SOTA NOVA, HR-X VPI, Technics 1200G recommendations?

ceramic mat from audio technica Wil prolly be very bad right. 

A solid mat is just as bad as a mat that is too soft. 

Chakster, I have much more important things to do besides remember the names and models of turntables we all dismissed as being Japanese garbage. Actually, now that I think of it I do not own one piece of Japanese equipment not even a cartridge or a car. Guess I have not forgiven them for WW2 yet. To much mysticism in their gear for me. Do you bow down to your turntable every time you turn it on? Might be a good idea. I can understand the Idler wheel guys. There was a day when the British made the absolute best. Someday you will hear the light and get yourself a decent turntable. It will be fun to hear all those antique cartridges for real and not mutilated by magnetic fields:-) 

Copper mat cost more than your turntable (if you don’t have something special), look at the price for Artisan Fidelity new pure copper mat, it’s $1200.

Micro Seiki CU-180 in Mint condition will cost the same, but it was made 40 years ago in Japan (so it’s rare). 1.8kg is too heavy for some turntables. I’m using CU-180 on Luxman PD-444 and it’s superb mat!

For $250 you can buy graphite mat from Sakura System (latest version of Boston Audio Mat) and it’s great mat too, but without wow factor of Micro Seiki.

SAEC SS-300 Is great vintage mat with much more complicated design than Sakura System “The Mat”. SAEC is amazing mat and it cost $350-550 when condition is like new.


Rubber is worst ever material for the mat, and cork is just like $15 felt mat (it’s really nothing).

I'm using cork and rubber now.

so it's worthwhile to get the copper 'Matt' for all direct drives or just sp 10? or can I use carbon Matt? 

I don’t care what car do you have, but you can’t even remember the names of the turntables and your experience with some unknown direct drive is from the 70s!

Reference direct drive are all from Japan from Denon, Victor, Pioneer, Technics... I assume you neved tried any good Japanese direct drive from those brands, I want to remind you that top models from those brand were extremely expensive in the 70s/80s.

Also Direct Drive are not the same. Drive itself does not have a sound and what you hear is a sound of tonearm/cartridge.

You can recall your cartridges and tonearms maybe? @mijostyn

I had never heard of Dohmann until you mentioned it. Actually, it looks very nice. You can tell it is expensive.

Chungjh, that is obviously true of cars although I have put a reservation down on a cybertruck arguably the ugliest vehicle ever conceived. I also use a 911 as a daily driver a form follows function car if ever there was one.
As far as a turntable is concerned performance trumps everything including looks. If you are buying a turntable for looks perhaps you are not an audiophile? 
@chakster, You expect me to remember models from 30-40 years ago?
Lets put it this way, they were so bad that it scared me out of direct drives forever. The designers that I have the most confidence in also shied away from direct drive like Mark Dohmann, David Fletcher and AJ Conti. There is no direct drive table that meets my requirements particularly when it comes to isolation. Technics turntables are like Toyota cars, very reliable reasonably well made pedestrian fair. Over the 30 years I have been out of the audio business nothing much has change that would get me interested enough to consider buying one although there are several newcomers on the market that make interesting products it is rare for me to purchase something from a small newbie that has yet to establish themselves in the market. Besides I am perfectly happy with the turntable I just purchased. It is right at the point of diminishing returns and does everything I need a turntable to do. The next turntable in line would be the Dohmann Helix 2, a substantially more expensive turntable. 
I put my money where my mouth is. I could have easily purchased an SP10R. 

"There is no advantage in making a turntable look cool. It is just a total waste of money. It has nothing to do with sound, purely visual. Mechanical artwork."

Are you saying that it is fine for a Porsche to look like a Toyota as long as the performance is Porsche? Some people get a jolt of dopamine from the form as much as from the function.

My aversion to direct drive turntables comes from pretty extensive listening tests back in the late 70's early 80's. The universal opinion was that direct drive turntables sounded inferior to the best belt drive turntables. 

