Why will no other turntable beat the EMT 927?

Pani, Can you try to put into words what you heard from the 927 that was so superior to any of the other TTs with which you compared it?  You seem at one go to be saying that the 927 "beat" the Technics and a Lenco but that those are turntables you don't particularly like.  (I am not sure what you prefer these days.) Nor would anyone say that those are TTs of the very highest most esoteric rank, with which one would want to compare the 927 in order to confer the title of "world's best".

@lewm : Maybe I can't explain very well but:

" When does a turntable, tonearm, or cartridge cross the time line between "modern" and "vintage"?  "

The main premise I posted does not changed today so with foundation of that premise that line just doesnot exist.

R.

We agree, Raul. That is what I was trying to say.  There is basically "nothing new under the sun" when it comes to turntables, although our ideas about what constitutes optimal design and construction have evolved or become more sophisticated over decades, as the acceptable cost for audio systems has expanded and as there has been more time for trial and error experiments.  For one example, the unipivot was once a revolutionary idea in tonearm design. Not today.

The 927 is just hilariously ahead of all this. Way way way more resolution and dynamics. It is a proper full range, accurate, limitless sound. I don’t know which TT can better it, yet. May be a Kondo Ginga? 

@pani 

As a matter of interest the Kondo Ginga is a cheap copy of the Final Audio VTT1 built in the 70's which has been my reference TT for the past 30+ years. As you have found with the Technics SP10mk3 vs the 927, the Final is in another league.

Does not mean that DD is bad, it just means the the Final is exceptional.

David Karmeli has the EMT 927, along with American Sound AS2000, Micro Seiki 8000's, Goldmund Reference and SP10mk3. He describes the Technics as a toy in comparison to the others.

For all you posters discussing turntable speed accuracy It is not possible to measure wow & flutter using a test record.

If you use a rotary function generator to measure the turntable performance directly off the platter, the results will be more accurate than any test record.

For an explanation from someone who actually has a degree in physics and acoustical engineering - Bruce Thigpen of Eminent Technology.

Here is Bruces explanation from his Eminent Technology website.

Bruce has many patents and inventions including his unique air bearing tonearm, rotary subwoofer, vacuum platter as implenmented by SOTA, and many others.

Bruce Thigpen -

Reviewers have incorrectly attributed wow and flutter to the turntable. Since the advent of the belt drive turntable, wow and flutter has been purely a function of tonearm geometry, the phono cartridge compliance with the elastomeric damping, and surface irregularities in the LP. In our own lab we have measured many high quality turntables using a rotary function generator directly connected to the platters of the turntables.

The measured results are usually an order of magnitude better than the results using a tonearm and test record (conventional wow and flutter method). Further proof exists if you take two tonearms, one straight line and one pivoted and mount them both on the same turntable. The straight line tonearm will give a wow and flutter reading with the same cartridge/test record of about 2/3 to 1⁄2that of the pivoted arm (.03% < .07% to .05%). This is because the straight line tonearm has a geometry advantage and lateral motion does not result in stylus longitudinal motion along the groove of the record.

Another proof is to take two different cartridges, one high compliance and one low compliance, and take measurements with both using the same turntable and tonearm. The reading of wow and flutter will be different. All wow and flutter readings are higher than the rotational consistency of the turntable.