Many higher end preamps are dated and ugly, why is this?

High quality audio electronics are costly and will occupy prominent places in the household landscape, so it's important to buy products that not only sound as you wish, but also convey the visual impression of having been acutely designed for their specific functions. Knobs, switches, and lights must positioned and sized in proportion to the nature of their individual functions and their importance in relation to one another and to the the unit as a whole. Fortunately there are few I consider to be as "dated and ugly" as their owners (nerdy old white men). One candidate would be the current Conrad Johnson line -- black chassis, gold-wash faceplate, all buttons identical irrespective of function. Yet I'm sure this very thing is someone's ultimate cup of Ceylonese.

@wolf_garcia 

Please elaborate! 😂😂😂😂

I don't care how preamps look, I don't care how speakers look.  I mix black and silver components.  I mix red back light with blue.  All I care about is, how does it sound.  I admit that glowing tubes in the evening can be somewhat intoxicating. 

This thread gets my vote for most stupid thread of the month.

I’m an industrial designer and I think Schiit stuff looks very derivative.

It’s minimalist but kind of blah...easy on most eyes. I really like Audio Research aesthetics...especially the older stuff. I think McIntosh and Luxman look wonderful...I like older Conrad Johnson stuff.

But then again, I like the look of my Technics 1200G...so what do I know...

I do think the heyday was the 70s. There were a lot of industrial designers on the books back then...now it’s driven more by marketing...so that’s why everything looks agreeable but not damn fine.

I am not a fan of the current state of marketing as you can see.