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
10-11-11: Halcro
OK Johnnyb,
As the Moderator here.....'modern' arms which do not advance the art and science of the design....are not of interest.
And why are you so sure that the DPS arm does not "advance the art and science of the design"?
Dear Geoch,

yes, the armboard is floating but in a very stable way. Four magnets on the rear side of the armboard (two each) are facing four magnets mounted on two special side rests. You may adjust the distance between the magnets for getting a harder or softer "footprint" of the arm.

It is working like in the DaVinci Gabriel II which runs with two big magnetical platters, only moving here.

best @ fun only
Dear Halcro,
in general you are right. But the cobra tonearm is designed for usage with a floating armboard. It is part of the system. But you may use it without, of course.

best @ fun only
Halcro -
My original post was correct then, the major advance is the arm tube. As you have articulated there are many other aspects to this arm, many of which have been used before. If you really want to debate the no headshell then look at the Ediswan Arm of 1955 - this is a monocoque structure with cartridge AND phono built into the arm, even had a volume control on the arm.
Seriously though mounting an armboard on magnets and dialing up the softness sounds like a tone control to me. I'm firmly in the camp of having a rigid closed loop between cartridge and groove. No I dont use the Vector as my own personal preference for tonearms is
1. Tangential tracking air bearing
2. True unipivot
I'm happy to acknowledge the likes of Continuum pushing the envelope and challenging current thinking on arm tube design and performance, but one must also acknowledge the designers gone before who have designed, developed & articulated many of the ideas used in the rest of the arm.
Dover,
I was a little rash in defining 'Modern Arms' as advancing the art and science?
We all agree that...as Raul says....tonearms are not 'Rocket Science'.....unless you want it to be?
What I really meant by 'Modern Arms' as opposed to the classic arms of the 70s and 80s is the struggle for slight advances with new technologies whilst treating very seriously the important requirement for 'on the fly' adjustments.
Such arms are typified by the Phantom II with Magnaglide and Micropoise, the Triplanar, the Reed, the Durands and the Kuzma 4Point as well as the Continuums.
Having said that......the Micro Seiki MA-505 came with VTF, VTA and anti-skate ALL 'on-the-fly' 30 years ago. As well as having Azimuth adjustment and hydraulic elevating as well as descending arm mechanism.
With this amount of 'on-the-fly adjustment, it made extracting the finest performance from any cartridge particularly easy and thus compared, in sonic ability, to many superior arms of its time and even those of today.