I for one must admit that the cosmetics or design of components and speakers is important to me. I appreciate a beautiful looking system as much as a beautiful sounding system. I think it is safe to assume that if two systems where sonically equal, all of us would choose the one that we found to be more attractive. However, two components are rarely identical sonically speaking. So I am curious to what degree each of us values the appearance of a component.

I for one, must pick "Moderately". I appreciate the appearance of my systems greatly, and would even give up a small amount of sound quality if I could make a significant improvement in appearance. For this reason I have mildly mixed emotions on my Klipsch Forte II speakers. Sonically I find them wonderful. Visually they are a bit boring. They are simple traditional box speakers. Being near mint condition helps, but if their sound wasn't such a huge improvement over the B&W DM 602 S3s they replaced, they probably would not be in my home office. Give me a pair of B&W CDM 1NTs, and things might look differently. I still think the Forte IIs would have the edge sonically, but the gap would be smaller and the much improved looks of the CDM 1NTs (especially w/o the grills) would probably win them a place of honor in my home office.

I am in interested in everyone's opinion. But please note... I realize that beauty, both sonically and visually, is in the eye of the beholder. This is not a question of what we think is beautiful, rather how much we value one characteristic vs. another.

Rob

If a unit sounds great and have great looks, the better. If not, doesn't bother me much if it sounds great.

A tiny bit thrown off from the descriptions, but I prefer my gear to be around a 7 or 8 condition-wise, and do like it to look good as well, though sound is the end-all.

So, when I pick up gear, I prefer it to look good as I need to live with it on a daily basis, but it absolutely must sound great.

I dont really care what it looks like, but I can say that cause my stuff is in almost perfect condition, and is a serious chick magnet it looks so good. but I just got lucky.

I dont mind something that is beat up, that has a whole different aspect, because if someone see's it, and then they hear it and go, that looks like crap, but sounds great.

elroy

for me is sound comes first. the better the sound, the more willing i'm able to ignore the cosmetics.

Interesting question. I always looks for best sound quality AND good build quality. I've found that well engineered audio products tend to have a look of quality that I find attractive. For example, who can deny that Mark B's Yamaha Millenium amp looks great because of the depth of engineering?

I didn't vote because I must honestly say that my perception of what's important has changed since 1979 when I first bought my system, and now.

Although I was impressed with the sound of my Sansui gear back then, I would be lying to say that the appearance of the four black and white rack mount pieces didn't enter into the equation.

I guess I'm lucky I got a little (lot) of both when I made my choice. I know that there's stuff out there that can run rings around my system, but I'm totally happy with what I have.

(I went back and voted "moderately")

To me looks do enter into the equation slightly, but I must admit to owning some butt ugly pieces that sound good and really like them. So I suppose I can like the looks of a piece but also enjoy the sonic abilities of a piece.

I think we can all agree that we like to look at beautiful women but that does not mean that is the one we would marry.

Jim

To me, cosmetics play a part, but a secondary one. When I first entered the realm of "high-end" and purchased Luxman equipment, I was not only impressed with the performance of the stuff, but blown away by the cosmetics - the heavy, cast metal faceplate, knobs and switches, but especially the rosewood cases. Now, all of my electronics are flat black with few controls: plain, but not necessarily ugly.

If cosmetics were of primary importance to all of us, then I suspect we'd all own B&O equipment. All of it glorious looking, and preposterously overpriced insofar as performance, but what looks!

It is nice to see the warm glow of tubes; it has to sound good. looks aren't important it's the sound that counts.

I would have to say that anything I own for gear has to sound good and it has to look good too. No way would I have anything with bare chassis or unfinished wood, scratched up faceplates or broken pieces, flaking paint or burnt out bulbs. I've even pounded out dents on bottom steel panels, because I knew the dents were there and I hated the fact that it wasn't as good as it could be. Even looking at my cracked TT dustcover annoys me every time I see it, because I remember how the cracks got there (burglary attempt).

Ok I voted, but now to qualify it. I said no importance. If it sounds good thats the real key. However I would be real reluctant to purchase a piece that is in poor physical condition. The way I see it, if the person abused the cosmetics, then they didn't treat it well in general, and it could have all kinds of performance issues. So the used gear I buy(which is most of what I own) needs to be in excellent condition. I have been fortunate to buy several pristine pieces, so the appearance of my stereo is quite tidy. One exception is the top of my Nikko Gamma 1 tuner. It has several small chips to the paint. Front plate is perfect, as is its performance. But I wouldn't mind finding a way to refinish the top. However there is some factory printing on top that would be lost, so I am unsure on how to refresh it.

Regards
Mister Pig