Carlbkk1

What brands could you NOT live with based on looks?

Recommended Posts

For me Bang & Olson components look like retro 70's Star Trek look, totally uninspiring.  Roark Audio tries to look like 50's style HiFi, but the products look so hideous and cheap, I don't understand the type of customer Roark Audio is trying to attract...?  Expensive speakers designed to look original style (too numerous products to mention) like in a shape of a musical note or a tear drop, for me its HiFi made to look like toys for spoilt brats.... Expensive Cd's or Turntables which look like alien spaceships, all that embroided metal , supports, weights to support the turntable or Cd, its over the top luxuries for bored millionaires, plus its HiFi designed in poor taste, a solid garish kitsch statement in the living room.  And last but not least the Naim Muso which had many positive reviews, I tried it out in John Lewis, it looks quite ugly dark shape, with an awkward volume knob on top of the component.  In use the sound quality was an anti climax (I was expecting something good from all the reviews), the sound was unremarkable, I certainly would not spend the asking price because of its ugly looks and boring sound quality.

Edited by Stargazer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes it’s a specific item from a brand but not all that I don’t really like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I want ugly hifi related stuff I make my own :D.

1521096725_CornerBassTrapPrototype_small.thumb.jpg.e28b6d176c3cf589c3ce65eb4d2802a6.jpg

(Prototype corner bass trap, intended to be one of a stack in a corner. Size approx. 600 mm x 450 mm x 400 mm.)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MartinC said:

When I want ugly hifi related stuff I make my own :D.

1521096725_CornerBassTrapPrototype_small.thumb.jpg.e28b6d176c3cf589c3ce65eb4d2802a6.jpg

(Prototype corner bass trap, intended to be one of a stack in a corner. Size approx. 600 mm x 450 mm x 400 mm.)

you can get some pretty decent looking fabric to cover those up nicely, loose weave stuff is quite transparent.

grab a staple gun and you'll be like a hifi DIY version of Delia!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Phobic said:

you can get some pretty decent looking fabric to cover those up nicely, loose weave stuff is quite transparent.

grab a staple gun and you'll be like a hifi DIY version of Delia!

Oh yes, definitely. I'm trying out options at the moment. Once I have a definite plan I'll focus on how to make things look a lot better. Good fabric isn't cheap though so I'm not wasting it on tests :).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MS 815. Just......why

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MartinC said:

Oh yes, definitely. I'm trying out options at the moment. Once I have a definite plan I'll focus on how to make things look a lot better. Good fabric isn't cheap though so I'm not wasting it on tests :).

I saw a youtube video in which a bloke "demonstrated" that a few layers of decent towelling was the most acoustically absorbent. Might be worth a try.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, audio_PHIL_e said:

I saw a youtube video in which a bloke "demonstrated" that a few layers of decent towelling was the most acoustically absorbent. Might be worth a try.

I think I've seen that video. Definitely not worth a try for absorbing low frequencies :).

Edit: well, unless someone has hundreds of towels they don't want!

Edited by MartinC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
1 minute ago, audio_PHIL_e said:

I saw a youtube video in which a bloke "demonstrated" that a few layers of decent towelling was the most acoustically absorbent. Might be worth a try.

Towelling won’t make the slightest bit of difference to a bass trap, it will only absorb high frequencies. There are plenty of videos created by professionals on places such as the GIK site that explain how to install bass traps, as opposed to what some random bloke says. I’m not personally convinced that making your own bass traps saves all that much money by the time you’ve managed to make them attractive enough to want to have in your living room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Dealer
1 hour ago, Phobic said:

you can get some pretty decent looking fabric to cover those up nicely, loose weave stuff is quite transparent.

grab a staple gun and you'll be like a hifi DIY version of Delia!

A sub placed behind you in inverse phase would be far more effective, you need a huge amount ( quarter wave length) of passive absorption to make any appreciable difference.

Keith 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PuritéAudio said:

you need a huge amount ( quarter wave length) of passive absorption to make any appreciable difference.

Please stop repeating this nonsense. I've posted data on this site that proves this is incorrect, and which I know you've read as we've discussed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
1 minute ago, PuritéAudio said:

A sub placed behind you in inverse phase would be far more effective, you need a huge amount ( quarter wave length) of passive absorption to make any appreciable difference.

Keith 

You don’t need a quarter wavelength of passive absorption to make a difference, that’s as nonsensical as the comment about towelling. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Dealer
11 minutes ago, MartinC said:

Please stop repeating this nonsense. I've posted data on this site that proves this is incorrect, and which I know you've read as we've discussed it.

It is simply physics, describe again the amount ,thickness and location of the passive absorption you used to gain a very modest reduction in a standing wave bass peak.

Keith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
1 minute ago, PuritéAudio said:

It is simply physics, describe again the amount ,thickness and location of the passive absorption you used to gain a very modest reduction in a standing wave bass peak.

Keith

It’s simply bullshit, certainly not physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, PuritéAudio said:

It is simply physics, describe again the amount ,thickness and location of the passive absorption you used to gain a very modest reduction in a standing wave bass peak.

I'm sorry but you are wrong on this one. It's a common misconception but it's not true. As I said, I've posted data that we've discussed which disproves it, and obviously all the professional manufacturers of acoustic treatments know this too. I've seen Glen Kuras of GIK Acoustics trying to dispel the same myth on Gearslutz before. Yes bass traps need to be a decent size to do anything beneficial at lower freqencies but it's not as 'bad' as getting to quarter-wavelength size being necessary.

I'm not going to continue this discussion here as I seem to have dragged this thread off-topic without meaning to. I just posted my picture as looking at what I'd made reminded me of this thread :).

Edited by MartinC
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.