Why will no other turntable beat the EMT 927?

Ct, I have to agree with Bydlo. I read that "review" back when Jean published it on his lengthy Audiogon thread. There was not much in the way of objectivity. Good as Jean's Lenco turntables are, it is a stretch to say his comparison to the EMT 927 proves anything. At this juncture, I am not sure I would even agree that Jean makes the best Lenco, let alone the best idler in the world. But don't misconstrue this as dismissal of the Nantais Lenco's. They are excellent. I have owned one of his and now own one of my own concocting that uses a slate plinth, Reinder PTP, aftermarket massive bearing, treated platter. The idler has a certain unique quality that does indeed make me wonder about the 927, from a distance.

Lewm

Lewm - There was not much in the way of objectivity

That is why I put a qualifier in my post.

Recognizing the links are from JN’s site here ......

My post was - imo - relevant thread information based on the OP. I like to see public chat threads that are informative, entertaining, and generate good debate.

IMO - No one is going to buy anyone of these tables based on what is said here. Not without listening to them first - unless they are a collector, or it represents chump change for them and they will just resell it if it doesnt work out. just my opinion.
Cheers

I must amend what I wrote about the Lenco vs 927 "shootout". Jean had nothing to do with it and candidly admitted that he was not even present. I think Jean had compared one of his creations to some other model of EMT, maybe a 930. (I found this information in an old thread on EMT, wherein Jean contributed.) Sorry, Jean, if you're out there.

Pani,
I have not heard all EMTs but a Verdier. A good friend of mine was able comparing the EMTs. He had heard 930 vs 927 same room same system, etc....the 930 does not have the solid base presence of the 927 and on complex musical passages (a lot of instruments dynamic etc...) the 930 gets confused, dynamics of the 927 shine vs the 930.
EMT 950 = yes heard but perhaps the torque and power of drive is better than the 927 (that is what EMT said???), the problem is that the 950 is fully integrated with onboard solid state phono stage. I think the 950 is great if only it was not all solid state it would be in my room...
Verdier = Micro Seiki, maybe Verdier a bit better as motor is stronger but then the string transmission is still the same and needs to be carefully implemented or improved.
This is why I always recommend using different PS and steering devices for the big Micros.

There are two many people asking the same question....and there is only one way you can answer it....try yourself!
Good Halcro!
If you cannot do that then just live happy with what you have got.
Also too many of us never mention records, and that is the most important part of it all.
Now if the idea is to play poorly recorded or post 70's thin vinyl our whole debate is pointless.
I like to add this contradicting myself a little but maybe it is helpful.

BTW I posted these words two days ago, told it Audiogon and do it again now.

Tonywinsc, I've been following the thread with great interest, and I have to agree with your assessment wholeheartedly.
One would think there comes a point where the drive mechanism might sink into unimportance; after a certain level of (to use your term) blackness has been reached, then there is no significant gain to be made from larger motors or more massive platters etc.
This question of reflections (again to use your term) is the one that fascinates me. I recently had some (for me) shocking experiences with an arm of such little mass and friction - arguably one that could not have been much improved in these ways - that I am forced to question the whole subject of turntable and arm design.

Given the dynamic range of vinyl, could it be that the very lowest level of information retrieval is what we are seeking, and it is this ultra low level information that has the most effect on staging and holographic imaging? My guess is that this micro-information is the first casualty in losses due to 'reflections' at the arm/cartridge interface.
In fact, if I were to speculate wildly I would argue that almost all turntable design starts with an admission of a battle lost: since arms, by current thinking, have to have length and mass then we are already losing micro-information due to reflections. The conventional answer is to make motors and platters more massive. But, once the information has been lost or just muddied there is no way to bring it back. Fighting the wrong battle?
Ivor Tiefenbrun of Linn had a theory: his argument was that if you make the platter and bearing correctly, then after you get the arm correct it doesn't matter hugely what cartridge you use. Was he only partially correct? There are a large number of beautifully made tables and cartridges out there, and I think that we've reached a sort of a null in this matter: choosing a cartridge can be a simple as choosing a loudspeaker, in theory. It might simply be the interface between the arm and stylus that makes the all-important difference.
Could it be this that Thuchan is responding to?