These last few posts sort of illustrate the "dilemma", if this issue could take on the dimensions of a real dilemma. I cannot disagree in the slightest with what Tom Mackris wrote. It makes perfect sense. But then we have to take into account the actual experiences of the rest of us. Mats with an acoustical impedance close to that of vinyl are preferred by many but not all. And why do metal mats occasionally sound really good? Many of us pay many hundreds of dollars for copper mats, because we think they sound great and that copper sounds better than other metals, for example. (In this case, I think part of the mechanism has to do with the copper mat acting as an EMI shield, and maybe copper, being softer than many metals, is closer in its acoustic impedance to vinyl than other metals.) Likewise, I am not going to tell a person who loves the ringmat or the resomat that they are "wrong". I would agree that some of these choices are preferred because they may generate a kind of euphonic distortion, but that's OK. Platter mats are like seasoning on food; a small detail that makes a big difference. Anyway, for noromance, I am convinced that he is liking the undamped sound that arises from raising the LP off the platter. I think he proved that to himself with his experiments.
Can't agree that any of this pertains to the thick rubber mats that were typically supplied with even the best Japanese turntables of the 70s and 80s. Almost any alternative will sound better, IMO.
