Why will no other turntable beat the EMT 927?

I am NOT fond of any digital vs. vinyl spat. I have good gear for listening to both, and because of convenience and availability of material, I listen mostly to digital media at home (exclusively digital in the car and at work). Very little in the way of current issue classical, is available in vinyl, and so much of current issue popular music is actually recorded digitally, so listening to digitally sourced material is, for me, inevitable.

I really love the convenience of a music server and the ability to put together a wide, and unusual program of music for an evening with much less effort. I like being able to scan a large collection of music (so far, I have ripped 3,700 CDs to WAV files), which helps me find long-neglected items in my collection.

Still, when it comes to "showing off" the music that is most stunningly realistic and exciting to hear, it is MOSTLY records I turn to. I have no idea whether there is some, as yet unquantified, and inherent, superiority of vinyl, or if it is a case of better mastering (or deterioration of original masters used for the digital reissue) or any other reason, but, really good vinyl delivers better dynamics and a sense that real bodies producing sound occupy the space in the soundfield. I do find that clicks and pops too often intrude in the playback of classical music, and so I don't do that much listening to classical on records; with all other genres, I find vinyl to more often sound better than the CD issue. High resolution files can sound really good, but, the amount of material issued remains limited.

YEs, no purpose in yet another vinyl versus digital debate. Its pretty well documented already.

Good pure analog recordings are the ones that shine most uniquely on vinyl for me.

Once the recording and mastering process starts to become digital, then the unique strengths of vinyl become lessened.

Nowadays, both good digital and good analog recordings have a lot to offer. The differences between the two seem to become less and less significant the more of a role digital plays in the process overall.

Digital mastering of vinyl LPs is kind of interesting. I have a few recordings which I bought originally on CD and now also own on 33 1/3 and 45 RPM. In my system, the analog front end gear is of much higher quality than is my CD player. Perhaps for this reason, I prefer the 33 LP to the CD and much prefer the 45 LP to the CD. I have no high rez capability and am sure that I am missing out on good new music.

I guess I'm trying to say that I have prioritized analog playback in my system, and as a result, whether the mastering is digital or analog, the LP sounds better than the CD in the 5-6 cases that I have done a direct comparison.

I still can't answer the original question of this post, because I have never seen, let alone heard, an EMT 927. I would love to someday.

there can be no comparison IMHO either in design or practice between the precision, significance, magnitude or commonality in practice of the errors common or possible with the half century old 33 1/3 vinyl system compared to modern digital.

Analog, like digital, has made strides in the last 3 decades. There is at least one pressing plant (QRP) that can make LPs that have surface noise so low as to easily challenge digital. In the meantime, almost any LP has more bandwidth than almost any CD. IOW there is plenty of comparison (else this particular debate would not have been going on for the last 30 years!). If you want to comment further, let's move it to a different thread.

"Analog, like digital, has made strides in the last 3 decades."

No doubt.

But how much again to get the equipment capable of it?

Then how many recordings capable of actually demonstrating it?

Then how many people capable of setting it up properly to achieve the results?

Granted, the results can be extraordinary when done right, especially these days on a good modern rig. That's all that matters in the end.