Why are modern arms so ugly?


OK.......you're going to say it's subjective and you really looove the look of modern tonearms?
But the great tonearms of the Golden Age are genuinely beautiful in the way that most Ferraris are generally agreed to be beautiful.
Look at the Fidelity Research FR-64s and FR-66s? Look at the SAEC 308 series and the SAEC 407/23? Look at the Micro Seiki MA-505? Even the still audacious Dynavector DV-505/507?
But as an architect who's lifetime has revolved around aesthetics.......I am genuinely offended by the design of most modern arms. And don't give me the old chestnut....'Form follows Function' as a rational for ugliness. These current 'monsters' will never become 'Classics' no matter how many 'rave reviews' they might temporarily assemble.
128x128halcro
FWIW, as someone who considers himself to be sensitive to the difference between good and bad examples of industrial design, I totally agree with Ralph about the Triplanar and the Phantom. To me they create an instant visual impression of finely crafted scientific instruments, which is entirely consistent with their intended purpose.

Although I can understand the visual appeal of the Continuum designs, personally I would not want to have a tonearm that reminded me of snakes every time I looked at it :-)

BTW, as I was composing this post I showed pictures of all of these arms, and also the Talea, to my wife, who is an artist among other things, and who comes from a family that includes several architects. She wouldn't characterize any of them as ugly, just as representing different design concepts.
09-23-11: Halcro
But the great tonearms of the Golden Age are genuinely beautiful in the way that most Ferraris are generally agreed to be beautiful
To put my comments in perspective, I'll add that I do consider the Ferrari 308 to be the most beautiful car ever designed.

Regards,
-- Al
I just meant that its performance came first; if you get that then apparence is secondary. But you are right that many buy on looks; I have no trouble with the apparence of a lot of modern arms. I have a Graham 2.2 and a Jelco 750 and both are good looking to me. The Wilson Benich carbon arm looks great and is suppose to preform well, I thought about buying one recently but didn't really need it. I have had more arms than most, going back to ones like the ADC Prichard wood arm and the Pickering unipivot, which sat on what looked like a darning needle. There have always been good looking ones and bad looking ones; we just tend to remember the classics and forget the dogs. Something like remembering the origonal T Bird and forgetting the Edsel.
The two Cobras, sure is not my idea of beauty either.[http://www.plan59.com/av/av508.htm]
Then there are these. Some wouldn't work well IMO. [http://ierihon.com.ua/tonarm] [http://www.horomusic.com/horo_ita.html] [http://www.soundscapehifi.com/schroder-model2-pics.htm]
i love beautiful industrial design.

the Linn CD-12, Mark Levinson #33, and the Rockport Sirius III are 3 i've owned where they combined high performance and elegance.

i can appreciate the vintage arms and their simplicity. to me it reminds me of a 50's or 60's Ferrari or such when the designers did not know about correct aerodynamics, brakes, and suspensions. yes; they were beautiful, but cannot keep up to much more modest contemporary efforts. elegance counts for much, but not when the starter gun sounds. then it's what can it do?

i'll be very curious to watch people's reaction to the look of the new Durand 12" Telos at RMAF next month. it's elegance comes from the ruthless no-holds-bared perfection of purpose......stripped to the essentials.