Anyone use a Ringmat on a TT

I have used the Ringmat in two models for ten years on my Linn. I bought the Anniversary to move the previous Ringmat to my AR table. The Anniversary improved performance when playing very loudly a series of passages that have always had trouble. After years of improving the isolation, connections, etc. the expense was well worth the extension of performance. I would have to spend a great deal to upgrade my Linn, and I rather buy more expensive new releases.

Aceto's comments would lead one to believe that the Ringmat improved the vinyl to cartridge interface by negating some of the effects of either floor-borne vibration and / or air-borne vibration due to the increased spl levels he mentioned. This is exactly what i was getting at in my previous post i.e. the Ringmat is acting as a "band aid" for the lack of proper energy control in the turntable design and installation itself. As such, it might be a viable alternative to replacing a TT system that you already have and are already happy with, but there may be other side-effects that this "tweak" brings with it. Nothing is a "cure-all" without having some other side effects that one has to deal with. Sean
>

Sean, that makes sense about air-borne. I have good isolation from the floor. At least I think I do, because I have added a stand with legs terminating in spikes, a heavy marble slab, Black Diamond cones with their carbon graphite shelf on top, and the added Linn suspension (trampolinn?)and have seen stepwise improvement. So if the ringmat is a band-aid for the air-borne vibration, what is the non-band-aid approach? Or have I got this all wrong? Do you tink Linn has inherent design flaws that another maker has solved? I would not want to invest in a whole new rig.

Linn's have never been known for having adequate isolation from vibration. By themselves, they are prone to skipping tonearms and cartridges across the disc if one is not careful. All i will say is that turntable design has come a LONG way since the design of the Linn, and even then, there were tables that were better than the Linn. Having said that and as you know, marketing is a powerful tool when it comes to high end audio.

I have reviews where they compared a few different tables in terms of their ability to resist acoustic feedback and the Linn was the worst of the bunch. In comparison, the table that was at the top of the list measured some 40 to 50 dB's better in terms of isolation. Not only does this equate to a lower noise floor and the ability to produce more resolution from within the same grooves, it also means the ability to play much louder in the listening room without losing that level of resolution.

As a side note, you might want to look into a different type of support system underneath your table. Constrained layer damping is far more effective than sheer mass in most every case. As such, i would lose some of the "rigidity" of materials underneath the player while still finding a way to keep things level.

Using this approach, not only will you put another absorbent boundary between floor-borne vibrations and the table itself, you'll have made an "energy sink" that the table itself can drain air-borne vibration into. This would be much cheaper than replacing the table itself, which is the ultimate solution to the problem you mentioned. Sean
>

Hi Sean/Aceto,

All this about the Ringmat being a band aid?
I have no axe to grind other than I use them on two vastly differing tables.I have tried all sorts of mats and still prefer these to anything I have tried(on two of my tables).
I agree they might be overpriced so after deciding I prefered the 'presentation' bought the second one used.
Check out the Shindo labs and various others for seriously overpriced mats.
I reckon there's more labour in a ringmat than a circle cut from a sheet of carbon fibre mat that costs $300+.
A mat, like an arm or cartridge will alter the sound but not nearly as much as what the table is sited on.
Both Linn & Xerxes sound much better on a wall shelf mounted to a solid outside wall as opposed to a table/rack.
IMO opinion the Xerxes mini table should have been part of the table and the Trampolin is a piece of utter nonsense.
Heavy/massy shelves are contrary to Linn's philosophy as is a second suspension system (what the h--l are wobbly feet if not the former?)
The table that really made my jaw drop was an Oracle Delphi/Sumiko/Koetsu but that was 20 years ago and the sound my Linn or Xerxes make after lots of work & tweaking just makes me wonder
a)how they would compare to the Oracle ?
b)how can I get my cd player (which I love) to close the gap and sound as much like 'real' musicians in the room ?

The first is not easy to answer here as dollars go straight to pounds and an Oracle costs £3,200 here in it's basic form.
Results with home made Lenco plinths have caused me to question the money I have tied up in the tables I already have - this is not knocking the manufacturers - they have their overheads.
I just wonder what would be achieveable by virtue of DIY when you look at the old Empire used by Atmasphere - if guys who make amps as radical as their products decide to spend that kind of money 'tarting' up a relic, there must be some merit.
Horses for courses, the more of the wall the better and as long as it's pleasing on the ears.
Jeez, wine & posting :
Aceto, if you can get a Cetech carbon fibre sub chassis for the Linn, try it. It cures most of the negatives laid against the Linn sound and is fairly cheap compared to Cirkus & Lingo mods, which to my mind are way overpriced for the advantage gained.
SME's and Avid's make me wonder if a metal guitar would sound as sterile??

Si