This is the first time I’ve noticed your sarcasm. Very nice!
3 Likes
Sarcasm is irrelevant to the premise, doesn’t alter truth.
Ah, but its a chic magnet with expanding back seat, 
The trailer is great for hauling my new gear in from Kyomi Audio.
4 Likes
I thought @Rudolf_Appel poured on the sarcasm.
Is there a true audiophile tenet that it is beyond the whit of man to make audio products that look, function and sound great at the same time, or do they believe that spending time and money making things functional and pretty is a waste and proves they are not 100% focused on sound?
There are two opposite design approaches, the industrial like Luxman, the “what’s that?” like Devialet. I like both equally. Nagra? Yes please. It’s the boring boxes in the middle ground that make me weep.
Making ‘things’ functional with respect to the performance of an audio product is very much entwined with producing an audiophile-quality component. Looks don’t have anything to contribute on this score. I would rather have a component that looks like a p.o.s. but delivers the best possible sound than to have the most gorgeous, work-of-art component that doesn’t.
1 Like
I find that if a piece of equipment has exceptional function, it supercedes design and sets it’s own benchmark even if it looks attrocious and dated.
Design + Form is obviously a wonderful thing, but it would never dictate a purchase decision, I would always choose function firstly. Design is an added bonus.
But there are hundreds of products with absolutely dreadful design language that have become so iconic purely based off their performance that the design is copied through the ages.
3 Likes
So you seem to be either/or when it comes to sound/looks.
So what is “audiophile quality”? I think of audio quality as a more or less continuous scale from the pits of my Amazon Echo Dot to my all-time favourite system (Wilson/Trilogy/Brinkman). Is there a line drawn somewhere and who decides which side of the line a product goes?
I reckon Benchmark AHB amps and HPA DACs best suit your description. Industry leading performance, really quite ugly, extremely successful.
Taken directly from Paul’s Posts:
[# Audiophile Rating System
September 11, 2018
by Paul McGowan
While answering a customer’s question about matching amps to speakers an old memory popped into my head. The industry’s effort to craft an audiophile rating system.
It was a few decades ago but back then the idea seemed promising. Within the audiophile community, we’d set up a rating system for sound quality to insulate us from the overzealous performance claims of mass market consumer audio companies. Perhaps it would be on some sort of sliding scale or points system, whatever. It really didn’t matter how the metrics worked, just that there would be some agreed upon standard of performance. Once that was decided then manufacturers could submit their products to a listening panel for review. That panel would then rate the product to be “audiophile approved” or not. This rating could apply to equipment and recordings as well.
The purpose of this rating system was simple: a means to separate the wheat from the chaff. If you go online and read the descriptions of power amplifiers, for example, everything from a $19.95 20-watt amp to actually decent sounding products all claim to be “high-performance” or “audiophile grade”. Clearly that is not true nor will it ever be true.
So, how’s a customer suppose to decide if an amplifier, CD player, preamp, recording, or loudspeaker meets some sort of minimum standard of performance? What might be helpful is a stamp of approval similar to a Michelin Star system but without the gradations. Just approved or not approved. Simple.
In the end, the idea was abandoned because of manufacturer infighting. Who would make these judgments? Who would maintain them? Wouldn’t members of the review board wield too much power over the industry? Would there be an appeals process? What if bribery got involved?
My arguments were on the flipside. Perhaps manufacturers that wanted to be approved but weren’t could be given a ratings sheet letting them know where they fell down: poor FR, flat imaging, 2-dimensional sound, too bright, too this or not enough of that. Then, their engineers could upgrade the product until it met with approval. Bingo! Better sales, better sound. Win, win.
But no, that was too hard, too political and so let’s just all pull our protective turtle shells around us and hope it gets better on its own.
We are sometimes our own worst enemy. The idea of an honest audiophile rating system would be a huge help to prospective buyers wading through the morass of bad recordings, claims and counterclaims. Instead, we got nothin’.](Audiophile rating system – PS Audio)
You look at anything though.
In computing, the original IBM Model M keyboards are now collectors items that sell for hundreds and generally considered the best keyboard ever made and still sought after by professional gamers.
In Audio, the KLH Model 5 are unquestionably incredible speakers, but design is dated and lacklustre by todays standards:
Almost any NAD product ever made (aside from their new streamers) to me looks utterly dreadful and dreary, but no question on their successful performance:
The Reliant Robin was unquestionable awful both in design and performance and yet is considered a cult classic:
5 Likes
One observation: I don’t think that assigning ‘audiophile-quality’ to any deserving component should ever have ANY correlation to the idea of the meaning of ‘cult’.
I think Jeremy Clarkson had a lot to do Reliant Robin status. One of the better Top Gear Episodes.
Thanks to @mountwashnh1 for reminding us of Paul’s Post from a few years back about a failure to come up with a grading system, although transparently self-serving.
It would seem quite reasonable to say that any product designed for audiophiles is an audiophile product, irrespective of how good it is.
I owned one of these:
Released in 1984, a true audiophile Class A solid state amplifier. One of the first products to use the case as a heatsink. The design was carried out by Pentagram, a leading international design agency. A true form and function audiophile product.
3 Likes
There are a good number of audiophile components which are both very good and inspire defensive devotion, such as Harbeth and McIntosh.
2 Likes
Some people build cults for their own malign purposes, some obtain cult-like status because people think they can do no wrong. There may be people who think like that about Paul, others like me who buy PS Audio products on their merits.
I’ve never heard a Macintosh product, but will not be defensive about Harbeth’s superb sound, largely deriving from the mid-bass driver.
Design-wise, Wilson and Harbeth try and solve the same low frequency problem completely different ways, Wilson by extreme rigidity, Harbeth by using thin flexible walls to drive them down to inaudible levels. In my experience they both work. Thin walls are not done for show; I understand they cost about double to make compared to similar sized rigid cabinets.
Taste is something we can argue about all day long. 2 of the 4 products you show, I consider less ugly than classified by you. One product of those 2 even beautiful.
Everybody has a different perception. Yet all on this forum like audio equipment and listening to music.
Diversity is wonderful.
Steven is correct, the Reliant Robin was made famous by Jeremy Clarkson, the laughter never stopped watching that particular show.
That was student time. A great looking amp, good sounding with the right speakers, just not reliable.
At the time I decided for the New Zealand designed Linx Quasar integrated because I had to drive Maggies SMGa.
1 Like
I completely disagree with your premise “It would seem quite reasonable to say that any product designed for audiophiles is an audiophile product, irrespective of how good it is.” IMHO, an ‘audiophile (-grade) product’ is one which has the ability to faithfully ‘re-create’ everything sound-related that was present at the time the recording was made, including the existing acoustic space.
1 Like
I have always had a soft spot for the look of the “old” NAD kit. And their price to performance ratio was reputed to be high.
Alas, no NAD kit has ever found its way into one of my systems.
Curiously enough…
1 Like
I am looking at my Musical Surroudings Nova II Phono Pre here in my office and couldn’t agree more. It’s a silver box…boring. But this little fellow has been with me for years moving from one rig to another.
1 Like