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

@mulveling , even the light FR arm is a tank and will be too heavy for many fine cartridges. Not only that but in reality they are not the best designs. Removable head shells are a terrible thig to strap a tonearm and cartridge with. Not only do they add unnecessary contacts but they add mass right where you do not want it forcing you add more mass at the other end of the arm increasing the arm's moment of inertia ruining it's ability to follow record undulations. It is easy to add mass to an arm for a stiffer cartridge, not so easy to take it away. It is always best to start with a light arm. They are static balance arm thus the VTF changes with elevation and the bearings are high above the record surface increasing warp wow. There are so many excellent arms out there now that have none of these problems, Origin Live, Reed, Schroder, Tri Planar and more. The Origin Live Encounter is an excellent arm at $1500.00 

Mijostyn, I think you are a nice guy, and I enjoy sparring with you, but what does rankle me is your consistent tendency to draw scientific-ish relationships between or among disparate factoids that are very often not at all related as cause-effect or at least there is no proof of a cause-effect relationship except circumstances. Further, you nearly always fail to label your dissertations as "opinion". You’re certainly not the only one who does this, but you write with such certainty that it might actually perpetuate some of your erroneous beliefs among newbies. Putting aside our complete disagreement when it comes to suspended, belt-drive turntables (I generally don’t like them except for the Dohmann) vs unsuspended direct-drive turntables (I like some of the best ones), your polemic on tonearms above is full of holes. The only thing you say with which I would have to agree is that use of a removable headshell does inevitably require an extra set of physical contacts in the signal path. I was just as taken in by this teaching against removable headshells, that was foisted upon us audiophiles back in the 90s, that I avoided using tonearms with removable headshells for about 20 years, until 5-6 years ago.

You wrote, "Removable head shells are a terrible thing to strap a tonearm and cartridge with. Not only do they add unnecessary contacts but they add mass right where you do not want it forcing you add more mass at the other end of the arm increasing the arm’s moment of inertia ruining it’s ability to follow record undulations." What "mass" are you talking about? The mass of the connector, which cannot add more than a gram or two to effective mass? Even tonearms with fixed headshells must have a headshell of some sort, which always adds to effective mass per se. Actually, separatable headshells make a tonearm more adaptable to cartridges with various levels of compliance. For one example, the FR64S is a tonearm with high effective mass, especially when you use the FR headshell that comes with it. There are a few different ones made by FR, but they are all pretty heavy, weighing 20g and more (and many say they sound bad, but I wouldn’t know). But one can choose to use a much lighter headshell, such as any good carbon fiber type that weigh about 10g typically, or any of the light aluminum headshells made over the years by SME, AT, Denon and others that weigh much less than 10g. So for the putative disadvantage of those extra physical contacts, one gains tremendous flexibility. Now, can you adapt an FR64S, in terms of achieving an acceptable calculated resonant frequency, to some of the MM cartridges from the early days with VERY high compliance, e.g. an ADC XLM? Probably not. But you can adapt an FR64S to nearly any modern medium compliance LOMC, if resonant frequency is your holy grail. Whether or not you can "hear" those headshell contacts in the signal path is a question I would leave to each end user to decide. I advise a touch of a good contact enhancer.
You also wrote, "They are static balance arm thus the VTF changes with elevation and the bearings are high above the record surface increasing warp wow." Wrong and wrong. I think the FR64fx is built just like an FR64S, only with lighter materials, but for sure the FR64S is a dynamic balance tonearm, not a static balance type. Moreover, the FR64S has a decoupled counterweight that hangs down into the plane of the LP surface, not "high above" it. It is a very modern design in that regard. I remember Herb Papier telling me he thought it was a big improvement, when he decided to re-engineer the Triplanar so to decouple the CW. Some guys don’t like the dynamic balance method for adjusting VTF; I just recently read that at least one FR64S aficionado ignores the dynamic balance feature and prefers static balance. Still others prefer dialing in some of the VTF by dynamic and the remainder by moving the CW. Using dynamic balance does permit one to get the CW as close as possible to the pivot, thereby minimizing its effect on net effective mass.

