Why will no other turntable beat the EMT 927?

Thuchan, It would help if you would list the turntables that you have actually compared to the EMT 927, in the "here and now" (as HP used to say). What I mean is not to rely on remote memory of how this or that turntable sounded.

I know you have the Caliburn and the big MS turntables. What else?

So you're really comparing a turntable/tonearm/cartridge/built-in phono stage system to a bunch of other turntables with other tonearms and cartridges. But can you say what turntables you have side by side with the EMT927, besides Caliburn and MS?

57s4me, I think your analogy is faulty but so is your premise. The Quad 57 is surely wonderful for reproducing midrange but it has some limitations in relation to bandwidth and power handling. The amplifier also must be very carefully chosen, so (at least) I don't think of the Quad 57 as an ultimate tool for evaluation of other components, especially amplifiers.

Ct, I have to agree with Bydlo. I read that "review" back when Jean published it on his lengthy Audiogon thread. There was not much in the way of objectivity. Good as Jean's Lenco turntables are, it is a stretch to say his comparison to the EMT 927 proves anything. At this juncture, I am not sure I would even agree that Jean makes the best Lenco, let alone the best idler in the world. But don't misconstrue this as dismissal of the Nantais Lenco's. They are excellent. I have owned one of his and now own one of my own concocting that uses a slate plinth, Reinder PTP, aftermarket massive bearing, treated platter. The idler has a certain unique quality that does indeed make me wonder about the 927, from a distance.

I must amend what I wrote about the Lenco vs 927 "shootout". Jean had nothing to do with it and candidly admitted that he was not even present. I think Jean had compared one of his creations to some other model of EMT, maybe a 930. (I found this information in an old thread on EMT, wherein Jean contributed.) Sorry, Jean, if you're out there.

The wording of the proposition is good legal strategy, like "When did you stop beating your wife?" It presupposes a condition (no other turntable can beat the EMT 927) for which we have no evidence except Thuchan's implicit testimony. And it is rather surprising how many of us accepted the proposition as a starting point for discussion.

Dear Thuchan, I certainly did not mean to doubt your veracity. I was just remarking on how the wording of your original question had a profound effect on the subsequent discussion. Gadget-lover that I am, I would dearly love to see and hear an EMT927 in real life; the quality of its construction is evident merely from photos. (Which is why I would never be without a Leica M3, antique though it may be.) Placing the phono stage right at the base of the tonearm is also ideal; I am thinking of how that could be done with separates in my own system. And I can believe that the EMT tube phono stage may be excellent. (I think you also stipulated that the tube version is a "must".) However, I have trouble believing that the solid state EMT phono stages are still state of the art. If one is auditioning the EMT927 as an entity cum EMT phono stage, then of course the phono stage is going to have a major effect on one's overall opinion, as also for the tonearm(s). The only real valid comparison would be EMT turntable vs other turntable, using same tonearm/cartridge/phono stage/etc. Have you ever done that?

Hi Thuchan,
You mention the R80, but I am not familiar with that model. Is it essentially an EMT 927 without built-on tonearm and phono stage? Based on what you say, you are the foremost expert on the sound of the 927/R80 and the best person to say it is the best turntable.

IMO, the Leica M3 is the most perfect camera ever made. Everything that came after it is a copy of its basic features but with less quality. I've got three lenses for mine, and I still use it on the odd occasion. I also bought a Sony NEX7, so I could use the Leica M lenses for digital photos. I am not familiar with that particular book, but I will look for it. Thanks.

Dear Omsed, So I know what you don't like. What DO you like among modern "state of the art" turntables? The breadth of your experience may exceed all of ours combined. I can say I prefer my very highly tweaked Lenco (only the original motor and platter remain from an L75) to a Nottingham Hyperspace and to my Jean Nantais Lenco. Both of those however were far superior to a SOTA Star Sapphire III. I have two other DD turntables that I prefer to my present Lenco, by small increments and for different reasons.
Please share your experience. I don't think your analogy between a 67 Camaro and a new Corvette is at all relevant to the discussion, by the way.

