SURVEY: Are you willing to sacrifice A LITTLE sound quality for MUCH BETTER looks? (1 Viewer)

[Arnel Enero]

Two hypothetical speakers that go for the same price, one sounds a bit better than another, but the former looks boring (looks much cheaper than it is), while the latter is very gorgeous (high-WAF, looks very expensive).

In this case, will you be willing to get the good-looking speaker knowing that you're compromising sound quality a little? For what reason primarily (wife acceptance, pride of ownership, easy re-sale, "brightens up" the house, etc.)?

*** Note my emphasis of "a little" and "same price", which are important qualifiers. If the difference in sound were night-and-day, then there's no contest which one any sane person would choose.

 

[Brian Bunge]

Nope, assuming I can afford either I'd get the one that sounds best to me. And although I'm married, there's pretty much no WAF involved. I've built my own speakers, to my own aesthetics, without grills, and my wife has never said a word.

Brian

 

[felix_suwarno]

i want both, thats why i am getting boston acoustics vr-m50 and vr-mc

 

[SanfordL]

Depends upon how short or long the leash is. In my case, the wife allows me to deal with the HT issues. Sure, aesthetics are important, particularly as you go up in price, but ultimately, I would prefer to be impressed by the sound instead of by the looks. I am a function not fashion guy though, so take that into account too. Often times, you can get different finishes on speakers depending on the manufacturer which you might look into.
So, what speakers are 'ya talking about here? It might help to know what the speakers in question look like so we can give you ideas about sound performance, re-sellability (that can't be a word), and WAF. Good luck.

 

[Eric_Singer]

If one sounds only a bit better, but the other looks much better, then the better-looking speaker is the better value. While sound is certainly more important than looks, a good speaker is a combination of both, and the good-looking speaker represents the better value.

 

[Chris PC]

Always sound first.

 

[Cees Alons]

No.
Better looks are for the screen, better sound for the speakers.
As far as the HT is concerned...
Cees

 

[Richard Burzynski]

I would go for the better sounding speaker. I'm an audio guy, primarily, so that is where I would (and do) place my primary emphasis.

As for the WAF, the location of your HT plays a role. If your living room doubles as your HT, you may be SOL. But if you have a dedicated room for your HT, like a basement, then it matters less what the speakers look like.

Rich B.

 

[Larry B]

I'd always go for the sound, unless the beter-sounding speakers were really ugly (for example, B&W 802s).
Larry

 

[felix_suwarno]

i am with larry. there are good speakers that i didnt consider because i dont like their appearance.

 

[Saurav]

Hard to say. No WAF problems for me, because my wife lets me get away with pretty much anything. However, I do like my speakers to look pretty. Sooooo..... if the two sounded different, and I couldn't really decide which one I liked better overall (say I liked some things about one and other things about the other), I'd pick the better looking one. If I clearly liked the sound of one above the other, I'd pick the better sounding one.

 

[Anthony_Gomez]

Lets not forget that when things look good, they tend to sound better...them darn phsyco-acoustics!


....better looking speakers for me!

 

[Angelo_Petralba]

If it looks good and the sound is only a "LITTLE" not so good, I would definitely pick the better LOOKING one. In due time, you WILL get USED to the sound of the inferior speaker.

My 2 cents

 

[Joseph_W]

Arnel,
Do not be ashamed of putting looks into the equation. If the system is down in the basement and you only go down there for music and HT, then don't worry about looks. If, on the other hand, you walk through your HT to get to the back bedrooms (as I do), looks is very important.

Of course, looks are as personal as sound. I like the way the 802's look.

Joe

 

[John Desmond]

I'll vote for BOTH. With the 100s of speaker companies and 1000s of models, the ideal fit should be somewhere!

 

[Henry_W]

In the depends group - If so ugly the wife cannot tolerate and I had to have the sound, I would go with asthetics (may be doing so with the next subwoofer soon).

However, after 30 years together there is a lot of give and take with each other's passions and I believe the wife would encourage me to take the uglies - she has been around long enough to know I would probably let the quality difference turn into chinese water torture. This is, in the end, more expensive since I'll end up with gorgeous speakers that sound great.

 

[Ryan T]

I would not sacrifice sound for looks. All my DIY speakers are raw MDF. I don't know if I'm going to paint them or not but I'm not really worried about looks. I think it is a bit silly to buy speakers based on there looks.



Ryan

 

[Fong]

screw the better looking speaker. speakers, imho, are made to reproduce sound. if i wanted something that looks nice, id get a painting or a rug.

 

[Ryan Schnacke]

I agree with Joeseph_W. It would depend mostly on where they are to be used. In a dedicated music/HT room - sound comes first. In a living room or bedroom home theater - aesthetics are important.

 

[Mike Veroukis]

I'd like to think I'd go for the better sounding speakers but if they were an eye-soar I wouldn't be very happy. I mean, yes you listen to your speakers, but big towers also have the tendency to dominate a room and you don't want your speakers to scare people away.

Luckily, I find the better sounding speakers look better as well. Martin Logans sound great and look wicked. Of course their price is out of this world so I got the Paradigm Studio 40s, which look AND sound great. Did I pay extra to get the veneer? You bet I did! Would I have bought them if the veneer wasn't an option? You bet I would!

- Mike