View Full Version : Copper Turntable Mat
Looks like Rubato are the only ones appearing on google, £250, anyone got one or an alternative? If so any good?
Thx
No idea if any good and uses other materials
http://www.fusionacoustics.com/products/FUSION-COPPER-audiophile-turntable-platter-mat.html
I've not seen the Fusion Acoustics mat before; it's really a rubber mat rather than a copper mat though. Unfortunately, rubber is one of my least favoured materials for record termination and I don't agree with their premise that the primary role of the mat is to damp the platter either.
I thought Guy from PureSound sold solid copper TT mats.
I've not seen the Fusion Acoustics mat before; it's really a rubber mat rather than a copper mat though. Unfortunately, rubber is one of my least favoured materials for record termination and I don't agree with their premise that the primary role of the mat is to damp the platter either.
I thought Guy from PureSound sold solid copper TT mats.
Pure sound ones are £250, I just wanted a thin one for my Garrard to shield the cartridge.
Doesn't the platter do that already David? 'Scuse me for being thick :scratch:
Marco mentioned copper being a good shield for the 401
hifi_dave
18-04-2011, 20:36
One of the best mats I've used with the 401 and 301 is the hard rubber mat supplied with it.
I remember asking Tom Fletcher about the Spacemat *on the 301 and 401* and his answer was to leave the stock mat in place and put the extra one on top of it.
Worked for me :)
On investigation, the PureSound ones are the Rubato ones. Sorry, I've never come across any cheaper ones. Copper mats originate from the world of the eastern audiophile and, as such, are priced accordingly.
One of the best mats I've used with the 401 and 301 is the hard rubber mat supplied with it.
Just to clarify, I didn't mean that some some platters don't benefit from damping - just that I don't think the platter mat is the best way of doing this.
Wakefield Turntables
22-04-2011, 09:03
One of the best mats I've used with the 401 and 301 is the hard rubber mat supplied with it.
+1
I used this on my 301. And now it takes pride of place on my techie. A good tip is to try using the mat upside down on the techie, its seems to improve tonearm tracking on warped vinyl and I think in my system that is sounds better that way!!! Dont ask why as i have no idea, probably a bit of audio psychology at work:lol:
Beobloke
22-04-2011, 10:07
Marco mentioned copper being a good shield for the 401
The 401's motor is already shielded - there is no need for any extra. I'd give another vote for the standard rubber mat being the best, althought the Funk Firm Achromat adds a bit of extra midrange air, at the expense of a little bass impact.
Hi Adam,
The 401's motor is already shielded - there is no need for any extra.
I'd dispute that, as the lump of cast iron surrouding the motor, acting as shielding, will also cause interference.
This is because it is ferrous, and thus causes magnetic interaction (generating a field), which could interfere with the high-frequency response of sensitive moving-coil cartridges, in the same way as the motor would if it weren't covered in cast iron.
Therefore, that's why if I had a 301 or 401, I'd use a copper mat, or some form of Mu-metal plate on the platter, underneath your usual 'record interface' mat of choice, to act as a shield from any of said interference. Have you tried using a copper mat on your Garrard? If not, you may be pleasantly surprised at the results :)
Here's an interesting article from DNM on materials technology, which tackles the issue of magnetic fields and magnetic interation (I have personal experience of eliminating some of the issues described):
http://www.dnm.co.uk/materials.html
Marco.
The 401's motor is already shielded - there is no need for any extra. I'd give another vote for the standard rubber mat being the best, althought the Funk Firm Achromat adds a bit of extra midrange air, at the expense of a little bass impact.
Have you triec the Oyaide mat on any of your TT's dude? It fits on the 401 platter perfectly and I like it immensely.
Reid Malenfant
22-04-2011, 16:11
I'd dispute that, as the lump of cast iron surrouding the motor, acting as shielding, will also cause interference.
I'm sorry Marco for bringing this up again :doh: But at some point it needs to be straightened out...
The big lump of iron surrounding the motor will effectively block the magnetic field given off by the motor. It will act like a shorted turn on a transformer & shield everything from the motors influence.
Take an MC sut, these are screened by mu-metal to prevent magnetic fields from generating hum in the SUT. Notice that again it works in the opposite direction & shields the delicate 0.3mv signal from damage ;)
This is because it is ferrous, and thus causes magnetic interaction (generating a field), which could interfere with the high-frequency response of sensitive moving-coil cartridges, in the same way as the motor would if it weren't covered in cast iron.
No it doesn't generate a field, it screens everything from the magnetic field of the motor. Admittedly a very small amount of residual magnetic field may excape as nothing is perfect, but to state that it'd be the same as if it wasn't there is a million miles from the truth. Strip the mu-metal from your sut & see if you could put up with the consequent hum :eek:
Therefore, that's why if I had a 301 or 401, I'd use a copper mat, or some form of Mu-metal plate on the platter, underneath your usual 'record interface' mat of choice, to act as a shield from any of said interference. Have you tried using a copper mat on your Garrard? If not, you may be pleasantly surprised at the results :)
Mu-metal might help here as i agreed previously, i don't think copper will do a damn thing as a magnetic field will pass straight through it as copper in non ferrous. It's a magnetic field we want to elliminate, not an RF field (which copper would block).
Here's an interesting article from DNM on materials technology, which tackles the issue of magnetic fields and magnetic interation (I have personal experience of eliminating some of the issues described):
http://www.dnm.co.uk/materials.html
Marco.