Omsed, Maybe everyone else here knows you, but I don't. If you have as much industry experience as you say, you or your products must be at least moderately well known. Can you identify yourself or your professional affiliation? Thx.

Kiddman, None of us fully agrees with any other one of us, so why be concerned about presumptuous overstatements?

While I like Art Dudley, based on his "attitude" to this hobby and its importance in the grand scheme, I would not choose him as an arbiter of my own thinking or actions in the context of the hobby. He has a decided bias in favor of devices that color the sound to his liking, to include the Shindo electronics, the TD124, his choice of speakers,etc. That's perfectly all right, but it tells me that he and I are dissimilar in our tastes and goals. So, while I am a "Lenco lover", I do not love Lencos exclusively, and I would hardly say that idlers are in the ascendency.

Dev, In case Win has lost interest in this thread, I would take up his defense. As he told you, each table is hand-made by him (not ever by OMA; his association with OMA was terminated a few years ago, but they never built anything related to the table). Each table weighs on the order of 140 lbs, and if you buy one, Win shows up at your house to set it up, much as is the case with Lloyd Walker. For Win, it's a labor of love, and I really don't think he is interested in selling hundreds or thousands or maybe even tens of turntables, even it it were physically possible for him to put that many turntables together per year. I think he sells as many turntables as he wants to sell, by word of mouth alone. The motor and drive system in the Saskia is surely more advanced than that of the EMT927, but that alone does not necessarily mean that the Saskia is superior sonically, altho I personally suspect that it is at least quieter. Regardless of that, you won't find a more honest and sincere guy in this hobby, pro or amateur, than Win (Mosin). For that reason alone, it would behoove you to lay off.

Dev, I apologize. I should not have stuck my nose into the conversation between you and Win. Win is more than capable of defending himself, if he should choose to do so. I guess I took some umbrage at the tone of your questioning, rather than the questions themselves. Similar to the tone of your response to me, rather than its content, and then to Mike Lavigne.

It's probably fair to say that Win does not "make" the motor to his turntable. He freely admits he did not design or make the motor controller. And I am sure someone else cuts the slate pieces from blocks of slate, and some water-jet facility probably makes the final shapes and holes. Perhaps Win only assembles and calibrates those discrete parts. OK? Point taken.

Dear Mapman, my experience suggests there's more to speed control than watching those built-in strobes. But I agree that cost of the tt is no parameter by which to judge it, either.

Dear Raul, As I understand it, the principle potential disadvantage of a "long" tonearm, e.g., 12-inch, vs a conventional tonearm, e.g., 9-inch, is the fact that to take advantage of the superior tracking angle distortion available from the former, one must be far more accurate in the mounting and alignment than is the case with the latter. Tiny errors in the <1mm range can completely or nearly completely obliterate any tracking angle advantage of a 12-inch arm vs a 9-inch one. I don't really follow your argument that "a long tonearm can't respond to the cartridge tracking movements as fast as the shortest one". Obviously, long tonearms will tend to have higher effective mass and must be mated to commensurately lower compliance cartridges. But if the compliance and the effective mass are in suitable relationship, I don't see any negative effect on tracking related purely to tonearm length. Enlighten me.

But, Peter, Raul and I were at odds on the subject. Whilst out for my evening constitutional, I thought of an additional advantage of 12-inch arms vs 9-inch: The former makes it easier for the cantilever to work against bearing friction at the pivot, because the longer arm affords greater mechanical advantage in overcoming that force. Of course, the possible negative trade-off is the additional inertia associated with heavier tonearms.

Tony, I never worry about inertia, except my own.
Peter, I think the total inertia is the sum of the inertia of the tonearm in front of the pivot plus that of the stub and counterweight and anything else behind the pivot. I think what you are referring to is the counter-intuitive fact that the moi of the rear part of the tonearm is related to the square of the distance from the pivot to the center of mass of the counterweight and to only the first power of the mass of the counterweight. Thus, a heavier counterweight that can be moved closer to the pivot will result in lower moi.

