At what price point do I run into diminishing returns on an MC Cartridge?


I need to replace my MC cartridge.  I've had limited experience with them but I have certainly noticed a dramatic difference in performance.  My first 3 were priced at $500 Sumiko, $900 Ortofon and $5000 Linn Kandid.  The difference between my first cartridge and second - nearly double in price, was a very noticeable improvement.  Then I took the plunge and spent $5000 (after tax) for my Linn Kandid cartridge.  The difference and improvement in the quality of sound was startling.  The soundstage was like nothing I'd ever heard before.  Coupled with my newly acquired McIntosh MP 1100 phono pre-amp and I was hearing things in LP's that quite frankly I had never heard before.  Amazing!  So here's the question: At what price point do I run into seriously diminished returns on a cartridge investment?  I rather doubt I'm going to have "double" the quality of sound that I received with my Linn Kandid cartridge if e.g. I went up to a $10K cartridge. So, my question to you audiophiles with loads of experience, what is your opinion on what price point (neighborhood) would take me to a place where every dollar spent thereafter would yield only micro returns.  Said another way, what is the best price point to take anyone to the the same neighborhood as a person with "money to burn" on cartridges?  BTW, I realize there are probably some pearls that don't cost nearly as much - and that money doesn't always buy you love.  If you KNOW of those do tell.         
normantaylor

Showing 7 responses by daveyf

Your Kandid is a very good example of a cartridge that is at the forefront of cartridge technology. The Kandid is sourced from Lyra and employs their new angle technology. As such, it is more advanced than just about any cartridge on the market that does NOT utilize this tech, IMHO. The fact that you were able to hear the difference is telling and does not surprise me. Many far more expensive cartridges are on the market with motors that are essentially designed forty or more years ago! Same innards as far cheaper models, but in most cases with simply different body materials. The fact that the motor is ancient in design and that the designer is relying on a body change is where the problem begins, IME. While it is true that body designs do have some ability to change the sound, IME utilizing the same old motor and charging a ton more $$ for it is not that impressive. Add to that fact some of these folks are using a cheap old aluminum cantilever as well...and I believe that one really only needs to use one’s ears and have an open mind to determine where the values truly lie. IMHO.
@normantaylor. Price and cartridge desirability are not necessarily connected, IMO. What has been mentioned above is certainly very true. A lot of the results will be highly dependent on the ancillary gear and room. Another variable is set up expertise. For example, with Lyra cartridges, any number of differing opinions can be had... because the set up was not as exact as this line demands.. resulting in naysayers who attribute what they hear to the cartridge and NOT the real issue... a faulty, or less than exact set up!
Is there a “sweet spot” in cartridge design and price point... probably depends on your musical expectations and other biases. Personally, I think your Kandid and it’s sister... the Kleos,are probably about there.IMHO.

Dear @rauliruegas Scan Tech and Lyra are basically one and the same!
Scan Tech is the corp name...Lyra is the brand name. So, like I said before...the Kandid is made by Lyra...or if you prefer by Scan Tech....same folks.
Is there anything you don’t want to correct on these forums??
@rauliruegas  I think you like to split hairs... please do look up what that means if you don’t already know.
Kandid is made by ScanTech... owners of Lyra, a brand name like I said before. One could say that Kleos is made by ScanTech ... and branded a Lyra.BTW, I never said that JCarr was the designer of the Kandid.
@grgaudio Good post, which I agree with mostly. However, I do not agree with your estimates of cartridge life or the fact that a low quality diamond( what is that?) will last less than a high quality diamond. IF you are saying that a superior shape of the stylus will incur less wear through time than an inferior stylus design...maybe. Also, I do not think that your estimates of damper (dampher??) life are at all accurate. Simply due to the numerous variables on how cartridges are a) treated and b) designed and c) subjected to climate conditions. Most cartridges that I know have damper life that far far exceeds three years...assuming that they have not been left in either the freezer or under a heat light, LOL.
Oxidation will occur over time...but again that can take many years to occur...if treated correctly.
OTOH, some of the vintage cartridges that have dried up and worn out decades ago will indeed do one thing...ruin your records!
@grgaudio  Interesting hypothesis you have there. Damphers ( not dampers??) tested in your lab...:o)
@grgaudio Do tell how you test dampers --er.. damphers?
Styluses do indeed have different shapes..configurations, and the cut can have a connection to the length of its life, but that is nothing to do with the quality of the diamond, simply to the wear pattern of the shape.
BTW, there is no conclusive evidence that I have ever seen that actually truly shows wear patterns on the surface of the diamond after x number of hours. Not saying that the stylus does not wear out, but there is no predictable pattern of wear regardless of the shape.