Apart from the fact that I loathe Amazon, thanks for the heads up. I'd actually rather pay the extra money and buy from some other vendor, but LP Gear are not so meritorious, either. Anyway, does your preamplifier have a "mono" switch? Did you ever try it when playing mono LPs with a stereo cartridge? If anyone has done this experiment and then also heard a mono cartridge in his or her system, I would be interested to know which configuration was preferred. In theory, a stereo cartridge played through mono switching ought to be about the same as a mono cartridge, on mono LPs. At least, this is what I tell myself, since I don't yet own a mono cartridge.
A new player in the quality Mono cartridge game
For awhile there, if you wanted a mono cart to get the most out your new mono Beatles collection, other mono reissues, or vintage mono LPs, there were the budget offerings from Grado, a big price gap, and then the more expensive good stuff. The elliptical mono Grado goes for around $150.
But now the Audio Technica AT MONO3/LP, a HOMC, is available in the US. The link goes to the official importer, LpGear, who prices this $299.99 cart at $189.99. However, I also found that this cart is available from Amazon for $112.65. Worried that the unofficial import puts your purchase at risk? For a mere $12 extra you can buy a 2-year protection warranty.
I ordered mine via Amazon Prime on Sat. Oct. 24 and it arrived today.
This thing is NICE! 1.2mV output, which is plenty, conical stylus (don't know if it's nude or not, but it *sounds* nude), tracking force range 1.5-2.5g. I'm breaking mine in at around 2g.
Even fresh out of the box, this cart's a revelation. I started with "Within You Without You" from the new Beatles Mono vinyl reissue. It's really something when you play a mono record with a cartridge that produces no signal in the vertical plane. The noise floor drops down to the indiscernible. In fact, even cueing the needle makes very little sound thru the speakers.
Everything on Sgt. Pepper's sounded richer, lusher, more distinct, more dynamic, with great treble extension and no hint of sibilance. I followed it with Analogue Productions' 3-LP 45 rpm remaster of Nat King Cole's "After Midnight." Fan-TASTIC! I thought Nat was in the room before, but the dynamics, transparency, and truth-in-timbre reached a height I hadn't heard on my rig up to now.
I finished my mini-audition with a *real* mono record, an original mono Columbia Masterworks pressing of "Grand Canyon Suite" performed by Eugene Ormandy and The Phily Phil. Again, smoother, quieter, more dynamics. It showed its age a little bit, but I think I could bring this 55-yr-old record close to the reissues with a steam cleaning. Even without it it was very satisfying.
Folks, if you have nothing but the new Beatles mono reissues and have an easy way to switch cartridges or set up a mono rig, this cart is so worth it.
Right now I have around 13 Beatles mono LPs, two Beach Boys reissues, the Nat King Cole, some old Columbia Masterworks and shaded dog Orthophonics, mono reissues of Prestige and Miles Davis LPs, and some mono pressings of '60s pop.
I'm thinking of separating all my mono vinyl into its own shelf so--when I mount the AT Mono3 LP--I don't have to sort through my entire collection to play the compatible LPs.
BTW, if you decide to go after this cartridge, make sure you get the AT MONO3/LP cartridge, which is for mono LPS, and *NOT* the AT MONO3/SP cartridge, which is for 78s.
But now the Audio Technica AT MONO3/LP, a HOMC, is available in the US. The link goes to the official importer, LpGear, who prices this $299.99 cart at $189.99. However, I also found that this cart is available from Amazon for $112.65. Worried that the unofficial import puts your purchase at risk? For a mere $12 extra you can buy a 2-year protection warranty.
I ordered mine via Amazon Prime on Sat. Oct. 24 and it arrived today.
This thing is NICE! 1.2mV output, which is plenty, conical stylus (don't know if it's nude or not, but it *sounds* nude), tracking force range 1.5-2.5g. I'm breaking mine in at around 2g.
Even fresh out of the box, this cart's a revelation. I started with "Within You Without You" from the new Beatles Mono vinyl reissue. It's really something when you play a mono record with a cartridge that produces no signal in the vertical plane. The noise floor drops down to the indiscernible. In fact, even cueing the needle makes very little sound thru the speakers.