To my observation, this is one of the design elements that distinguishes the vintage Japanese tonearms from "modern" ones. The vintage tonearms seem to disregard the length of the stub that mounts the counter-wt, and some of them are quite long. Modern tonearms, in general, seem to favor very short stubs and large counter-wts designed to hug the pivot point. Furthermore, the modern designs place the center of mass of the CW in the plane of the LP, whereas the vintage ones typically have the CW higher, in the plane of the arm wand. One exception to this rule is the Durand Telos, which in photos seems to have a very long rear stub in the plane of its arm wand. And its owners are ecstatic over the sound, which just goes to show ya that engineering principles are not the be-all and end-all. Plus, we all know that some of those vintage designs also sound great.

So why WILL no other turntable beat the EMT 927?
Raul, I have not seen or read anything having anything to do with the "AHEE" in about 30 years. Since you talk about it so often, I am beginning to remember that "HE" stands for "High End", and I think this was something started by Harry Pearson, among others, back in the 70s or 80s. I would ask the group if any one of us has felt pressured by AHEE, ever in any way, to hold certain beliefs about audio. For me, the answer is "no". Indeed, does AHEE as an entity even still exist? Now, we all do know that the makers of very expensive audio equipment do want us to hold certain beliefs that motivate us to buy their equipment. To a great degree, these beliefs are promulgated by the two major publications in the US: TAS and S'phile, and by a few publications originating in Europe including the UK. Perhaps you infer that those publications and the reviewers are influenced by the AHEE behind the scenes. But anyone with half a brain should be able to look past their BS and develop his or her own opinion. Why (Raul) do you say that in essence anyone who is not on the same page with you in all things audio has necessarily been brain-washed by some sinister entity called AHEE? I happen to agree with you on a large fraction of issues, but sometimes we just disagree. Next thing we know, the CIA will be blamed. It's tiresome.

FYI. I just Googled "AHEE", and there is no organization bearing that acronym in existence.

The simple truth is that none of you exist. I am imagining all of this; it's all taking place in my mind, only.

AHEE and "distortions" are Raul's indirect way of saying that the only truth is his truth, painfully arrived at. We can all agree that there is and always was some degree of brainwashing of the public associated with main stream audio. This is called promotion, advertising, salesmanship, etc. The intelligent audiophile learns to accept all that with a grain of salt. Similarly, who would deny that distortion is "bad"? But for our dear friend Raul, these terms mean whatever he says they mean on any given day. I have been trying to engage him in a discussion of the definition of distortion, and how it is that he acquired the unique capacity to perceive it, for quite some time, without success. Ralph put his finger right on it in his last post; he is right; you/we are wrong. This does not upset me or make me angry, once I gave up ever trying to penetrate Raul's thought process. When confronting the Borg, resistance is futile. When confronting Raul, argument is fruitless. I am OK with that......, Really.

I agree with Tbg on distortion, FWIW.

Dear Raul,
Better English is "Who was it who..." Who is in the subjective case. "Whom" is the objective form and cannot be the subject of a sentence. I think in Spanish, "quien" is both subjective and objective. Your error is understandable.

So, if you made up the acronym "AHEE", you might have defined it earlier. (Maybe you did, but I missed it.) For months you have been ranting about AHEE, and I never really knew what you were talking about. I don't think any of my audio beliefs, correct or incorrect, were foisted upon me by some sinister cult power. My ignorance is entirely of my own making.

Mosin, Would you therefore dismiss any turntable with a light weight platter (and therefore a rather low moment of inertia) as a "contender", just on that basis alone? And if so, what is your cut-off point for "acceptable" inertia, in terms of platter mass? Or do you add in a factor based on intelligent use of friction, so the motor has a more constant opposing force, to partly mimic the effect of a very massive platter? (The 927 appears to have a "heavy" platter compared to that of other well loved idlers, but not in the league with some of the monster belt-drive platters I have seen, e.g., the Walker lead platter.)

There's them that just cannot ever be convinced about the possibilities of direct-drive, so hung up are they on a concept of the servo mechanism as a full-stop/full-go device that they cannot see past it. ANY turntable motor has to be able to respond instantaneously to the varying effects of stylus drag. Yes, lots of platter inertia helps but it cannot be the whole story.

