Perfect Path "Solutions" (PPS) eMat

I don't know it all theaudiotweak, but quite obviously I know a lot more than you.  I don't claim to know something 100%, then write "I believe" .... words matter.

We will just give you the self awareness prize. It carries a higher monetary award. 2 cents :-)     .... and that was a joke, not a barb.

As opposed to one type of rebranded EMI absorbing mat, it is either a thicker rebranded mat and/or rebranded mat with a reflector back to ensure signals pass through both.

I remember looking at this company about a year or two ago. I understand they went under when the owner passed away. Realistically, they didn't appear to have the knowledge, manufacturing capability, or test capability to develop something like this.  These are manufactured by companies like 3M, Laird, TDK, Kemet, and no doubt several companies in China.

Einstein did not suffer fools

My apologies back :-)  ... no hard done.

No MC, You don’t know.

You never saw the manufacturing facility for these mats.
You never saw them being manufactured.


You are just taking at faith what you were sold on. Some of us are not quite so naive.
That is the truth.  Tell us what happened to all the paid for tooling, intellectual property, etc. associated with these mats. You claim to be insider. So spill.

People don’t PM me asking what is wrong with you MC, they state it pretty clearly in practically every thread you post in.

theaudiotweak,

Obviously I know a heck of a lot more than you about these things. I have no doubt the supplier stuck a sticker / backing on them, I understand some had a magnetic backing, perhaps he attached that. Makes it convenient.

However, given the website, writings of the owner at the time, etc. there was no indication at all of the ability to technically verify such items, to manufacture them, etc.   Feel free to put forth evidence that proves me wrong.

A product such as this would require significant investment to develop, prepare manufacturing tooling, etc. test, etc.   So where is this product now?  This would be an estate or corporate asset. 


It sounds like you got taken in by paying 4x for an audiophile branded EMI absorber. Don't get mad at me.

You asked what was the difference mooncrikit.  If you don't like the answer, getting mad at me is not going to help.

Obviously MC does not really know or he would have put some more detail into "the same but only better". How so? 3db more attentuation?  Wider frequency range of operation?

If you just wanted to guess at the difference, why bother asking? That is all MC is doing.   Ditto for audiotweak.   I have no doubt they talked to the owner. I also have no doubt they never saw the manufacturing line or these being manufactured.  They have no test data, nothing but someone's word. They don't have intricate details of any sort or they would post them.

mooncrikit,

Understand that MC and others commenting have neither the knowledge or experience to know at all what this thing is, or to understand what would be communicated about how it may work, be manufactured, etc. or to know if they were being fed a line or not.  They have never seen it being manufactured. They just have the word of mouth from a company with very limited technical abilities.



I am giving them the benefit of the doubt they were selling a product that did something, but there is nothing that gives any indication they had the experience, knowledge, equipment, etc. to develop or manufacture something like this.

Like I said, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, so I will give them the benefit that they took a readily available EMI absorbing mat, branded it, and sold it to audiophiles. The upgraded one probably took the standard version and upgrade to a multi-material mat and/or one with an reflective coating that causes RF to pass through the material twice which can improve effectiveness.

Now, you can listen to a post from someone who may have some clue how this could work, what was likely, and likely difference, or you could listen to MC whose understanding of electricity, dielectrics, RF, etc. wouldn't get him through first year engineering school. 


Have at it in your thread.  Easy but wrong answers are readily found here.

You know how MC makes comments on masks and covid @cleeds , even though he clearly does not understand how they work, though working in a hospital one would expect he uses one regularly? This would be a similar thing.   Using something and understanding it are clearly not the same thing. 

You realize PPT did not give any appearance of having the ability to mold/extrude these mats right?  His "proprietary" formula is fairly well enough described in his patent on his contact enhancer which comes down to a conductor in a binding solution.  Keep the comedy coming.

RF absorption is not the sort of thing you guess at. Again, no indication of the knowledge, experience, or equipment to even begin to develop something like this, let alone the in house manufacturing capability and no one is going to run something they are not pretty familiar with through their molding machine / extruder given the potential for damage.

