Why will no other turntable beat the EMT 927?

I think this is a perfectly valid question, as there is some precedent.

There is a loudspeaker that was made in the late 1950s that has probably been used by more designers to 'voice' amplifiers (and other speakers) than any other. Peter Walker's Quad electrostatic speaker. It still (60 years later) stands for many as the pinnacle of speaker design. For, what it did to the all-important midrange was, and some say still is, unimprovable.

If this is indeed so, then, by extension, it is possible that the EMT 927 is, as Thuchan states, the best turntable ever made. Of course, we have to believe that it's possible that there is something better, but evidence might not suggest this.

If the job of a given piece of audio equipment is to extract information from a source that has a finite amount of information to give - and to do no harm in the process - then there might be a 'fininite-ness' in the process. There is no absolute reason to think that progress is infinite. For emotional reasons one might wish it otherwise, but this is not necessarily true.

I think this is a perfectly valid question, as there is some precedent.

There is a loudspeaker that was made in the late 1950s that has probably been used by more designers to 'voice' amplifiers (and other speakers) than any other. Peter Walker's Quad electrostatic speaker. It still (60 years later) stands for many as the pinnacle of speaker design. For, what it did to the all-important midrange was, and some say still is, unimprovable.

If this is indeed so, then, by extension, it is possible that the EMT 927 is, as Thuchan states, the best turntable ever made. Of course, we have to believe that it's possible that there is something better, but evidence might not suggest this.

If the job of a given piece of audio equipment is to extract information from a source that has a finite amount of information to give - and to do no harm in the process - then there might be a 'fininite-ness' in the process. There is no absolute reason to think that progress is infinite. For emotional reasons one might wish it otherwise, but this is not necessarily true.

Tonywinsc, I've been following the thread with great interest, and I have to agree with your assessment wholeheartedly.
One would think there comes a point where the drive mechanism might sink into unimportance; after a certain level of (to use your term) blackness has been reached, then there is no significant gain to be made from larger motors or more massive platters etc.
This question of reflections (again to use your term) is the one that fascinates me. I recently had some (for me) shocking experiences with an arm of such little mass and friction - arguably one that could not have been much improved in these ways - that I am forced to question the whole subject of turntable and arm design.

Given the dynamic range of vinyl, could it be that the very lowest level of information retrieval is what we are seeking, and it is this ultra low level information that has the most effect on staging and holographic imaging? My guess is that this micro-information is the first casualty in losses due to 'reflections' at the arm/cartridge interface.
In fact, if I were to speculate wildly I would argue that almost all turntable design starts with an admission of a battle lost: since arms, by current thinking, have to have length and mass then we are already losing micro-information due to reflections. The conventional answer is to make motors and platters more massive. But, once the information has been lost or just muddied there is no way to bring it back. Fighting the wrong battle?
Ivor Tiefenbrun of Linn had a theory: his argument was that if you make the platter and bearing correctly, then after you get the arm correct it doesn't matter hugely what cartridge you use. Was he only partially correct? There are a large number of beautifully made tables and cartridges out there, and I think that we've reached a sort of a null in this matter: choosing a cartridge can be a simple as choosing a loudspeaker, in theory. It might simply be the interface between the arm and stylus that makes the all-important difference.
Could it be this that Thuchan is responding to?

Raul,

Your passion for this subject is in no doubt: you also appear to be able/willing to spend much more time than many of us to develop your ideas and observations.

One day, when you're able, I would like you to provide a summary of your researches - but simply and concisely! Perhaps in bullet-form? I don't know if others would agree, but leaving out the ad hominems and intemperate language would also be very welcome; I think we all know how devoted to this topic you are!

I only ask because, like you, I have a thirst for knowledge, as I'm sure many of us do. I find many of your comments to be challenging, some extremely so. It seems from many of your posts that your position is consistently anti-establishment, and this usually makes for good reading.

At the very least it would be fascinating to hear your manifesto....