It does make sense, doesn't it? When considering the whole package, sights and sounds come into play. If we're looking strictly at acoustic accuracy, acoustic measurements and double blind tests should be very good. But when we're looking at the whole enchilada, features, aesthetics and other creature comforts are lumped in there as well as the sound.

At GPAF, Earl Geddes said something to the effect that he doesn't care how audio equipment looks, it's the sound he cares about. "If I want art, I'll buy art," he says. Geddes is all about measurements and double blind tests. I agree with him on the testing part, and I think that's where to look when optimizing the acoustics. But I just can't help but want attractive equipment too. Aesthetics are important to me.

If it looks impressive, it looks impressive. You know what I mean?