Anyone with the audiophile disease will spend so much on his system he cannot afford a fancy looking house?
It is really hard to make a system look appealing to someone that doesn’t care about stereos? Most people do not.
I have noticed the same thing. All I can think is that the photographers think they are ugly and don’t include them.
Most likely, they don't have any real hi fi in their home. At best, probably a Bose something or other/
I've noticed the same thing for many years, and can only assume that there are story designers behind it, likely women, for whom audio systems of any kind are as appealing as a garbage can in the middle of the living room.
As we know by now, many people only see ugly in what we see as beautiful because there is no reason for them to associate audio gear with beauty as we do. I still think that it's not excusable.
I guess the real question would be why do audiophiles spend so much time and money trying to make systems that look like they belong in Architectural Digest, when clearly Architectural Digest wants nothing to do with us?
Do they display other things with prominent and perhaps exclusive brand names?
why do you think a system has to be in the magazine? the magazine isn’t about hi fi
isn’t that why they have hi fi magazines ?
Those AD shoots are heavily staged. Most Interior designers despise a visible stereo system . Roxy54 is spot on.
I work in the high-end residential design/build business.
I can tell you, it is extremely rare that one of my high end clients are also audiophiles which their system has to be considered within a design. In fact, can probably count on one hand how many I have encountered in over 35 years.
Now, do some want a sound system? Yes, some do, but in those cases most work with a dedicated HT/Sound professional and incorporate systems we would not consider ’audiophile’. And most clients think those systems are just wonderful for their needs. They are also mostly ’hidden’ with built-in equipment and in-wall/ceiling speakers. It is amazing on what some will spend on those types of systems.
Architectural Digest is in the business of showcasing high-end (sometimes ’rich and famous’) interiors and sometimes exteriors. They don’t even consider a project for any sound system. Neither do any of the architectural publications I receive. Architectural Digest isn’t really for those in the business, it is more a ’coffee table’ mag.
Interesting info, and not too surprising. Thanks bkeske.
No Hi-Fi, no TVs, no power cords. Just fantasy land living quarters.
"As we know by now, many people only see ugly in what we see as beautiful because there is no reason for them to associate audio gear with beauty as we do. I still think that it's not excusable"
That sums it up about as well as can be said.
Hifi ugly? Whats wrong with u guys?
AD rooms very unlivable, not comfy at all.
Millercarbon, ur system is awesome, but is not greatest to look at.
The only time I can recall seeing a really high-end system in AD was a pair of >$30,000 Wilson speakers jammed in a room in the worst possible placement, and the other gear was hidden away.
The decorating budgets for these multi-million dollar homes is ginormous. One would think if they had that much money, they would have a dedicated hi-fi listening room (maybe combined with home theatre, if necessary). I think they easily fall prey to audio "consultants" who recommend expensive hideaway (in wall) installations. Muzak for the rich and famous.
It is not the system of a needy for approval audiophile, that's for sure.
Audiophiles are not their target audience.