Where is the list of Direct Drive turntables you are talking about? After 30-40 years did you ever try again? 

@lewm , We fully agree that a low compliance cartridge benefits from a high mass arm. Stylus shape and VTF certainly influence record wear. However, given the same stylus shape and the same VTF the low compliance/high mass combination will have accelerated record wear vs the high compliance/low mass pair. You and I both prefer higher compliance lower mass combinations. 
My aversion to direct drive turntables comes from pretty extensive listening tests back in the late 70's early 80's. The universal opinion was that direct drive turntables sounded inferior to the best belt drive turntables. There were various theories of why this might be, none of them proven that I know of. I do know that isolating the turntable from everything else going on around it including the music is very important.
The degree to which suspended turntables do this is pretty easy to see and measure. Consequently I will never own a direct drive turntable and I will never own a turntable that does not have an adequate suspension. 
I have one more issue, fuel to add to the fire. Turntables are a prime target for flippant design, The Clearaudio Statement is a great example. 
There is no advantage in making a turntable look cool. It is just a total waste of money. It has nothing to do with sound, purely visual. Mechanical artwork. Other manufacturers followed suite. IMHO the very best turntable made is the Dohmann Helix. Still very expensive but plain, unassuming in comparison to other tables in that price range. I also think Mark Dohmann has the right approach to turntable design. 
I'm sorry if I seem to be a stuck record when it comes to the influence of a motor near a cartridge. Electro-mechanical devises have a way of influencing each other  especially in close proximity. If you put the close together no amount of shielding is going to stop that interaction. 

May be another benefit of the copper disc is that it may discharge some electrostatic charge build up?

I have mentioned this before: I had a pure copper made for me by a machinist, for my L07D.  It weighs about 6 lbs, which is not a stretch from the stock stainless steel mat that comes with the L07D and weighs about 5.5 lbs.  With a copper mat on an SP10 Mk2, I cannot rule out that at least some of the perceived benefit may derive from the enhanced shielding effect of copper.  Just a hunch; no data except listening to my long gone Mk2.

@chungjh,

I answered that for you in some detail one pg 1 of this thread,
05-23-2021 11:03am.
The Sota is here: https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/133

Cheers,
Spencer

@sbank 

Thanks for the TVT recommendation. I just sent him an email. Which SOTA do you have? How does it compare with the old Technics?

I have a perfect original Micro Seiki CU-180, actually two of them at the moment. The price only goes up every year. It’s very hard to find CU-180 without scratches. Not interested in replicas, I like vintage original gear in mint condition. It makes me happy :)) 

@chungjh, 
While I agree w/ @chakster that mats won't affect sound as much as a cartridge, IMHE, they have a fairly significant impact on Technics tables and are worthwhile.

When I owned my SP10mk2, @dgarretson came over with his superheavy CU-180 mat, a heavy steel mat and we tried both together. I also tried Funk Achromat, Boston carbon mat, and a couple of others not worth remembering. Every one sounded different. Generally, higher mass was best, up until the point where too much started to strain the motor(two heavy metal mats together). When I pondered the ~$800 cost and limited availability of the CU-180 mat, I couldn't justify the expense. Better to go lower cost and invest more in cartridge, etc. That led to...

I turned to Tran Van Tan, a Vietnamese analog machinist, whose TVT Analog Shop makes custom parts for mostly vintage tables. His 2 layer copper/stainless mat was made to meet my requirements for mass & height and was beautifully made for $250. For me a good balance in sound improvement and value. Can't recommend him enough.  He has many photos on his site that will instantly make an impression http://tvtanalogshop.com/   
@chakster with all your vintage stuff, he may be a good resource in the future for you.

Back to your warps question, the Technics platter shape is not friendly to most ring clamps. I gave up on that with mine. Now that my Sota has vacuum and the Sota Reflex clamp, warps are conquered without a second thought. Cheers,

Spencer

@chakster,  Michael Fremer liked some carbon fiber mat on Technics 1200G. Do you think CU-180 is better? How do you handle warped records? Periphery ring?