I believe that the same technology was used in the mats as was used in the PPT Total Contact contact enhancer. Judicial use of Tim Mrock’s graphene formula under the label of the mat. And as for the mat itself, I believe that it was the same material as that used for refrigerator magnets. And yes, the mat material can be bought through Internet suppliers. However, the graphene formula used in developing the PPT mats died with Tim Mrock ... the genius who came up with all of these great ideas.

Just how do you think the EMI mat was made? Do you think it was poured into a flat mold and then allowed to harden?


I have never mentioned his contact enhancer.


How many people do you see leading the world forward in technical fields "without a formal education".  The answer is pretty close to none.  If you don't know what was done by those before you, it is impossible to build on what they have done.

glupson definitely wins for the best comedy, though, realistically, MC provides an endless source of material.

MC, you work in a hospital and you don't even know how masks work.   I hate to tell you this MC, but the physics of electricity and sound don't change between a recording studio, a mixing studio, and a home.


antigrunge2, I didn't diss the product by the way. I actually gave it the benefit of the doubt that it actually did something, probably even along the lines of some of the claims.  Absent evidence (and I still don't see MC or Papa providing any), I have no reason to believe PP had the wherewithal to develop, test, or manufacture such a product from "scratch" i.e. roll extrude or mold an EMI mat.  Absent such capabilities but giving them the benefit of the doubt it somewhat does what it says, a logical conclusion is they sourced and branded it. I have no issue with that. If people can do it with fuses, why not EMI mats?

Can anyone join this turntable hating club mijostyn and I are ostensibly a member of? I hope that comes with a membership card and cool t-shirts.

Strange, that the two founding members of the turntable hating club were probably the most accurate in advice to a recent member who was having trouble with their turntable setup. While others were calling for throwing the turntable away or any number of expensive upgrades, mijostyn, in one of his early replies called out the exact primary issue.  I would put money on the remaining issue being what I described the issue to be.  Weirdest hating club ever!

Your contribution to this thread is?  I find your post toxic and an ad-hom. Are you not capable of sticking to the topic??   If you believe I am wrong, then prove it.

cal37131,157 posts01-19-2021 11:40pm"If you do post anything useful, its ability to have any positive impact is neutered by the accompanying condescension."

You have these right papa?  ... Go get one, the mat, and look at the surface. Quite obviously that came off a real production line, and not someone's basement shop.  How do you think these things are manufactured?

oregonpapa4,349 posts01-18-2021 10:37pm audio2design ...

Why do you continue with the " roll extrude or mold an EMI mat" nonsense. Did you read my above post? There was no rolling, extruding, or molding involved. And Tim Mrock was no neophyte. While his hobby was audio, his products were originally intended for commercial use.

Have you been told yet today cal3713?

So many condescending people in this thread but I am your target. You need a life and some perspective and perhaps a lesson in objectivity.

So what you are saying is you have no clue. Look at your own post Opapa......

***** I believe *****   that the same technology was used in the mats as was used in the PPT Total Contact contact enhancer. Judicial use of Tim Mrock’s graphene formula under the label of the mat. And as for the mat itself, ***** I believe that it was the same material as that used for refrigerator magnets. *****  And yes, the mat material can be bought through Internet suppliers. However, the graphene formula used in developing the PPT mats died with Tim Mrock ... the genius who came up with all of these great ideas.

PPT did not make "graphene", they incorporated graphene into a carrier/solvent.  They didn't have a graphene formula, they had a formula for a carrier/binder used in the contact enhancer. They would have bought the graphene. Judicial use under the label .... sure, that is why the mat is pretty flat on the label side??   You would have had better luck claiming it was on the other side, where it was a flat but a bit bubbly on the first one, but flatter but grittier on the "upgrade".  There are a ton of proper EMI absorbing mats on the market that use graphite, and ferrous particles depending on operation method. I will give you 3 reasons why they don't use graphene and cost and too difficult to manufacture are not it.

The mat is a silly concept that does nothing but massage the brains of the people that waste money on it.

You will note Mijoystyn I have never called the product silly. I even gave it the benefit of the doubt it does something.  In that aspect I am not being harsh at all.  I don't for a minute believe the company that produced it had any ability to effectively create an effective EMI absorbing mat let alone measure it to show effectiveness. That is not being harsh or talking ill it is just what it is.  A review of their website while active was probably a good reflection of their capabilities.


