Why will no other turntable beat the EMT 927?

The older designs are very good but as it has been noted they are not close to current technology, the drive used today did not exist, the software to run them, and the machining accuracy.
I always use this as a reference...I own and have raced my 1969 Firebird with a 426 pushing upwards of 650 HP...but you can go buy a factory car with more power, better brakes, better handing and the list goes on.
I have been lucky in my position to test All of the Garards/Lencos/Sp-10 and at the end of the day they are just like the 1969 firebird.

I know with a $100K investment in the firebird I can keep up with the new cars...but they cost 40k.....

That is simply a hobby of love and looks NOT TRUE PERFORMANCE.

This is the same as the table comparisons..simply not fair 40 years technology vs current.....
Cheers
Larry

Comparing the technology in turntables with that of cars is dubious at best?
The physics and functioning of the turntable system has been pretty well understood for decades.....and in the case of idler drives and direct drives....there are few current or modern designs which can compete...let alone match........the top of the line designs from the 70s and 80s.

A fairer comparison of the art of turntable design I feel....would be with analogue watches.
Ask yourself whether a 2013 Patek Philippe wrist watch is technologically better than a 1930s, 1940s or 1950s Patek Philippe?

"Why will no other turntable beat the EMT 927?"

No one has countered with the question, "Why does the EMT sound the way it sounds?" Yet, many are all too willing to dismiss it out of hand. Personally, I have never heard an EMT 927, so I have no firsthand experience with it. I have studied it's design, however, and I am convinced that EMT did build a superior piece when they produced the 927. Is it the best? Tuchan thinks so. As a turntable manufacturer, I would like to believe that at least one beats it. :wink: Like everything else, your mileage may vary, and so it goes.

There are other issues here that are displayed by the notion of some that we have nothing to learn from history because it produced no true performers. To lump all vintage pieces into a single category based on age alone, and to lump all modern ones into another category for the same reason is folly, in my opinion. It would be like saying that all modern turntables are the same, and we all know that isn't true. The same goes when it comes to drive types, too.

Some turntables from the past are stellar by any measure. The Mitchell Cotter turntable is one example. It looks like a DIY project, but most modern turntable manufacturers can't begin to rival it on their best days. (That's my opinion, but not necessarily Tuchan's. LOL) The Fairchild Studio 750 is another example of a vintage force to be reckoned with. I'm sure there are others.

So, when it comes to turntables (or other equipment for that matter) we should ask why it's good, or why isn't, rather than making hasty generalizations based on age, or whatever.

That's my two cents on the subject, anyway.

Ttweights,

I would have to disagree with your assessment, this coming from a manufacture kindly do provide more in depth details specifically.

In this specific thread the table in reference is a EMT 927.

Do you feel any on your current table designs are superior or even of equal? If so kindly list in detail.

I have heard numerous tables of yours and sorry but nothing was exciting. One guy's system one could clearly hear the noisy motor and this person commented you had changed it out numerous times, also table could not hold an accurate speed even though this is something that you seem to specifically market which really left me scratching my head.

Nothing personal but no one that I know who has heard your tables or even in the forums feels your tables are anything special.

Mosin,

said; I would like to believe that at least one beats it. :wink:

Only way to find out is to compare and even then that's subjective on it's own specially if one has never actually heard a EMT 927 and comparing.

I have yet to come across any of your tables locally in a system nor on the forums from other user's commenting, why is this. Is there a lack of your designs out there, I have vaguely read they are very costly but really not sure of the actual cost so how much does one of your table designs actually go for and what's included and where can one see-touch and listen to in a system.

Dev,

They are $36,000. It takes many, many hours to build even one, so I make very few of them. No tonearm comes with the turntable.

I do not sell through dealers, but I may make it to RMAF this year. If you search the archives here, you will find comments of Audiogon members who have heard the Saskia turntable. I am proud to be able to say that their comments are extremely favorable. Admittedly, it is a rare beast.

Dear Henry, Before man started to wear diamond earings Patek Philippe was 'the' jewel for man. So it is not about technology but about fashion and riches. However the connection is showing off with what we own.

Regards,

Hi Mosin,

Thx for that information, I'm sure Thuchan and others would be up to the task to compare one of your tables so are you up to that task.

