Can anybody explain why certain companies seem to use the poorest-built examples of their stuff for product shots? Eclipse in particular is pretty bad. For example, is it just me, or does this CD7000 (from their own website) look twisted around the main volume/selection ****? Also, the preset buttons are all misaligned. I guess if the final product doesn't look that way, then that's fine, but what gives?



BTW, I'm going to be the proud new owner of one of these babies soon.

 

That looks like a computer drawing, not an actual photo....

 

Eh, I don't know. Crutchfield has a blow-up of the same picture; it definitely doesn't look like a computer drawing in that one. (The screen picture looks aritificial, but I'm talking about the plastic itself.)

Also, look at the preset button alignment on the CD5000:



The buttons on the right look out of place.

 

...aah it doesnt have to be exact, its not the actual thing

 

Post some pictures of the back of a CD3000 please.

 

Haha, are you mocking me?

Well, as long as the actual thing doesn't look like that, I'm happy.

What I'm saying is that this is one of the only pictures on the web that shows this model (as with all Eclipse products), and if they're trying to show off their good build quality, they're not doing themselves any favors.

 

The good build quality is within the product itself. They as I believe...Function over form.

 

No, I really want to see pictures of the back. I tried searching on the internet and Crutchfield didn't have any. Anyone got some?

 

Haha, yes, that's a cardinal rule of engineering/design. But you see what I'm saying here, right?

BTW Don, can you PM about what we talked about today? I want to take care of that. Thanks!

 

A little of center or not (the ****), I would still love to have that HU .

 

Yeah, but yours is still a notch above many others', so I wouldn't be too jealous. After all, you get an 8V output while to-be CD7000 owners get a nicer and detachable screen with only 5V ouputs. (still plenty for me)