Now the claims that are made about said product those are totally silly.  I didn't even realize how silly till someone pointed them out in this thread. I thought they were joking. Turns out nope.  That is a reflection on the people making the claims, not the purveyor of the product.

oregonpapa4,355 posts01-24-2021 11:42amMy Legacy Signature IIIs have every available surface area covered in PPT Mats. Yep, it looks weird, but the improvement in sound was really significant and well worth the effort. I listen in a low-light environment, so the mats on the speakers don’t bother me at all.

The surface area of Legacy Signature III's is about 2400 square inches (removing a reasonable allocation for the drivers).  The PPT Mats are about 75 square inches (from tweakaudio website).  That means that each speaker would require 32 of the mats to cover the speaker.  2 speakers would required 64 mats.  At a price of $300 for the original, that is $19,200 in mats. Now I have no doubt if you bought 64 you would have gotten some discount, but I think most would question whether the best spent on the way to audio nirvana. 

But likely not of Papa's audio system ....  Relatively average speakers in I would expect a substandard acoustic space. Sorry papa, I would tell you exactly what I think and you probably won't like what I say. Now Mijoystyn, you can say I was harsh.

The only non-PPT enhanced system I've ever heard that came close to the kind of realism we are getting was Randy Cooley's room (Optimal Enchantment) at one of the audio shows.

If the best sound you have ever heard was at an audio show, then I don't see how I can take any of your personal listening experiences seriously. There is one thing listening rooms at trade shows all have in common. They sound bad. That is not at all surprising given what it takes to acoustically treat a room for what can be considered great sound.

If you truly believe that @docknow, then this thread is a waste. If you think these things are the path to a "live" performance, then you will never get there.

If I ever decide to teach again on the side, I will certainly be using this thread as a lesson in perceptual bias and how strong an influence that can be on someone such that they can convince themselves that older and rather average speakers in an absolutely horrible acoustic space, can be the "best sound ever". Those token Hallographs are not going to fix all the acoustics issues that include, but are not limited to:

- No front wall reflection control
- No first reflection control
- The reflections off the glass table
- The reflective equipment between the speakers
- The lack of symmetry due to the windows on one side, and the wall/records on the other side
- The blinds (that will rattle)
- The reflective pictures on the wall
- The reflective (curio/china cabinet?) in one corner behind the speakers, but not the other

I am quite serious when I say that if you sold all that fancy (an expensive) AR gear and bought a half decent receiver and invested 1/10 of the money on the sale of the AR gear and put it into effective acoustics, the overall sound would be better, if not a lot better. Oh it would not be perfect, but you are so far from that now, that anything would be an improvement.

And no, I don't need to "hear" this system to know what a mess it will be. 8+ wrongs do not make a right.


You could also call this perhaps harsh Mijostyn, but obviously provoked.

As usual Mahgister, your replies are essentially misguided, the effect of too much confidence, and too little knowledge perhaps or are you just rushing to your keyboard without taking the time to think things through?


Read more, think more, and type a whole lot less!

I will point out a few paragraphs which you conveniently glossed over or did not understand. I will also note the size of Dr. Toole's listening space (which was a long time ago), and how that compares to oregonpapa's and the closeness and high reflectance of those surfaces.

The dramatic change happened when the precedence effect broke down and two images were perceived – that was a problem. The strength and spectrum of any reflection depends on the strength and spectrum of the sound radiated in that specific direction by the loudspeaker, and by the frequency-dependent acoustical performance of the reflecting surface. If you look at (a) in the preceding diagram, the adjacent side-wall reflection is the sound radiated at close to 90° off axis from the loudspeaker. This is much attenuated in most loudspeakers, and is motivation to angle the loudspeakers to face the listener.

the very neutral, essentially omnidirectional, Mirage M1s

You figure out why this is important.

Because of the designed-in irregular scattering surfaces, the heavy carpet and thick felt underlay brought the reverberation time down to under 0.5s so the room sounded much less “live” than one would think.

Figure 7.1 above shows the first reflections in a stereo setup, and in an LCR arrangement. Anyone claiming that a phantom center image is superior to a real center loudspeaker has some persuading to do. The phantom-image situation is significantly muddled, and most listening situations are not perfectly symmetrical. As we will see later, eliminating all of the reflections does not solve the fundamental problem with the phantom center; in fact it makes it worse.

