2. analog
  3. 1316775735

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
jameswei
883 posts
 
For many audiophiles, a good part of the appeal of a piece of equipment resides in its appearance. It's not just the sound. And tastes differ with respect to whether any particular design looks good.

I won't buy something that I think looks ugly, no matter how good it sounds. Personally, I think the Graham arm looks pretty cool, but I can understand that it can appear ugly to others. Buy what you like.
polk432
1,142 posts
 
Beauty is no excuse for poor sound.
bifwynne
2,206 posts
 
This thread reminds me of the old SNL shows where Billy Crystal played Rinaldo. Funny as heck when Billy/Rinaldo said, "it's more important to look good than to feel good." hahaha. Sorry for the low browl(sp?) humor.
stanwal's avatar
stanwal
3,147 posts
 
Form follows function.
bifwynne
2,206 posts
 
Hey Stan. I have always respected and appreciated your posts. Does your post above mean that you agree with my Rinalso quip????
More to discover