Why will no other turntable beat the EMT 927?

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.

Raul, I'm calling bogus on your last post. You idea of EQ is skewed.

Once played back, LP has less phase shift than digital, owing to its superior bandwidth. Phase shift introduced in record is canceled out in playback.

In terms of distortion digital guys don't usually publish the specs on *inharmonic* distortion, which in an intermodulation between the scan frequency and the signal. If they did, analog would look a lot more attractive.

Guys, can we discuss the analog/digital junk somewhere else? We are a country mile off topic.

We customers decide almost nothing on which audio item should I buy.

This is bogus and possibly insulting. IME people buy based on the idea that if the manufacturer's, dealer's, distributor's or reviewer's lips are moving, than he is probably lying. IOW, they rely far more on audition and their own ears, not what someone tells them. Audiophiles have been lied to for nearly their entire life ('perfect sound for ever/we make the best'); audition is really the only solution until a particular voice they know gains credibility in their eyes.

The Internet has transformed how audiophiles do things, and the 'AHEE' has had to tag along.

I see. Raul, in a nutshell you are making it sound like everyone is nuts (misinformed, whatever) except you.

Raul, I have Vangelis' 1492 on LP; it absolutely **smokes** the CD version, better bass, more detail, smoother high end, greater extension, obviously more transparent (less distortion). Its does not seem to matter what digital system used, the results are consistent.

I agree that getting rid of distortions is important, but I have found that the ear 'cares' a whole lot more about certain distortions that it does about others. The result of that is, for example, that there are a lot of amps with 'high distortion' that seem to be more transparent, less fatiguing, more lively overall than some amps that seem to have hardly any distortion at all.

The bottom line is understanding what the ear cares about. If that is not understood who knows what the result will sound like? But if you know and honor the ear's hearing rules you are guaranteed to be able to build something that will sound better.

Normally we are accustom our ears are accustom to what we prefered more than what is right. Of course some of you already know what is right or wrong but some of us are not aware of that subject and what I'm saying is for the ones that are not aware of.

Now, till this moment I posted some steps that could help to be sure where we are " seate d" and till this moment no one posted something that can enrich the proposal/alternative.

Seems to me that no one is willing to " unglue " of what learned and with this kind of attitude is almost imposible to have a formal discussion that can help to achieve better conclusions or better alternatives to improve what we have.

I gave two steps to improve system distortions: better bass system management and system matched electrical impedances. Till today no one posted that he already achieved it years ago or that started yesterday to do it through system changes and shared his experiences.

So, what's all about?

Raul, if you really did do what you state in the quote above I am proposing to you that it was lost in translation- no such thing by you seems to have been offered, at least none that made sense.

Now in your second to last paragraph it sounds like you are talking about something that I did decades ago. Can't be sure though.

As far as 'what's its all about?': make it sound as true to the recording as possible. To do that you have to understand human hearing/perceptual rules which are not a matter of taste nor ear training. If you do understand those rules you can make a better, more-like-real-music sounding stereo.

Tonywinsc, there is an easy way to understand neutrality without unicorns.

Make your own recordings and commit them to LP. The process of doing so will result in a recording of which you have a complete understanding and memory. When you hear it played back you will instantly know the limitations of the playback system and will be able to gravitate to those that impose less limitation.

IME, transducers and electronics arrived at a point long ago such that they can fool the most jaundiced audiophile (seen it happen) but the media (tape, LP, digital) has a long way to go (although lathe cuts played back on a good system are the best thing out there by a long shot).

Hmm. Maybe I am talking more about 'reference' here than I am 'neutral'...