Mosin is too modest to say so, but I will wager that the Saskia outperforms the EMT927, in front of an impartial audience (either blinded or free of anyone with a preconceived notion of the supremacy of the 927). Now THAT would be an interesting side by side comparison.

Dover, it must be nice to be so certain in your audio beliefs.

It is possible to distinguish "constancy" (rotation at a constant angular velocity) from "accuracy" (rotation at precisely 33.33 rpm) with a Timeline, altho I am no devotee of the Timeline. But it would be a pain in the ass to do so. One simply needs to make markings at regular intervals on the wall being used to observe the laser beam. If the "dot" moves at precisely regular distances in one direction or the other, with each rotation of the platter, then the speed of the table is constant but not accurate (see above for definitions). IMO, constancy is much more important than precise accuracy, as long as one does not perceive pitch distortion. Tbg, Ideally this would be done with stylus down, playing an LP, to account for stylus drag.

I am just not anal enough to do it, I guess.

Tbg, Without a doubt, by external inspection the EMT 927 is built like a tank in all respects and to a quality level that far exceeds the visuals of a Garrard or Lenco. The question is only whether all that machinery also results in "the best" sound. And that can be debated forever, as seen here.

On measurements. I have pointed out to Raul many times that if THD had so much "meaning" in relation to lowering audible distortions in our audio system, then amplifier development might have ceased back in the 70s, with the advent of the Phase Linear 700 amplifier. THD was at least down to the 5th decimal place. It sounded like crap compared to any modern amplifier and compared to any quality tube amplifier, ever. So, THD needs to be thrown out as a yardstick. Even manufacturers of solid state amplifiers, which can easily show superiority to tube amps by this meaningless parameter, downplay it these days. Yes, there is probably some high percentage of THD that would be audible, but it would be difficult to establish the cut-off. Harmonics are not all that disturbing to the brain.

Now, as to wow and flutter. I have no idea how much is too much.

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.

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.

Dear Thuchan, Can you elaborate on the necessity to "align" the Boulder 2008? I have never heard that term applied to a phono stage. Thanks.

In the interim since he initiated this thread on the EMT 927, Thuchan purchased, restored, and re-plinthed a Victor TT101, no slouch among direct-drive aficionados.  I would like to know how he feels about the EMT 927 in comparison to his new TT101.  I don't necessarily accept that the EMT 927 is innately superior to other top of the line vintage decks, but it could be; I have never heard one.

I've got a Victor TT101, too.  And a much tweaked and modified Lenco sitting next to it in one of my two systems.  The TT101 is very linear sounding and very musical.  Linear in the sense that no particular register is emphasized (bass vs mids vs treble), and musical in the sense of rhythm, continuity, liquid-ness.  (I fully realize how deficient language is to convey these nuances of difference.)  In my other system, I have an SP10 MK3 with Krebs mods and a Kenwood L07D.  So, you could say I have made a commitment to direct-drive.  Yet, the Lenco is lovely too.

Hi Henry, Yes, I can hear subtle differences among them, and yes, it is impossible or at least very difficult to sort out the root causes of those differences because of the tonearm/cartridge differences.  However, I think those of us who regularly listen to a variety of different combinations can begin to discern what aspects of the sound are likely to be turntable-specific, especially if one keeps in mind that the major job of the turntable is to "keep time without a sense of effort".  (I just invented that quote.)

In my case, I cannot easily run the same cartridge on all 4 turntables, because the "upstairs" system is geared to LOMC cartridges, and the basement system is MM/MI-dedicated.  Despite all of this variance, I am very confident there is a kinship between the "sound" of the L07D and that of the TT101, and what those two have in common is a coreless motor.  The Mk3 with Krebs mod has acquired a similar flavor but with even more "drive" (terribly inadequate word, sorry).  Before the Krebs mod, I would say the Mk3 still had greatest drive but not as much continuity/liquidity/musicality to the sound.