That last one is for MC and others ignorantly claiming that a center channel is not needed for movies.

As an illustration of how much loudspeaker technology has improved over the years, these data on the JBL Pro M2 indicate that whatever one’s opinions of loudspeaker/room interactions were in the era of the UREI, they cannot be the same in the era of the M2, and any similarly “neutral” loudspeaker.

And this is specifically w.r.t. the Legacy III’s which were somewhat average at the time and have significant issues with the integration of the two different technology tweeters, and would not be, as Dr. Toole mentions above"neutral". They have a significant anomaly where the two speakers crossover.

Then there’s my wife. She hardly ever will sit still and listen. But she hears just fine. She has no idea what I am doing, or if I am doing anything at all. Oblivious. Yet it is amazing how many times I do something and she immediately notices and asks what did I do this time??!

You have a nice wife MC. Not everyone’s wife will lie and stroke your ego like that.

Given you have 1 listening chair, I am guessing you make her sit and listen ... soooooo .....

It looks like your speakers are pretty wide compared to the seating distance?  The Tektons have a much more even response off axis than your old speakers.  I would consider moving them inwards a bit.  At that spacing if it is what it looks like, you may have too much of a headphone effect, with some image loss from the close wall placement. I am sure it is pleasant as again, they do have good off axis response, but they may be better a bit farther from the wall, maybe with some diffusion.

You tried Mijostyn, but we are working in an alternate universe where a top system people have heard are based around 20 year old rather average even at the time Legacy speakers complete with some really bad integration of the two tweeters.  Fleschler didn't you have at one point those speakers (or close) in a $150K room as your system?    I really think you people need to get out more.

And by the way, the Signature IIIs have four tweeters, two rear-firing, and not just two as you stated. Here’s some information on the rear-firing tweeters from the owner’s manual:

I never said whether it had 2, 3, 4, or 10 tweeters, I said it had bad integration of the two tweeters. The rear tweeter is not integrated. The front two are ....or are supposed to be. However, what resulted was a bit of a disaster.

When I write about audio, I do have expertise, you have confidence. Please note the difference and carry on.

Mahgister,  I am going to have to go back to not responding to you, because you are too lazy to formulate accurate arguments.  You will note my initial comments were purely about the product, and what it would or could do, and the apparent technical capabilities of the company.


HOWEVER, some (the usual suspects), attacked me personally. When that happens, they are fair game, including their audio "cred".  If they are going to act like audiophile "gods" while having poor speakers and often worse rooms, while I am going to point that out.

mijostyn3,589 posts01-27-2021 5:22pmArtemus, I am a physician that has to work with people like you on a daily basis. Odds on bet is that I have a significantly higher IQ than you do. You sir are a human with all the frailties there of. In the words of Clint Eastwood, "A man has to know his limits." You obviously do not. I hope the crash is not too bad.

And you called me harsh :-)

It’s always dangerous pulling out the IQ card. Remember that scene from Big Bang Theory,

Stephanie: Where did you get the stethoscope and the blood pressure cuff?

Sheldon: My aunt Marion gave them to me for my 12th birthday. She thought if I failed at theoretical physics that I should have a trade to fall back on. And by the way, the blood pressure cuff is called a sphygmomanometer

Now perhaps you were trying to equate intelligence to general curiosity, as a counterpoint to @artemus ’s attempt at an insult to accuse those who don’t "hear things" as being lacking in curiosity. Those with higher intelligence are more generally curious and there is some evidence to support higher specific curiosity as well, but that may be tied to some base aptitude in that area. Maybe you were referring to higher intelligence also indicating higher creativity?

It was still pretty harsh :-)

Equating subtle hearing memory and subtle hearing interpretations to gross sensory stimuli like salty or sour, is not helping your case Artemus. Do you ever confuse 100Hz and 10Khz? No? No one does, no more than they, absent a defect, confuse saturated blue for saturated red. However, if I tell you it is a $100 wine, or a $10 wine, or I put cheap wine in an expensive bottle (and vice versa), it has been shown (repeatedly) that your interpretation of how the wine tastes will be influenced.