My guess is that the reason DNM are spacing the power transistors from the heatsink is nothing to do with magnetic interaction & everything to do with lowering the capacitance between the transistors & heatsink which most definately will impact on the amplifiers performance :)
As for plastic cased amplifiers they & whoever buys them can keep them. I'd really hate to own a pair & then find a taxi business setting up a few doors down the road or find out that a mobile phone mast is to be erected locally :lolsign:
Sorry for disagreeing with you, but like i said, things need to be put straight & i hope that goes some way to righting things :)
No, unfortunately it doesn't.
It's not a case of disagreeing with me, mate - you're just not understanding what I'm saying.... :doh: :doh:
But as I've lost the will to live now, I'll leave it there!! ;)
Marco.
anthonyTD
22-04-2011, 17:24
Eddy currents,
copper [when used in a particular application] is very good at shorting them within itself thus reducing their effect.
Anthony,TD...
Indeed.........
And that big lump of cast iron, surrounding the motor in a 301 or 401, is responsible for causing eddy currents (as well as reducing magnetic fields)...!! ;)
Therefore, on one hand, the 'cast iron lump' is solving a problem, but on the other, it's also creating one. It's as simple as that.
Marco.
Reid Malenfant
22-04-2011, 17:30
Eddy currents,
copper [when used in a paticular aplication]
Yes i'm not disputing this Anthony, now what would this particular application be?
It sure as heck isn't the same as screening something from a magnetic field & if you surrounded a motor with copper it sure as heck wouldn't reduce the magnetic field exterior to this copper case like a lump of solid iron would.. Now would it...
You're still missing the point, mate. I'll let Anthony explain it, as I'm off to listen to some tunes.
Marco.
Reid Malenfant
22-04-2011, 17:55
You're still missing the point, mate. I'll let Anthony explain it, as I'm off to listen to some tunes.
Marco.
I hope Anthony does take the time out Marco :) I certainly must be missing something as you certainly haven't managed to explain things to my satisfaction in a language i understand.
If i'm given the science behind what you are attempting to say then rather than vague qoutes etc i might see what you are getting at & fully agree with you ;)
Until then i'll stand by what i know to be correct.
Lol!
Until Anthony returns, read post #18. If you can't see what I'm getting at there, then there's not much point in me explaining it further, as we're just hitting a brick wall.
Marco.
I really don't mean to generate more confusion, but how are the eddy currents created that the 301/401/TD124 "brakes" utilise. As the disc and magnet are above the motor shielding, either the spinning disc generates this, or does it radiate what comes up through the motor spindle.
Forgive my genuine ignorance, I really want to know :)
chris@panteg
22-04-2011, 20:08
:popcorn:
Beobloke
24-04-2011, 18:53
Have you tried using a copper mat on your Garrard? If not, you may be pleasantly surprised at the results :)
.
I have tried felt, rubber, copper, cork, glass, glass & felt, Achromat, copper and even an Asda pizza base as recommended on another forum! None were complete disasters, although the Asda one benefitted from the thorough removal of excess pepperoni, and I still prefer the standard rubber mat, with the Achromat occasionally, generally for classical listening.
Dave, the 301 and 401 brake acts by placing the spinning disc attached to the motor shaft between the poles of a magnet. with the speed control turned fully to maximum, the magnet is moved off the disc and the motor runs 2.5% (301) or 3% (401) fast. With the control turned down to minimum, the magnet is directly over the disc and the motor runs the corresponding amount slow. Normal speed is achieved with control halfway and the the magnet over the edge of the disc. Naturally flatness of this disc is crucial, and rumble can be a result of the motor transit screws not being clamped when a 301 is moved, causing the disc to be knocked and warped.
Coolio! You should try a copper mat, with the standard rubber mat on top.... ;)
Marco.
Thanks Adam :)
Just get a TD125mk1 - they're bloody cheap, cost more than the 124 when launched and are extremely quiet in operation, the motor being fully isolated from the mains due to the analogue frequency generator . The R200 works better than I'd hoped and I suspect a Jelco 750 would be amazing for it.
Beobloke
24-04-2011, 20:51
Thanks Adam :)
Just get a TD125mk1 - they're bloody cheap, cost more than the 124 when launched and are extremely quiet in operation, the motor being fully isolated from the mains due to the analogue frequency generator . The R200 works better than I'd hoped and I suspect a Jelco 750 would be amazing for it.
I owned a TD125 once (surprise surprise!). I repaired its broken internals, I treated it to a new arm, I cleaned, serviced and repaired it and spent the best part of a weekend setting it up absolutely spot on. It rewarded all this blood, sweat and tears with one of the most disappointingly ordinary, lifeless and underwhelming performances I have ever heard. When it comes to Thorens decks, I generally stick to the surprisingly capable TD150Mk2 as a result!
I don't mean to go all "Marco" on you, but lifeless and underwhelming mine ain't. It's certainly a bit deadpan when compared to some of the more "colourful" contestants out there, but with the Microscanner in any case, together with the TD124 mat (not the awful one the 125mk2 and most 160's had) and a Spacemat perched on top, the sonics are perfectly clean, "musical" and dynamic.
The TD125mk2 could have a sloppy main bearing and if this isn't dealt with, the sonics are dire.......
Gotta say that the TD125 I had (fitted with an SME 3009 and Shure V15 MKIII) sounded great, and IMO, outperformed my then LP12!
There was definitely nothing lifeless about the sound of the TD125 that I had. Adam, matey, yours must've been fecked! :lol:
Marco.
Being a one-time LP12 Guru definitely helps when throwing a turntable together ;)
Oh yesh indeedy! :eyebrows:
I would add that the LP12 I had then was pretty basic (Valhalla, Akito, AT cartridge, can't remember which one), but even so, the TD125 wasn't exactly 'maxed out', and I still preferred it :)
Marco.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.