How important is build quality?

Posted by Michael A. Sills [IP: 38.27.157.125] on April 30, 1999 at 17:02:36
Using Mozilla/4.51 [en] (Win98; U):

In Reply to: How important is build quality? posted by Brian Paulsen on April 30, 1999 at 14:37:54:

I think folks are confusing the units' mass with build quality. I don't think the two are related, lest the intended use requires it to be "built like a tank". Most of us don't have any intention to drop a surround processor out the 2nd floor window, spash beverages on it or pile junk on top of it. Build quality, as I've come to use the term, has to do with the way the unit is designed to handle it's intended wear and tear. Cheap, delicate, switches and volume controls that quickly wear out, or produce static because of their poor electrical contacts would be examples of poor build quality. The Lexicon has neither of these. I don't recall reading on this forum over the years ever, that someone's Lexicon unit wore out, broke down, blew up, or developed bad noisy switches or volume controls. I think the only criticism one might fairly make of the DC-1's build quality is the loose grasp it's S video connectors have. Still, most of us don't habitually and inadvertantly jostle around the cables too much, and I don't think anybody's complained that their connectors 'wore out'. Even this has been ostensibly improved on the MC-1 (haven't seen one yet). So I think that the Lexicon units deserve to be defended better than just to say that it's excellent electronics in a so-so built surrounding. It is also of excellent build quality. Aesthetics are another matter, and too subjective to argue about.

Michael

Follow Ups:

Return to the new SMR Forums Menu

Design & HTML © SMR Home Theatre, Images © SMR Home Theatre cannot be reproduced without permission.  The images on this page are digitally watermarked.  New forum messages should be posted into SMR Forums v2 - http://www.smr-forums.com/

	The Web   SMR Archive