I am very familiar with the two cartridges at play in my basement system (Grace Ruby with OCL stylus vs Acutex LPM320) running in my Lenco/Dynavector, so I can hear that the Acutex takes on a new dimension (I like it even better; it's rather shockingly good) running in the FR64S on the TT101.  I intend to move the Grace over to the FR64S eventually, so I have a better bead on the Lenco vs TT101.  The funny thing to me is that I was oblivious to MM and MI cartridges before Raul started his thread. Now he has gone back to MCs, and I cannot find a reason to spend big bucks on one of the high end MCs, even though I listen to two very good MCs upstairs.

Nandric, That is a question I do not ask. If I continue to own them, it is because I like them.  I was just pulling Thuchan's leg, a little.  Do you have that metaphor in any of your many languages?

OK, so the suspense is killing me, Thuchan. WHY indeed will no other turntable beat the EMT 927?  After 9 pages of responses, surely we must be closer to the answer, even if we are no closer to the question.

Dear Thuchan, I have never seen an EMT 927 in the flesh or even up for sale anywhere in the USA. So, it is unlikely I will ever get the opportunity to hear one, let alone buy one.  And then if you buy one, you need to know the right sorcerers (probably in Germany) to bring it back to life, such as you have done.  But it does seem that you have here voted for the EMT 927 over the Caliburn, in the context of your latest post. 

If my post makes no "sense", read it again. Or if you want to query me, please ask a specific question about my post; I will be happy to try to respond.

Now you ask me what do I think is the "perfect" TT, which was not the central subject of my post. My opinion is there is no perfect TT, today or any day. There are many very good TTs, good enough to make this argument moot. Mike Lavigne has a wider and deeper experience of the most expensive TTs ever sold both now and in the past than any of us peons, and even he is loathe to say which is "best" let alone "perfect" (your word). I think it’s a bad question, to begin with.

Thuchan, who started this thread 11 pages ago, is a wealthy man. He also resides in close proximity to the best EMT repair facility in the world, probably with access to many OEM parts that the rest of us could not acquire, even if we owned a 927 and had the money for a cost no object restoration. If the 927 is capable of outperforming every other TT, in a manner that would convince all of us, then I can imagine that Thuchan owns that 927, just because of his resources. I can’t sit where I am and say that his 927 does not "outperform" anything I ever heard; I haven’t even ever heard ANY 927, let alone a perfected one. But I feel no jealousy or resentment; I am happy for Thuchan if his 927 is as good as he thinks it is.  Meantime, I am happy with what I have and don't feel driven to replace what I own.

Are you able to swap the phono stages, in order to pinpoint the source of the differences you hear?  I am not at all surprised that the EMT927 per se would outperform the Clearaudio, assuming the EMT is in tip-top condition, but I would be surprised if the Allnic is not superior to the built-in EMT phono stage.  However, this only reflects my own biases.  It's worth a try.

Also, you don't mention the tonearms and cartridge(s) you are comparing.  That could make a big difference. I would hope at least that you mounted the same cartridge on each of the two tonearms, if the tonearms are not identical.

Of course anyone can make any claim they want, but if there are multiple variables involved in a comparison of single items in a system then there is nothing further to discuss. This forum would become just a list of the preferences of geographically isolated individuals, which would be a total bore.

Hi thuchan,
are you still also using the TT101?

if one is going to make a declarative statement about clearaudio vs 927, is it too much to ask that at least the cartridge should be held constant, as well as all downstream equipment? This is coming from me; I have a bias in favor of the EMT 927. So I am not offended by the statement that the 927 outperformed the clearaudio.

Pcosta, “Made for mono use” when applied to a tonearm can only mean that it is wired for true mono, with only two signal carrying conductors between headshell and the tonearm output single RCA plug.  That situation is easily rectifiable by any of several persons who are competent to rewire tonearms. I see no reason to discard the tonearm that you have just because it is said to be mono. Even if there are only two contact points between the end of the arm wand and the headshell, even that can be fixed. One can purchase a replacement plug that is capable of stereo, with four contacts built into it.

So, did you exchange the original Ortofon RF297 arm for an EMT RF297? What don't I understand?  My only point was and is that there is in reality no such thing as a "mono" tonearm, provided one is willing to re-wire.  I would have guessed that re-wiring is less expensive than doing an exchange with a dealer, tonearm for tonearm.  That was my secondary point.

