@fenmoore12 - logic dictates that in circumstances where a piece of equipment sounds better than another but less money was spent on improving the looks (or adding unnecessary, sound degrading meters) and the cost is lower than an inferior sounding one that looks nicer and costs more, you would take the inferior sounding one (at times).-
Here is the logic: let's say you set aside a fixed amount of money (or had points to spend and couldn't use any leftover points for anything else) for a new box and the nicer looking one of the two under consideration costs exactly that amount of $$ or points and the better sounding one costs a little less. I am assuming that you want to maximize the value of the dollars that you spend. If you don't buy the nicer looking one, you will leave money or points on the table, whereas a person only concerned with the SQ (assuming as I mentioned in a previous post, it is not hideous and disallowed by the boss in her den) will buy the less expensive one because it sounds better.
This is theoretical of course, but demonstrates the error of an audiophile putting beauty ahead (or a major consideration in relation to) of SQ.
Now, I have no problem with this if that is important to you, which is why I asked if you are an interior designer. I would expect them to care very much about the looks, perhaps even beyond the SQ a piece of equipment delivers. I am sure that those people kept B&O afloat for a while and is a major contributor to MacIntosh's undisputed success and popularity.
People's Mendoza line for acceptance of looks varies from person to person, but IMHO, it should be a yes or no proposition, and if it meets or exceeds that line, the only criteria of a serious audiophile for a piece of equipment is SQ.