Why will no other turntable beat the EMT 927?

Following the review of the J Nantais lenco, Salvatore on high end audio was thinking that the superiority of the lenco rebuild by J.N was the superior torque that idler drive can give .If there is enough mass in the plinth the defect of idler drive are cancelled.
Perhaps one of the explanations of the success of the EMT 927.
Yesterday i was listening Mario Del Monaco in mono on a decca Lxt on a high end system at a friend's home and i was amazed by the life of the voice,something which is not easily found on today disc .

Peter,
having had some funny deja vus on audio gear I got to hear in the past from one side "never go for an idler, they rumble and cannot precisely follow the required speed".

I made my own experiences and did not rely on these statements or war stories derived from measurement reports, reviews etc. but not from one's own listening sessions.

Nevertheless I like to proove my positive impression (if this is the case) and the put hypotheses what really makes this good sound? Therefore I started this thread - and yeah I got some very good answers, objective facts and subjective statements. I also like a good discussion and arguments against my position or impression of a unit's capabilities. This is crucial for a good thread.

I would never be satisfied building up a collection of 2nd or 3rd hand opinions without looking for a chance testing or at least listening to a unit.
The more I get sceptical of the virtues of a table e.g. the more I need to check it in reality. I always wonder why audio friends keep their comfortable seat behind the fire place...

I am convinced that our brain has many ‘’filters’’ in order to, first, protect us, and then to adapt the incoming information for a more easy processing. Maybe this is one reason why "we don't conquer the world on reality checks" . what a pitty!

Peterayer, that is a very good question. Nobody so far has given Thuchan the answer I think to his question unless what has been written so far is the kind of response that Thuchan was expecting.
Thuchan only you can tell us if your question to this thread has been satisfactorily answered.
Raul seems to love specs. but if you look as his mm cartridge thread, some of the cartridges he loves so much do not hold a candle to present day cartridges. Now that speaks volume in my opinion.

Regards, DU:

http://audio-database.com/PIONEER-EXCLUSIVE/player/pl-70-e.html

Thanks for the insight & as always,

Peace,

The mechanical engineering principles and knowledge to build turntables have been around for more than a century. The difference is these guys in the 50s and 60s designed turntables with slide rules and look up tables instead of CAE/CAD processes. The moon rockets were designed with slide rules and look up tables too. Engineering capability and knowledge isn't the issue. Economics is the issue. These designers had economic motivation in the 50s and 60s to build these robust behemoth turntables. They had a market for them- maybe not big but many times bigger than the market for an ultimate turntable today. Tooling costs, even for the special motors was amortized over some volume production and/or the components carried over to other models as well to defray costs. Casting tooling and mold tools today would be cost prohibitive even to build a high dollar turntable. So machined parts become the only option which still will be extremly costly. So the knowledge may exist; but not the will- just like the moon rockets.