Many higher end preamps are dated and ugly, why is this?


Conrad Johnson, BAT, VTL are all very good preamplifiers, they are dated and just ugly.  Audio research is a prettier amplifier but it's not very well regarded due to it sounding more like a solid state, ie. Not really a tube preamp despite all those internal lightbulbs.

Cheaper preamps can be more pretty. Schitt makes a pretty preamp for about $1000. People like pretty.

D'Agostino by many is viewed as very attractive but kind of weird. 

jumia

Pre-amps are engineering products built to do a job.  For most that job is not to look beautiful.  As most here have said, the important job is to process signals accurately and without unwanted artifacts.

ARC epitomises that, having sold amps for more than 60 years that all look pretty much the same externally.  I have no issue with that.  It cements brand image.  The visual aesthetics are entirely functional, but excellently executed in terms of materials and build quality.  In fact I like it.

What we really don't need is bling for the sake of bling.  Amplifiers are not art objects.  D'Agostino falls for that, although he didn't when he ran Krell.  And he's certainly not the worst.

But let us be thankful the bling hasn't gone as far as it has in turntables, where nearly all high-end units are grossly over-designed, over-weight and over-priced.  For goodness sake, all they have to do is spin a record.

One person's sexy is another person's ugly, and vice versa.... People do have different aesthetic tastes, after all... 

That classe stuff embodies everything i hate about US design.

Sharp edges and corners- terrible feng shui. Ye olde tourist trappe script- urgh.

Oversize faceplates, rack mounts that noone uses, unsoftened brutalism throughout, no. Just no

My Rogers integrated and phono pre look so cool that several female non-audiophiles have said, “ooh” and “ahh”.  This was unprecedented in my experience.  It also contributes to domestic harmony.