Huh? A turntable mat...really?

168.94.245.7

Posted on May 25, 2012 at 06:18:41

Jsawyer09
Audiophile

Posts: 554
Location: Midwest
Joined: January 2, 2008

Okay, so can someone explain to me how a turntable mat, in any of its iterations and various compounds, can make such a difference in the sonic improvement or presentation of a turntable/record?

With that out of the way, I preface this thread with a revelation of sorts. So, recently I purchased an Auditorium A23 Mat for my Well Tempered Amadeus to see if it would make any difference; or, at least as big a difference as many have claimed for this turntable. I put it on (purposely not adjusting VTA or anything) and listened to a few familiar records, back-to-back, against the stock mat. Suffice it to say, I was immediately and consistently floored...I mean FLOORED by the improvement. I was going to start describing in detail what it was I was hearing last night while it was fresh in my mind, but I came across a thread authored by a gent who was able to articulate it better than myself; and did it so in such a way that it nearly exactly mirrored my own experience.

Please read, as it was what I had found as well (DISCLAIMER: This observation is for the Auditorium Mat/Well Tempered Amadeus combination; it was written by a fellow going by doak on Audio Circle):

[What I heard:

Interestingly these 2 mats sound a lot like they look.

The stock mat sounds very, very good as you WTA owners well know. It does lend an "airiness" to the sound - like the instruments are floating on a pillow of air. Instrument images are a little diffuse and not totally resolved in contrast to the A23. Compared to the A23 it also sounds a bit rounded in its tone. Transients are not as sharply reproduced which is what I feel may cause this "roundness." In all this a quite pleasing sound and makes the stock mat very easy to listen to and a bit forgiving of less than stellar recordings. There is a euphony to the sound of the stock foam mat, though it does not give "the last word" as to all of what is on the record.

The A23 mat is about 1mm thick and as has been previously stated it is constructed of a very dense fabric type material that would be at home as a high quality convertible automobile top. It is flat, smooth and woven looking on one side and lightly textured in a cross-hatch pattern on the other. I would guess that this side is applied in some way to the other and that there are two layers to this mat.

The mat arrived in a too small box (more on this later) which contained only the mat - no instructions, product info etc. So my first job was to decide which way was up, literally! A brief A/B of the two sides told me that textured side up was the way to go. This was confirmed shortly thereafter in via email with the supplier.

The A23 provides a more direct connection of the record to the platter. The first thing I noticed was better transient attack to notes and this improved tracking of transient information may well account for much if not all of the improvements I hear with the A23. Plucked strings of guitar and harp had more of the sharpness of nail on the strings. On other instruments and vocals this was shown as a more true timbre and ultimately a more "real" sound. Images of individual instruments have a solidity that is different than that of the stock mat. There is more dynamic impact with the A23 and I'll even go as far as saying that overall dynamic range is also enhanced. The sound stage expanse is similar to that of the stock mat but the "airiness" is not the same. Still this is a very musical sound. It is not at all dry sounding and I get the sense it is giving more of what is actually on the record.

If I had to use only one word to describe the sound of the A23 mat I would choose VIVID. Recordings have more resolution, definition and apparent dynamics when using the A23 mat. This is why I deem the A23 "better" than the stock mat and for me it is a keeper.]

Like I say, absolutely mirrored what I heard as well.

I remember trying out the Boston Audio Carbon Mat for my Linn LP12 once, and distinctly remember that compared to the stock Linn mat, it was like listening in anamorphic 2.39:1 versus 1.85:1, if that makes any sense. I guess it gave the illusion of hearing more in the recording, but almost compressing it (for lack of a better term) to make it all sound 'wider', if you can imagine that. On many recordings, it was thrilling, but sounded hi-fi, not musically inclined.

Anyway, the Auditorium Mat is just consistently great on everything I'm throwing at it. I'm really having a difficult time believing a 'tweak' of sorts is really improving an already champ of a turntable. How does one explain this?