Everything on Sgt. Pepper's sounded richer, lusher, more distinct, more dynamic, with great treble extension and no hint of sibilance. I followed it with Analogue Productions' 3-LP 45 rpm remaster of Nat King Cole's "After Midnight." Fan-TASTIC! I thought Nat was in the room before, but the dynamics, transparency, and truth-in-timbre reached a height I hadn't heard on my rig up to now.
I finished my mini-audition with a *real* mono record, an original mono Columbia Masterworks pressing of "Grand Canyon Suite" performed by Eugene Ormandy and The Phily Phil. Again, smoother, quieter, more dynamics. It showed its age a little bit, but I think I could bring this 55-yr-old record close to the reissues with a steam cleaning. Even without it it was very satisfying.
Folks, if you have nothing but the new Beatles mono reissues and have an easy way to switch cartridges or set up a mono rig, this cart is so worth it.
Right now I have around 13 Beatles mono LPs, two Beach Boys reissues, the Nat King Cole, some old Columbia Masterworks and shaded dog Orthophonics, mono reissues of Prestige and Miles Davis LPs, and some mono pressings of '60s pop.
I'm thinking of separating all my mono vinyl into its own shelf so--when I mount the AT Mono3 LP--I don't have to sort through my entire collection to play the compatible LPs.
BTW, if you decide to go after this cartridge, make sure you get the AT MONO3/LP cartridge, which is for mono LPS, and *NOT* the AT MONO3/SP cartridge, which is for 78s.
Showing 22 responses by lewm
I don't know about the particular AT cartridge under discussion, but many/most "modern" mono cartridges are merely stereo cartridges that are internally bridged to produce a mono signal. Mono cartridges thus constructed would therefore produce a signal, in fact, in response to vertical movements of the stylus that is canceled at the outputs. The result is very little different from using the mono switch on a preamplifier with a stereo cartridge playing a mono LP. Neither is "perfectly" mono. (I would not argue for a minute that either option is not superior to playing a mono LP with a stereo cartridge into a preamp set for stereo mode. That's easy to hear.) Admittedly, there are "true" mono cartridges out there; I think Ortofon, EMT, and Miyajima make examples, and probably others. I'd like to hear one of those. |
Johnny, As I thought I clearly stated, I am not arguing at all that playing mono LPs in mono mode, no matter how it is arrived at, is not optimum. In your last paragraph, you seem to be talking about a condition that I have not even dreamed of... playing a stereo LP with a mono cartridge. (I could be wrong about your intent.) Let's leave that out of the picture as a generally bad idea. To repeat, many if not most modern mono cartridges are internally constructed as stereo cartridges, except that the outputs of the two channels are summed prior to exit. Such cartridges will likely be responding to vertical modulation imparted by the record grooves. Of course, on a mono LP, there is no music encoded for vertical modulation, but there will be some spurious noise which is cancelled prior to the output connections. When you use a mono switch on a preamplifier, exactly the same thing happens. Thereby, mono LPs played even with a stereo cartridge will sound much better than if played back in stereo. What I am wondering about is whether in fact it makes any important audible difference whether one uses a mono cartridge or a mono switch to play back mono LPs. I don't say that I know the answer; I am just curious. There is a well known guru on Vinyl Asylum who insists that the two methods are indistinguishable sonically. I am never as certain about anything as he is about everything. |
Anecdote re the Decca London. Back when that was the latest rage, I and a close friend both bought one. He and I separately noted that if you removed the cover over the top of the body, you could access the assembly that supported the coils or at least some part of the transducing mechanism. We had enough faith in ourselves to adjust the tiny screws, which moved a platform up and down, so as to get best sound. It was only after a few months of listening that we discovered that we each had turned a stereo cartridge into a mono cartridge; there was no stereo separation at all, when the London sounded best to our ears. Rnm4, I don't know what to make of the language you quote, describing the difference between the two AT mono cartridges. It's ambiguous, don't you think? I think I need to purchase a mono cartridge in order to compare the use of a mono switch to using a mono cartridge, but right now I bemoan the fact that many modern preamplifiers have omitted the option of mono switching. I have two vintage units that provide same, an original Quicksilver full function preamplifier and a Klyne 6LX, through which I use an outboard tube phono stage. Some day, I am going to install a mono switch on my Atma-sphere MP1, which is the best sounding of the 3. Or maybe that system will get the mono cartridge. |
