Vote

Great sound and reliability—and, if possible, hot looks.

It all sounds alike when it doesn't work.

What does it matter how it sounds if it is in the shop all the time? How can you enjoy the music if every time you hear a pop, hum or bit of distortion you are worried that it is the hardware and will soon be headed for the shop or trash heap?

Gotta say equal. After all, it is made to soothe the ears. Somehow, it always entices the eyes as well. It would appear as though the manufacturers have us just where they want us! I concede.

It must also sound good—very good—but reliability is just as important. I'm sure that there are a number of components that do sound better than mine, but what use is that when I want to listen to my music and my amplifier has just produced a small mushroom cloud over the power supply? Again.

More than 30 years of upgrades have taught me to look for the basics after I find a component I find musically interesting. Simple things that become long term issues are now addressed. One of my first upgrades was the GAS Son of Ampzilla. When I got it home, I discovered that it had no power switch and its surge at power on shut down my receiver-based system of the time. I never blew up my large Advent speakers, but the possibility scared me for months

If it doesn't work all the time, what good is it? Then it's nothing better than a piece of computer equipment.

Wes Phillips stated the question better from his Soapbox: It's not cool factor vs reliability, it's cool factor vs perceived combination of performance and reliability. For instance, during the vintage tuner craze that began several years ago, I bought a well preserved Sansui TU-9900. I admired the TU-9900's raw accuracy and transparency, but it sounded a bit thin and dry, even compared to the Marantz 105 it replaced. Then I stumbled upon a pretty good price to buy a McIntosh MR74 (an unheralded stepchild among Mac tuners), which lacked the Sansui's raw accuracy, yet beat it hands down regarding liveliness of sound. The TU-9900 seemed plenty reliable, but of course any Mac's build quality is a couple levels better. I sold my "legendary" Sansui TU-9900 immediately, and the tuner craze continued, absent myself.

Relaibility is a must. If it's not reliable, forget it. But other things do come into play, too. I'm not sure I go for "cool," but I definitely appreciate the feeling of refinement and solidity—that certain "oomph" to a design.

I can't hear reliability. What does it sound like?

The first quality a product must have is good sound or better yet great sound quality. Reliability is a must-have inherent quality, but it's harder to quantify. There, you have look at the manufacturers track record for their equipment and also what sort of warranty they offer. I also look for an appearance that indicates a "substantial" quality. Cool or the latest fad is not what I am looking for in equipment. Related to reliability is the maintainence issue. Tube equipment requires ongoing maintainence and cost—not what I am looking for.

For many, the cool factor is mostly about design and cosmetics. But for me, it is also quite cool if a product is reliable. Furthermore, it is even cooler if all these come at an affordable price. I do not understand compromises in design just to make products affordable though. Taste costs nothing and neither does intelligence.

Buying a "really cool" replacement/upgrade component that costs five to ten times as much as its mass-market predecessor can be very exciting, indeed. But that excitment tends to fall away when I find that the mass-market component it replaced was more reliable. It's quite frustrating given the you-get-what-you pay-for expectations constantly advertised with high-end audio.

It is cool for a product to work properly with a long life. Aesthetic coolness is short lived, fickle, and completely useless for my dollar.

I don't see component coolness and reliability as opposing features that encompass most of what I look for in a component. For me reliability is essential while the coolness is essentially (I would hope) my own: Cool for making the choices that led to a system that first and foremost sounds great, is reliable, and walks that fine visual line between purposfulness, beauty, and rational expense.

How about adding a few more choices, like "Sound quality", "value for the money", "resale value", "viability of the manufacturer", "system integration", etc. I think that anyone who buys or recommends a piece of high end audio gear because of its "cool factor" without concern for all the other much more important factors, will soon find themselves shopping for a less "cool" but better sounding replacement.

Cool and reliable are very noteworthy considerations, but I am more excited by the quality of sound. A product could be very cool and reliable and not be up to snuff for someone more concerned about sound. Certainly not original thinking on my part, just my viewpoint.

Guess it depends on your definition of cool. To me, cool ties in to the value, including the perceived value and reliability. Something isn't cool if I preceive it as not not worth my money. I think they go hand in hand.

The high-end audio marketplace is too small to provide the consumer with accurate reliability stats. I could ask everyone I know how whether the Complete integrated is more reliable than YBA ones and get a sample size of zero. And the online raves of the Toshiba 3960 DVD player, of which mine is total junk - not bit perfect, slow Redbook search, skipping on video, hot to the point of smelling like a new car - shows that mass hysteria possibly mixed with a dash of stealth marketing rules the day. Of course, in an ideal world coolness would be inextricably linked to good design and execution in all parameters, and thus reliability would inhere.

Cool factor is very important, not only cool looking, but in what the component does. But no level of cool will make up for a component that overheats after 20 minutes of playing. But then again how often does that truely happen anymore?

I'm an audio nerd. I don't care about cool. I want it to work well, even if it's covered in green shag carpet.

The above choices are too limited. I'm most interested in core attributes that include not just superior sonics, reliability and pleasing aesthetics. Other crtitical factors include outstanding build quality and craftsmanship; superior circuit design/topology; effective protection circuitry; premium parts; manufacturer sponsored upgrade paths and programs; 7-10 year factory warranties, etc. In addition, I choose high-end audio products from manufacturer's who've been continuously in business (and in good standing) long enough to have established a well earned reputation for proven designs with long production runs; continuous innovation; as well as a high degree of corporate integrity and superb customer service. (By the way, it's my opinion that Sharp makes the best upright vacuum cleaners for the money, while Royal holds similar honors for cannister vacuums.)

Good equipment, good reliability

How about longevity, quality and most importantly sound quality? Short term reliability is important, but any cheap component will give you that. It is more important it does not catastrophically fail over 10, 20 or 50 years!

We all love the idea of marrying a girl who'll turn all our friend's heads. But flash don't make a marriage in life or in audio. Cool matters when you shell out kilobucks, but nearly so much as solid, relibable performance.

A farm tractor is reliable but I wouldn't want one. It's not cool. The new Bugatti supercar is cool but I wouldn't want one. Its not reliable. Krell amps are cool and reliable. Same for CJ, ARC and VPI TNT TT's. All of those I would like to have.

Sonic qualities get me much more excited than either of these :-)

Being cool has brought us legions of anti-social nerds wearing I-Pods. It also means spending good money time and again. Therefore, reliability i.e. long term use before a products craps out is most important. I love long term warranties in fact.

My best friend has been using a $100 Soundesign all-in-one with a cheap Pioneer CD changer daily since the early 1990s and has never had a single mechanical failure. Why on earth would I pay four figures for a single piece of gear that can't go more than a few months without a trip to the repair bench? Cool factor diminishes very rapidly when the stupid thing doesn't work when you want it to. Frankly, I laugh at a lot of audiophiles; if their cars were as unreliable as their stereos, there would be class action lawsuits against car makers every week.

What good is a cool system if it is in the shop every time you want to listen to it?