Dear @downunder : """ Here we have a report on Tang’s wonderful system ... ""
Wonderful for who? maybe to you. What I see and read there is a very whealthy gentleman with very log MUSIC/sound knowledge levels that’s the worst combination: to many money to waste along to high ignorance levels.
The one person that made the four days review maybe is good to handle tonearm/cartridge set up but I don’t know or did not showed his skills down there:
in that " shoot-out " were used two way different phono stages and worst than that both with those " terrible " tube designs along its sut’s ( I don’t know which is worts the Ayon or the EMT, I think this last. ), different tonearms with different tonearm internal wiring, with no specific test process/specific whole methodology to match each cartridge to each tonearm and in the removable headshell tonearm designs the gentleman did not talks the use of different kind of headshells to match in better way those cartridges with, how that gentleman knew that the differences he reported were more by tiny phonolinepreamp SPL used by its attenuators/volume ( he did not says if even the SPL with each cartridge and phono stages when making the comparisons ), he used normal recordings ( I own at least the 90% of them. ) that in reality can’t tell us differences in between those top cartridge performers: how can he knew for sure that the differences he shared/reviewed are really better and not only different when he has not a true methodology where he can identify the better or worst from the different? ? ? ? ? ?
The review is full of faults and can says almost nothing real nothing where we can trust on it.
The owner obviously is truly satisfied and proudly with what he can shows to his friends even owns that " terrible " non-accurate EMT 927. Why " terrible " non-accurate?
Next is something that I posted many years ago in an EMT thread in this forum where many gentlemans said was the " holly grail " TT when certainly it’s not:
""" These are the true facts ( not " illusions. ) measurements/specs in the 1957 designed 927:
speed unnaccuracy: +,- 0.15%, the swing tell us that the speed unaccuracy in reality is: 0.30% ( the worst I ever seen in any TT. ).
wow an flutter: +,- 0.05% with a swing of: 0.1% ( again the worst I ever seen in any TT. ).
signal to noise ratio: 58db ( again............. ).
as I posted: the 927 was designed for radio stations.....The other " touted EMT vintage designs are not relly better but only non-accurate units:
the 938, 948 and 930 models had a signal to noise ratio: 70db and wow and flutter: 0.075%
where the 950 shows a less poorer ( but still a poor and along the others the worst specs I seen in my life for a TT that several people things are top ones when certainly are not. ) spec on w&f: 0.05%.
All of them speed innaccuracy is : 0.1% when an average Denon model ( Not the top, from those times. ) has: 0.002% """
downunder, I respect your opinion but to many facts that said that the words " wonedrful systems " has no facts for its foundation. Maybe you have those facts, who knows.
R.
Wonderful for who? maybe to you. What I see and read there is a very whealthy gentleman with very log MUSIC/sound knowledge levels that’s the worst combination: to many money to waste along to high ignorance levels.
The one person that made the four days review maybe is good to handle tonearm/cartridge set up but I don’t know or did not showed his skills down there:
in that " shoot-out " were used two way different phono stages and worst than that both with those " terrible " tube designs along its sut’s ( I don’t know which is worts the Ayon or the EMT, I think this last. ), different tonearms with different tonearm internal wiring, with no specific test process/specific whole methodology to match each cartridge to each tonearm and in the removable headshell tonearm designs the gentleman did not talks the use of different kind of headshells to match in better way those cartridges with, how that gentleman knew that the differences he reported were more by tiny phonolinepreamp SPL used by its attenuators/volume ( he did not says if even the SPL with each cartridge and phono stages when making the comparisons ), he used normal recordings ( I own at least the 90% of them. ) that in reality can’t tell us differences in between those top cartridge performers: how can he knew for sure that the differences he shared/reviewed are really better and not only different when he has not a true methodology where he can identify the better or worst from the different? ? ? ? ? ?
The review is full of faults and can says almost nothing real nothing where we can trust on it.
The owner obviously is truly satisfied and proudly with what he can shows to his friends even owns that " terrible " non-accurate EMT 927. Why " terrible " non-accurate?
Next is something that I posted many years ago in an EMT thread in this forum where many gentlemans said was the " holly grail " TT when certainly it’s not:
""" These are the true facts ( not " illusions. ) measurements/specs in the 1957 designed 927:
speed unnaccuracy: +,- 0.15%, the swing tell us that the speed unaccuracy in reality is: 0.30% ( the worst I ever seen in any TT. ).
wow an flutter: +,- 0.05% with a swing of: 0.1% ( again the worst I ever seen in any TT. ).
signal to noise ratio: 58db ( again............. ).
as I posted: the 927 was designed for radio stations.....The other " touted EMT vintage designs are not relly better but only non-accurate units:
the 938, 948 and 930 models had a signal to noise ratio: 70db and wow and flutter: 0.075%
where the 950 shows a less poorer ( but still a poor and along the others the worst specs I seen in my life for a TT that several people things are top ones when certainly are not. ) spec on w&f: 0.05%.
All of them speed innaccuracy is : 0.1% when an average Denon model ( Not the top, from those times. ) has: 0.002% """
downunder, I respect your opinion but to many facts that said that the words " wonedrful systems " has no facts for its foundation. Maybe you have those facts, who knows.
R.