Let’s just keep our facts straight.

I think the FR64fx is built just like an FR64S, only with lighter materials, but for sure the FR64S is a dynamic balance tonearm, not a static balance type.

Right @lewm
Same dynamic balance spring can be found if "FX" models.
What’s new in 66 FX series is banana shaped arm tube (unique for 66fx only).

@lewm, boy Lou to much coffee today? 
First, as for removable head shells, you not only have the mass of the head shell but the mass of the contacts the socket and the retaining lock ring on the tonearm. A situation like an SME, Reed or Schroder is obviously much lighter. This unnecessary mass, there only for your convenience is at the end of the arm where it contributes more to the effective mass of the arm and the arms polar moment of inertia making more difficult to move. This is not my opinion Lou but obvious fact in pretty simple engineering  term. 
We seem to be confused on terms. A dynamic balanced arm has a counterweight that is set for balance then tracking force is added by a spring or similar mechanism. This has nothing to do with static vs neutral balance. A neutral balance arm which is the ideal has a line that goes through the center of mass of the counterweight through the vertical bearing and the center of mass of the cartridge. A neutral balance arm will not change VTA with elevation. When you position it anywhere vertically it will stay there. Examples are the Tri-Planar, the Reed 2G, the Schroder CB and some of the more expensive Origin Live arms.
Static balance or stable balance arms if you draw a line through the center of mass of the counter weight and the vertical bearing that line will go above the center of mass of the cartridge. These arms will change VTF with elevation and if you position them high and let go they will hunt up and down looking for the balance point and eventually they will stop at a "stable" balance point. Neutral balance arms simply follow the record much better. None of this is my opinion. Ed Villchur had this figured out when I was knee high to a grasshopper. 
Why are you arguing about the vertical bearing being at record level? Warp wow is an obvious problem. If you don't think so take one of your test records and play a test tone with a nickel under the edge of the record. Pretty impressive! Not only can warps be a Nickle high but they are much more acute. Having vacuum clamping helps negate this problem. Raising the vertical bearing above the record surface makes warp wow worse. Again, not my opinion. The best tonearms pay homage to these design issues. The FR's may be nicely made but they are not good designs. Neither is the SAT arm for that matter. Go figure. I buy a tonearm for the best performance under all conditions. If that sacrifices convenience so be it. Heavy tonearms and stiff cartridges increase record wear and distortion during playback as the increased inertia causes the cantilever to move instead of the tonearm. I have seem oscilloscope traces showing this clearly. Some have hypothesized that this is the reason some tangential  arm sound better because they are short, light and have much less inertia, following the record better, generating less distortion. Don't yell at me. Not my study and I have no idea. Makes sense though. 
If you ask Mark Dohmann what is the best sub $20K turntable on the market he will immediately tell you the Sota. He is just as allergic to direct drive tables as I am. His main claim to fame is turntable isolation, isolating the cartridge from vibrations generated by anything other than the record. A suspension is essential for this purpose. I personally would never buy another turntable without an adequate suspension. But, that is me. People buy turntables for reasons other than their performance and stability. 
Don't turn your turntable on and place the tonearm down on the record. Turn the volume up and have a look at your woofers or diaphragm in your case. A woofer will be not be motionless. Not sure about the diaphragm. Don't think I can see mine. Anyway, that woofer motion is environmental rumble. Some people call it room rumble but there are many causes outside of the room like the cement truck traveling down your street.
A properly suspended table will be dead silent. No environmental rumble.

I am all for spirited discussion lewm, and there have been occasions where I have been dead wrong and I do not mind at all learning that I am wrong. It is a great way to learn right.  I hope we can avoid getting bitter about such trivial things. 

This is an excellent primer on turntable and tonearm design. Very thoughtfully done. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rgK0YMsJXM