Why will no other turntable beat the EMT 927?

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.

Thuchan, you started a very interesting thread.

I love my Lenco, but the common explanation for its excellence, and that of other idlers, i.e., "torque" cannot be the whole story. First, because altho the induction motors on the Garrard 301 and Lenco L75 may look massive, they are in fact very inefficient such that the torque is not as great as one might think, albeit it is greater than that of the motor of a typical weak motor/heavy platter belt drive. Further in the case of the Lenco, the torque delivered to the platter must be limited ultimately by the coefficient of friction between the skinny idler wheel and the underside of the platter. You could put a 500 hp motor in a Lenco, and that idler wheel would leave skid marks on the platter but could still only deliver as much torque to it as friction would allow. The tire on the idler has to be skinny to minimize "scrubbing"; it wants to roll in a straight line whilst propelling the platter in a circular path. Yet, that's one great turntable.

Thuchan, do you use the Mr. Dusch's glass or the original felt platter with your R80?

A couple of people commented that you haven't received any objective responses to your thread. I'm not sure what you were expecting besides another 927 user's experience. I've been at this game for over 30 years and learnt directly from the many bad and some good choices that I made throughout the years. At this point in time my ears and years of hands on experience is my most trusted objective and subjective tool. It doesn't matter what Raul or anyone else thinks important, in this case no measurements trump experience and knowledge.

I can't offer you the why the 927 sounds better in certain respects than basically any esoteric table ever made. What I hear unique in my 927 is the sense of space and ambience which flows and solidity of every note. The other great tables share the expansive tonal qualities of the 927 and like the MS 8000 might even have slightly more detailed bottom end but they lack 927's sonic majesty, which adds to the realism that you get with the 927. The only other tables I've heard with that capability is the American Sound and to some degree I think that AirForce One has that quality now, but I will confirm once I get mine next month.

As far as modern day manufacturers are concerned most don't have the engineering heritage or resources of EMT, Thorens, Micro Seiki, Garrard and whoever designed and produced the Goldmund Reference. Personally I find a 301 or 401 in a properly designed base more palatable and musically satisfying than 90% of the modern mega dollar tables I've heard. Specially some of the ones that have been highly praised and recommended by a certain famous magazine personality!