Thoughts on moving from a 1200G to Sota Saphire or above


Two different animals, I know. I’ve read some pretty decent reviews on the Sota’s with the vacuum option and intrigued. We’re always looking for that little extra something, something. I’m interested in retrieving a bit more detail and upping the sound stage. 
Maybe this would be a lateral move? Maybe I should change my cart? Something else? Be happy and spin vinyl? Thanks for your feedback. 
Gear:
Technics 1200G
Ortofon Cadenza Black
Herron VTPH-2A phono preamp
Audible Illusions L2 Line Stage
Levinson 532-H
B&W 803 D2 speakers
AQ McKenzie interconnects for phono

Ag insider logo xs@2xbfoura
Perhaps, @lewm , but while we don't want to go down the headshell stability rabbithole here, I'd argue IF integrated headshells are generally equal or better than removable, it comes down to whether or not someone's personal best investment is in multiple carts or just one better one. If you have many mono LPs, and want to swap regularly a mono cart and a stereo cart...that makes sense.  But many of us would benefit more getting the best cart we can and using it all the time.
Personally, I've had some fun doing quick swap shootouts with friends for sh*ts & giggles, but that's generally all it amounted to for me. Different horses...Cheers,
Spencer
I have a sapphire w some upgrades, modified Sumiko FT-3 ( CF arm tube, ridged lock VTA tower / wiring ) Hana ML and your same Herron phono. I also have in a different system Brinkmann Bardo / Triplaner / Lyra.

I think you should spend $ on Fire Level or better IC out of table and phono, different cartridge and isolation for table. Maybe not in that order….
sbank, Crazily, I admit, I have multiple turntables up and running and just as many tonearms.  I use two with fixed headshells, Reed and Triplanar, and three with removable headshells.  When I want to experiment with different cartridges, I am drawn to the simplicity of removable headshells.  This feature offers the additional not insignificant advantage of experimenting with different headshells, if for no other reason than to establish a good effective mass vs compliance ratio to suit a particular cartridge.  For 10-20 years, I had swallowed the notion that fixed headshells were the purist and purest way to go, but my experiences over the last 10-12 years tell me I hear no problems related to flexing at the joint between headshell and tonearm.  The other consideration is that adding a headshell:arm wand interface adds another physical connector between cartridge and phono stage. To me, that would be more of an issue with removable headshells than structural instability. Hence, I tend to mount my lowest output LOMC cartridges in either the Triplanar or the Reed.  But I have broken even that rule of thumb with no discernible problems, I must admit, although I do continue to believe in direct-est connection to the phono stage; the fewer the interfaces, the better.  One caveat: all headshells do not securely fit all tonearm wands. You have to check the quality of the fit in each case.
If you have many mono LPs, and want to swap regularly a mono cart and a stereo cart...that makes sense. But many of us would benefit more getting the best cart we can and using it all the time.


This is so stuid idea for people with many mono records, all they need is a dedicated tonearm for mono!

There is no such thing as “the best cart” and this is a big problem, without trying many cartridges peole have no idea which one is the best in their systems. For many people the most expensive and “the best” is the same thing. 


Additional headshell pins and even a DIN connector on a tonearm will not change the sound of a great tonearm/cartridge.