I don't have warped records in my collection, I use weight or clamp on top. 

Mr. Fremer do not review vintage analog gear, you can read his opinion only about new gear available today from dealers, shops etc. 

Micro CU-180 designed in the 70s, you can read about it from audio enthusiasts on various forums, but not from professional reviewers like Mr. Fremer. 

I have all 3 mats that I like:

1. SAEC SS-300 -very nice aluminum lighweight mat 
2. MICRO CU-180 -very expensive superheavy vintage copper mat

3. The Mat from Sakura Systems - this is brand new graphite mat for $250 


Do not overestimate the importance of turntable mat, mat will never change the sound as much as a cartridge for example. 

@chakster, if you have 100 people dancing on a bad floor the Technics will fail badly. DJs use them because they are cheap and they have a lot of torque. Not to mention that they put an oscillating magnetic device right under a very sensitive magnetic pick-up. No scientist in his right mind would ever do such a silly thing:-)

@mijostyn I’m been playing vintage records for over 25 years and got paid for this job, traveled all over Europe and the whole Russia, worked on radiostations and hosted my own radioshow, invited artists from Japan, Europe and USA to spin rare Soul records in my town. I also produced records pressed in Detroit on the same pressing plant where Motown pressed their Soul in the 60s. I’ve been using Technics all my life and still have a pair of upgraded SL1210mk2 (they are not in my main system). I was surrounded by dancing people all my life and they danced to the 70’s Soul 45s played with Grado DJ200i MI cartridges on Technics turntables, when we hosted our own Soul parties I brought my external Grado phono stages and edjusted EQs of the main system by myself or with a help of professionals. Even in the early 90s when SL1210mk2 retail in Panasonic stores in Russia was $450 it wasn’t cheap at all. Now a brand new mk7 cost 3 times as much locally and it’s not cheap for ‘normal people’. Isonoe footers designed to solve bass feedback on old SL1200, but Technics redesigned their stock feet on new mk7, GR, G. Needles does not skip at 2g tracking force even if 100 people dancing in front of the deejay in the bar on wooden floor. Same with cheaper Pioneer PLX-1000 turntable for example (I tried when i was in Paris).

Before super powerful and stable Technics SL1200mk2 became a Disco standard worldwide, Garrard and Thorens were DJ turntables! In Studio 54 in NYC you can see Thorens, and Garrard were everywhere in UK. Technics put them into dust forever.

A lonely audiophile sitting alone in front of his system in the dark corner of his room and still thinking about vibration from outer space or what??? I don’t know why people think those butchers wooden block is necessary under their turntables, properly designed turntable is already very well isolated for home listening (they are heavy) if you are not place them right on subwoofer.

My Luxman PD-444 in the main system is quite heavy, suspended, sitting on superheavy metal rack on spikes. No feedback or vibrations that I can detect.

Just stop repeating the "oscillating magnetic device" meme, please, and the rest of your thesis would be less indigestible.  You seem to think that the engineers who designed these devices were idiots unaware of EMI and the use of shielding materials.  First of all or maybe last of all, a motor is not "oscillating" in the formal sense of the word. 

I could say how can "they" use an compliant belt to drive a platter with an outboard motor and then mount the platter and tonearm on a sprung subassembly, whilst mounting the motor on a solid unsuspended support?  Isn't that a recipe for speed instability? But I won't say that.

Thank you Ralph. In addition the cartridge is on a pivoted tonearm with it's own suspension and vibration characteristics. Noise in the room will affect the tonearm differently than it will the chassis creating a differential the cartridge could certainly pick up. With vibration passed through the bass such as foot fall the base is actually doing the moving and the chassis sits still in the same position in space. 
@chakster, if you have 100 people dancing on a bad floor the Technics will fail badly. DJs use them because they are cheap and they have a lot of torque. Not to mention that they put an oscillating magnetic device right under a very sensitive magnetic pick-up. No scientist in his right mind would ever do such a silly thing:-)  

@chakster,  Michael Fremer liked some carbon fiber mat on Technics 1200G. Do you think CU-180 is better? How do you handle warped records? Periphery ring?

