Inna:
I agree with the premise, but I’d frame it a bit differently. The value of multiple turntables or multiple arms shouldn’t be about about excess or collecting for its own sake — it’s should be about reducing compromise.
Cartridges ask for different things: effective mass, geometry, loading, gain, even cabling. Trying to make one arm and one phono stage do everything well is possible, but it’s rarely optimal. Multiple arms (or tables) simply let each cartridge operate closer to its comfort zone, with less swapping and fewer “close enough” decisions.
That said, there’s a very real practical limit imposed by space and money. Most of us hit it sooner or later. At that point the question stops being “what’s ideal?” and becomes “what’s the smartest allocation of resources?” For many listeners, one well-chosen table with two or three arms, gets most of the benefit without turning the system into a storage problem.
The same logic applies to phono stages. Tube vs solid state, step-up vs active gain — they’re tools, not indulgences. You don’t need all of this to enjoy records, but if analog is a primary source, thoughtful system architecture can improve consistency and reduce churn more effectively than constant upgrades.
In the end, it’s less about how much gear you own and more about how intentionally it’s deployed.
Experience has a sound.