Dear Thuchan, I certainly did not mean to doubt your veracity. I was just remarking on how the wording of your original question had a profound effect on the subsequent discussion. Gadget-lover that I am, I would dearly love to see and hear an EMT927 in real life; the quality of its construction is evident merely from photos. (Which is why I would never be without a Leica M3, antique though it may be.) Placing the phono stage right at the base of the tonearm is also ideal; I am thinking of how that could be done with separates in my own system. And I can believe that the EMT tube phono stage may be excellent. (I think you also stipulated that the tube version is a "must".) However, I have trouble believing that the solid state EMT phono stages are still state of the art. If one is auditioning the EMT927 as an entity cum EMT phono stage, then of course the phono stage is going to have a major effect on one's overall opinion, as also for the tonearm(s). The only real valid comparison would be EMT turntable vs other turntable, using same tonearm/cartridge/phono stage/etc. Have you ever done that?
Why will no other turntable beat the EMT 927?
Having owned many good turntables in my audiophile life I am still wondering why not one of the modern designs of the last 20 years is able to beat the sound qualities of an EMT 927.
New designs may offer some advantages like multiple armboards, more than one motor or additional vibration measurements etc. but regarding the sound quality the EMT is unbeatable!
What is the real reason behind this as the machine is nearly 60 years old, including the pre-versions like the R-80?
New designs may offer some advantages like multiple armboards, more than one motor or additional vibration measurements etc. but regarding the sound quality the EMT is unbeatable!
What is the real reason behind this as the machine is nearly 60 years old, including the pre-versions like the R-80?
- ...
- 570 posts total
- 570 posts total