@invictus005 Both of those mats are metal placed on a metal platter. That’s like placing a record directly on the brass top plate on the new 1200G.
There’s not much dampening going on there.
Can you describe the sound difference between what you use and a mat made out of elastomer type of material?
Saec SS-300 alloy mat (870g) , as you can find online, eliminates the distortion-producing resonance in the 200-400Hz range, which is common to most all conventional rubber mats. This results in a 10~20dB net reduction in overall resonance, to further reduce distortion at its source. Some cartridges are sensivite to the rotor under the platter, felt mats can't solve the problem.
For direct drive is a must have! I like SAEC for two reasons, one of them is the affordable price under $350 (used), second reason is the concave for 7inch records. I don't use SAEC without my Disc Stabilizers on top (Micro ST-10 or Noritake Ceramic Stabilizer).
SAEC is also eye candy, i really like the design of that alloy mat. The most important is the size which is exactly like my Luxman PD-444 platter, so it's a good match. I'm happy, some other mats are different size and does not fit the platter well.
SAEC is a top quality mat! I will not describe the effect on the sound quality, but it's an upgrade over the rubber mat for sure. I don't like rubber mats at all.
Micro Seiki CU-500 is super heavy (2.7kg) pure copper mat, very rare and very expensive (over $1200), better than SAEC SS-300, but not for every turntable. I use it on SP-10mkII and they are looks like they are made for each other. I remember when i replaced stock rubber mat, the effect was huge! It was the biggest upgrade for my SP-10mkII. CU-500 and thinner, lighter and cheaper CU-180 does not fits the Luxman PD-444 well, so it is always important to measure the platter and mat before buying any of them.
I'm fine to put the records on the metal mat, i think the engineers of Micro Seiki knows well what they are doing. The platters of Micro turntables are copper. I don't have the ST-20 clamp, it's extremely rare, but i use ST-10 instead. I think the ST-20 was made for CU-500 mat.
Chakster, With reference to my earlier post about EMI, one reason you may like the copper mat on the SP10 is its capacity to block EMI. On my L07D, I am about to compare the OEM stainless steel "platter sheet" (Kenwood's name for the ~5 lb stainless steel platter mat on the L07D) with a replica that I had made using copper instead of stainless steel. Copper ought to be better than SS for blocking EMI. The OEM and the new copper mats weigh the same, about 5 lbs. So the comparison should enable me to discern whether EMI is an issue. The MK3 has a huge thick hefty platter with brass and other metals, probably adequate to do a better job of blocking EMI than does the Mk2 platter.
I agree about the SAEC SS300. I bought mine from Raul.
Here’s an interesting thin, coated, aluminum mat I’m using on my TW Acustic Anniversary, the SPEC Analog Disc Sheet AP-UDI, and a related TT mat comparo at Part-time audiophile:
@jollytinker, I looked for a local source of plastic from which to make tone arm mounting boards, and found one in Portland---Multi-Craft Plastics (800/488-9030). I priced acrylic, acetal (Delrin), and polycarbonate. MCP sells them all by the square foot, in various thicknesses. I went into their office to look at samples and ask for their advice and recommendations. I don't now remember why, but I ruled out polycarbonate.
The price of a square foot of 1/2" acrylic is around $25, Delrin $35. Not bad at all! Acrylic is very glossy (exactly like the plinth of the VPI HW-19 Mk. 3-4, and the Aries' arm board), Delrin having more of a matt sheen. MCP sells the plastic, and will cut it to size (I'm waiting to hear back from them for an estimate). I left my old arm boards with them (the boards have arm mounting holes which do not match my arms), and am having pieces of acrylic cut in both 1/2" and 3/4" thicknesses. I'm sure they will cut a square foot of Delrin into a 12" diameter circle, and maybe even with a recessed LP label are in the center (they have a laser machine). Depending on what they charge for machining, it may be possible to get a 12" Delrin platter mat for well under a hundred bucks.
@bdp24 I had a TNT Mark III with the original platter and switch to a classic platter. I ran both with no mats. I find the classic platter to be more live sounding, a little more dynamic with perhaps a touch hotter treble. I do think preference has a bit to do with your synergy with your cartridge.
