to sound big. 6.5" is not a woofer size.
(nt)
I'm hot and I also have a blue eyed blond lady audiophile friend with stats she would make you wish you where young again. But your mostly right sad old men hiding in dark rooms by themselves. Wringing there hands and gnashing there teeth always wanting more'my precious,my precious'.
Everybody over 40 starts to rot...what is the average age of the "audiophile"?
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
nt.
walking around the last audio show that was here made me wonder what is wrong with these people?
Do we belong to the fattest hobbyist group of all?
.
Which is the best place to be IMHO.
"Happy Listening,
Teresa."
But I haven't attended lately. I gave up pipe smoking twelve years ago when my teeth started falling out.
.
E
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
Edits: 07/31/12
These are the most God Awful looking speakers I think I have ever seen.
Thanks for the laugh though!
;-)
PS So do you consider the Sonus Faber Stradivari speakers ugly then?
(I assume so, because I consider them to be gorgeous, and we obviously have opposite tastes.)
nt
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
Edits: 08/02/12
.
You must have seen them on Audiogon?
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
years ago ( can't find it on a Google right now).
Some (not like yours;-) were nicely done.
hmmm...
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
I am really enjoying the Dynaudio Focus 260s, which I'm home auditioning and listening to as I type. The sound captivates me, and they just happen to be slim and elegant looking. I heard the 160s at a friends house in a smaller room and loved them. I cannot afford the ugly Dynaudios, so these will have to do!
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
Beauty is in the price.
Cheers
Bill
Check out Linkwitz Orions,look good and sound fantastic.
...the
A better example>
...after he bought my speakers, "Get those butt-ugly things out of my living room!"
Speakers should be heard not seen
~~~
The Driver smiled when he lost the car in pursuit accelerating out of the S turn...
.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Sumflow, if that pedestal is the speaker, all it needs is a small piece of art glass or metalwork on tope, and it would be excellent!
What, me ugly?
I throw my windows open wide and call to you across the sky.
but I think they look great. They have no grilles. But the blue hemp mid/woofer cone looks good in my room because the front wall is blue. And the Makassar ebony finish is beautiful. Me personally, I appreciate a fine looking wood speaker.
I am not fond of plastic looking or glossy speakers. But to each his own, and if the sound was amazing that would take precedence for me.
Steve
We had an old house with a basement a while back and I said "Screw it" and drilled holes below the Hi Fi and right behind the backs of the speakers and had no VCL (visible cable lines.)
I called them Astor holes!
Ha! Great minds... I did the same thing back in about '72. Ran speaker cables to four rooms, and built a little RCA jack patch panel since the amp only had Speaker A and B outputs. Chicks dug my setup.
*
People look nice naked not speakers, put on your grill cloth!
"Happy Listening,
Teresa."
Unmatched construction quality, no-expense-spared drivers and crossovers (50 $bucks total for the pair) and custom grilling...errr...grill guards
LIBERTY ONCE LOST,
IS LOST FOREVER
-JOHN ADAMS
Visually opaque, acoustically transparent. Those just look bizarre, I like the price though. But they could never share a room with me, they are way too ugly! Sorry.
"Happy Listening,
Teresa."
LIBERTY ONCE LOST,
IS LOST FOREVER
-JOHN ADAMS
.
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
They do not come with grills nor are any offered.
I throw my windows open wide and call to you across the sky.
Heard it at the mid-West Audio Fest back in '01 or '02 that was close to the best sound at the show.
LIBERTY ONCE LOST,
IS LOST FOREVER
-JOHN ADAMS
These are the Kismet reference speakers. They are based on the Lorelei, but have a much more substantial crossover, and I think the dimensions are a little bigger,
I throw my windows open wide and call to you across the sky.
"Happy Listening,
Teresa."
.
First in my opinion speaker drivers should be "heard" not "seen". Grill cloths that are acoustically transparent but visually opaque are mandatory in my book.
I find it unacceptable if I can see any of the speaker elements, next it must be visually appealing, nice woods and non-box shaped. My speakers have beveled edges, which are visually appealing and helps minimize diffraction. They look good in the room and match the decor.
"Happy Listening,
Teresa."
Is there any such thing as acoustically transparent grille cloth ? Personally I have never had a pair of speakers that didn't sound better with the grilles off. The only exeption was a pair with very bright treble where the cloth helped to dampen the top end.
Properly designed speakers have a response inverse to the grill's dampening effect. ..ask Vandersteen, he recommends leaving the grills in position because of this very fact.
What makes that a "properly designed speaker"? At best it is just one design philosophy, perhaps he realises his speakers are too in your face and need some damping down. Whatever the reason, it is testament to the fact that grill-cloth alters the sound of a speaker.
If you can't see through the cloth the sound wave can't propagate through it unimpeded.