Well, maybe because I never used a shitty turntables in my system, also made custom racks exclusively for them. And with a good metal mats on my direct drives everything was good. 

In my opinion, people who always blabling something about “vibration” are living in the earthquake area, probably right on top of the vulcano or very close, ***becase I really don’t understand what they are talking about***!? Using over 6 turntables at home I never ever noticed any audible problem with vibration, I’m using custom made metal racks on parquet floor.

Vibration is a problem on the dancefloor packed with 500 jumping people near 10 000 watts sound system - this is where turntable definitely must be seriously isolated. But even there you will see Technics DD in use!

@chakster  (Emphasis added above) This is what they are talking about:


If you really want to hear what your recordings actually sound like, controlling vibration in the turntable is paramount to that goal. I'm not talking about people on a dance floor, I'm talking about vibration induced in the turntable by the loudspeakers. In a nutshell, if your system sounds harsher at higher volumes particularly when playing LPs, this is something to look at! The vibration need not be very much, in fact it might be microscopic. But so is the groove of the LP.


To this end, if the platter is able to vibrate in a different way from the base of the tonearm, this will enable to the pickup to see that vibration and it will induce a coloration. To prevent this, the platter surface and base of the tonearm must be coupled in a very rigid and acoustically dead manner. In this way the platter and base of the arm will vibrate in the same plane if it vibrate, this preventing the vibration from being picked up by the cartridge.

Mk3 then Mk2 was not the best of the rest in my system to my ears.

@lewm 

In what way is Technics SP-10 MK3 better than MK2? Is the SQ difference dramatic?

Having the removable head shell with a few twists of the screw, and putting on a new head shell, and only having to take 3-5 minutes adjusting the weight is so nice.
we use 4 different head shells and this is a huge plus!

Mijo, I don’t know which of my posts you’re referencing but my last post was just to remind us why sometimes high effective mass is necessary and that low compliance with high mass is in my opinion not the prime cause of record wear so long as VTF is comparable to that of a typical higher compliance cartridge, eg, 2g or less. I don’t think you’d disagree. I want no part of arguing about suspension vs no suspension. There are too many variables.

Dance floors are usually concrete so, there is never an issue with foot fall skipping.

Usually wooden floor if we’re talking about nice small venues, but there is an issue with floor shaking (or stage shaking) if it’s not a warehouse with concrete floor or a club in the basement. But in all those public venues at least 100 people are moving and dancing.

When we are listening at home we’re normally in the listening chair and nothing going on. 1-3 people chilling in the room while some record spinning on the turntable. I assume we have a good wooden table or a metal/wooded rack on spikes for turntable and I believe there are no neighbors hammering the floor or the wall while we are listening to the music. So what kind of vibrations audiophiles are talking about ? On microscopic level it must be absolutely irrelevant for a proper turntable, because it was designed for use just like this without anything special under the table. 

Lewm would be talking about me. And there are several issues which he and I have fundamentally opposite views. 

An isolated turntable like the SOTA is very obviously better at protecting against foot fall skipping which on anything other than a concrete floor can be a problem for analog lovers. Having to tip toe around is aggravating. DJ's use DD tables because of the torque which they need to slip "Q" and create other effects. Dance floors are usually concrete so, there is never an issue with foot fall skipping. Isolating the cartridge from extraneous "vibration" is critical for the best sonic performance. The cartridge is a very sensitive vibration measurement device. It will gladly pick up any vibration passed through the turntable or even the air. IMHO isolation is more important than the utmost in speed stability. The difference between the best belt drives and DD tables is extremely minor and by all accounts inaudible. Those of you who do not have suspended turntables place your tonearm down on a stationary record and turn the volume up. Go look at your woofer. I will be bouncing to one degree or another. That is environmental rumble. It will occur even on concrete floors. If you have a properly suspended turntable your woofer will remain in neutral position without any movement. Subwoofer users are going to be more sensitive to this for obvious reasons. Lewm does not use subwoofers. Airborne vibration is also a problem and might possibly be the reason some people prefer heavy tonearms and stiff cartridges as they will be less affected by this than light arms and compliant cartridges. The solution to this is an isolated dust cover, hearing protection for your cartridge. The Sota offers both a well designed suspension and an isolated dust cover. Lewm had an older Sota that apparently had speed stability issues. His table may have had issues but, that issue, if it was one, has been permanently solved by Sota's new drive train which will hold on to 331/3rd like a pitbull. On top of this Sota offers vacuum clamping which in the opinion of many is the best way to hold a record down, remove minor warps and dampen the record. 
How much of a sonic difference does all this make? No idea. I have never run that comparison. You would have to put the same tonearm and cartridge on an example of each type of turntable and make an AB comparison playing identical copies of the same record. Would be fun to do. The rags are not interested in proving anything at the cost of losing a advertiser.  We have to do this sort of thing ourselves to learn anything and it is expensive. However, the foot fall problem is painfully obvious and there can be no question that a properly designed suspension solves this problem.

I think Technics philosophy is very simple:


1) compact plug and play unit is new 1200 series (great price from $900 per unit like mk7, $1700 for GR and $3500 for G).


2) reference “R” series for people who would like to use their own plinth, different tonearms (2 or even 3 at the same time) they have just the drive (SP-10R) with external power supply. The motor is the same as 1200G series. And when the buyer would like “everything reference class” from Technics they got complete system called SL1000R with SP10R drive, plinth, tonearm.


In my opinion, people who always blabling something about “vibration” are living in the earthquake area, probably right on top of the vulcano or very close, becase I really don’t understand what they are talking about!? Using over 6 turntables at home I never ever noticed any audible problem with vibration, I’m using custom made metal racks on parquet floor. 

Vibration is a problem on the dancefloor packed with 500 jumping people near 10 000 watts sound system - this is where turntable definitely must be seriously isolated. But even there you will see Technics DD in use!

But at home, when it’s just you and your system .... What vibrations are you guys talking about? Manufacturer already solved everything for home use when turntable was designed by professional engineers. They got their isolation feet (dramatically upgraded 1200 new series), also on SL1200 they can be replaced with isonoe suspended feet if needed.


In this high-end industry nobody want “good enough”, they always want “better”, but then it’s the road to infinity if you have money to pay more and more

I have been looking at Technics 1200G and did some thinking about much more expensive Technics TT such as SP10MKII, SP 10MK3, SP10R. From what I can see the new 1200G has a rock solid speed. If the expensive TTs are not much better than 1200G in speed stability, then they must be better in motor vibration and plinth/feet isolation mainly. Is this the right way of thinking about this?

HR-X with a VPI fixed gimble 3D arm.  Then consider a SoundSmith Xephyr MIMC * cartridge.  When your settled on the table and cart, get a Herron VTPH-2a phono stage.  

That should take care of your vinyl front-end.

May I interject here that if you want to use a low compliance LOMC, and there are many fine sounding examples, then a tonearm with high effective mass is not an evil; it is a necessity both for best SQ and preservation of the LP.  Furthermore, VTF and stylus shape are more determinants of LP wear than is the low compliance/high effective mass class of playback equipment, although I too prefer the opposite in general based on listening.

That’s right what chakster said.  

And don't forget that you can't use dynamic compliance measured at 100Hz (all Japanese cartridges) for calculations! 

All calculations must be made with 10Hz compliance figure only. So the compliance must be converted first from 100Hz to 10Hz. Japanese manufacturers never publish compliance figure at 10Hz. 

For anyone who has ever tried playing the Telarc record of Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Symphony knows that if the tonearm/cartridge combo isn’t right, that tonearm is going to skate across the record when the cannons fire.  Very exciting record. 

