While on the one hand, I do not disagree with anything Ralph (Atma-sphere) wrote on this subject, I wonder why there are so many vinylphiles who swear by one or another metal mat, most typically copper ones. I own an SAEC SS300 metal mat, which I think is made of aluminum, and it too sounds great to my ears on any of 3 turntables where I have used it. But other than the SAEC, my own favorite mats are the Boston Audio Mat1 and Mat2, which do conform to the concept of maximizing energy transfer between the LP and the mat/platter. Just lately I have been messing with a comparison of the SAEC vs BA Mat2 on my Victor TT101 turntable, and I am surprised to discover that the SAEC may be my preference. Whereas, on my Technics SP10 Mk3, I prefer the Mat2. These are both high end vintage DD turntables, but one (the TT101) uses a coreless motor and a rather light platter, while the other (the Mk3) uses an iron core motor and a very heavy platter. It could be that the SAEC mat is acting as a shield against EMI from the TT101 motor, and that's the main reason why it may sound best. (The orientation of the magnet structure in the typical coreless turntable motor is such that EMI fields will radiate in the vertical direction; whereas in iron core tt motors, the radiation is more in the horizontal.) Perhaps that is also why so many other DD lovers prefer copper mats. So, mats are a complex issue. It may not be all about mechanical energy dissipation.
coupling or decoupling of vinyl to/ from platter
Dear all,
I'm puzzled by a number of claims about record clamps and mats.
I own an old Rega Planar 3, and I was reading about the importance of coupling the record to the platter, to add effective mass to the record to reduce vibrations, slippage etc, and improve the solidity that the groove "image" presents to the stylus.
I also read about the importance of de-coupling the vinyl from the platter to prevent the transmission of unwanted vibrations from the motor. Rega has a very dense platter made of glass with a fluffy felt mat on top. So, felt to decouple lp from platter, is that right?
Then, I purchased a cork Music Hall mat, which has a dozen raised cork discs on the mat to BOTH "decouple" the lp from the platter and "grip" the lp. Music Hall claims that clamps are unnecessary with this mat because coupling discs, etc. I also, without knowing this, purchased a Rega Michell record clamp. The clamp seems to do good things regardless of the mat, and of course evens out warped records a little bit.
There needs to be, it would seem, a clear objective answer to all of this from an engineering perspective. Coupling does x, and decoupling does y. If you look at all the high-end turntables, they have massive platters and clamps. So coupled mass is good for flywheel effect and also for presenting a solid "image" to the stylus?
Either Rega and Pro-Ject are dead wrong with felt mats, and have been runaway successes in spite of this, or the felt is adapted to their setup: weak motor, relatively light but super-dense platter, and decoupling felt to manage the motor and rotational noise transmitted up the spindle, and to hell with coupling?
I did some quick and tentative experiments with the Music Hall mat and clamp vs. Rega felt mat with clamp. I need to do more comparison. The results are different but hard to characterize. I'll post again with more comprehensive subjective tests.
From an engineering perspective, which should be best, Rega clamp w felt, Music Hall mat by itself, or "screw the mods, Rega it great just the way it is, heretic!!!" ?
Let the games begin!
Paul
I'm puzzled by a number of claims about record clamps and mats.
I own an old Rega Planar 3, and I was reading about the importance of coupling the record to the platter, to add effective mass to the record to reduce vibrations, slippage etc, and improve the solidity that the groove "image" presents to the stylus.
I also read about the importance of de-coupling the vinyl from the platter to prevent the transmission of unwanted vibrations from the motor. Rega has a very dense platter made of glass with a fluffy felt mat on top. So, felt to decouple lp from platter, is that right?
Then, I purchased a cork Music Hall mat, which has a dozen raised cork discs on the mat to BOTH "decouple" the lp from the platter and "grip" the lp. Music Hall claims that clamps are unnecessary with this mat because coupling discs, etc. I also, without knowing this, purchased a Rega Michell record clamp. The clamp seems to do good things regardless of the mat, and of course evens out warped records a little bit.
There needs to be, it would seem, a clear objective answer to all of this from an engineering perspective. Coupling does x, and decoupling does y. If you look at all the high-end turntables, they have massive platters and clamps. So coupled mass is good for flywheel effect and also for presenting a solid "image" to the stylus?
Either Rega and Pro-Ject are dead wrong with felt mats, and have been runaway successes in spite of this, or the felt is adapted to their setup: weak motor, relatively light but super-dense platter, and decoupling felt to manage the motor and rotational noise transmitted up the spindle, and to hell with coupling?
I did some quick and tentative experiments with the Music Hall mat and clamp vs. Rega felt mat with clamp. I need to do more comparison. The results are different but hard to characterize. I'll post again with more comprehensive subjective tests.
From an engineering perspective, which should be best, Rega clamp w felt, Music Hall mat by itself, or "screw the mods, Rega it great just the way it is, heretic!!!" ?
Let the games begin!
Paul
- ...
- 38 posts total
- 38 posts total