[zmanbands]

Does anyone have some they will sell me or do you know a current source?

[zmanbands]

Thanks. Supposedly he is out, but I'll try him.

[TheChairGuy]

Thanks. Supposedly he is out, but I'll try him.

Yeah, he didn't have any nor had a source for more when I last bought from him about 90 days ago.

Why not try the EAR stuff (the .125" thick stuff is very effective)....or did you need the gummy backing or some other feature specifically of the microsorb?

John

[whubbard]

Has anybody compared the EAR stuff to Sorbothane? The only reason I ask is that I can find sorbothane for pretty cheap, but it is still a bit more than the EAR product. So if they are both basically the same, then I would go with the EAR, if not, the sorbothane.

here is a link to the sorbothane for all those interested:
http://scientificsonline.com/product.asp?pn=3037000&bhcd2=1211037874

-West

[ooheadsoo]

mcmaster.com is cheaper than your link

[TheChairGuy]

From what I have read, sorbothane is effective in suppressing resonance only in a relatively narrow band or frequencies...the effects of the EAR stuff is much wider.

I made a 12" round sub-mat for my turntable (I think it was the .125" thick stuff) and it's more effective than the similar thickness Audioquest sorbothane mat I had been using for the same purpose for many years. It was evident before the first note was played with a notably quieter background.

The sorbothane was very good at this task, too (horrible as a top platter - it is a poor interface with the record itself - but it damps nicely).  But, the EAR stuff was simply more effective at it still 

That's the clearest (maybe, only) comparison I have been the two products.

More on EAR - here: http://www.earsc.com/

John