No offence, but I'm deliberating top end cartridges at £6k-£8k here, so unlikely to jump to one £750 given the nature of my system as I outlined.
I'd like to diverge a bit on this if you don't mind? It's just is something I've seen often, something I've been guilty of and I'm not sure it makes sense.
I'm not commenting on or criticizing your choice of spending that much on a cartridge. Cost and value is relative and many people could just as easily criticize spending a tenth of that on a record player part.
It's setting a price range for components and behaving as though there are reasons to believe that components in that price range are of comparative performance. And can be assumed to be superior to cheaper components of the same type. Logically, I can't see any foundation for this.
Cartridges for instance. There are different technologies used in different cartridge designs. The companies making them will differ in how efficient their production is, the profit margins they apply and how effectively their chosen design works.
In any technology, there is also going to be a limit to what is possible. Many super-expensive cartridges boast exotic materials in their bodies or working parts when their is little technical reason to believe they should perform better than...plastic and aluminium.
You rarely see comparisons of cartridges at wildly differing price points and Hi-Fi shops tend to be careful in limiting options offered to those within your stated budget. But I've seen many forum threads, have enough experience and know friends with turntables and in the real world there is often little correlation between cartridge cost and preference.
I think we often impute higher price components with exaggerated virtues straight out of the box. I know a guy who doesn't use his Koetsu because he prefers a cartridge that cost a lot less. But how many people do that honest comparison?