I only saw it at a dealer, and at first I didn't know what it was. I think Stereophile made it more known. Actually, If there wasn't any review from any one like them, it may not be known know. One thing I noticed is the counterweight is to far back (IMO) from the pivot point. I would think that when the arm is tracking a slightly warped record, that added length extending the weight back that far is going to cause it to be slower dealing with upward and downward motion. That slower response time would make this arm ideal for a perfect record. That doesn't happen in the real world. This looks like something that would fit the laws of something in motion, wants to stay in motion. With the added length, the arm may want to stay in its upward motion longer than if the weight was closer, and more capable of keeping the tracking force closer to where it should be. That added length will also slow it down while tracking a record that has a hole slightly of center. That would cause more of an anti-skate problem too. Extra side to side, and up and down movement for the cantilever, causing a tracking problem in both cases, if not tracking that perfect record. This is just my opinion.
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.
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.
166 responses Add your response
Copperhead and Cobra are no mainstream designs. When I first saw pictures I had the same impression. You need to see it in reality or better listen to it. When you see the bearing and structure, have the tonearm in your hands you will look at it differently- I am pretty sure. I think you would be not the first changing your attitude - and this is not an easy process. Don't mind if you stick to it. best @ fun only |
Dear Atmasphere, yes, it can still has an aesthetic appeal and yes, you are right - the plane of the record needs to be meet by the bearing. The criteria will be meet .... pretty soon.I believe it has already been met COBRA COPPERHEAD Not only do they move the tonearm aesthetic to a 21st century relevance.....but they are the best sounding arms I have ever heard. |
"If the bearing is is the same plane, the tracking force is constant with the presence of such events." I'm not sure I understand why this is so. Can someone help me understand why this is so? I believe it is true if the pivot point is not at the center of mass of the arm. But if the pivot point is at the center of mass, then how does the tracking force depend on whether the pivot point is in the plane of the record. (Say the center of mass and the pivot point are the same and they are in the plane of the armtube, which is above the plane of the record. And then there is a warp in the record. The cartridge rides up, but why should the tracking force change, other than from the acceleration of the cartridge's upward movement?) |
A fundamental issue that occurs with every arm I have seen that gets good marks for appearance the the design of the bearings. More to the point the bearings are positioned outside of the plane of the LP surface, resulting in variable tracking forces, depending on warp and bass modulation. If the bearing is is the same plane, the tracking force is constant with the presence of such events. The result is that such an arm will have better bass than an arm that lacks such a design. This is something that as an engineering concept has been known for a very long time. It is why a truck can climb a hill fairly well even though it has rear-wheel drive- when going uphill, there is more weight on the rear axles. Ask any airline pilot about how weight has to be distributed in an aircraft and you will discern the same fact. So- can this criteria be met while the arm still has an aesthetic appeal? |
Dear Hifihvn, yes, but german attention ( obsession ..? ) in attention to detail and precision was apparently more readily adapted by the japanese students in their prewar traveling of the western hemisphere ....;-) ... Dear Nikola, Thuchan is much more qualified here. Him having lived in Nippon for a while and being able to talk in japanese. My knowledge here is purely 2nd hand and based on historic studies only. Cheers, D. |
Thuchan&Hifihva, Japan was a 'closed society', to use the opposite of Poppers 'Open society'. Only the Dutch have had the admission to enter. 'Rangaku' was long time their name for science while this exppression actually means the study of the Dutch language. This fact imply that aducated Japanese were able to read and speak (?) Dutch which is of course very similar to German. So the German 'orientation' for at least 'technical study' is easy to understand. I also assume that the German technical faculties were much better than the Dutch at those times. But I don't know when exactly this 'reorientation' took place. However I am somehow sure that Daniel knows the answer. Thuchan I refuse to 'enter' the 'nature-nurture' riddle. Regards, |
Dear Nandric, there is a good reason why you could compare Japanese and German engineers qua culture. Regarding their way of careful planning, studying and intensive implementation there are obviously parallels. When I have worked with German and Japanese engineers I always was astonished how close they were in their "technical mind set". Nevertheless you are right there are other cultural differences but maybe between managers or every day people (like we). best @ fun only |
Dear Henry, I thought that esthetics is your department. I myself have no better than that we the 'ordinary mortals' are not able to comprehend a genius. Think of Michelangelo's David or Pieta. That human hands can produce such works of art is to me incomprehensible.We all are able to admire his work, why should we feel the urge to explain the artist? Dear Daniel, Your contributions are always welcome. But are you not too modest as German? To my knowledge the most Japanese engeneers around II WW were educated in Germany. So no wonder that their 'educated minds' were similar qua engeneering. I would never compare them qua culture. Regards, |