Dear Johnny, I enjoy these discussions, but its frustrating if you don't read my posts. For the third time, most modern "mono" cartridges are internally stereo cartridges wherein the two channels are bridged in order to produce a mono signal (identical signals in each channel) at the output. Such a cartridge WILL respond to vertical movement of the stylus tip. Since, on a mono LP, there is no music encoded in the vertical direction, any noise generated by vertical motion is, hopefully, cancelled at the outputs of the cartridge, to produce the benefits of mono playback. The exact same thing happens inside a linestage with a mono switch, if you use a stereo cartridge to play a mono LP. The only question is which method sounds better, and I suspect the answer to that question has a lot to do with what mono vs stereo cartridges one is comparing whilst playing a mono LP. Of course, as I also wrote above, there are a few mono cartridges that are truly mono, have only one channel from input to output. In such a case, the results may be more in favor of using a mono cartridge, but I really cannot say. |
Fleib, I am not sure I follow your argument to the point where I can agree that using a "modern" mono cartridge is inherently superior to using a mono switch on the linestage, to reproduce mono LP sound. But further, I was remiss in not clarifying that the mono LPs I had in mind would be very late in the mono era and/or modern re-issues of pressings that were originally mono. There are long discussions on various threads about how these are created, but I was assuming they are typically consonant with playback by modern cartridges (because they demonstrably are). I was not trying to take into account early mono LPs where indeed the groove width was different, etc. That adds a layer of complexity that kills the discussion. Further, the paragraph you quote is not one that I wrote, I don't think. Also, I never argued that using a mono cartridge is a bad idea. Johnny, No, I don't know for a fact that "most modern mono cartridges" are internally stereo cartridges in which the two channels are bridged at the outputs. But for sure, many are built that way, if not most, based on testimony of persons who would seem to have inside info. And finally, the fact that your mono cartridge is dead quiet is in no way a refutation of anything I wrote. To wit, a mono LP has no music encoded via vertical modulation. Thus, the only "signal" generated by vertical deflection of the stylus in a stereo cartridge that has been converted to put out a mono signal, when playing a mono LP, would be noise. Typically such noise is identical in both channels and would be cancelled when the two channels are combined to produce mono. (I wrote this above.) |
Fleib, What are you saying? Besides saying that I am incorrect, that is. What's the stuff that follows on after your mention of a MM/MI type cartridge? Actually, I had in mind more the modern MC mono cartridges, of which there are many. So, are you saying in effect that MM/MI type mono cartridges do a better job of rejecting signals created by vertical deflection of the stylus tip? What do you estimate is the vertical rejection at 1kHz, when you deploy the mono switch on a preamplifier whilst playing a mono LP with a stereo cartridge? (This is not a rhetorical question; I don't know the answer myself, but I would bet its within the same ballpark, 30db-ish.) |
Fleib, Your experience with the Mono switch is wildly different from mine. I hear a pronounced improvement with the mono switch engaged, using a stereo cartridge on a mono LP. It's so obvious that if I have forgotten to flip the switch, I am reminded by the inferior sound to do so immediately. Further, the improvements are just as one might expect, a reduction in noise, an enhanced clarity of the treble, and a stabilizing of the image. This is when playing jazz LPs that are no older than mid- to late 1950s and so would be true "LP"s. Many are modern re-issues of same. I don't own any 78s or late 40s records of any type. What is the vintage of the mono LPs that you own which do not respond to the mono switch cure? |
Johnny, What is a "phono head with a mono switch"? I think what you're talking about is combining channels AFTER the cartridge but before phono amplification. That can be done if all else fails, but it's not the optimal way to go, because in such a case one channel of the stereo output of the cartridge "sees" both the other channel AND the phono stage input impedance in parallel. This affects the loading of the cartridge in an unpredictable way but usually not a good way. A typical mono switch on a full-function preamplifier would be placed in the signal path between the phono stage and the linestage, just before the volume control. I own two such preamplifiers, both vintage: a Klyne 6LX and a Quicksilver. The latter can be purchased typically for around $1000. |
Fleib, I responded to your 11/07 post without having read your 11/09 post. Indeed, it may be that you have not given the "mono switch" solution a fair trial. And it may be that your experience with a Y-adapter was affected by the impedance phenomenon I described. Fleib and Johnny, Don't worry; I am eventually going to buy a mono cartridge just out of curiosity. |