@analogluvr , good point. I use rather "lively" cartridges (London), and I’m thinking the Classic/London combo may sound a tad brash. London’s create a lot of mechanical energy, and a platter surface that is very hard (aluminum) may reflect it back rather than damp it a little. That’s the theory, anyway! The folks at the plastics place told me Delrin is harder than acrylic, for what it's worth. Also denser and heavier.
bdp24, That's the crux of the matter, when it comes to platter mats, the transmission, or lack thereof, of energy between the LP and the platter. Do you want that or don't you want that? Each of us has to answer that question "by ear". If you want that, you use a platter mat that is similar in material construction to an LP, then you clamp the LP, and you might also use a peripheral ring and/or vacuum hold-down, if the TT permits. If you don't want that, use a Resomat or one of those with cork dots on it, no weight or clamp, no peripheral ring. Most tune by ear using a combination of energy absorbing and energy reflecting techniques.
Holy Moly! I never realised there was nearly as much science in the platter mat as in the whole TT itself! Now I am going to have to experiment! Been using an Achromat 3mm for a while and cant say as ever thought to experiment but..... As an aside I could only find a couple of examples online of the SAEC SS-300 and these were in Japan and about $420. Eek!
"Micro Seiki CU-500
is super heavy (2.7kg) pure copper mat, very rare and very expensive
(over $1200), better than SAEC SS-300, but not for every turntable. I
use it on SP-10mkII and they are looks like they are made for each
other. I remember when i replaced stock rubber mat, the effect was huge!
It was the biggest upgrade for my SP-10mkII. CU-500 and thinner,
lighter and cheaper CU-180 does not fits the Luxman PD-444 well, so it is always important to measure the platter and mat before buying any of them.
I'm
fine to put the records on the metal mat, i think the engineers of
Micro Seiki knows well what they are doing. The platters of Micro
turntables are copper. I don't have the ST-20 clamp, it's extremely
rare, but i use ST-10 instead. I think the ST-20 was made for CU-500
mat."
Slight correction, the Micro Seiki CU-500 and CU-180 are (were) made from gunmetal copper alloy.
Only a handful have ever made one from pure Copper, like the Artisan Fidelity Pure Copper Universal Platter Mat (3.6kgs.). Robusto used to make one, but had to switch to gunmetal copper alloy they said to reduce production costs.
I mentioned above that I was about to experiment with a custom-made copper mat for my L07D. Well, I now have done the experiment, and copper is a winner over the OEM stainless steel platter sheet. I was very surprised at the degree to which the copper sounds better. The background is as follows: On the "L07D Owners" website, hosted by Howard Stearn (not THAT Howard Stern), there is a suggestion that one might wish to do something to block EMI from the motor that might affect the cartridge. The standard stainless steel mat ought to be at least somewhat effective in doing that, but Dr. Stearn and others suggested that a little more could be done. I originally used a piece of TI Shield cut in the shape of an LP, inserted between the platter and the platter sheet so it was invisible. This did make an audible improvement. However, when I tried to use a very low output MC on my L07D, there was a problem. The magnetic rotor of the L07D motor was inducing magnetism in the TI Shield, which is ferrous. Before I noticed this, I nearly crushed the suspension of my Ortofon MC2000. So I had to ditch the TI Shield for MC cartridges. This resulted in a noticeable degradation of the sound, already suggesting that one must block EMI somehow. Other L07D owners use ERS cloth between the platter and the platter sheet, but I was reluctant to do that because it would mechanically decouple the two components and is likely to affect sonics. (For all I know, it could be fine to use ERS, too.) I then hit upon the idea to use a copper platter sheet. Copper is much more effective at blocking EMI than stainless steel. I sent photos of the original, and the dimensions and desired weight, to a machinist, Colby Lamb, in Oregon, and Colby made my copper platter sheet which exactly matches the original SS platter sheet in appearance except for being about one pound heavier, and by the way is gorgeous to look at.
With the copper mat, a faint gray-ish coloration that I had noticed since removing the TI Shield is now gone. The music is much more "open" sounding and does not lie on the speakers, as it had done when I was using no extra shielding at all. There is a lot more "bloom" and spaciousness. So, my friends, block your EMI, especially if you are using a coreless motor; the field of a Dual-type coreless motor is directed vertically toward the bottom of the platter. (Both the L07D and the TT101 and many other coreless TT motors are copies of the original Dual coreless motor.) It's possible that an iron core motor has much less tendency to radiate EMI that might affect sonics, because its field is in the horizontal plane rather than the vertical. This is purely a guess on my part.
