Ring Clamps. What do you think?

I recently heard a dealer demonstration using a Clearaudio turntable that utilizes both a center weight and peripheral clamp and an acrylic platter. What is very dramatically evident is how well this table performs at suppressing ticks and pops. I notice the same kind of minimization of noise with my own table, which uses vacuum clamping and an acrylic platter.

I believe it was Robert Harley of The Absolute Sound who mentioned how such tight clamping suppresses energy imparted in the disc, such as the sharp impulse of ticks and pops; he mentioned using a pen to tap of the record surface near the stylus and how loud the impulse is with most tables, but barely noticeable with the Basis table with a vacuum clamp.

While noise suppression is a big plus of tight coupling of the record to the platter, I can see how some will NOT like the results. My Basis table, and the Clearaudio table I recently heard can be characterized as "dark" or "dead" sounding compared to other tables. If that characteristic does not fit a particular system or taste, then whether it is more "accurate" or not is just an academic concern. I once heard the same Transfiguration cartridge in a Basis/Phantom setup and in a Linn/Naim ARO setup sie-by-side. The sound was dramatically different (Linn/ARO much more lively sounding). I could see how someone might prefer the greater liveliness of that setup in this particular system (I liked the liveliness, but, I was concerned with that liveliness becoming jangly "noise" after a longer audition). I like clamping, in my system, but, I can see why others prefer no clamping.

Redglobe wrote, "When the stylus traces the groove, it induces energy into the LP. Where is that energy going to go? If the LP is clamped tightly to the platter, the mass of the platter will absorb the energy." This is true, if the coefficient of energy transfer from LP to platter is unity or close to unity. For platter surfaces that are very dissimilar from vinyl in energy transmission, there will be some fraction of that energy reflected back up into the vinyl, from the platter/vinyl interface. Seems to me that the better the coupling (tighter the clamping) between LP and platter surface, the more efficiently energy will be reflected back into the LP, when there is a mismatch. One could envision that when the platter surface and the LP are mismatched for energy transmission, it's better not to clamp the LP, in fact. Further, while I do endorse the theory around clamping, I also believe this is a crazy hobby with surprising "truths". Therefore, because I or someone else may prefer not to clamp LPs, it is not necessarily true that my system or his system is "broken".

The opposite side of this dilemma is exemplified by the Resomat, where the LP is as decoupled as possible from the platter surface. Therefore the energy interface is between the LP and room air, on both sides of the LP. I've not tried it, but some whom I do respect do swear by it.

On my main TT (85 lbs, including a 35 lb, lead-weighted cocobola platter), clamping the record makes a big sonic improvement. Center clamp helps. Ring clamp helps more. Both together help most.

The biggest benefit is not warp flattening (though that's significant). The biggest benefit is reducing background sonic mud. This is undoubtedly due to the damping phenomenon described by Redglobe. Clamping to a high mass platter, bearing and plinth engineered to absorb, deaden and dissipate a lot of extraneous energy makes any record play with a very quiet background.

OTOH, my old, cheaper TT rings like a bell. Clamping a record to an echo chamber is a sonic disaster, obviously. If I cared enough I'd experiment with mats, which would probably be better on any such table.

YMMV, depending on your TT.

As to records "breathing like guitars", that's nonsensical as others have said. The only time a record should do anything like a guitar is when it contains a recording of a guitar. In that case, only the modulations in the grooves should emulate a guitar. Aside from groove modulations, the record itself should do, well, nothing.

This is an interesting thread. The people that make the Ringmat use no weight on top of the record at all, the argument being that it channels energy away and lets the record breath

The Ringmat, like many mats, is designed to ISOLATE the record from the platter. This is why it should be used unweighted.

However, the Ringmat doesn't "channel energy away". It barely has any points of contact, so how could it channel anything? What it does is (1) limit the amount of noise from the TT that gets into the record and (2) limit the amount of intra-vinyl energies that reflect off the platter and back into the record, as Lewm described.

As I just described, isolation works best on tables that are (a) noisy or (b) not particularly engineered or built to dampen/dissipate intra-vinyl energies on their own. Just guessing, but it might work well on your EMT 950, whose relatively lightweight platter may be subject to (b). OTOH, isolation provides no benefit on my main TT, which works best when the record is COUPLED to its high mass, energy absorbing platter.

ISOLATE the record FROM noisy turntables, COUPLE the record TO quiet ones.

As to records "breathing", I've yet to see one inhale or exhale. That's just pseudo-mystical marketing babble.