"Is there any such thing as acoustically transparent grille cloth ? Personally I have never had a pair of speakers that didn't sound better with the grilles off. "
These are core points with regard to the use of speaker coverings.
"Better" is a subjective term.
I, for one, would love to see some measurements of various coverings with regard to their sound transmission characteristics.
I can't believe that we're here in 2012, and still haven't got a handle on this simple issue.
Do you mean as stylish as Sear's furniture?
But, the Nautilus has exposed drivers.
Image is the Rithm speaker.
While all shell shaped and what not, the B&W Nautilus was really the only B&W I'd heard that floated my boat sonically.
See ya. Dave
"Grill cloths that are acoustically transparent but visually opaque are mandatory in my book. I find it unacceptable if I can see any of the speaker elements, next it must be visually appealing, nice woods and non-box shaped. "
10-4 on that. It's always puzzled me why so many grill coverings are black or at least very dark. I can understand it for a road concert system, where one goal often is to make the speakers blend in with the darkness surrounding the stage, but for home use it makes no sense and it sticks out like a sore thumb in many/most cases. And I think most of the woods I've seen are too dark. Light oak, teak, medium walnut, etc., are better choices in my opinion. Lighten up! :) 'Course, some of the more edgy paint jobs (red, for example) go perfectly with some contemporary decors.
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
Edits: 07/31/12
Most of the forum threads (all over the internet) listing "best looking speakers" have the same entries as those listing "most ugly speakers."
...and describe them, what they really look like ;)
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
I do make comments when I find the design particularly good or bad but, since I do not think that we all share the same aesthetic sense, I prefer to let the pictures speak directly.
nt
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
...compared to this one, most every other loudspeaker is gorgeous.
It could be the sister of Rosie from the Jetsons.
Speaker drivers should be "heard" not "seen". And ugly drivers like those should be banned as gaudy.
"Happy Listening,
Teresa."
You don't like wilson, but most speakers are not black monolithic boxes. Not by a long shot. How many high-end speakers are only available as black monolithic boxes? It's a preposterous claim.
If people would rather get the best performance for the money they will gravitate towards companies that don't spend a lot of time and money making their speakers look pretty. Almost everyone is on a budget so it makes sense to buy something where a small proportion of the cost is going to aesthetics.
Everything doesn't need to be about pleasing wives and girlfriends. Chances are she's already making almost all the decisions about how the house is decorated. If she can't handle one spot where they guy has his stuff then she's a selfish brat and he's better off without her. When did it become normal for every decision about everything to be contingent on female approval?
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
The NHT evolution T6 was made to have the very best performance possible for $4,000. They're just a 100% performance oriented product and they certainly don't need an excuse for that. If I remember right they were the only Stereophile class A speaker at anywhere near that price. They're also long discontinued. Anybody who can afford the Wilson's can probably also afford a dedicated room.
at $3000!
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
It's not really a fair comparison. The NHT's were a legitimately full-range, 4 way design. The cheapest full-range Stereophile class A speaker this year is 16k.
A - Restricted Extreme LF along with Martin Logan Ascent: $4495, Harberth Super HL5: $3995. Regardless of the performance, they are hideous - and I'd take any of the mentioned (or any other class) speakers before them. There is a reason why they were discontinued, despite front page cover and excellent review.The "cheapest" A - Full range that year was Avantgarde Uno 3.0 11,970 - $13,970
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
Edits: 08/01/12 08/01/12
the NHTs were the cheapest class A full range speaker by far were they not? Your totalitarianism is creepy. Nobody's saying you have to buy ugly speakers but if somebody wants the absolute best performance they can get on a moderate budget they might choose the NHTs or some other performance oriented product. The NHTs being discontinued is just a sign of how full of crap most audiophiles are. If audio is so important why is audio performance not the deciding factor?
...I have the April issue when they were reviewed by JA. They made class A restricted LF! Avantgarde were the cheapest class A FULL range.
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
Ok, I didn't realize they weren't full-range. You'd think with 4 12" woofers they could qualify as full-range. They're still a fantastic deal. I think opinions would vary as to whether the Martin Logan's are actually better looking. The Harbeth's are pretty plain looking boxes themselves and I'm sure not capable of comparable volume or bass output.
All this arguing has me thinking I should try to find a used pair cheap just for fun. I bet they're under 2k used when they come up. What a deal! It'd be great to have some big ugly black boxes that can really rock sitting around the house.
.
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
That picture does not look like four 12 inch woofers to me.With four 12 inch woofers that model wouldn't have restricted LF, so with the number and size of the woofers and the picture taken makes me think you two are talking about two entirely different Harberth speaker models.
"Happy Listening,
Teresa."
Edits: 08/02/12
...together with Harberth Super HL5. You were right I posted the wrong Harbeth...
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
Many people have commented how good my speakers sound and look..
Here's another shot of my speakers
That picture reminds me of fracking.
