Periphery outer ring thoughts ?

Right now I use one always on my VPI HW-40, but I rarely used the one I had on my previous VPI Prime.  The reason is difficult to explain, the one on the HW-40 is easy to use, whereas the one of the Prime was finicky, wouldn't always seat cleanly or easily and was just generally not quite as easy to use.  I also have a Technics SL 1200 GAE, which of course does not have a periphery ring so I have the perspective of comparison.  I also have used the vacuum hold down system employed by SOTA.  The advantage of either the periphery ring or a vacuum hold down is that these hold the record snuggly against the platter.  This flattens the record of course, but it also reduces or eliminates any resonances that might be induced in the records themselves.  Is there an audible benefit?  In some cases yes, and the effect can be quite noticeable.  There are many times, however, when there is no appreciable difference in sound.  In my experience, the cartridge plays a role in this with some being much more sensitive than others.  Another factor is that stereo records are more likely to benefit for either a periphery ring or a vacuum hold down system than mono records. With respect to the trade-offs between a periphery ring and a vacuum hold down system, the periphery ring is a passive device with no moving parts and nothing to go out of whack.  On the other hand it is helpless to cope with a record that is manufactured improperly such as one that is out of spec undersized.  The vacuum hold down system is easier to use at the expense of being more complex.  Either is able to do more than a record flattener alone can do and neither has the potential to damage a record.  

I had two different rings from TTW to use with a VPI Scout and then a Classic. I also had the TTW 2.2 lbs. centerweight. Both looked nice, and were reasonably OK to use, but non of the TTW stuff ever made an appreciable difference in the sound for the better--sometimes it made the sound a little heavy compared to lively--lacking dynamics. Never used the VPI stuff with their TT so I can’t speak about them at all. The TTW was beautiful and well made...BUT, a lot of money for zero performance increase. Really warped records did track better.

I have a Lenco 78 totally rebuilt now with at least as much, if not more upgrades to it than a Jean Nantais Lenco. I have an Artisan Fidelity chassis and copper platter on top of the Lenco’s platter. I now use NO weight or ring--the sound is both extremely dynamic, transparent, and defined through all frequencies that matter. I also have very few records that would benefit from being flattened--maybe 5 out of 1200.

Bob

I use a peripheral ring on my Technics SL-1200G, and the sonic benefit is clear to me (along with a Stillpoints LP weight).  They couple the record better to the platter to drain away the spurious vibrations in the vinyl caused by the needle tracing the groove.  Prior to that I ran a SOTA Cosmos with vacuum hold down and reflex clamp, which achieved the same basic objective.   Using them brings a touch greater clarity in the subtle details of the recording, and a better overall frequency balance, IME.
Do make sure your table's bearing and motor are up to it.  With the Technics there is no question.

What periphery ring works with the SL 1200 G?

Two problems. They are a PITA to use and prevent use of an auto lifter.
They have to be heavy to work and this will increase wear on the bearing and motor which has to work harder to get up to speed.
Vacuum hold down is the best followed by reflex clamping as used by Kuzma, SME and Sota. Sota sells a wonderful reflex clamp for much less than a periphery ring.