VPI acrylic vs. aluminum

What people miss by saying acrylic or aluminum platter (depending on the era) is the latest platters are offered with an inverted bearing that has a substantial impact on it's own. By just referring to either of these platters without including whether or not it's an inverted or non-inverted bearing is missing part of the equation, IMO.

I've have personal experience with a Mk.III platter/non-inverted bearing (TNT 3.5) on my highly modded HW-19 MkIV and in blew away my TNTII platter/ non-inverted bearing combo. (quieter, more bass expression/ impact, more musically involving).

My Classic 3 Sig. SE has the new platter/inverted bearing. A comparison between these two tables is not fair. I will say that one noticeable improvement on the metal platter is there is no static charge and the presentation is much quieter.

IMO you are exaggerating the effects of the bearing types. Notwithstanding some theoretical advantage of the inverted bearing, the non-inverted bearing has the clear advantage of a continuous lubrication bath top to bottom. Also the bearing pivot, which is the part that tends to wear, is closer to the stylus in the inverted type. By and large, though, I think the two types are indistinguishable in normal usage. VPI must agree as it has returned to the non-inverted bearing as the main bearing in its most sophisticated platter, the magnetic one.

What you may have heard is the simple advantage of a better bearing, just as I did when I replaced my original bearing with the Mark V bearing, both non-inverted.

There is no static charge that I am aware of on my acrylic/lead platter and it’s about as quiet as it can be. I don’t understand how a platter can be the origin of noise. Years ago, when I went from aluminum/lead to acrylic/lead (with everything else exactly the same) I heard a clear advantage. So did the TAS critic.

melm, I do have an advantage of actually owning/hearing both types. According to you previous post, you've never been willing to give up your old combo for anything that came later.

FWIW: (When I did my above comparision, I didn't use the beefier bearing that came with the 3.5 platter. They are both interchangeable with regards to being able to use both platters). So the platter WAS the difference I heard!

The non-inverted bearing is subject to more things being in absolute alignment, and also that alignment needs to be accurate on much more "bearing shaft surface area". Additionally, there is the superlative machining of the Classic platter and the fact that it is self leveling.

The static charge on any acrylic latter is evident when removing an lp from an acrylic platter. It is not a factor in this regard on a metal platter.

You seem to make a lot of final conclusions without the benefit of actually hearing/experiencing them for yourself.

To be clear, maybe when I said "the presentation is much quieter", I should have said the presentation has a quieter background.

Slaw....correct....and in listening to the Classic, the acrylic seems slow and laboring.  In light of that statement, some say the Classic is bright..but I find the Classic portraying much more music, dynamics, color, and whatever we audiophiles value.