Ya unfortunately searching the archives provides very limited information about your table which are vague anyways, I have read discussions in the past years where you were asked specifically more technical questions about your design but have declined saying you want to keep such as a secret.

The only information I have gained was written in a 6moons blurb; showed a picture of a table saying it was a new OMA product blah! blah! patent-pending with the motor controller done by Mark Kelly. The deck being designed by you Win Tinnon, machining by Colby Lamb and that OMA did the slate fabrication.

That was all talked about back in 2008, then you have member Robyatt posting also back in 2008 and wrote; "I heard the Saskia Idler drive TT at Oswalds Mill Audio the other day"

Care to comment!!!


My following comment is not be taken personally but if your table is that great and if I was you I would put this question to myself "why aren't there more owners of my tables out there"

TTweights, technology itself, hoewever advanced, does not gurantee anything. The unfortunate marketing figures of merit "W&W below 0.0000000x%", "axis polished to xx um", etc are useless in on their own. We've learne that lesson with THD in amps. Sonic resluts are important, not technologies.

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.

Lewm,

excuse me when you suggest I should lay off and say he told me that every table is hand-made by him, where did he say that?

Are you 100% sure about this statement you made? or is Win designing and having pces manufactured by this and or that person/organization to his spec and then assembling.

I have nothing against Win, nor of his design nor am I attacking him as a person.

Just asking questions for clarification, sorry but I'm just not privy to all the stuff that's gone on. I'm only referring to reading a little of this or that over the past years "appears mainly from 2008" involving OMA and what was wrote on the 6moons thread.

Win was the one whom referred me to search the archives so I did, oops!

This is an open forum for discussion right so why so defensive and why are you answering for him, I did not put the question forth to you.

Business wise I wish him well but your rant doesn't assist specially if the information is not 100% correct. ;-)

Dev, I will for you to please stop before you make an a** of yourself.
Quantity nor popularity does not determine the sonic superiority of a turntable over another. The man stated the man hours it takes to make one.
If you are trying to tell us how many different people are involved in the production of the turntable and it sound that easy and simple to you, then produce only one for yourself and be happy.
Do not degrade a fellow member and pretend to be sincere in your peanut reasoning.
You do not see anybody attacking Thuchan for the statement about the EMT 927.

TTweights, technology itself, hoewever advanced, does not gurantee anything. The unfortunate marketing figures of merit "W&W below 0.0000000x%", "axis polished to xx um", etc are useless in on their own. We've learne that lesson with THD in amps. Sonic resluts are important, not technologies.

TTweights, technology itself, hoewever advanced, does not gurantee anything. The unfortunate marketing figures of merit "W&W below 0.0000000x%", "axis polished to xx um", etc are useless in on their own. We've learne that lesson with THD in amps. Sonic resluts are important, not technologies.

in 2008 Mosin did have the Saskia turntable at RMAF and it did sound wonderful. great propulsion to the music and very quiet and refined. as well as looking like a million bucks too.

anyone who has seen it has desired it.

at that time i owned a Dobbins Garrard 301 with the Loricraft power supply which i liked alot. the Saskia was a few levels beyond that for sure to my ears. it's a great turntable.

i would be very surprised if the 927 was in that league....but of course, it's possible.

i know that Mosin put a huge effort into the development of the Saskia. sometimes the talent and effort to create magic is not matched on the marketing side for whatever reason. maybe Mosin is too humble for his own good.

Mikelavigne,

Sorry but I really just don't understand your reply and below are my reasons why.

How do you or anyone for that matter of fact able to go to a show and hear a set-up that involves numerous pces that you are not familiar with as a whole paired up together, never mind the room or others things going on but able to come to a conclusion suggesting the sound is the result of one specific pce of gear within what ever has me at a loss.

Gotta love it though :-)

How would you know what the Saskia table has to offer in general if not put in your own system and directly compared towards the Dobbins Garrard 301 you make reference to.

Sorry but this just isn't possible.

I don't know Mosin and have no knowledge about his marketing and/or product.

"Having owned many good turntables in my audiophile life I am still wondering why not one of the modern designs of the last 20 years is able to beat the sound qualities of an EMT 927."

There is not much difference in "sound quality" of one well constructed table versus another IMHO.

What will result in sound quality differences is all that goes into getting a good table arm and cart set up well, and all that goes into selecting flavor of cart to sound best with all the rest. Which actually might or does is largely subjective.

Spinning a record quietly with good sound is not rocket science. It just has to be done right. DO it right and there are many possibilities regarding which will be determined by who to beat the others.

Dear administrators, my original post has been posted 3 times instead of intended one.
Could you please fix it?

Thank you

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.

Its always a fair question to ask how one knows how a particular component in an audio system is contributing to the end results.

Listening to a system only indicates what each of the components used is CAPABLE of doing in that particular configuration, not how the individual parts sound in general.

Its useful information but one should be careful about jumping to general conclusions about specific components. Turntable A may be the winner in system A. That probably is a good indicator that it is a strong competitor but does not mean that it will perform equally well in system B.

An analogy is that a baseball player may lead the league in batting in stadium A, but fall well behind the leaders in stadium B. IF they are among the leaders in multiple stadiums (the more the merrier), however, that is probably a good indicator that the player is pretty good.

Dev,

you make a fair point about telling what is doing what outside of direct comparisons.

that said; when an unfamiliar system sounds crummy, who knows why? but when an unfamiliar system sounds very good, particularly a vinyl sourced system, i believe some things can be learned. either the speed is good or it's not. either the music has flow and energy or it does not. and familiar pressings reveal plenty about noise levels and such.

this weekend at the Newport Show i heard a number of rooms where the system sounded good but i did not hear the 'magic' in the vinyl front end, and other rooms where i heard quite a bit of 'magic' from a vinyl front end 'through' a less capable system. last year at the Newport Show i wrote of my impressions of taking one Lp around to 10+ rooms and hearing one same cut from all those systems. yes; no ultimate truth was revealed but lots of pretty good ideas were percieved.

i had heard the OMA system for a couple of years running at RMAF prior to that year, so i had a bit of a feel for it. and i had been living with three turntables at that time and paying very close attention to how various turntables were sounding then.

so while i agree with you in general principle, i am confident that my impression of the Saskia at the 2008 RMAF was useful to me and worth sharing.

i respect your right to dismiss it. it might have been better for me to have qualified my impression of the Saskia from that 2008 show.

"either the speed is good or it's not."

That's easily measured and determined. $150 Japanese turntables from the seventies used strobe lights as indicators. Most decent tables in good working order had good speed control. The most common problem was belt drives with dirty or defective belts, usually an easy fix. I heard many tables and was able to recognize speed issues to some degree by listening but not always with enough precision to detect minor speed problems.

"either the music has flow and energy or it does not"

This is one I do not understand. Is this a speed thing again? Is it dynamics? If the latter, the table itself has little to do with it. The overall phono setup and system as a whole is what matters. The cartridge matters a lot more than the table itself. IT has to have good performance in general and especially with the specific tonearm on that table to be truly great.

"and familiar pressings reveal plenty about noise levels and such."

For a reference point, my 30 year old Linn Axis that cost me about $600 new at the time is still as dead quiet as my digital with good quality records in good condition. Again, setup of the rig and quality of the vinyl are the main factors, not so much just the table itself.

Things like these are why it never surprises me when a seemingly meager or ancient device on the grand scale of things perform like champs. Ability of the owner/user to make good equipment choices and get things set up right is probably the biggest factor of all with phono.

Lewm, no problem.

I'm not privy to the history of this specific table but have quickly found it appears to be sensitive subject from a past situation.

Some of your guys are obviously aware of such and I wasn't.

I agree tone of writing can come across improper, it's much easier to be able to communicate in person.

I was just curious about this table and have read a little of this and that but all very vague and then Mosin "Win" replied and suggested I do some research so I did.

I would like Mosin "Win" to know I have no hidden agenda, just interested to learn more about his product.

A suggestion would be to do a simple web site with a few pages, include some pics of the product, history etc with a contact email and phone number. We are talking about some serious change here.

Hi Mikelavige,

We can agree to disagree you know how it goes Ha! HA!, see below my response. My posting is just discussion and my 2-cents worth and nothing else ;-)

Firstly I agree we are on the same page when you wrote;

when an unfamiliar system sounds very good, particularly a vinyl sourced system, i believe some things can be learned.
either the speed is good or it's not. either the music has flow and energy or it does not. and familiar pressings reveal plenty about noise levels and such.

but Mike you and I both know there is allot more going on then just to do with the actual table it's self, you could have that identical set-up and if not set-up correctly - arm off- cart misaligned - phono setting different would not sound the same.

Do you agree with this?

Now if you placed this same "Saskia" table within your system, used the same cart and arms etc and made those same comments in your original posting well that would greatly make sense to me but you didn't.

To me shows in general should be used to meet others, see and possibly touch actual product and see what's new. Hey it's a bonus if the sound is decent but to go around and evaluate the way you mentioned just makes no sense to me, way too many factors come into play and in the end not fair to any of the product.

I can just picture guys scurrying off to different rooms wanting to hear their specific pce, cough cough I gotta laugh. No disrespect, if this is your thing and you truly feel the way to compare well what can I say.

This Saskia table in question alone Win said charges $36K, far from being chump change.

Honestly not trying to attack you!

P.S. Your system is looking marvelous, you mentioned the importance of speed etc. Have you ever placed a Sutherland TimeLine on your current NVS table? If so what were the results because this has been asked prior in other threads but never actually answered. I know Albert did this and mentioned it would not and has sense sold his table.

I know this is also a sensitive subject but please do share.

I want to make it clear that I have no agenda in relation to the Saskia table, actually only personal interest.

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.

I've also heard the Saskia at RMAF. I think it is terrific and I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

I just think its funny even comparing an old table like the EMT 927 to a modern table costing.....wait....$36,000.

IT better be good for that price. Ain't many fish out there likely to take that bait. :^)

I'd bet they both are quite good when operating properly, like most every other good table out there.

I agree with dev to stick a Timeline on any table that claims to be top notch and show the resulting measurements to prove it.

$36000 for a turntable might be justified even if just for aesthetic reasons. But in terms of performance, there should be something concrete other than words to justify the price. Measuring the precision of the speed control using a suitably sensitive device should be par for the course if tt cost is based on relative performance.

Mapman,

I agree. If an expensive turntable cannot hold its speed, it fails to meet the objective, doesn't it? Not only should it hold speed, it should be adjustable for those fine ears that, as Doug Deacon says, can hear a one-fifth harmonic.

Too many turntables today try to carry the day with bling. Bling is fine, but isn't much use when one closes his eyes, and tries to escape to that place where the music wants to take him. Maybe that level of performance is why the EMT 927 is held in such high regard after all these years. I initially posted just because I believe there should be historical references to inspire modern makers, and EMT set the bar for that.

Mapman, speed constancy while playing music is a major keep. Also major vibration control is essential. I certainly have heard very expensive turntables that were massive and had lots of bling, but sounded pretty poor. I think it is also the case that well conceived linear trackers with no tracking distortion are typically superior. Long tone arms also are superior for this reason.

Dear Tbg: ++++ " with no tracking distortion are typically superior. Long tone arms also are superior for this reason. " ++++

I respect your opinion but maybe you think that what you listening trhough a long tonearm is because that lower tracking distortion, my take is way different:

a 12" arm against a 10.5" with a Löfgreen A set up gives you this numbers about distortions:

the maximum % distortions between null points are:

0.46 and 0.54. Difference: 0.08%

average RMS % distortion:

0.31 and o.36. Difference: 0.05%

IMHO that kind of % distortions can't be detected even for a bat.

The differences you are talking perhaps comes from other " side ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

For me tt has two jobs to do well:

1) spin record at proper speed
2) isolate from noise

I feel most good tables set up properly and in good working order are proficient at both.

tt alone cannot isolate effectively from external physical vibrations and EM fields, both of which are sources of noise. This is where the user's setup alone can work and solutions need not be at all expensive.

THese things addressed effectively are what produce top notch results.

Expensive tables with very high build quality can help address external vibrations but cannot solve that in all cases alone, so money may not be able to buy the complete solution from a tt maker.

Rauliruegas, I have seen the data of tracking error and nevertheless find the Ikeda long arm sounds much better than the short arm. I would prefer a straightline tracking arm and perhaps the pivoting tracking error arms will become more affordable.

Mapman, I think you are ignoring the drag on the speed of the turntable from the stylus on the record that varies with the nature of what is being tracked.

You say that most "good" tables do a good job of spin speed and isolation. I totally disagree.

"You say that most "good" tables do a good job of spin speed and isolation. I totally disagree."

Useless argument. If they don't, then they are not good. Bottom line is what you can hear. I've never heard much difference that I could attribute to the table alone with any decent table and I've sold and heard many. Maybe others can/do more than me. But I would estimate that I am significantly more sensitive to these things than most, if not all.

Dear Tbg: +++++ " tracking distortion are typically superior. Long tone arms also are superior for this reason. " +++++

these are your words and these my answer to that " false " statement:

++++ " IMHO that kind of % distortions can't be detected even for a bat.

The differences you are talking perhaps comes from other " side ". " +++++

so your " nevertheless " has no real meaning. I own Ikeda tonearms and know it very well along several other tonearms.

IMHO a longest tonearm provoque more problems that what it try to solve. As with the TT subject the tonearm one is full of misunderstood for us because our opinion is based/took foundation in what we learned through many audio years where the teacher always was the AHEE that has more a commercial $$$$ orientation that gives us any real help to improve our audio/music knowledge level. They still think that we customers/audiophiles are still stupid people and I can tell you that no one of us is " stupid " .

IMHO any tonearm design must fulfil the cartridge needs ( not our needs. ) and the first target has to be that the tonearm be " transparent " for the cartridge that does not degrade the cartridge signal in any way.
From this point of view a long tonearm against a shortest one is in clear disadvantage because can't " respond " to the cartridge tracking movements as fast as the shortest one.

As that fact there are several ones why a shortes one is better than a larger one.

Things are that the additional distortions/colorations provided by the long tonearm match in better way your music/sound priorities but not because lower " tracking distortions " in the long tonearm. This is a misunderstood and a marketing hip promoted by the AHEE.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

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.

Raul and Lewm are both correct. The longer 12 inch arm can reduce tracking error but adds new design challenges by being longer. And as Lewm states, if the setup of the 12 inch arm is off a bit, the tracking error becomes worse than a 9 inch arm. And the articles that I read showed the tracking error is worse for the 12 inch arm vs. the 9 inch for the same amount of mis-setting. Effective mass is actually the inertia of the tonearm and inertia is mass times the radius squared plus 1/3 the length squared. So the 12 inch arm has to have a higher effective mass. The arm tube rigidity to avoid resonance response becomes a bigger challenge too for the longer arm. It is a mechanical engineering problem that was solved decades ago. The 9 inch arm, in general, provides the optimum solution for all conditions. Sure, new materials can justify a revisit of old ideas. Just watch out for new designs where the hype outweighs the engineering.

Rauliruegas, "From this point of view a long tonearm against a shortest one is in clear disadvantage because can't " respond " to the cartridge tracking movements as fast as the shortest one." I think you are referring to the great mass of the long tonearms. So this is a wrong statement. If you had a short arm with greater mass than a long arm, it would be untrue.

I still maintain that in my experience the same cartridge on the 407 sounds better than on the 345. Since I buy based on what I hear that was enough.

I heard a clearly better and more believable presentation with the SME V-12 than I did with the SME V using the same cartridge and cable on the same turntable during a direct comparison over a two week period. In fact, it was not really close.

The effective mass of the V-12 is only 1g more than the V. Inertia may even be less because the counterweight ended up being considerably closer to the pivot on the V-12. The weight of the arm tube and counterweight is greater on the longer arm, so there is more weight on the knife edge bearing, so that may also help drain energy away from the cartridge and into the arm base.

The headshell angle is less on the longer arm, so there is less need for antiskate and I used two Mint LP custom arc protractors for each alignment, so I presume one was not better set up than the other. So it is reasonable to presume some of the better sonics I hear are a result of the lower tracking distortion of the longer arm. To Tony's point, SME did spend two years developing the longer version of the V arm. It is not simply a 3" longer arm tube like some other designs.

My only experience with arms in my system is with three different SME arms, so I can not make a general argument for 12" arms over 9" arms, but the points raised above by both Raul and Lewm do make sense.

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.

Well, I think Raul points out potential problems with the longer arms and if they are not addressed, then the disadvantages are outweighed by a correctly implemented 9" arm. However, if the effective mass is low enough and the arm and cartridge are properly aligned, then the advantages of the lower tracking distortion of the longer arms can be realized.

Though I'm not sure, I think that longer arms can have the same or lower inertia than shorter arms. It is a function of where the counterweight is located in relation to the pivot. In my specific case, though the effective mass of the V-12 is 1g greater than that of the 9" V, the inertia may be less because the counterweight is considerably closer to the pivot allowing the arm to react quicker.

