VPI's platters at the upper end of the product line are at least 20 pounds or more (acrylic / lead / cork combo) & yes I've been told that they are reported to work best with the record very closely coupled to the platter. Mine (a MK4 with a TNT bearing & platter) is supposedly that way. I'm not going to claim firsthand experience here, but the guy that I bought it from has. He had experimented extensively with mats & clamps, ending up with a paper thin "analog survival kit" mat & the Black Diamond clamp. Not wanting to 'reinvent the wheel' I've never tried anything else, but after the above read-through I'm tempted to begin experimenting all over again. Not that I'm unhappy with the rig as-is, in fact quite the contrary. Sometimes, ignorance really is bliss.
Record mats, VTA, clamps and my ears
Hi-
I've got a Thorens TD 316 with ClearAudio Arum Beta+. I've been experimenting with the original mat, a slightly thicker Audioquest Sorbothane mat, and a thinner Ringmat. I have dutifully ignored reading too much about VTA because my 'table doesn't support adjusting VTA.
The Sorbothane sounds better than the stock. Highs are the same, but the bass is less muddy. The Ringmat has a similar improvement in the bass, but there is more high end air. There is also very slightly more high frequency tics. But the problem is that some recordings sound thin. Airy, sure. But thin.
The turntable was set up using the original mat by a respected area tech. Not the very best high end guy--I would have been out another $200 had I used him. (The joys of the big city). Still, I'm confident my tech did a creditable job.
So I'm wondering how much of the differences I'm hearing are due to the change in angle of the stylus in the groove due to the different mat heights, and how much is due to the quality of the interaction between the 'table and the mat.
Are my findings consistent with advanced stylus angle theory? Should I have been paying attention in class when Sam T. told us everything I should already know?
Also, being The CheapSkate, I have a "The Original Pod Disclamp." Got it for twenny bucks on eBay. Anybody ever heard of this animal? Alas, I have questions. The Pod Disclamp worked best with the original mat insofar as the original mat is the stiffest. This is important as there is a depression around the spindle, so it physically possible to push the center of the record near the spindle down far enough so that the perimeter of the record raises up. No matter--even with the needle going up and down, things SOUND better that way! Arrgh! What does this mean? Must I now pay $2000 for a Final Tool just so I can own a 'table that follows the basic laws of physics?
Anyway, I try to apply just enough clamping force so the record is somewhat damped, yet not contorted.
The clamps effectiveness is reduced with the corresponding lack of stiffness of the mat. At least that's what my wife keeps telling me. So the clamp works best with the original mat, second best with the Audioquest Sorbothane, and third best (but still an improvement) with the Ringmat.
Hopefully, my confusion hasn't dulled your enthusiasm over providing me with my much lacked and sorely needed guidance.
I remain--
The Cheapskate
I've got a Thorens TD 316 with ClearAudio Arum Beta+. I've been experimenting with the original mat, a slightly thicker Audioquest Sorbothane mat, and a thinner Ringmat. I have dutifully ignored reading too much about VTA because my 'table doesn't support adjusting VTA.
The Sorbothane sounds better than the stock. Highs are the same, but the bass is less muddy. The Ringmat has a similar improvement in the bass, but there is more high end air. There is also very slightly more high frequency tics. But the problem is that some recordings sound thin. Airy, sure. But thin.
The turntable was set up using the original mat by a respected area tech. Not the very best high end guy--I would have been out another $200 had I used him. (The joys of the big city). Still, I'm confident my tech did a creditable job.
So I'm wondering how much of the differences I'm hearing are due to the change in angle of the stylus in the groove due to the different mat heights, and how much is due to the quality of the interaction between the 'table and the mat.
Are my findings consistent with advanced stylus angle theory? Should I have been paying attention in class when Sam T. told us everything I should already know?
Also, being The CheapSkate, I have a "The Original Pod Disclamp." Got it for twenny bucks on eBay. Anybody ever heard of this animal? Alas, I have questions. The Pod Disclamp worked best with the original mat insofar as the original mat is the stiffest. This is important as there is a depression around the spindle, so it physically possible to push the center of the record near the spindle down far enough so that the perimeter of the record raises up. No matter--even with the needle going up and down, things SOUND better that way! Arrgh! What does this mean? Must I now pay $2000 for a Final Tool just so I can own a 'table that follows the basic laws of physics?
Anyway, I try to apply just enough clamping force so the record is somewhat damped, yet not contorted.
The clamps effectiveness is reduced with the corresponding lack of stiffness of the mat. At least that's what my wife keeps telling me. So the clamp works best with the original mat, second best with the Audioquest Sorbothane, and third best (but still an improvement) with the Ringmat.
Hopefully, my confusion hasn't dulled your enthusiasm over providing me with my much lacked and sorely needed guidance.
I remain--
The Cheapskate