~~~
The Driver smiled when he lost the car in pursuit accelerating out of the S turn...
Thye might sound like crap. but that is a different issue.
I guess MOST of the high end audio buyers buy for sound performance rather than just plain good looks.
Whatmough's Paragon is ugly, but the smaller ones are nice. See my profile.
Unfortunately, Colin W died, don't know whether the company will keep as vibrant. They didn't distribute here after 2005, but I got a pr of the older 303's.
I wouldn't mind having them :)
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
Couldn't find those but here's a modern day attempt at hiding speakers.
Or the best example I know of form following function with artfully made boxes
LIBERTY ONCE LOST,
IS LOST FOREVER
-JOHN ADAMS
My C&C Abbys work better aesthetically in a fairly large room like mine (17 X 35 w/ cathedral ceilings) that they might in an 8 x 12 w/8 ft ceilings.
"Apparently, people now believe that mental telepathy is the foundation of communication and magic is the source of daily events. Consequently, we no longer have to participate in our own lives."
But I too tire of overly small boxes slim towers wee woofers and pictures of wood over MDF. I would say one similarity in loudspeakers is basically the same company builds most all the cabinets used today. To me same old same old design = boring and boring is never much fun is it?
Edits: 07/30/12
aren't aware that the "room dividers", aka stats are speakers. :)
But who wants to look at 2 very wrongly placed [aesthetically] room dividers?
instead of looking.
I couldn't agree more.
I owned many E stats. Never had 1 + comment on looks. Many did think them room dividers or screens. Did enjoy the sound at the time but today prefer horns. I do have 2 friends who are enjoying stats.
Never had 1 + comment on looks
They don't *see* them at all.
Have had - comments. Kind of hard to miss them. You are talking proper sized stats? Not wee hybrids or vintage.
and judge for yourself.
Your right completely invisible ;)
The only thing that is worse than an ugly speaker is a speaker that is designed to be attractive for no other reason than to be so. As long as there exists science behind the looks of a speaker I have no problems and dont care how the speaker looks. I think that the looks of components are a distraction from the true purpose of the piece and force manufacturers into making decisions about design that contribute to higher prices.
...but doesn't deliver? There is absolutely no reason for not accomplishing both - performance and style! And I am talking about loudspeakers only.
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
Please tell me what you would consider objective about opinions on style or performance. To me a standard box enclosure looks fine, but has any number of intrinsic performance problems simply by virtue of the shape. When you make speakers out of just about any material that isnt exotic you run into a whole slew of additional problems. I like the appearance of wood but not what it contributes to the sound of a speaker. A perfect example of a speaker that is ugly but has sound logic behind its shape and cabinet materials are the Vivids.
.
"Happy Listening,
Teresa."
The mid century modern speakers I linked would look super in our living room which is a mix-match of styles.
my Infinity Reference Kappa 7's is cause they are pretty with their grill cloths on. I only remove the grill cloths to dust the speakers, then I put them back on.
I also like the look of the original Bose 601's I used to own, also with grill cloths on.
And the KLH Little Barons with the glass tops, again with grill cloths on.
There are others but this will give a clue as to what I think is pretty in a loudspeaker that actually matches other fine wood furniture.
What I didn't like about the Eames is the circular grill cloth for the woofer and the exposed horn tweeter. Sorry.
"Happy Listening,
Teresa."
.
I prefer a speaker thats either a box/rectangle shape or a circle or the scandyna michelin man speakers.. or even the tall slender silver columns made by B&O, athough the latter.. were designed for looks.
One can design them based on appearances or visual expectations, one can design them based on the acoustic principals that governs how sound behaves, the latter being invisible, poorly defined and also heavily influenced by folk lore.
Even commercial sound is heavily influenced by folk lore and so concerts sound like concerts but hifi is possible on a large scale by adopting a different approach. Try a video with headphones, a sample recorded last week. This stadium is + - 3dB in level over the 80,000 seats.
.
"heavily influenced by folk lore"
Could you be more specific?
Sure, how about horns as they are generally used in hifi or the use of exotic materials used in hifi speakers while ignoring how sound propagates or the "Russian doll" nature of wavelengths spanning from 5/8 inch to > 50 feet.
In every area of sound reproduction the generation loss test was an audible indicator of how faithful a device is to the input signal yet most loudspeakers fail miserably at just one generation, few go two or three before sounding dreadful.
They are the weakest link by far.
Best,
Tom
If I recall, They made it to the fourth iteration before frequency response aberrations became severe.
Hi
The ESL-63 could, that and the Manger were about the two best loudspeakers in time i have ever measured. Multi-way systems normally do not preserve wave shape due to the "all pass" phase nature of normal crossovers and acoustically separate sources interacting. DSP can be used to 'fix" that but it only works at one single location, also due to having separate source distances.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: