Why will no other turntable beat the EMT 927?

Just to summarize my perspective, it wold not surprise me if no other table beats the EMT 927 because the criteria in which such a comparison would be made is totally subjective. There is little quantitative to bank on regarding the ability of one table alone to beat another. There are too many factors that go into top notch vinyl performance....turntable alone is a small part. There are many ways to very good results, though all are technically flawed even if results are most sonically pleasing. SO its a total pot shot in the end regarding what beats what. Good digital will beat bad vinyl and vice versa as well.

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.

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

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.

"Analog, like digital, has made strides in the last 3 decades."

No doubt.

But how much again to get the equipment capable of it?

Then how many recordings capable of actually demonstrating it?

Then how many people capable of setting it up properly to achieve the results?

Granted, the results can be extraordinary when done right, especially these days on a good modern rig. That's all that matters in the end.

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.

Digital mastering of vinyl LPs is kind of interesting. I have a few recordings which I bought originally on CD and now also own on 33 1/3 and 45 RPM. In my system, the analog front end gear is of much higher quality than is my CD player. Perhaps for this reason, I prefer the 33 LP to the CD and much prefer the 45 LP to the CD. I have no high rez capability and am sure that I am missing out on good new music.

I guess I'm trying to say that I have prioritized analog playback in my system, and as a result, whether the mastering is digital or analog, the LP sounds better than the CD in the 5-6 cases that I have done a direct comparison.

I still can't answer the original question of this post, because I have never seen, let alone heard, an EMT 927. I would love to someday.

YEs, no purpose in yet another vinyl versus digital debate. Its pretty well documented already.

Good pure analog recordings are the ones that shine most uniquely on vinyl for me.

Once the recording and mastering process starts to become digital, then the unique strengths of vinyl become lessened.

Nowadays, both good digital and good analog recordings have a lot to offer. The differences between the two seem to become less and less significant the more of a role digital plays in the process overall.

Dear Tbg/Mapman: This is something I posted/answered time ago in other thread about digital and analog comparison:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I agree, the digital can't approach that type of LP sound. IMHO : Why can't approach it?, because analog/LP is totally faulty.

The analog signal is heavily manipulated, let see it:

when recorded and to be cutted ( LP. ) the signal must be equalized according to the RIAA standard and this means and equalization that goes from 20hz to 20khz +,- 20dbs!!!!!!!this deemphasis means added distortions, phase chnages, non-linear anomalies, added noise, additional stages where the signal have to pass through.
Then the signal is trasfered to vinyl with all imperfections where does not exist a perfect cutting system, here there is several kind of signal loses: certainly what is in the recording was not what was recorded before all that proccess.

When we want to hear the LP in our audio system that analog signal must be recovery through the phono stage for we can attain a flat frequency response ( just like exist ( with out RIAA eq. ) in a digital medium. ) so inside the phono stage that signal pass again for an additional RIAA eq. ( this time an inverse eq. ) with all the heavy degradation: distortions, phase problems, added noise, colorations, etc, etc, etc.

Inside that phono stage the very low output signal must be amplified ( sometimes 10K times!!! ) to a level where the preamp can handle it as it handle in "; natural"; way the digital signal that has a lot higher output level. Through the high gain proccess the signal pass through 3-5 additional stages that continue degrading the signal continue adding more distortions ( of every kind ), nothing of this happen with the digital medium. That very low output signal characteristic makes that the signal be extremely sensitive to be degraded by everykind of " pollulation " ( electrical/magnetic. ) where the higher digital output signal is a lot less suceptible of that kind of degradations.

All those is what happen to an electronics level now we have to add the worst of all the signal manipulation:

a cartridge to " read " the recorded information, a cartridge is a rudimentary " instrument " for say the least. Cartridge designers make some kind of " magic "/tremendous efforts for the cartridge can makes its critical/titanic job.

A cartridge is an " unstable " tool, everything affect its performance: kind of cantilever and cantilever build material, stylus shape and with which kind of quality was builded, room temperature, kind and quality of cartridge suspension, cartridge motor design, cartridge body resonances, cartridge ridiculous pin connectors, etc, etc, each part of the cartridge degraded the original signal with out exception.

After that the cartridge must be mounted in a tonearm for it can ride the LP and one of the first challenges that the signal has to deal with are the " stupid " tonearm wire connectors to the cartridge and then the in ternal tonearm wire and the the additional IC between the tonearm and the phono stage. In all those links the signal continue degrading, this does not happen in the digital alternative: so no signal degradation.

But the worst for the " end " ( sometimes I think the analog medium is: endless of problems. ):

now the stylus tip hit the LP grooves and at microscopic level that stylus tip start a heavy fight against the grooves/its compliance and tracking habilities to stay in the grooves to be in touch always and this happen almost never ( especialy with low compliance cartridges as the LOMC ones. ).
The stylus tip is " jumping " generating distortions and harmonic distortions. All this " fight " is transmited through the cartridge body to the tonearm which start to resonate ( adding distorions, non.linear anomalies, atc, atc. ) according those cartridge self resonances and according the cartridge compliance/tonearm effective mass.

But all the information captured by the cartrdige has not only a doses of tracking distortions becuase non-perfect cartridge tracking habilities but distortions because the stylus tip never coincide with the grooves never coincide on how the grooves were cutted!!!!! not even in a linear tracking tonearms.

