What is the order of importance of the parts of an analogue rig?


Let's make it simple and categorize it into 4 groups: cartridge, tonearm, phono stage, and turntable (include platter, plinth, motor, bearing, mat, etc., into 1). This happens to be my thinking, but I am open minded to other opinions.

This is assuming you have a well matched set up across the board. Where can you get the most improvement from a change in one category?
sokogear

Showing 2 responses by sokogear

WOW. I wasn't thinking about that high a level of commitment. At my level, I was amazed at how much the sound improved with an upgraded arm (REGA RB 700 to RB 880). Then I moved the turntable from a P5 to a P8 and it was subtly better, but was not blown away to the same degree, but I like a couple features it has. I learned late in life how the Phono stage is so important (much more so with a MC cartridge). When I got one that matched the impedence of my cartridge (which was and still is the best part of the system) I couldn't believe it over the one included on a very nice integrated amp (although with the kind of $$ you are talking about you'd never consider that).

The point of the question is theoretical in nature...what part of a rig could improving be most beneficial? I realize that is never true. The Linn mindset was always engineering focused at to the source of the sound, so cartridge came first, but I agree if there is excessive motor noise (or the record stinks) it is a moot point.
What about SUTs (set up transformers). Should that be a separate category for those with MC cartridges?