 The resurrection of this thread prompted me to take a look at current values of an EMT 927. I was surprised to find that asking prices of examples that are for sale range from about $5000 US to about $40,000 US. Samples in the latter category of course are beautifully and immaculately restored. But samples that are in the low-end of the price range don’t look so bad either. What’s up with that vast difference in pricing?

Norman, What I found to be odd, when I looked on Hi-Fi Shark, was that the pricing fell into two groups: ~$5000US vs ~$30,000US (although I chose to quote the highest price, $40,000 in my recent post).  There were 3-4 tables available in each of these two price ranges with nothing in between, which is to say, nothing in the $7K to $20K range.  The high priced examples were "like new" based on photos.  Some of the ones seen on Hi-Fi Shark could be expired, meaning the tables have been sold or taken off the market.

I try not to judge either audiophiles or audiophile equipment based on what the former spends or what the latter costs, but I am amazed sometimes, on both counts.  Nevertheless, here we are talking only about the merits of a particular turntable, and I may be the first since the inception of the thread to have brought up $, for which I apologize.
If you knew what my long term investment (over the course of 40 years) in my two separate systems is, you might count me as a sybarite.  On the other hand, I have never paid $40K for a turntable and never will.  But if I had to choose one of my audio systems over the other,.... I could not do that any more than I could work my way up to selling any one of my 5 turntables.

testpilot, At least our blather is good for SOMEthing!
I am feeling tempted to try out a 930st, which is kind of like going into the ocean up to your waist.  I will now lie down until this feeling of temptation abates. I have no shelf space, for one thing.

“People”.
Soylent green is people..

Pani, where and in what context were you able to audition a 950?

We agree, Raul. That is what I was trying to say.  There is basically "nothing new under the sun" when it comes to turntables, although our ideas about what constitutes optimal design and construction have evolved or become more sophisticated over decades, as the acceptable cost for audio systems has expanded and as there has been more time for trial and error experiments.  For one example, the unipivot was once a revolutionary idea in tonearm design. Not today.

And yet the TD124, when compared to even the top level of pedestrian idler drives, like the Garrard 301 and the Lenco L75, comes in third in terms of sonics. to my ears in my system.  Moreover, I have liked many other belt-drive and DD turntables over the TD124, as well. So, either your numbers are questionable, or speed stability is not the paramount determinant of SQ, or we just hear differently. (This says nothing about the EMT 927, which I have not heard.)

Vintage turntables did have heavy platters, vacuum suction, air or magnetic bearings, and high torque motors, although no single one of them had all those supposed virtues (all of which come with some trade-offs.)

Pani, Which version of "Nantais Lenco" do you own?  I used to own one, too, and I used to follow Jean's meanderings on various websites.  He was or is constantly upgrading his ideas on how to improve the base table, so his work has a temporal quality to its quality. Mine was in a massive plywood plinth (I'd guess 50 to 75 lbs total weight) with the OEM Lenco metal chassis bolted directly into the plywood to dampen it.  Then I entered my "slate phase", in the early 2000s, and this led to my selling the Nantais Lenco.  I found an NOS Lenco and harvested only its motor, idler wheel, and platter.  I had a slate plinth cut for me and I mounted the motor on a PTP top plate, made by Peter Reinders, who is also a boon to Lenco-lovers.  The PTP is bolted firmly to the slate surface. I purchased a huge bearing from a guy in England, and I had the platter spray painted with a dampening paint, plus I took a cue from Win Tinnon and further dampened the platter with O-rings straddling the circumference,.  My slate slab weighs about 65 lbs. I did not try to devise a removable tonearm mount, so I use only surface mounted tonearms on the Lenco, specifically a Dynavector DV505.  The piece de la resistance was the addition of a Phoenix Engineering motor controller and Roadrunner.  I am not one to make definitive statements about one TT being better than another of my TTs, but this Lenco competes in every way with anything else I own.

I apologize for the question, because it is an obvious one, but in your comparisons among the tables you mention, were you using the same tonearm and cartridge in all cases, or even in some cases?  Thanks.