Why is the price of new tonearms so high

I disagree that the prices of 'new' tonearms is high.
Apart from the incredible investment in research and computer and materials modeling by a company like Continuum for their Cobra and Copperhead arms which sell in very small volumes, I believe it is the cost of new cartridges primarily, and new turntables secondly that inflate the relative pricing of new tonearms?

When it is fairly common for a LOMC cartridge to cost from $4,000-$6,000 and the new 'benchmark' cartridges $10,000-$15,000, how silly would it seem for the tonearm (which I believe to be more critical than the cartridge) to cost a mere $3,000?
When you include the fact that the cartridges will be worthless in 2 years whilst the tonearm will hopefully last 20-30 years, the equation looks fairly ridiculous?
And who in his right mind, would mount a $3,000 tonearm on his $60,000-$160,000 turntable?

Halcro,
do you think that the efforts small companies bring to the scene with advanced computer analysis of TTs outweighs the big money that big corporations like Technics could put into the development long ago although with less elaborate computer analysis. My guess is that the electronics play a lesser role in TTs compared to CDs and that the physics that still govern the biggest part of the design has been available for quite a while?

Dear Halcro, dear Perrew, the task building a tonearm or a TT hasn't changed at all in the past 30 years. Computer "analysis" in our days is - in comparism to the period between 1985 and 1995 - cheaper by a magnitue. Frankly - your avarage computer at home today has enough capacities to be able to calculate the journey to the moon in 1969 in all needed details. We can assume it will be suitable for all needed calculations and "analysis" to design a decent TT or tonearm too.
This is not expensive.
Sorry.
Despite what the marketing alpha dogs (I too studied this and hold a master degree in marketing communications...... and feel guilty...) try to convince the public in - the needed tools for truely great design in analog playback was available before Bill Gates got rid of his pampers.
And it was always available to everyone who finished high school and had a basic understanding of mechanics and dynamics under the influence of gravity.
Again - this is all BASIC physics.
The big problem still is, that most designers do try to design "around" the "physic" thus avoiding BIG costs (doing the opposite what they are claim to do in their advertising).
A truely great turntable will always: - be very heavy, demand excellent, very precise (= expensive...) tooling of very heavy parts (platter), ask for several very expensive materials, demand for a regulated and large periphery to isolate the TT from the "building resonance".
A great tonearm will ask for high rigidy, fast transmission of energy, rigid bearings which are able to further transport the energy away from the arm, precise tooling and materials. Try to make a FR-66s (here we go again....) with its B-60 today. I had the B-60 vta base calculated from a company specilized in precision tooling in Karlsruhe - even with production lot of 150 units and the complete blue print at hand, the unit costs were still EURO 620 (which is $900 today...).
Yes Perrew - you are right.
Modern day electronics do play close to zero role in analog compared to digital, were they are at home and the integral part of the units per se.
We should all keep in mind that the retail price of top-flight audio equipment today has a lot to do with marketing politics and image. Add to this the fact that impoter and dealer do want a big share of the cake and we a close to the truth......

Dear halcro, the DaVinci is not great. It is good in todays terms, but leaves several aspects of improvement in its design (you named one of them). Syntax, Heradot, Thuchan and 2 other friends of mine here in southern Germany to use the DaVinci - always with good results.
Never with great ones.
Its nice to look at and gives good results with a very wide varity of cartridges.
Cheers,
D.

>>> ... the physics that still govern the biggest part of the design has been available for quite a while? <<<

Yes that "?" is well put.
Vibration / mechanical resonance mechanics is one of the more difficult subjects yet.
The Tacoma Bridge would be still standing too, if some years back all was truly understood.
Same applies to other architectural issues relating to earth quakes. Resonance behaviour has come to be better understood only more recently. Most ancient understanding ended with the 'pendulum'... (had no vinyl to play with :-)

Looking at Continuum in this light, they spend plenty of time with multiple regression analysis of vibration and resonance behaviour, so they say.
Before computer models, this stuff was ALL intuition plus experiment.
I don't mean you will not get 'decent' results that way --- but no 'banana' either :-).

Now you look at some old timers, REAL heavy weights (cover of 'Night Fly'...) you see where Continuum could have gotten some ideas to start with... and then added plenty of computer modelling, so they ended up with that banana :-)

All else took a piece of pipe and bend it so as to get the off-set angle, put a 'compass gimble' plus a counter weight.
Some noticed that the tube resonated (too much?) and then stuffed it with balsa wood... all intuitive vibration mechanics.

A.

All else took a piece of pipe and bend it so as to get the off-set angle, put a 'compass gimble' plus a counter weight.

I agree with you Axel.
Daniel, to say the physics governing the behaviour of tonearms hasn't changed is very simplistic and slightly disappointing to hear from you 'the rationalist'.
As Axel points out, the physics governing cable structures was understood by the Romans (a removable tent structure was erected over the Colosseum) but that hasn't stopped the knowledge being 'lost' for 2000 years and when finally being re-discovered, pushed to further and further limits?
The principles of the internal combustion engine haven't changed basically in 100 years yet the progress in engine design continues.
The principles of telescopic optics has been known since the time before Galileo and its physics have not changed but the use of computer analysis, design and construction has created unimaginable lenses in tiny digital cameras.
Sorry Daniel, not only don't I agree with you in this respect, but you continue to avoid the 'acid test' of your proposition.
For all the theory behind your support of the FR64 and FR66 tonearms, you have absolutely no answers to anyone who says it sounds mediocre and coloured and highly distorted?
And all your physics will simply not make it great if it in fact is NOT?