Nice to read that the copper brings about a positive improvement. One wonders if this issue exists with the new Technics 10R. It does use a similar configuration of motor as the L07D and TT101.
From the pics, the Technics appears to have a shield on top of the rotor. Wonder what material this is?
handyman has received recommendations for just about every mat available. Time for him to try one or more of his choice, the only way he'll find one that gives him the sound he's looking for. As for the why, some people like the way their bare aluminum platter sounds in their system, others have a preference for a different LP interface. Handyman won't know what he prefers until he tries something else. Start with the cheapest!
Slaw, to the contrary, most all the posts ARE relevant to the OP's question. Mostly the posts speak to the "why" part or to the sonic signature of one mat or another. From that it should be obvious that the mat makes a big difference in sonics. (At least I believe so.) For info related specifically to the VPI Scoutmaster, one would need to know which of a few different possible platters is mounted on the OP's turntable (from what I can tell, VPI offers a few options) and to have auditioned more than one mat on that particular platter. That qualification would narrow the audience for this thread by quite a bit.
I am a firm believer in TT mats . I purchased my Boston Mat 2 4 years ago to use on a SL1210 MK5 that I paid less for then the mat . I used that mat on top of the 1/8 stock rubber mat . I felt the rubber mat would help with the platter ringing issue and the Boston with the mechanical reflections from the stylus vinyl interface . This table performed very well until I upgraded to a SP10 Mk2 . The Boston is now on the SP10 with the 1/8 rubber mat and a K-Works ERSA Mat to handle EMI Issues . I stumbled on the K-Works mat by meeting Igor @ a listening session . I am familiar with ERS paper and use it . It sounded like a good idea so I tried it and it eliminated a slight amount of haze . I run a very LOMC cartridge .04 mv . It all adds up to better SQ.
@enginerd1960 Those mats desidned to be placed directly on the platter, why do you need your rubber mat in between? Micro Seiki CU-180 and CU-500 fits the platter of SP-10 series like it was designed for Technics, here is a picture of my CU-500 on SP-10mkII.
I use the technique of constrained layer dampening . I look at a TT mat as doing two jobs . Isolating the platter form motor and external vibration & isolating the stylus from reflected energy coming back to itself . The Boston material choice of pure graphite is well suited for this task . The SP10MK2 is a little lighter on the platter then the MK3 and felt it could use more mass . As for the ERSA mat it made sense to me .
enginedr, I am inclined to go along with Chakster; I would dump the rubber mat. But you have the luxury of choice and experimentation. Try it with vs without the rubber. Don't forget to change VTA accordingly. I would be curious to know how that turns out.
I am not sure laying a rubber mat on top of a platter meets the true definition of CLD. For CLD, I think disparate layers need to be held together by a force greater than gravity. On the other hand, it's not hard to imagine that the floppy rubber on top of the metal does do something, for better or worse. I keep the original rubber mat for my SP10 Mk3 just because it's correct and original to the TT, but I wouldn't think of actually using it.
Constrained-layer damping is a mechanical engineering technique for suppression of vibration. Typically a viscoelastic or other damping material, is sandwiched between two sheets of stiff materials that lack sufficient damping by themselves. The ending result is, any vibration made on either side of the constraining materials (the two stiffer materials on the sides) are trapped and evidently dissipated in the viscoelastic or middle layer.Enter your text ....
The mat stack is clamped with a Michell record clamp . The Boston Mat 2 is stiff . As for VTA I made a on the fly VTA adjuster for my Ortofon arm from a helicoid lens focus ring . Thank you for you feedback
As you may have read, I too use a Mat2 on my MK3, with no rubber in between. There were a few who don't like the Mat2, which is their right of course. I also do like the SAEC SS300 on the Mk3 and on my TT101.
Probably some of you might have seen it already, but intresting to see that cork mats where preffered at Fremmer,s listeng files shootout. Even over the Boston Mat. https://www.analogplanet.com/node/119603/results
Dear friends: Through my audio life analog experiences I found out that the enemy is " metal " no matters where, what kind or how is used. Unfortunatelly sometimes metal is the way to go.
I owned and still owns several mats almost all the ones you name it here and other custom made ( including the MS. ) and till now the one at the top is the SOTA Suoermat that in theory has the same vinyl , SOTA never disclosed its real blend materials used with. When SOTA started to market its mat they did it along its very good reflex clamp ( that I owned. ). Today Basis Audio has same type of clamp that beats the SOTA reflex.
