Why will no other turntable beat the EMT 927?

Regards, Thuchan: "IF you pull the measurement card". This depends on which "deck" one is dealing from.

Would like to find the entire SS review, only able to find pieces here & there.

This one is also interesting:

Stereo Sound #55, summer 1980
Reviews by Fuyuki SEGAWA and Keizo YAMANAKA

TT test by SS is using this special jig for measurement of rumble.
Usually rumble or S/N at turntable is measured as follows (DIN 45539):
1. test record with plain groove (no modulation) and 315Hz modulation groove.
2. play back these grooves with cartridge and compare difference between above outputs after passing prefixed filters
3. and indicate rumble or SN in dB as noise margin.

Above DIN method is internationally accepted and IEC/JIS rumble test are very similar to DIN.
DIN FILTER A (unweighted): more than 35dB is required for minimum quality for equipment
DIN FILTER B (weighted): more than 55db is required for minimum performance of equipment.
Rumble rate measured with DIN B filter is indicated usually in catalogues to show impressive big number of S/N !

But Ladegaard of B&K in 1977 mentioned "At FILTER B the numerical value appears better than FILTER A, but in the territory of SN 65dB it is not something which tells the quality of the turntable. At FILTER A, the numerical SN value looks worse about 20dB, but it is just influenced by the resonance frequency of the cartridge and the arm. Unless the rumble spectrum is analyzed, rumble from the vibration of the motor proper cannot be acertained".
Thus in 1978 Thorens developed new jig for rumble test and applied once on the test of their turntables (1978-1985?).

Depends on when measurements are taken, DIN B procedures enabled Pioneer to elevate S/N from 78dB to 95dB, with what seem minor changes the P3a was launched.

Pursuing research on the Pio. Exclusive, this turns up on The Vintage Knob:

"(So) where does the 78dB > 95dB difference come from ?
I asked him that too because I was exasperated at not being able to explain it based on changes. His answer, translated and redacted, comes out as the following :
"It is 'numbers magic'.
Sometime in the very early 80s, the EIAJ (Electronics Industry Association of Japan) changed their DIN B measurement methodology to, according to the marketers, 'better measure what the ear hears'. They changed something to account for the shape of the human ear.

Left largely unannounced, they 'flattened' the weighted curve, and added another filter, which had the effect of raising S/N ratios by 'about 20dB' depending on the piece of equipment being measured."

I asked him whether they measured anything when tables came in to get repaired. He said that in fact they measure all tables according to that newer "DIN B (EIAJ, A-network) standard because that is the machine they have now.
When I asked how much better the P3a measures vs the P3, he said, "They come out the same : non-statistically-significant sample difference".

The only difference which comes out in testing is a lower speed drift amount : the P3a has a potential speed drift of half the P3 (though when they service the P3, they tune it to P3a control specs).
I then asked whether --- any of the other mega tables which showed such great specs ---, "No, but the whole curve shifted upward for everyone - there was no way to avoid it."

--- the thing to measure to check real rumble differences would be the JIS rumble spec which used continuously from the late 1960s or early 1970s.
In that way you could compare like-for-like across time and manufacturers."

Gotta confess, have never heard an EMT deck, possibly never will, I am giving consideration to the P3. I've an Exclusive PL-70L 11 I occasionally run but (sacrilege) prefer a garage modded JVC 71 for it's ebullient character.

I've no dog in this hunt but do find the conversation fascinating. Thanks for initiating this thread.

Peace,

Dear Timeltel, If you've read that "shoot-out", you should also see that the comparisons were hardly controlled or scientific in any way. Different tonearms and cartridges were used on each tt. Results were largely based on subjective opinion, etc, etc. Notably also, the SP10 Mk3 was not included. For me, the article only showed what was considered TOTL in 1980 (excepting the omission of the Mk3, of course). That said, there is good reason to believe the P3 is indeed a fantastic turntable. Go for it.

Raul, I don't think you can "prove" something sounds good or not good by quoting data of the type you've quoted. For all we know, EMT were unusually honest among manufacturers, such that their specs look worse only because they represent reality more than those of other brands. And I don't think it's fair or accurate to say that "+/-0.15%" means that the error is 0.3%. In fact it equally well means that in come cases the error is 0%, if your glass were half full instead of half empty.

Regards, Lewm: If you have a link to the full article I'd be grateful if you'd provide it. The "ranking" has been debated before. Although there were apparently supporting statistics, your assessment of subjective evaluation seems plausible.

A social anthropologist might observe that of the thirteen rated, nine were of either Japanese manufacture, the Thorens or Marantz being qualified as Swiss/GERMAN or US/JAPANESE. :)

(Apologies, Thuchan, for thread-drift).

Peace,

Dear friends: 1957 ( that was when the 927 appeared. ) stage/scenario on broadcast/radio stations and listeners with radio receptors:

those radio receptors had a frequency response: 40-50hz to 12-14khz and the customers do not cares about almost anything else than hear music.
The equipment in the radio stations transmit the audio signal in a range of 30-40hz to 12-15khz and like the listeners were not to critical to the noise level or distortion level or the like on their equipment, their standards were way different to the today standards.

Of course that almost no one ( radio stations or listeners. ) use silver wires or listening through system as the ones today.

The high-end in those times was incipient/starting with very low knowledge around. Against today all of them had a high level of ignorance because they started to learn. We all already learned several audio subjects that those people not even imagined they must take in count.

That TT was made it expressely for radio stations unders specific asking radio stations needs: fast start/stop, high torque, 24/7/365 continuos operation and the like. The TT was not designed for audiophiles, even when started no one TT was in home audio system and almost no one in those times even knew of its existence.

Many years after the appearence of the 927 ( and this is a speculation. ) some one with a low overall subject knowledge and charged of " ingenuity " ( for say the least ) saw the TT and was exited because of the TT weight and big motor and motor size and in that very first moment of no-sense " happiness " he declared it as the holly grail and started to spread with his friends and in other mediums that " there is the TT holly grail " and the people with the same knowledge level that him started to buy it: WHY? no ne cares because the TT already had the holly grail status and " I have to have it ", period.

That is almost the same that happen with the clubs of classic cars: Camaro, Linclon Capri, BMW or Porsche.
I have friends in those clubs and I attended to some of their meetings and in all of those clubs those cars are with out doubt their holly grail.
They talk of the hard task to find out their cars, that the refurbished were made with original parts, that they in self made the 90% of the refurbished, that the today cars are not builded at the same level that those " old " cars, that the unit they own was touched by Jean Harlow or Elvis Presley or Steve Mcqueen and obviously becauise of that the rpice is 40% higher.
They surrounded the cars with a cloud of romantic/mystic and sophisticated hystories that only they believe.

Almost all of what they talk about is out of the day by day the today reality.

As that TT unfortunatelly we are surrounded of audio " myths ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Studer C37 and Studer A820 were not designed for audiophiles as the EMT 927 was not too. I guess Timetel the P3 had a professional background as well? Because of this fact were (are!) these machines not audiophile? I do not understand this logic!

Look at the materials used some 50-60 years ago. Do we use pure copper today, I mean not of any recycled resources and are we usually wiring transformators by hand and with an eye on the distances between the wires? Vintage is not good because it is vintage, professional studio machines are not bad because they were not made for us audiophiles.