Why is that? for several reasons: the LPs comes all with waves and off-center hole that preclude a perfect alignement trhough all the LP tracks. There is no perfect tonearm/cartridge set up it doesw not matters which geometry alignment we choose: Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson, etc, etc, in all them there is tracking errors for a pivoted tonearm and that tracking errors means added distortions in the signal path.
Btw and talking of set up there is no perfect cartridge set up_ VTA/SRA/azymuth, overhang/etc, load impedance, load capacitance, etc, etc.

All these parameters all the playback time are changing because all the LP imperfections including different LP weights, excentricity LP " center " hole.

Don't forget the TT speed unaccuracies, speed unstability, rumble, wow&fluter, platter resonances, TT bearing ones, tonearm/TT mount board feedback and of course system SPL feedback that affect every analog rig.

I can go on and on and on with all the " thousands " degradation links where the analog signal must pass but as an example I think is enough.

Gentlemans, IMHO it is a " miracle " that we all after all those kind of degradations we still can enjoy the analog sounds!

+++++ " it was the smoothest, most organic, and 3d sound that ever came out of my speakers... " +++++ ( speaking of LP. )

these and other adjectives that we audiophiles used to use when refering to LP quality performance experiences does not comes in the recording in the original recording , those " characteristics " are a result of the heavy degradation that suffer the analog signal, degradation that does not exist in the digital alternative so that's why both mediums sounds different.

Of course that digital has its own trade-offs, well I prefer it: is truer to the recording.

That we like it the analog alternative does not confirms and does not means in any sense that is right, IMHO is wrong almost dead wrong.

I prefer digital HR ( DVDA: 24/192 ) for music sound reproduction at home because I 'm nearest to the original sound that passed through the recording microphones with lower " artefacts " than in the analog domain.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R. " +++++

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

and digital is still improving " every day " so the digital future is way promisory against the analog that is almost static.

I'm still on the quest of the very last boundaries on anlaog/LP reproduction and I'm doing by my self ( for many years. ) because the AHEE corruption does not help about but all the way the other side around: the AHEE has not interest that we can achieve the last analog boundary/frontier speaking on quality level performance. Pity, for say the least.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear mapman: +++++ " the best tonearm length would probably be no tonearm, or 0 length. Tonearms are necessary evils... " ++++++

I can't agree more with you in that statement and it's because that fact that any single tonearm manufacturer have to design thinking at stylus tip cartridge microscopic level than at macro cartridge level or try that the tonearm be the star when as you well said is only an evil and a cartridge's slave.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

I am NOT fond of any digital vs. vinyl spat. I have good gear for listening to both, and because of convenience and availability of material, I listen mostly to digital media at home (exclusively digital in the car and at work). Very little in the way of current issue classical, is available in vinyl, and so much of current issue popular music is actually recorded digitally, so listening to digitally sourced material is, for me, inevitable.

I really love the convenience of a music server and the ability to put together a wide, and unusual program of music for an evening with much less effort. I like being able to scan a large collection of music (so far, I have ripped 3,700 CDs to WAV files), which helps me find long-neglected items in my collection.

Still, when it comes to "showing off" the music that is most stunningly realistic and exciting to hear, it is MOSTLY records I turn to. I have no idea whether there is some, as yet unquantified, and inherent, superiority of vinyl, or if it is a case of better mastering (or deterioration of original masters used for the digital reissue) or any other reason, but, really good vinyl delivers better dynamics and a sense that real bodies producing sound occupy the space in the soundfield. I do find that clicks and pops too often intrude in the playback of classical music, and so I don't do that much listening to classical on records; with all other genres, I find vinyl to more often sound better than the CD issue. High resolution files can sound really good, but, the amount of material issued remains limited.

Tbg,

Of course digital is subject to errors are well and nothing is perfect , but 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.

I still like and often might even prefer a good vinyl recording, but I am not going to delude myself about the inherent flaws and compromises that are involded with playing records, both in theory/on paper and even more so in practice. It often sounds much better than it probably has any right to still, but good sound and accuracy/precision are two separate things.

Mapman, don't assume that digital is better. Remember it is just math that converts 44.1 kHz to 96 kHz. There is rounding error. Every transformation other than in even jumps, is subject to errors just in the math. Converting from USB to SP Dif is subject to errors as are all other conversions. Even magnetic master tapes loose high frequencies with time.

Perhaps when everything is captured in double dsd or 5644.8 kHz, we will get digital right and of course have 10 terabyte drives in raid systems.

This fall I am going to do my 45 rpm reissues to a harddrive in double dsd with RIAA done in digitial. I'm hoping that I can have the wonder of these reissues in a convenient format.

The thing is almost every aspect of vinyl record playback is a compromise. I suppose that's what makes it so interesting say compared to digital, there are lots of ways to do it yet no approach is perfect, much less any record being played.

So it is what it is. Long tonearm, shorter tonearm, whatever....it is what it is. WHatever you do there will always be a compromise somewhere. Its part of the vinyl mystique I suppose.

If it were possible the best tonearm length would probably be no tonearm, or 0 length. Tonearms are necessary evils given the inherently flawed design of vinyl and teh systems needed to play it. Bigger/longer might be OK if done well but is definitely not better.

Dear Peter: IMHO to be a fair comparison we need to compare: oranges against oranges, the V-12 and V has a different design and IMHO to make a comparison you need a V designed as the V12.

The V12 has only 1gr of difference in EM than the V that's means the build material in the V12 arm wand even the same magnesium has a different thickness or treatment and resonate in different way and not because is a 12 one.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Peterayer: +++++ " 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. " ++++, the difference in effective mass is only 1gr.

this is what you posted and your answer why is not a good comparison.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

$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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

Thank you