Remember, the first rule of Engineering is to watch your units.  Well, we had a professor in college that said the first rule of Engineering is "You can't push a rope."  But if your units are mixed you can get into trouble very quickly.  Also note that a warped record will have a rotational frequency of 1.8 Hz.  If the tonearm/cartridge natural resonance is down below 5 Hz, exciting things can happen when it tries to track over that warp.

The phono cartridge and tonearm combine to make a spring mass system.  The phono cartridge and tonearm must compliment each other to yield the ideal system natural frequency.  That ideal system natural is between 8 and 11 Hz.  Once you decide on a tonearm then you must narrow your selection of phono cartridges to compliment the tonearm you have selected.  You can use this equation: Resonant Frequency = 1000 / (2 x π x √ (M x C)) or easier to use the cartridge resonance evaluator available on various websites.  Take my SME 309/Soundsmith Zephyr combo for example.  Tonearm has an effective mass of 9.5g.  The Zephyr has a mass of 12.2g.  I add about 0.5g for the screws for a total mass of 22.2g.  The Zephyr has a compliance of 10 micrometer/millinewton or 0.00001 cm/dyne.  Use the magic calculator or plug these values into the formula and my tonearm/cartridge system has a resonance of 11 Hz.  Right in the ideal zone.  The Zephyr comes with some ceramic rods to add mass if needed.  So, if I wanted to lower the resonance to 10 Hz, for example I could add 2 grams of mass to the headshell.  Why is the resonance range so important?  The 8-11 Hz range keeps the tonearm away from the music lower limit of 20 Hz (the modulating grooves can excite the tonearm) but also above rumble frequencies.  If a tonearm/cartridge system is mismatched poorly you can actually experience your tonearm moving up and down and cartridge skipping.  From the equation you can see that a low mass tonearm/cartridge needs high compliance (spring rate) and a high mass tonearm/cartridge needs low compliance.  

Chakster is right, compliance tells you nothing about the sonic characteristics of a cartridge. The problem is the resonance frequency of the moving mass of the stylus/cantilever/coil, magnet or iron assembly and it's suspension. You have to keep it up over the audio band or you get bright peaky performance. The heavier the moving mass, the stiffer you have to make the suspension. Because moving coil cartridges usually have higher mass assemblies their suspension has to be stiffer. There are some moving coil cartridges with very light moving masses now using plastic crosses for the coils instead of a metal and very powerful rare earth magnets. They tend to be very expensive, read overpriced. IMHO moving magnet and MI cartridges tend to be a much better value. Some would argue their performance can be better than moving coil cartridges. In terms of signal to noise ratio and therefore dynamics there can be no argument that they are better. Other qualities it depends who you talk to. 

All cartridges are:

-Hight compliance
-Mid compliance
-Low compliance

1) Most of the LOMC are low or mid compliance (very few MC are high compliance like Ortofon MC2000 for example)

*A low compliance cartridges must be used with superheavy tonearms.

2) Most of the MM/MI are mid compliance or high compliance (very few are low compliance like Nagaoka for example).

*A high compliance cartridges (in theory) must be used with very lightweight tonearms.

There are limits in every category of cartridges, and using a mid compliance on mid mass tonearms is not always the best solution. A compliance alone will tell you nothing about sonic characteristics of a certain cartridge. It can be a perfect tracker (high compliance), but boring as hell. A low compliance MC also can be boring.  

What is the advantage of using a low compliance cartridge? Is it for a specific sound character? Otherwise it seems like one is limiting himself to heavy tonearms.

If it was my choice between the listed turntables, I would send the Sota back to the factory to be checked and upgraded.  That is an outstanding turntable.  

Second would be upgrading the arm to possibly a SME IV or V.

But, for the price range listed, I would keep the SOTA and upgrade it via the factory.

enjoy

It seems to me we are all coming around to the same place. 

