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.
halcro

Showing 2 responses by jameswei

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.
"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?)