I think of these threads as if I were in a conversation with a bunch of friends who have interests in common with mine. In the context of such a conversation, one can disagree occasionally, and there should be no hard feelings because of it. Johnny, did you wish to restrict the discussion you engendered only to the wonderfulness of your bargain basement mono cartridge? If so, I apologize, and I'm done here. |
"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in." Dover, the quote from Ortofon pre-supposes that the internal circuit of the cartridge is true mono. I believe that Ortofon are one of the few companies that does produce such true mono cartridges. To repeat, my idea pertains ONLY to cartridges that are stereo internally where the two channels are bridged so as to produce identical mono signals on each pair of output pins. Such a cartridge WOULD respond to vertical modulation and would depend upon bridging to cancel noise generated from such spurious signals (because on a mono LP, there is no music signal encoded via vertical modulation), just as a mono switch would do. The question remains: what fraction of modern mono cartridges are true mono; I think it's the minority fraction, but I don't claim to know for sure. Some time ago, one of the manufacturers who sometimes posts here revealed some information on that question, but I forget what he said. Funny how we are in the dark on this question. I think it's because the business recognizes that vinylphiles can be induced to buy their "pseudo" mono cartridges, when a simple mono switch would do. The dearth of preamplifiers with mono switches is also a contributing factor, for sure. |
Fleib, I could take your last post as being consistent with my point of view. So I will. (The stuff about using a mono cartridge to play a stereo LP is completely beside the point of this discussion, by the way.) AT33MONO sounds to be of particular interest, since I agree that the AT blurb does suggest it is a true mono cartridge. |
Here is a nice article by Art Dudley in which he describes the internal anatomy of three different mono cartridges. Only one of the three is true mono but the other two have been modified internally from their stereo construction so as to obtain some rejection of vertical modulations. |
Johnny, You may be correct in your interpretation of the use of the word "strapped". The thought occurred to me as well. (Did you read Art Dudley's comments on how three different mono cartridges are constructed?) Do you KNOW that what you say about the Ortofon Quintet is true, or are you conjecturing? If you have some evidence to support your contention, can you cite it, please? The fact is that the more one investigates this subject, the more one uncovers obfuscation on the part of the cartridge makers. And very few reviewers, e.g., only Fremer and Dudley so far, pay any attention to this question. |
There's nothing in the paragraph you quote from Ortofon that settles the issue of how the Quintet, in particular, is constructed. I did read Fremer's review of the 2M Mono SE, and it's a top candidate for me; I agree it seems to have been designed to eliminate as much as possible signal induced by vertical modulation. Finally, my recollection is that, using a test LP, Dudley determined that the Grado produced more "noise" resulting from vertical modulation than did the other 2 of the 3 mono cartridges under test. He then speculated that perhaps it was less adherent to true mono construction than the others. However, when he listened to the Grado on mono LPs, it more than held its own for reproduction of actual music, as compared to the other two. Perhaps that's the part of his review that you are thinking of. Look, all I'm saying is that as audiophiles, we might be interested in knowing exactly what we're buying when we buy a mono cartridge. And as for me, were I to purchase the Grado, I would use it with the mono switch on my preamplifier engaged so as to eliminate, or at least further attenuate, even the last bit of noise produced by vertical modulation of the stylus tip. By the way also, the Lyra mono cartridges, at least the Helikon and the Delos (and probably by inference the Kleos), seem to be among the few historically that really are true mono. Too bad they cost so much. You're also right in saying that mono LPs are becoming very a la mode, and perhaps this trend has indeed induced the production of better mono cartridges, such as your AT. |
Lordie, I'm sure I have a couple of hundred mono LPs. It seems like about half or surely 40%-ish of my favorite LPs are in mono. Which is why I am fascinated right now with the subject of mono cartridges. Once I finally buy one, I will probably forgeddaboudit. Does anyone own one of the "high end" mono cartridges, like the Helikon Mono or the Miyajima Zero? The latter is calling out to me right now; it's saying "buy me". But I'd rather spend $500-ish than the $2000 cost of the Zero. |
