Why will no other turntable beat the EMT 927?

For readers who are unfamiliar with the build of the EMT 927, this article is a great read. There are very few turntables that approach the engineering & build quality of this deck, it makes many modern "superdecks" look like toys..
http://www.lencoheaven.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=jsn2lbqo73mkpbr1qviqf0hca4&topic=7793.0

08-18-13: Richardkrebs
I totally agree with your assessment of the SP10 MK3. However this is, IMO not a result of its design, the use of a servo, or DD. I believe it is the way it is built. The tension, greyness and lack of ebb and flow, can be significantly mitigated.

I dont agree with this comment. I hear a dissembling of musical flow and timing from the SP10's including the ones you have rebuilt.
If we compare direct drives on their own, the Kenwood L07D and SP10 sound quite different in terms of musical flow and timing. The SP10mk3 will measure better than the L07D because the L07D error correction servos only work when the speed error is quite large. The L07D relies on inertia to minimise tiny speed inaccuracies, whereas the SP10mk3 servos are much more aggressive.
The differences in the implementation of servos and their operating parameters are clearly discernible in the musical presentation of these 2 DD's which are quite different.
The Technics SP10's in particular dissemble the music, musical timing and expression becomes compartmentalised and lacks flow. Jean Nantais has expressed the same view, he prefers the softer servos as used in the Sony DD's to the SP10.
From my listening experiences neither of these DD's would compete with the top Micro Seiki's that I have heard in the areas of musical flow and coherence. The Gestalt of the music is lost with these DD's compared to a well implemented inertia driven system.
It may well be that if one has lived with Direct Drives with the intrinsic servo jitter for 30 years or so it is possible ones ear does not detect these issues the way that others do.
By the way, in response to your posts in the ET2 thread, I have now heard the full krebsupgrade and the SP10 in question sounds more woolly and ill defined than the earlier mule version of the exact same deck.

08-18-13: Lewm
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?
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.

This is misrepresenting the 927. Although its platter is only 5kg the 16" diameter and weight distribution results in inertia similar to much much heavier platters ( I think 50kg equivalent has been suggested ). This may be a good thing, attaining high inertia but keeping mass and hence energy storage within the platter low.
The cutting lathes using the much vaunted Technics SP02 DD motor ( which in power and torque and poles is vastly superior to the SP10mk3 motor ) still used this flywheel effect as well with 60lb platters used in the cutting process despite the power and "servo" speed control.
Good turntable designs are very much a 'sum of the parts' - you cannot just ascribe a specific attribute such as what is the minimum platter mass required, because the answer will always be - that depends.... on the bearing, energy storage considerations, platter material, speed control etc etc
It's a bit like - I need to solve a problem, can I borrow Einsteins brain. It doesn't work. Why. His brain doesn't work without the cardiovascular system which you didn't specify in your request. Ok I got the rest now and it still doesn't work. Why. Because he likes a good walk and breakfast to get the juices flowing.

Dkarmeli
I use the Micro as a reference simply because more people are familiar with these. I personally use the original Final Audio Parthenon VTT1/VSM2 with VDS17 Stabiliser & VM7 Mat which as you mention has a focus on unwanted energy dissipation from the record groove in its design goals along with a high inertia solution for speed stability. What differentiates it from the top Micro's and is clearly audible is the more sophisticated speed control which utilises sine & cosine wave generators for stability with the huge AC motor, variable torque to minimise motor noise, an inverted bearing design and the energy control paths are quite sophisticated even by todays standards, culminating in the stabiliser/mat/platter/bearing assembly and arm pod both terminated into a slab of SPZ ( superplastic zinc alloy ) that when excited grain slides at a molecular level. This results in an extremely rigid closed loop system between arm and platter but ensures energy is not transmitted from one to the other.

The Parthenon was an assault but didn't get all the way there, too many gimmicks. Its not only mass here, ...

Which version are you referring to here. The later version - see pic here http://www.damoka.net/product_pages/analog/ as used by Lamm in one of their shows did not use the SPZ base and has a smaller and less substantial bearing pillar & subplatter assembly and is not as good as the original.