People who have compared the V to the V-12 have commented that the V is more dynamic and "quicker" sounding. I did not notice this. I did hear a clearer, more detailed and smoother sound with the V-12 though.

Perhaps John Gordon can add some comments about effective mass and inertia.

Don't worry about inertia. Just add the cartridge effective mass to the tonearm's effective mass and use the cartridge compliance to calculate the system natural frequency. As long as it is around 10Hz, it's fine.

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.

Yes, that is my understanding and I think the lower the inertia, the better. So all else being equal, I would prefer adding more weight to the counterweight and sliding it as close to the pivot as possible. Most people don't consider or think about this because their tonearms don't allow the addition of extra or bigger weights. The SME V-12 does, and it improves performance.

So, no, it is not critical, but in my opinion, if it is an available adjustment on a given tonearm, then it should be considered to improve performance.

Dear Tbg: No it's not wrong.

We have to think that a higher mass even if matched with the cartridge weight//compliance is always a " problem " because the cartridge /tonearm are in motion so we have to talk here of dynamic mass not static.

We ha ve to think to at stylus tip level at what stylus tip needs, that's it that the tonearm can react fast/immediatly to the stylus tip requirments during grooves riding/tracking and as longer the tonearm as lower the tonearm bearing arm wand response. We have to think at microscopic level and not macro.

In the other side alonger tonearm not only has a longer surface that in motion resonate and vibrate with more dificults to damp it that to shortes surface/arm wands.

A longer tonearm produce additional challenge to the tonearm bearing than a shortes one and a longer tonearm normally suffer on the arm wand stifness/bending that a short one.

In the other side the cartridge signal has to run a longest distance/path in a long tonrarm than in a short one: do you think is not important?, well change the headshell wire/leads in your tonearm and you will have a change in the quality performance of that signal: 3" makes a way difference for the better or worst.

A common problem we almost all have is that we are accustom to very high system distortions/colorations because that's the way we were listening music through the last 30+ years teached by the corrupted AHEE, so when we follow listening those higher distortions/colorations trhouag a long tonearm we like it against what we hear in a short one but IMHO what you like or what I like is not important here what is important is what's right and what is wrong.

IMHO the lower distortions/colorations ( any kind ) in an audio system along accuracy and neutral performance is what really can makes a difference for the better quality performance level.

Now, that that lower distortions and higher accuracy does not like to you or to me is not important and means only that what we like are higher distortions and unaccuracies that are wrong.

Which the differences between different audio systems?: mainly its distortions and accuracy level: not what you or me like to listen because this is totally subjective.

When you listen to live music in a near field what do you listen?: low, distortions, low unnacuracies, neutral sound, natural agresiveness: natural tone colorations and obviously the dynamic power that only the live music can gives.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Peterayer: The SME V and the V-12 are way different tonearms and that's why you listen different performance level as the other persons you name it. So, it is not a good comparison.

Please read my post to Tbg and remember that we are talink of a tonearm/cartridge in motion not static.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

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.

Hello Raul, I know this thread has gone off the original topic of the EMT 927. But in the last few posts the topic has been the differences between 9" and 12" tonearms. How is my experience with the SME V and V-12 not a good comparison? I agree they are different, and I attempt to explain how they are in my post above, but what do you mean by "way different" and "not a good comparison"?

You seem to suggest or, emphatically state, that 9" arms are better than 12' arms. Why is the SME V-12 not relevant to that discussion?

I read your post to Tbg and it does not explain to me why I and many others prefer the V-12 to the V.

The fact that the considerable mass of the cartridge is way out on the end of the "lever" means that inertial mass is higher with a 12" arm. With modern materials and technology, it is possible to make the mass of the arm itself much less so that the inertial mass (same as "effective mass" is in the proper range for the compliance of most low compliance cartridges. But, that lower mass means some compromise in rigidity and dampening of vibrational energy transmitted down the arm tube. In other words, for the same effective mass, a 9" arm can have more material to make the arm more rigid. This is a matter of a tradeoff, with modern material making the negatives of longer length less than in the past.

By the way the benefit of a longer arm that I like is the smaller change in VTA from different thickness records. I am NOT one to fiddle with VTA changes for different kinds of records.