Fleib, I am rather surprised that a person as knowledgable as you are would say this: "That cart tracks at 3.5g (4g max) with a spherical tip and will tear up a stereo groove." First, if I would ever use the Zero (or whatever mono cartridge I eventually purchase) to play a stereo LP, it would only be by accident. Second, the recommended VTF per se does not tell us much about how the cartridge will "wear" a groove encoding only mono signal. And third, I believe these issues were addressed to my satisfaction in reviews I have read of the Zero. One reviewer, it might have been MF, explicitly said the Zero was safe even for stereo LPs, although I would never intentionally go that route. For one thing, the Zero does have some vertical compliance. Dave, I am already at the point where I do not play mono LPs except on my basement system, which is equipped with a preamplifier that has a mono switch. I no longer listen to mono LPs in all-stereo mode. There is a phenomenal improvement to be had by switching to mono mode when playing mono LPs with a stereo cartridge, which is what I have been doing for many months, and which is what got me into this thread in the first place. I continue to believe, until I hear otherwise with my own ears, that a mono switch will give you 80% to 90%, at worst, of the improvement you can achieve using a "modern" mono cartridge to play mono LPs. (Here I refer only to post-1950 true "LPs", not 78s or whatever else was available in the late 1940s.) For my upstairs system, which has no stereo/mono switch, I require a low output Mono cartridge. So, if I were to purchase an AT, it would have to be the MC type. Is that the one you have, Dave? I am certainly also receptive to a Lyra Helikon (but too expensive) or Lyra Kleos or Miyajima Premium Be. All of these, plus the Zero, are known to be internally modified so as to suppress the capacity to respond to vertical modulation. The Miyajima Premium and Zero are said from the get-go to have been designed for mono. |
Thanks, Johnny. I've been staring at the ads for the AT33Mono on eBay for at least several months. After re-re-reading the Ortofon blurb on the 2M Mono SE, which so far as I can tell is ONLY available from Ortofon directly, I am now in doubt as to how it is constructed. But you're right in any case; it's high output. Today also, I found out that many of the SoundSmith cartridges, low output types, can be had in Mono version, and a phone call to SS revealed that they at least claim their mono versions are "true mono", meaning built so as to suppress output due to vertical modulation. Some of those are reasonable in cost, meaning less than $1000. |
I know much less about the subject of stylus tip shape than does Fleib, but I don't see a problem using a conical (also known as "spherical") tip to play a mono LP. The "more advanced" shapes, from elliptical on up, were designed primarily to enhance reproduction from stereo LPs, or in the case of Shibata and related shapes, from quadraphonic LPs. Fleib, In your quote from the Miyajima website, surely you do not mean to poke fun at the poor English of what must be a translation from Japanese? First, we don't even know who translated the passage; it might be computer-generated. Second, the paragraph is nevertheless understandable, and in fact the sense of it is that their mono cartridge might indeed damage the grooves of a stereo LP. (Obviously, "ditch" means "groove".) Thus it is not at all fair to dismiss the author as a "dumbass". The other thing I wonder at is that the author appears to be agreeing with you; you earlier suggested that the Zero could damage a stereo LP, and I cited a reference to the contrary. (I think it was from a review of the Zero by Fremer.) I also still maintain that it would be a rare event indeed if one accidentally put a mono cartridge down on a stereo LP, a situation that would be quickly sensed and corrected, even if I am incorrect as regards the potential for damage. The question regarding tip shape for me more has to do with whether 0.7mil diameter (of a conical) is good for modern era re-pressings of mono LPs. |
Sorry. I get it; you meant to say that the person who claimed that the Zero would not damage a stereo groove was incorrect, and you cite the blurb from the Miyajima website as evidence. Seems like you're correct. Fremer misspoke, if it was Fremer. Now, as to your critique of spherical styli, I have no basis to argue the point. It's been many decades since I ran a spherical stylus across an LP. However, to be as scientific about this subject as possible, which is "not very", you would have to say that your personal experience of a spherical stylus in comparison to some other shape, is your subjective opinion. In other words, it's anecdotal, not necessarily statistically valid. I speak here only of spherical stylus on mono LP. I would readily concede that a spherical stylus can be beaten, on a stereo LP, by other shapes. What mono cartridge with spherical tip have you auditioned? Thanks for your patience. |