Acoustic Signature Turntables

Hello Dgob,

For me, this is the mat the rules them all. In my system, the Mat2 works way better than the Mat1. The lower treble was an area that the Mat1, in my opinion, was a bit fuzzy. the Mat2 renders the lower treble with increased clarity and focus.

The biggest improvement is in bass slam, texture and definition. For some reason, the Mat2 manages to go lower in the bass, while at the same time tightening the bass. I went back and forth several times between the Mat1, SAEC SS-300 and the Mat2. The marked increase in bass depth and definition was a constant that the Mat2 was able to accomplish everytime I put it back on the Mambo.

I'm very impressed about the Mat2 being able to offer a very dramatic improvement over the Mat1. It has much better sound definition than the Mat1. All this came as a surprise to me since I was just expecting a minor improvement overall.

The Mat2 is in a much higher league than the Mat1. Boston Audio should have called it the Mat5, since it sounds about 5 times better than the Mat1, at least to my ears.

A few more notes:

- The Mat2 is as quiet as the Mat1.
- The Mat2 offers better balance and definition from top to bottom.
- The Mat2 is very rigid. It won't bow when using a thick O-ring with a reflex clamp, which was always a problem with the Mat1.
- The Mat2 is 5.11mm, measured with a calibrated Mitutoyo coolant-proof caliper. The Boston Audio website states that it is 5mm thick. The original Mat1 is 3mm thick.
- The weight is 564 grams (this is not dead accurate since I don't have a calibrated scale). The Boston Audio website says it weights 540 grams. The original Mat1 weights 360 grams.

Best,

iSanchez

Hi Isanchez,

Many thanks for your very helpful review. On the issue of frequency response, I believe that the Mat1 raises the pitch: meaning that a contralto might sound like a mezzo or even a soprano. Similar tonal shifts seem to occur with bass notes.

Have you noticed this feature and how does the Mat2 perform in this regard?

Cheers

Dgob

Hi Dgob,

It seems that there is a frequency shift with the Mat1, but at least in my system, it was not toward a higher pitch. So a contralto sounded like a contralto in my particular case.

There was though some sort of compression in the lower treble and the bass was not as deep, fast, and tight as it is with the Mat2. The Mat2 is closer to using no mat at all with the Mambo, while being more quiet than the Mambo platter with the Silencer inserts.

I don't notice a frequency shift with the Mat2, but I still need to listen more to be 100% sure about this. I haven't had the Mat2 for much time since there was a bit of a delay with the shipment due to the relocation of the Boston Audio factory.

Best,

iSanchez

Hi Isanchez,

I will wait to hear your final verdict before making any purchase then.

All the best and I look forward to hearing back when you're 100% sure.

All the best

Dgob

Hi Dgob,

I'm sending my Mat2 back to the factory for an exchange because mine had a little dent that looks like a gap in the graphite. It'll probably take about 10 days for the exchange process.

At the moment, I have the Audio Technica AT-600 Ceramic TT Mat on the Mambo. This is a mat that I haven't spend much time with. I haven't done A/B comparisons with the Mat2, but at least in my system, it compares vavorably to the SAEC SS-300 mat.

I listened to Diana Krall today and there is no shift in her voice that I could detect. I've been to one of her concerts and her voice via the Mat2 seems to have the same pitch as with her voice in the live concert I went to few years ago. The same I could say about the Mat1, as far as I can remember.

There seems to be an emphasis on the mid-range with either the Mat1 or the Mat2, when compared to the SAEC and the Audio Technica mats.

Best,

iSanchez