Thorens TD 160 or 126? Which better?

Guys-is the stock arm on the TD 160 dreadful? It looks pretty gnarly, but how does it perform?
My main t/table has a modded RB300, but I really would be getting this as a back up-I imagine the cartridge is either shot -or possibly missing...
What would be a good budget (sub $100) one to fit on the stock arm?
Ortofon? Denon perhaps??
R

Nandric, come on I don't need your chiding; what do you think the IMHO in my post means? You are free to disagree but spare me the drama.

As to the reason that IMHO the Rega is a poor choice, the rather over controlled upper midrange in the RB-300 is a bad match to the conceit in the upper bass/lower midrange of the TD150/160 series, leading to an overall dark sound leading sparkle, again IMHO. I-M-H-O. Additionally, the arm is too heavy for the standard springs leading to a lower primary resonance in the suspension and a further increase in the loseness in the same upper bass-lower midrange region. Again IMHO. I-M-H-O. I-M-H-O. IMHO.

And completely agree with Jeremy72 that many of the arms that I mentioned are not compatible with medium/low and low compliance cartridges, however very few arms are compatible with all compliances of cartridge and I don't think that it is justified putting an arm on the table that is too heavy for the suspension just to match a cartridge. Usually the cartridge is purchased to match the arm, not the other way around. The RB300 is also not compatible with many modern cartridges, so I am not sure of the point here, IMHO. I-M-H-O. IMHO. IIIMMMHHHOOO.

ok,so how is the stock arm on the 160???
and-good $100 cartridge?

The TP16 MkI w/ Magnesium headshell is somewhat underrated for a vintage arm imo but would need total rewiring to really sound its best at this point. It used good quality horizontal bearings and at med. 16.5g eff mass is compatible with alot of carts. Only thing is the headshell is a bottom mount only which can be a pain in the neck.

As for total arm mass, compared to say a RB300, I don't think its much lighter but could be wrong? The suspension springs on the TD160 are also adjustable, so a little weight variance in arm should be of no consequence.

My experience is the opposite of the poster above in that the RB300 at 11.5 grams eff mass being a med mass arm is compatible with a broad range of cartridges, cart mounting is also a breeze. I like the sound also but prefer a modded/upgraded RB251 over a RB300 anytime.

Please don't misquote me, I never said that the RB300 is not compatible with a broad range of cartridges, since I do believe that it is compatible with a broad range of cartridges, what I said is that (hey Nandric)IMHO that it is not compatible with many modern cartridges.

And I will be happy to list a few of them, both at the high compliance end of the scale, Music Maker, Grado, and at the low compliance end, Koetsu, Miyabi, Denon 103 series (though some use these and enjoy them, they only really come into their own in arms over 15 grams effective mass), many Van Den Hul, the top end Benz, Transfiguration, Lumiere, etc.

I guess that, in some ways, it comes down to how "compatiblity" is defined. If "compatibility" means that the cartrdige will create sound and not mistrack, the Rega is probably "compatible" with almost any cartridge out there. If one defines "compatibility" as extracting most of the available potential from the cartridge, I feel that the field of cartridges that mate with the Rega arms narrows quite a bit. IMHO Nandric, IMHO.

And for reference, I currently own a RB600 though I am not using it on any of my turntables, and I have owned several RB300s and an RB250 in the past.