I'm not talking here about the lewm problem with EMI that needs a metal mat to disappears the EMI problem, it solves that problem but can't solvees the way all metals tends to resonates in easy way: can't stop the feedback comeing from the LP underside to the stylus tip again. The SOTA mat almost eliminates/changes the frequency of that feedback to a range where it's not a quality degradation on the cartridge signal or at least put at minimum.
What will define on each one of us which mat is for us depends on each one MUSIC/sound targets and the audio system quality and resolution.
Diferent persons with the same romm/systems could like diferent mats. In that Analog Planet research the most notable information is that 42% of the audiophiles just did not listen any changes ! ! !
Anyway there is no doubt that mats and clamps makes a difference.
@rauliruegas SOTA Supermat is acrylic. Just like the awesome Goldmund mat. Good stuff, both of them.
I also find it hard to believe that metal mats sound good. But I haven't heard many. I played a record directly on top of the brass platter on 1200G and was not impressed by the results.
About 10 years ago I stopped in at a local hi-fi shop, a small operation that never abandoned 2-channel or analog, and accepted consignments and trade-ins. I was looking for a right-sized mat with better damping for my Technics SL1210M5G. At first I was hoping for one of Technics' heavier "supermats." Although they didn't have one of those, they *did* have an Oracle Groove Isolator, exactly the right size for the Technics, and made of the regular Sorbothane, not the gel mat marketed by AudioQuest at the time.
They were asking $10, which was fine with me. I took it home, did a little experimenting and listening, and wound up with the Technics felt cueing mat directly on the ring-y aluminum platter, and topped it off with the Groove Isolator. I find it to be a good balance, with air and detail, but also a lowered noise floor and improved dynamics.
Dear @invictus005: As I posted SOTA never disclosed the Supermat blended build material and people as me and you talks about plain/simple acrilyc but in reality it's not exactly that way.
I look at a mat as a solution to a problem . As for mats being personal i said once before in a post people like pleasant distortion. So you have to ask yourself what am I looking for ? There are too many variables in vinyl playback and what works for one will not work for another .
SOTA Supermat is acrylic. Just like the awesome Goldmund mat. Good stuff, both of them.
This statement is false. I can't say what SOTA is using now, but the Supermat to which Raul refers is not acrylic:
I owned and still owns several mats almost all the ones you name it here
and other custom made ( including the MS. ) and till now the one at the
top is the SOTA Suoermat that in theory has the same vinyl , SOTA never
disclosed its real blend materials used with.
The mat to which you refer was designed by Warren Gehl of ARC (before he was employed there) and is indeed a blend of materials which are combined in a particular order, and cured in a specific way. The pad was available from Warren for a few years prior to his contract with SOTA. I have one on my Atma-Sphere 208 'table and have used it on a number of machines. It is clearly the best pad ever made bar none. The problem of course is you can't get it anymore, and according to Warren SOTA changed the formula after a certain period of time.
The idea behind that mat, according to Warren, is that the mat is the same durometer as vinyl and so does not reflect any vibration. Instead it is absorbed by the mat and converted to heat. It also provided some damping to the platter (which is *essential*) via mass and a variety of materials. It is one of the heavier mats made.
Dear @atmasphere : Thank's to put some ligth about the Supermat. Problem with people always ( including me. ) is each one knowledge and ignorance levels.
Even that gentleman that mentioned " garage company " has no single idea from where comes the true HIGH-END.
All I know, is that I never should have sold my NIB Sumiko methacrylic/lead/barium mat.
I never used it, as it was a one shot deal, due to the adhesive layer on the back. Once on the platter, that's it. And if you use an LP12, like I do, the two piece platter means the mat adhesive will bond to both and then it's a done deal. Removing it would be next to impossible, and that was part of how it worked. Part of it's function made it near impossible to remove once applied. I mean, the thing was like $400 near the end of the 80's early 90's. Hell of a mat....
Sorry good folks for coming to this set so late. I also use this inexpensive tweak but high quality GEM Dandy rubber cork compound mat and you can hear the difference between it and the stock mat.
The GEM Dandy rubber cork compound mat is a one size fits ALL turntable platters, which I thought was bloody brilliant. And at $60 it is a great deal, and the fact it eliminates most record static is a major plus with me.
Although I do have mat/platter weights, I chose not to use them.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
