• 01-29-2004, 08:19 AM
    Widowmaker
    Poll: "Ugliest" receivers and speakers?
    Sorry to say this, folks, but looks do matter. If they didn't, we'd all be driving Volvos and settling for chicks who look like Monica Lewinsky ;).

    This may be stupid, but aesthetics are a part of my HT spending decision, not a big part, but a part nontheless. If I come across a receiver or speakers that perform well, are reasonably priced but are ugly (IMO, of course), I will not buy them. Am I alone in this?

    That being said, here are my choices for the ugliest receiver and speaker brand:

    Receiver: Yamaha - they make some of the best performing and best priced receivers on the market but I HATE those amber displays. Also, this is the 21st century, why does Yamaha insist on keeping twist knobs for treble and bass on some of their receivers.

    The runners up would be NAD and Harman-Kardon.

    Speakers: Athena is my choice here. Again, excellent performing but just not aesthetically pleasing.

    The runners up would be Infinity and Boston Acoustics.
  • 01-30-2004, 06:24 AM
    kexodusc
    Funny, I find Yamaha to be an ok looking receiver...ugliest has to go to Denon...decent performer, just ain't pretty.
    NAD's got some uglies out there too.
    Kenwood and Sony receivers seem to be the prettiest, couldn't beat me bad enough to buy one though.

    For speakers, some Bose are pretty hideous looking, but Cerwin-Vega has to take the cake on ugly!!!
  • 01-30-2004, 10:05 PM
    tullymars
    Ugly electronics,Sony,B&KPioneer,just plain bland
    I love NAD"S stuff,Denon looks good too

    I love um,but I always thought a lot of B&W's look bad
    Polk,and JBL look cheap these dayz,probably because they are
    Boston's,Maganapans,Vienna's all look good to me
  • 01-30-2004, 10:06 PM
    tullymars
    Bose sux,dont buy their sheot!
  • 01-31-2004, 07:56 AM
    Mark111867
    Widowmaker-

    Funny you should mention the amber display on the Yamaha receivers. I own one and am happy with it, but not a big fan of the amber either.....
  • 02-04-2004, 10:26 AM
    Arch
    IMO the one company that consistantly makes the worse looking components - EVERY one of their component - has got to be Mcintosh.

    Now that we have entered the 3rd Millenum, why do they still insist on using gothic letterings for their logo??
  • 02-04-2004, 12:06 PM
    Widowmaker
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mark111867
    Widowmaker-

    Funny you should mention the amber display on the Yamaha receivers. I own one and am happy with it, but not a big fan of the amber either.....

    Hey, everybody, I mistakenly posted this here when I should have posted in Home Theater, sorry 'bout that.

    Mark, the reason I don't like Yamaha's (and Pioneer Elite's) amber displays is that they don't match to my other components. Also, the amber thing just has a cheesy '70s feel to them, maybe it's just me.

    Arch, you're right, McIntosh is ugly, I see no reason to pay those exorbitant prices for McIntosh stuff if you don't like their aesthetics.
  • 02-04-2004, 02:13 PM
    firebook23
    I am with you tullymars, NAD's stuff rocks I love the simple ness of it. And they are starting to come out with silver components in Europe that look real nice.

    McIntosh stuff is very ugly; you would think with the amount they charge for that stuff they could hire a industrial designer worth his salt

    My vote for ugly speakers go to Polk
  • 02-04-2004, 07:05 PM
    snodog
    Looks
    Hello,
    Just wanted to share this with you real quick. I too am interested in purchasing something pleasing to the eye. In fact, I was determined on buying a Denon receiver based on the units looks and a salesperson's personal experience with them (like he would have told me otherwise if it had been junk!) Well, I bought some paradigm speakers and couldn't wait to listen to them but didnt have the money to buy a receiver so I lugged them to a friend's house and listened to them on his Marantz receiver and Damn! I was totally awakened and realized that sitting there in the dark with a movie or music you really dont even see the receiver (or speakers) but you can really appreciate the quality! Anyhow I know that sounds kind of simple and sorry I dont mean to insult your intelligence but just thought it is good advice for ya! By the way two weeks later I bought a new Marantz even thought I didnt like its simple looks. But it does grow on you like an ugly child!! take care
  • 02-04-2004, 08:59 PM
    FutureShopAssociate
    uglies
    Id have to say the new harman/kardons are pretty ugly. AND I SELL UM!!! they sound sweet but i really miss the black on grey with the champagne buttons. Pioneers got some uglies and nad too. I think McIntosh definatly has the ugly award down pat. every time i see a mcintosh i get in the mood for a nice jousting match. CerwinVega Speakers definatly win the ultimate ugly award closely followed by quest and tannoy. (tannoy being the high end ugly) Is anywone with me on the fact that martin logan statements win the special mention award for awkwardness. on the other hand if they looked like statue penisis id put them in my room just cuz they sound friggen awesome.

