How important are the Speaker Cabinets?

Drew,

Thanks for the link. The article proves what most people inherently feel or know to be true (if they are ruthlessly honest about it): aesthetics is more important than sound quality to most audiophiles.

This is why audiophile manufacturers make costly and beautifully finished speaker cabinets and stuff them with very cheap but pretty looking drivers...sound is awful but nobody notices.

In contrast a sturdy but obviously DIY speaker armed with expensive drivers looks like a POS and will be judged that way even if it sounds fantastic.

Shadorne, the article does not prove that looks are more important than sound quality. The conclusion I draw is that non-sonic factors clearly influence a listener's opinion of sound quality. Those non-sonic factors could be size, brand name, number of drivers, design elements, build quality and appearance.

Audiophiles are a varied group, but one thing I've learned from looking at the all out assault systems here is that, if money is not an obstacle, a great system can look great as well as sound great.

Re: the purchase motivation of expensive loudspeakers.

If you place a pair of large floorstanders in a living room, they are effectively something between furniture and sculpture - in addition to the last link in the sound system. Thus, they have 2 functions: visual and aural. As you spend more money, you would expect the product to perform both functions "better". Of course, in both cases, "better" may be the subject of some debate. Given the realities of the overall market, how else would you expect it to be?

Marty

BTW, I don't dismiss reverse psychology. I'm sure that someone out there makes an "ugly" megabuck speaker specifically to convey that all the cost is dedicated to the "aural" function and little (to none) to the "visual".
Given the realities of the "lunatic fringe" (BTW, I could reasonably be classified as either part of, or close to, that crowd) how else would you expect it to be?

Shadorne, the article does not prove that looks are more important than sound quality

Well the way I read how the selection process went blind versus sighted (choice is so utterly dependent on visual cues even though they were instructed to rate only sonic quality), it is hard to see how one could not draw this simple conclusion: what audiophiles see is what they hear.

Shadorne, why limit it to just what can be seen? Better it's what the audiophile knows is what they hear. In anything it's near impossible to not be influenced by what you think you already know.