Turntable upgrade recommendations: SME vs AMG vs Technics vs other

@drbond 

You are right. Most experiences of audio components are within the context of the system in which they are heard. Even reviewers often have a narrow window.

And of course opinions are always subject to ones own preferences.

Each of these turntables should be capable of excellent performance. 

Choice of tonearm and in particular cartridge should enable any of these turntables to deliver what you want, in other words as long as you buy the best TT you can, you should be able to then tailor the overall presentation through arm/cartridge choice.

Given the gear you have, and the fact that you enjoy different presentations of amplifiers for example, I would recommend you look at a turntable that is capable of 2 arms, even if you start with one. This will future proof your purchase.

Even if you start with one, once you have a handle of the outcome you can then tailor future cartridge purchases to your system and/or add another arm to play with different cartridges. If you purchased any of the TT's I've mentioned, with a top arm, even a modest price cartridge should give you outstanding results. Starting with a couple of cheaper cartridges would give you a feel for what you like - and are always handy for backup in case of accidents.

With regard to tangential trackers, I have owned an Eminent Technology ET2 linear tracker modified for around 30 years, in addition to many other arms such a Dynavector, FR64S, Kuzma  etc.

By eliminating tracking angle error and distortion, properly implemented tangential trackers give you the most accurate soundstage presentation, for example if I listen to a church choral recording, with the ET2 I can hear clearly into the recording environment, soundstage, instrument location, reverberation more than with any conventional pivoted arm. I use to use the ET2 with the original Martin Logan CLS electrostatics - and to this day even my current system cannot match that combination for presenting a phenomenal window into the recording venue.

Some folk argue that linear trackers have too high a mass for the cartridge - but that is not necessarily true - depending on the linear tracking design. Careful matching of cartridge and arm and decent set up are always important.

The CSPort has a linear tracking option and I believe can also run a conventional arm as well - ie 2 arms.

I currently enjoy multiple turntables in my system and run both linear and conventional arms. Arm/cartridge and cartridge/phono matching is the key and a decent phono stage.

By the way interested to know how the Ypsilons are going - how do they compare to the Lamm combo ?

@drbond - no matter how much you spend on any component, there is ALWAYS something better.

Linear tracking arms have one main advantage - there is no anti skating force required since there is no centripetal force pushing the arm away from the center of the record to counteract while the platter is spinning. I had a table a while back that had that which did not sound as good as a $500 (20+ years ago) table I bought to replace it when it broke. It was a Phase Linear 8000 which probably wasn’t set up optimally. I’ve learned a lot since then.

IMHO they add complication in set up and depending on the table may have some type of additional motor or mechanism to move the arm which can add noise. That being said, an audiophile friend got one last year and he loves it. Part of that affection though is the cool factor. Personally, I like low mass arms and simplicity in all parts of my system. 
 

IMHO they add complication in set up and depending on the table may have some type of additional motor or mechanism to move the arm which can add noise. 

No thats not correct.

The top linear trackers use air bearing carriages - the stylus follows the groove without any need for motors or mechanical drive

Examples are Kuzma Air, Eminent Technology ET2.5, Air Tangent, CSPort.

@dover 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your message above, you wrote "By eliminating tracking angle error and distortion, properly implemented tangential trackers give you the most accurate soundstage presentation,". .. Based on the context, I think you meant to write:  

"By eliminating tracking angle error and distortion, properly implemented linear trackers give you the most accurate soundstage presentation,".

Regarding amplifiers, yes, both the Lamm M2.2 and Ypsilon Hyperion are excellent.  I enjoy listening to both.  Overall, the Ypsilon render a much smoother presentation, which is excellent regardless of speaker cable or interconnect used, while the Lamm are very detailed and clear, they are also quite sensitive to choice of speaker cable and interconnect and can sound flat/dark with the wrong cabling.  

Here is an email I sent to a friend about them: 

I will have to say that the Lamm is very good, but the Ypsilon does take the edge overall.  The Ypsilon is smoother, although both are equally detailed and transparent.  Both offer an equally substantial sound stage, but the Lamm separates the instruments/voices with slightly more detail and space between the instruments, comparing it to the Ypsilon with the Russian 6H30pi tubes installed. 

When I switched out the standard Russian 6H30pi in the Ypsilon for NOS 5687 tubes, the improvement is quite remarkable.  The smoothness is still there with the Ypsilon, but now the detail, clarity, and balance of presentation are also present, which equals or slightly exceeds that of the Lamm.  

@drbond

Yes I interpose linear/tangential.

I am not a fan of the new pivoted arms that try to simulate tangential tracking such as the Thales and Reed on the basis that they introduce new problems - that is they do not provide a rigid platform for the cartridge because of the additional bearings required to accommodate a rotating headshell and/or rotating arm base.

Thanks for the feedback on the amps. I’ve heard the Lamms but not the Ypsilon.