Vintage DD turntables. Are we living dangerously?

I hardly think the SS300 is the second best mat of all time, if the SOTA mat you reference were to be the named best of all time. But you’ve made your own opinion clear. Like I said about my own current preference, the BA Mat2 is generally a smidgeon ahead of the SS300, but I happen to like the SS300 on the TT101, for some reason. Yet there are some who dislike the BA Mats, too. If energy dissipation is your fetish, then the BA Mats are certainly designed with that in mind.

@lewm interesting, i have 3rd version of BA mat, anyone who can’t find BA1 or BA2 can buy new The Mat from Sakura Systems, its thinner than BA2, probably the best of them. Just 250 bucks within USA.

"After some hiatus period, Boston Audio has teamed up with SAKURA SYSTEMS and now proudly introduces "The Mat", the culmination of our experiences through developping Mat 1 & 2. By incorporating different carbon graphite material, we successfully achieved the identical performance of Mat 2 with less thickness (4 mm) and the reduced price."

diameter/293mm
thickness/4mm
weight/454grms

P.S. Micro Seiki CU-180 and CU-500 are the mats to dies for if turntable can handle high mass. 
Today i got my Micro ST-20 gunmetal clamp and it's so nice, much lighter/better than ST-10
Now i have gunmetal under and over the record. 

Chakster.
Thanks very much for the info on the "new" Boston Mat.
Wanted to try one but near impossible to find an original one.
Will look into it.
👍👍

Chakster, You yourself quoted the following: "By incorporating different carbon graphite material, we successfully achieved the identical performance of Mat 2 with less thickness (4 mm) and the reduced price."
So since the thickness of the Mat2 is no problem for me on either of two turntables where I use Mat2s, why would you say the new product is "better" than the Mat2, when even the manufacturer claims it is only "identical" in performance?
If it matters, probably Raul would object just as strenuously to the M-S mats as he does to the SAEC mat, on the grounds that all 3 are metallic.  I do see his point, in principle; you don't want to reflect energy back into the LP. However, I use my ears more than my principles, and the SAEC does seem to match well with the TT101, perhaps because it adds mass to the platter, which may be more important than energy transfer or lack thereof in that particular case.  Further, the SAEC does seem to be designed to delimit the spread of energy across its entire surface, for whatever that is worth.

Uber, With diligence and patience, I think you could find a used Mat1 or Mat2.  But maybe it's cheaper and faster to just buy this new copy.

Dear @best-groove @lewm : " for me if possible on the spindle you c....""

that tiny hole at the inner position in the SS300 is not to fix it to the spindle. SAEC makes a research about and they found out that the LP/records tend to slide through a metal mat surface so its advice is that with a small nail use that hole to fix the LP to the mat and for this you have to make a tiny hole on each LP at exactly the metal mat hole position then and before play you insert the tiny nail in the LP through the metal mat hole. In this way the mat and LP spins at unison/evenly.

lewm, about the Cu MS mats I already did it several times in different threads but as you people only say: " I like it ". Yes I now that they like those kind of distortions but that per sé does not means is rigth because is the other way around: wrong.
In audio and especially in the analog alternative what we like it does not really matters but what you say do not care: principles or facts or .......

Maybe it’s because I’m a way more quality  audiophile/music lover than you and several other gentlemans and that’s all and the origen of disagreements .

R.

Uber, With diligence and patience, I think you could find a used Mat1 or Mat2. But maybe it's cheaper and faster to just buy this new copy.

Not strong on patience I am afraid, hence the reasoning behind so many equipment changes over the years.... lol.