Now Mijostyn, do you think you can convince your colleagues, far too many who think nothing of speaking publicly on all matters Covid, even though what they often speak about is things like covid transfer in specific environments (medical research/sciences/engineering), case growth rates (epidemiology, math, societal/human factors modelling), etc., things which they are obviously unqualified to speak on (which is apparent to someone intelligent). Intelligence does not confer expertise, but it can often breed unwarranted confidence.

Nope, not confusing intelligence with arrogance, they can go together or they can be separate.  Pulling the intelligence card is usually arrogant :-)

4,000 books, but it appears not one was The Evaluation of Self.  That one can call another lacking empathy, but does not see their own lack of empathy in their need to talk above everyone else with the same material, in every single thread they post in, whether relevant or not.  This puts your selfish needs for attention above other people's needs that is not empathy.

Not everyone is deserving of empathy either.  While you may see but one aspect of a person here, in this thread, I have seen the insults and abuse they have thrown at others elsewhere on the web, and don't feel any need to waste positive emotions on them. There are people far more deserving in my life.

@mapman ,

I was responding to this post:

isochronism2,511 posts01-28-2021 9:34pmTRUE intelligence realize's it's own lack of knowledge, hence will display humility.

It has not been my experience that truly brilliant people are overly humble and certainly not in their area of expertise and not when met with ignorance.

isochronism2,511 posts01-28-2021 9:34pmTRUE intelligence realize's it's own lack of knowledge, hence will display humility.

You haven't dealt with a lot of really smart driven people have you?  :-)  They tend to display their "humility" by plowing through whatever is in their way to achieve success.

I used to work with a guy who would take forever to make his point which was a terrible waste of time in a busy day. Worse, he would call from his office even though he worked 45 feet away. He would watch for people to enter their office, and then call them.  He did that to me once, and I did not answer the phone.  I watched the phone "flash" which it did when someone was leaving a message. 2 minutes later it was still flashing, they were still talking.  I opened my voicemail and listened to 30 seconds of rambling. I never made it to the end, I just deleted the message.  About 2-3 hours later he graced me with his presence and asked if I got his voicemail. I told him after 30 seconds, since he had not made his point, and it was not even clear why he was calling, I deleted his message.

I come from a very poor upbringing myself @mapman , though myself and my siblings have all done very well for ourselves. We do have our parents good genetics, and good worth ethic to thank and a loving upbringing. We were never pushed, but we were never told there were limits either.  I would not call myself or my siblings overall very humble and my brothers and I definitely not, but we certainly don't look down on those of lesser success and we don't equate wealth with being a better person (or worse). It has made us all more fiscally right wing, but we are all socially pretty left wing, but politically right in the center.

The origins of humility as a "virtue" are not necessarily good though. It can be traced by to religious piety and one could even say subservience (to a diety). Nietzsche even characterized it as a defence mechanism for the weak to survive the strong (paraphrasing). By calling it a virtue, we are "forced" to assume it is a good thing without reflection on whether it is or not.

Being exceptionally aware of your limitations and failings does not require one to be humble.

"Simple test, would you like to work with someone like you? If you think you are a jerk, you are one."

I see very limited value in this test from an organizational success standpoint. It sounds all very good, but it does not reflect the reality of a high performance company (or people for that matter). 


I would rather work with a total jerk who gets things done and is reliable versus someone who is fun and amiable and totally useless. Someone who is less performance oriented may prefer that amiable useless person over the high performance jerk.  Different roles require different skill sets.


You don't treat someone with respect you know nothing about because you have nothing to respect. You should treat them with basic decency, but respect is something that is earned.

Most high performance people I know and have met are fairly aggressive at least in those what I would call formative or active years of their career, and certainly as it surrounds their work/career. It is usually later in life / far outside work they shed that side of them, till pushed. The ones that were washed out were the ones that were not nearly as bright or special as they thought they were and hence never lived up to their own billing.  Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Andy Grove, Mark Zuckerberg .... not known for being the easiest people to work for.


What are we trying to achieve here? The best sound. Period. What that is will be different for everyone, but the goal is the same. The best sound. Period again for emphasis.  The "jerk" who is right, is going to get you to the goal of the best sound if you listen. The amiable wrong person is not.

Everyone wants to blame the jerk who is right, because it is easier than blaming themselves for taking the advice of the amiable person who was wrong. The amiable person doesn't reveal our own inadequacies, the jerk does.