Odd shaped speakers

Fam124, such spiritual words. What do you mean exactly? What is the human avocation to ascribing qualities to things, animals and persons based on their physical properties (like garden-hosed sized speaker cables obviously producing better bass because any fool can see bass is a "BIG" sound and "BIG" things require a lot of space)called? Is that what B&W are thinking with seashell-like Nautilus speakers? They sound more "natural" because they look more "natural"? I, on the other hand, have never seen an organic looking watch movement. I am not taking aim at any manufacturer in particular, but what got me thinking were Norh speakers. I can honestly say I have never seen such grotesque creatures posing as speakers before. Maybe they look better live. I think that generally the physical aspect of the equipment and the immediate individual reaction to it cannot be dismissed in the listening qualities attributed to components in their subsequent audition. I suggest that some audiophiles actually believe a thick and expensive faceplate on electronics assures better sound. Now, we have a new absurd debate on "industrial design" looks vs. "organic looks" and how this affects the audiophile experience! I agree the math behind that seashell is a lot more complicated than a neat box, but is all this a marketing ploy based on symbolism or does it have some actual application to enhanced sound reproduction?

Bacon frying was actually mentioned the first time by Bishopwill in the thread started by someone on the ground floor, so to speak, of the analogue/vinyl thing (although I have used the expression in the past). The ham thing, I borrowed from another of the fine people putting lines together for this cyberspace discussion. When I caught a glimpse of the Norh, I was sure that was the speaker he was referring to. It's only later on that the newer B&W speakers came to my mind as the possible source for that description. Being of the waffling, "let's hedge our bets" type, I still own a turntable and I have not gotten rid of my LP collection. I have just gotten delivery of a CD replacement for my copy of the LP "Tales of a Courtesan" by the Toshiko Akioshi Lew Tabackin Big Band and just to reassure myself that my sorties on the side of digital/CDs are called for, I put the old LP on the turntable and the new CD in that nasty little drawer and attempted to a/b the two. My problem is that my analogue front end level requires that I crank the volume control almost to the very top of its range, while the CD player is loud enough at about the 11 o'clock position. So I have to adjust the volume as best I can when going from one to the other. Very interesting comparison. I am not going to turn this into a career, but they do sound different. Years ago, I tried the same sort of process with a Dire Straits recording and came to the conclusion that, aside from surface noise, it was a very close match sound-wise. So still waffling, I'll hang on to the turntable, but the CD player will remain the primary source. They do sound different enough though on this big band recording, which has me puzzled. On the box vs. ham thing, yes there may very well be some benefit in being able to analyze more complex organic-like structures and to find manufacturing processes and materials capable of bringing any benefits derived from such shapes to market. I still think that most people are greatly influenced by the look of a component though and that may, and probably does, colour their judgment of the actual aural quality of the component. I wonder what vision impaired people listen to and for in sound systems. This could possibly be a valid source of information based more on the sound quality itself, independent of the look of the product. Although I am sure that the blind do use touch more than sighted people to understand the world. This audio stuff can really cause a serious case of rambling on, so I'll cut out for now. Regards.

Did I actually use the word "waffling" as in "waffle"? Unintentional, I assure you. Maybe my obssession is more with food than with audio? Can one of the psychoanalists frequenting this site tell me which is worse: the audio or the food one?