Dear Halcro, without me intentionally getting the way of Nikola here, let me just say that in technical ways german and japanese minds used to be very similar. Both did share for a long period a very similar devotion to form-follows-function mated with attention to minute detail and high precision. But then Isamu Ikeda's FR-60 series is again kind of unique in it's strictness following triple-F as well as in it's very reduced design. It leaves little to no room for errors....... Which is not a bad way to design mechanic instruments. Cheers, D. |
But the FR-64S 'awaked' in me this 'emotive feeling' ofDear Nandric, I know what you mean.....but can you please explain to me (because you are a well travelled man)....how it is that the inscrutable Japanese can design an arm like the FR-64S which has such a Teutonic aura? Regards Henry |
Dear Halcro, I think that the most people are 'context oriented'. Ie 'art and beauty' have some bondaries regarding the question what one will 'recognise' a such. I myself never thought about tonearms in this 'context'. But the FR-64S 'awaked' in me this 'emotive feeling' of admiration. After 30 years of ownership I am still 'wondering'. There is a deep thought in this English saying: 'a thing of beauty is a joy forever'. Regards, |
09-24-11: Nandric Probably right Nandric, I was referring to the clean lines of the Breuer in comparision to the industrial look of the Dynavector. I'm sure there is a lot of precision engineering involved in the manufactur of the Breuer. |
Dear Tobes, I am not a fan of the Dynavector's design (nor of the Lamboghini Countach's ....). I just mentioned it and can understand those who admire either. It was and is however very unique and showed skill, idea and individualism. Still looking modern and striking after 30+ years - if not beautiful in my eyes. |
09-24-11: Dertonarm As a piece of modern art, I can see where you're coming from - much thought has gone into the unique way it functions and the aesthetic design with its repeated circular motifs. And yes, it supposedly is a fine sounding arm. I just don't find it 'genuinely beautiful' as the OP put it. Shoot me, but aesthetically I prefer the classic simplicity of something like the Breuer. |
Form should follow design if function is the core. The better tonearms (some not all...) of yesterday (make this "yesterday" 2-3 decades +) were designed by engineers. Most of todays components in top flight audio is designed by dedicated audiophiles who evolved from customer to professional designer. And there is nothing wrong about that. But we see in many tonearms individual concepts of design which does not follow function but personal aesthetics. This may appeal to some, but in most cases it is not form-follows-function in the original sense of the phrase. But then - as mentioned before by others - "beauty" ( in industrial, mechanical designs ) is always and only in the eye of the beholder and rarely, if ever, finds universal praise. The infamous WAF was no issue in tonearm design in the 1970s/80s. Most of them were pretty raw industrial designs with little to no optical gimmick. Hard to sell today. Our society has changed. The outlook is very important today. Thus make-up and posing are more important to underline any given USP. |
BTW Halcro, the Dynavector arm you mention has always looked ugly to me, I used to wonder who would want to own such a thing. (I'm talking about looks, I acknowledge that this is a fine sounding arm). Seriously, compare that monstrosity to the elegant Sumiko MDC800. Perhaps fortunately, beauty is a very subjective thing. |
Graham arms ugly? I personally think they look great - I never got tired of the look and quality feel of my Graham 1.5T (which I owned for ~18 yrs). Sound eventually took precedence and I upgraded to the Phantom - whose look and feel are also superior IMO. As for the earlier arms I've owned - I liked the SME V's battleship build, though it was hardly beautiful. The Sumiko MDC800 was beautiful (IMO) and had a quality feel to the touch - I miss it. |
Sorry, try link again. http://www.horomusic.com/filosofia2.jpg |
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. |
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. |
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: HalcroTo 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 remember the old Zentih Cobra looked pretty nice. I would never let any of my LPs anywhere near one though. I leave that to an arm that is unperturbed by any track recorded in vinyl. Perception is a funny thing and it is long proven that there is no accounting for taste. I find the Laverda motorbikes from the 1970s to be quite tasteful in design, despite the fact that they are also appear quite technical (http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/laverda/laverda_750sf2.htm)... It has never struck me that someone would have thought that the Triplanar or Phantom to be ugly! To me they look awesome, totally speaking to the requirements of LP. They say that one has as much fun planning and anticipating a vacation; I suspect that tone arms get some of their appeal simply because they present the possibility of music. |
Dear Halcro, You and Dertonarm are our 'fire -eaters' or 'war -horses'. Never heard about fear? I mentioned somewhere that among the most contra-productive rules the oldest was 'de gustibus... non disputandum est'. However even Mozart needed to learn first about music before he was able to give his compositions to the humanity. This apply to any artist we admire. But if you look at our educational systems you will see that even 'phylosophical esthetics' is missing. What can one learn about esthetics with the help of TV? So no wonder that only few really care about while many like to talk about... You may be privileged by your profession in this matters the most of us have no better than state that we 'like' or admire something but are not able to describe what we exactly mean. The lack of vocabulary suggest the lack of learning. BTW I stated ealier that I admire FR-64 S the most of all tonearms. But because of my lack of the right vocabulary I had no better description than 'mechanical beauty'. I was very glad to hear from T_bone that he understod what I wanted to say. Regards, |