@lewm, I handily agree that if things like contacts and stiffness are going to be a problem the are certainly going to be worse with a stiff, low output moving coil cartridge. This says nothing about record and stylus wear. 
I myself have migrated away from stiff low output cartridges and am using more compliant MM and MI cartridges. I also have to admit that many of my concerns are academic and I really do not know how much they affect the experience with the exception that lighter setups do outperform heavier setups. the oscilloscope traces I saw were more than convincing.
A tonearm with a detachable head shell may sound exactly the same as a tonearm of similar effective mass, without a removable head shell and with the same cartridge of appropriate compliance. As you say the most important issue is that the cartridge match the tonearm. I also agree that the differences between excellent cartridges is nuanced, not dramatic at all. Which makes me wonder why someone would pay $16,000 for a cartridge? Then again why would someone pay $250,000 for an amp?
Crazy hobby.

No. There is no validity to the notion that the TP sounds muted compared to the FR64S. In fact, the idea is ridiculous without regarding the particular cartridge.

I must admit the comparison between a high class toneams is very subjective and should not be taken seriously (at least for beginner), unless a buyer compare by himself in his own system with his own records. The key point is a CARTRIDGE, it must be the same cartridge and turntable and each time it must be perfectly matched cart and tonearm.

TriPlanar, Reed, Kuzma, Schroeder, Durand ... are all high class modern tonearms, they are all must be great, the rest is personal preferences.

All these tonearm are extremely expensive!

There are absolutely amazing tonearms from the golden age of analog that cost 50-70% less compared to new high-end tonearms. Sometimes it’s hard to detect why they are cheaper than new high-end tonearms.

I remember I was in the situation like Jay many years ago, the starting point for me was Technics EPA-100 with ZYX AIRY III MC (and Technics MM carts like 205c mk4) and then modern Thomas Schick 12 inch tonearm and SPU cartridges (then some vintage MC and MM). Schick tonearm is so beautiful that it was hard to resist, the price was more than affordable. The next step was Reed 3p "12 Cocobolo (I don’t know any other tonearm in the universe that allow me to adjust absolutely everything on the fly including azimuth). But to get Reed for affordable price (demo unit) I decided to travel to Vilnius, Lithuania to meet up with the Reed Team in person! I bought their used demo version with huge discount! Normally I would never buy a tonearm like Reed, because official retail price was something like EUR 5000!

If the budget is not a problem my advice is to buy one modern and one vintage tonearm and compare by yourself with appropriate cartridges.

This hobby is about fun after all, there are so many great tonearms and cartridges out there.

 
I heard some people say that TP tends to sound more muted than FR-64s. I guess this will depend on the cartridge match. But, do you think there is any validity in this point about TP?

Reed 3P does look a lot like TP and easy to adjust everything.How about a comparison between these two?

I don’t think resistance, pure and simple, is the main possible issue with physical connections in the signal path. For one thing because each physical connection also has capacitance and/or inductance. For another, because very often the first gain device, tube or transistor, in a phono stage will be preceded by a series resistance in the 20 to 200 ohm range, to prevent oscillation. Such a resistance would swamp out any resistance of the preceding wiring system. Fairly high resistance ICs (Magnan, etc) were once in vogue, too. Yet I am agreeing that physical connections should be eliminated whenever possible and practical.

The effective mass of my SME 309 tonearm with removable headshell  is less than the effective mass of the SME IV or SME V fixed tonearms.  Hmm.  Generalizations can be dangerous.  I agree that fewer connections between the phono cartridge and preamp is better but unless you are soldering the tonearm lead wires to the phono cartridge pins and to the preamp input leads, it is somewhat of a moot point.  1.5 meters of litz lead wire has a resistance of about 10.8 milliohms,.  Each connection has a resistance of 0.5 milliohms.  My tonearm has 5 connections to the preamp vs 3 for the SME IV or V or 1 extra milliohm.  7.5% more resistance using a removable headshell.  But a fixed tonearm with no connections- solder joints only would reduce the resistance between the phono cartridge and preamp by 25%.