    I think my speakers are pretty. check um out, tell me what you think

    http://www.audioreview.com/GALPhoto_60866crx.aspx
  • 03-07-2004, 11:00 PM
    r3dline
    I gotta say, in my personal opinion, the ugliest are:

    Speakers: Cerwin Vega (they just look straight out of the back of a stolen utility van at a flea market)

    Amps/Receivers: Denon (some good sounding stuff, but they look like cheap Pioneer crap from wal-mart).

    And in yamaha's defense...I'm not a fan of the amber either. But as for the twist knobs...I love twisties. :D
  • 03-08-2004, 12:55 AM
    92135011
    YUP! you guys got that right!
    McIntosh got it all backwards.
    I think Blueroom stuff is ugly too.

    I always wondered....some of these companies spend lots of money developing their product. Also, for companies like McIntosh, thier stuff is not cheap. Is it THAT hard to hire someone to design a nice box for the components? Sure, many companies got the "We spend all our money on the inside, not the out." But SERIOUSLY people! Pay a contractor artist 1000 bux and he will be able to whip out some nice designs for you!! If two things sounded good, cost similar, etc, I would probably pick the nice looking one as would most people.

    And for those of you who have a significant other out there, I understand that he/she has a big impact on selecting components. For those who are not so keen on music, good looks are very important! So for someone like my girlfriend, all she says is "That looks good. That's kinda ugly. That looks cheap." And there are many people out there like my girlfriend!
  • 03-08-2004, 04:58 AM
    jeskibuff
    Although I'm sure many will disagree with me, my vote goes to the Wilson Watt Puppy for ugliest speaker. They DO look better in person than in pictures, especially in black.
    http://www.wilsonaudio.com/products/images/roombig.jpg

    My vote for ugliest receiver goes to the Yamaha GX50 mini system I bought for my mother. It looked hideous with strange curves and screwy button placement, but had the best sound for the buck at the time I bought it in 1998. I couldn't find any pictures of it to post, but most of those glorified boomboxes seemed to have been designed for the yahoos that think a unit that looks like a spaceship is really technologically advanced.
  • 03-08-2004, 06:28 AM
    Feanor
    Clean lines and simplicity
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by snodog
    ... I was determined on buying a Denon receiver based on the units looks ... but I bought a new Marantz even thought I didnt like its simple looks. ...

    I love Marantz. Simplicity and clean lines count a lot with me
  • 03-08-2004, 07:19 AM
    Sealed
    Before You Vote...
    Take a look at this site:

    www.exoticaudio.org

    There are some speakers that are evil-ugly! :p
  • 03-08-2004, 07:40 AM
    brigrizzme
    Ugliest receiver - All mid-80's Marantz stuff.
    Ugliest speaker - Carver planar speakers, hands down.
  • 03-08-2004, 08:56 AM
    poneal
    Sealed, So Ugly the got shut down LOL
    the site is disabled!
  • 03-08-2004, 01:00 PM
    Sealed
    Shut down
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by poneal
    the site is disabled!

    ROTFLMAO!!!! I am happy. The kid that ran that site was a total and complete jackass! HAHAHAHA!!! He got what he deserved! :D
  • 03-16-2004, 06:35 AM
    russkon
    you guys got it all backwards with mcintosh.... i think its a great look...

    it also helps the resale value.... the old models look like the newer models.....

    in fact, check out this mcintosh owner's setup...

    http://www.georgiahometheater.com/im...s/1photo59.jpg

    personally... i don't care what it looks like with one exception... i won't buy a silver component.... my whole rack is black... silver came and went before and it will go away again....
  • 03-16-2004, 06:54 AM
    Jim85IROC
    wow... it's amazing how we all have such different tastes. Most of my favorite stuff has been mentioned here. :D

    I love how Cerwin Vega speakers look. They look loud, and they have the capabilities to back it up. My first pair of speakers was a pair of 12" 3-way CVs in high school and I still have them.

    I think the NAD equipment is some of the best looking stuff out there. Simple and plain, not flashy and full of unnecessary crap. I like the new Denon 3805, as well as the Marantz receivers. There are hundreds of speaker designs that I find appealing.

    Anyway, on to stuff I don't like:

    The new HK receivers. My next receiver is likely to be an HK, but I'll buy a leftover X25 before I buy a new X30.

    Let's see... speakers. I tend not to like the more esoteric "high end" speakers with the goofy shapes. I like boxes. I'm not a fan of speakers that have an externally mounted tweeter like the B&K and KEF stuff.
  • 03-16-2004, 06:56 AM
    Jim85IROC
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by poneal
    the site is disabled!

    the site isn't disabled, the link was just posted incorrectly. Type www.exoticaudio.org into your browser and it'll load just fine.
  • 03-16-2004, 07:03 AM
    russkon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Widowmaker
    Receiver: Yamaha - they make some of the best performing and best priced receivers on the market but I HATE those amber displays. Also, this is the 21st century, why does Yamaha insist on keeping twist knobs for treble and bass on some of their receivers.

    yamaha as well as others use twist knobs on their receivers because many people still do like them.... plus it is easier to design using old technology than push button controls.... a real issue on the budget and mid-level receivers.....