Sorry to get into this thread at such a late hour. Hi Lewm, long time no see.
I just purchased a Grado Statement Sonata Mono MKII and for what I listen to, it's wonderful. Right now I'm spinning my Archive Productions Elizabethan Songs and the vocal presence with string accompaniment is lovely. I considered the AT 33 mono however buying the Grado worked out better for me and given that my mono collection is nearly all classical, I have no regrets.
I've been putting money into a Thorens TD 145 and I hope to replace the TP 16 tonearm with one of Origin Live models. |
Well Stringreen, you have evidently been lucky in your acquisition of mono LPs. I have several that I've rescued from thrift shops for 99 cents or less. Many of them proved to be unlistenable with my stereo setup. but revealed themselves as powerful presentations when played with my AT3MONO/LP cartridge. With your strong classical background you may be able to appreciate recordings I have of Fischer-Dieskau doing Schubert songs, Roger Wagner Chorale doing Echoes of a 16th Century Cathedral. Horowitz doing Brahms Sonatas and other recordings. Using the AT Mono cartridge makes these 50+ yr-old recordings smack me in the middle of my head with transparency, midrange impact, and a general sense of "in-the-room" presence.
If you expand your experience with mono recordings from various sources, you'll see what I'm talking about. If you don't, then party on and enjoy what you have. |
I just don't see the need for a mono cartridge...I play mono records fine with no annoying noise. The sound comes out from between the 2 speakers and I can enjoy the music fine.
|
Johnnyb53: Thanks for the tip on the AT Mono3/LP. I got mine from Japan last week and am very happy with it. Really sounds like a more expensive cartridge and I only have about 10 hours on it so far.
I did compare it with using a stereo cartridge and the mono button on my integrated amp. For me there is no question that the mono cart sounds better even though the cartridge I compared it with (Grado Gold) costs twice as much. Especially on old 45s with a mono preamp (TDL 4010).
Now I am wondering how much better the AT MONO33 is?
|
If we're talking microgroove - reissues, mid '50s or later (my assumption), then a mono record is no different in that respect than a stereo LP. You're making this more mysterious than it is. I've given you this Ortofon link before: http://ortofon.com/hifi/products/mono-series Spherical styli were the most commonly used geometry up to the beginning of the 1960s. Consequently, most records from the first 15 years of microgroove records have been played with a spherical stylus. This will not, however, mean that mono has to be played with a spherical stylus. In fact, elliptical types as well as line contact types can be highly beneficial for mono records from the mid 1950s and upwards (see figures below). The line contact types, specifically, will ensure an improved high frequency response due to the slim shape. Also the distortion from the pinching effect, which occurs when the stylus is pushed upwards due narrow high frequency grooves, will be reduced substantially. Replaying an old mono record, which probably has been played only with a 25µm spherical stylus can be replayed in a different unworn location of the groove by using an 18µm spherical stylus or, even better, an elliptical or line contact stylus. Choosing one of these diamond profiles will dramatically increase the stylus’ ability to reproduce the inscription with detail and accuracy. Regards, |
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.
|
Lew, I plainly said the reviewer is a dumb ass, whoever that might have been. I'm going by what you said, not having read the review myself. The Zero will damage a stereo groove or they wouldn't have put that caveat on their site. The cart does have some vertical compliance, 10cu, but is only designed for lateral movement. I believe the AT mono carts have .65 mil tips. Close enough. Of course you can play a mono or stereo LP with a spherical. People do it all the time with a DL102 or 103 and numerous inexpensive carts. I assume you would want detail with mono records as with your stereo ones. Do you listen to your stereo records with a spherical tip? The smaller minor radius of a more advanced tip profile will give you more information in mono, just as it does in stereo. I can hear loss of detail, especially in harmonic content, in comparison to my stereo carts with advanced tips. The mono cart has a better presentation with mono records and spatial clues are improved. Sometimes things are revealed in the mix which are not noticed before, but for detail, it's like listening to a stereo record with a spherical tipped cart. Regards,
|
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.
|
Fleib: Well there's a thought. The ATMono3/LP can be so inexpensive ($112.65) that it might be worth retipping with a microline right away. Like AT's upscale cartridge it's internally wired with PCOCC. I am a big fan of MicroLine. Not only does it sound good, it tracks like a mofo, is easy on the records, and can be good for up to 4,000 hours (according to what I heard from an analog specialty store).
The 0.7 conical stylus of the AT-33MONO and ATMONO3/LP may have its advantages, however. I think that profile may be why that mono cart does so well both on true vintage mono pressings and present-day reissues. A MicroLine might do better on moderns, worse on vintage. |
Johnnyb, No argument. The presentation is definitely better. It's as if you're hearing the recording as it was meant to be heard. Like me, only more so, Lew has a number of acoustic jazz discs in mono. My comments are made with that in mind. Given our situation and the fact that Lew has some fabulous equipment, do you think a MONO3 or 33 would compete with a Kleos mono or Cadenza mono? I can't say for sure, but I kind of doubt it. It seems like all the Japanese companies only use spherical tips on their mono carts. Until recently there probably wasn't much demand for mono carts, but I'd like similar detail as your ML tip affords in stereo. When my MONO3 tip wears out I'll have it replaced with a more advanced one. Maybe a HOMC is a good idea here because response can be tailored with load resistance. In the mean time I am enjoying the cart, but I can't help thinking of what it might sound like with an LC or whatever. Perhaps a 33 with another tip would be a killer? Regards,
|
Fleib, I've found that--with the ATMONO/3/LP HOMC--the resolution can vary with the quality of the mono mix. My stereo cart is an AT150MLX--boron cantilever, microline nude stylus. I have both a stereo and a mono copy of "Al Hirt's Greatest Hits," an RCA 1965 recording. The stereo version is in excellent shape; the mono was still sealed and set me back a whopping 25 cents.
Anyway, when I played both records with my stereo cart, the stereo version sounded decidedly better. The mono pressing sounded murkier and the vocal backing was harder to hear.
However, when I swapped to the ATMono3/LP, the mono pressing sounded as if someone flipped a resolution switch. The mix was deep, spacious, and very well separated. As good as the background vocals sounded on the stereo one, the mono cart playing the mono pressing was even better with more inner detail and a bit more overall cohesiveness.
On vintage mono from 1969 backward, I consistently get an inaudible noise floor and a very satisfactory music experience. Come to think of it, I also get that with the modern pressings--Beach Boys from Capitol, the new Beatles MONO release, and an Analogue Productions' 45 rpm pressing of a 1957 Nat Cole album. |
Lew, Accidents happen. Go to Miyajima site and read -
The cartridge of the vertical axis concentration method plays only a monaural LP. It cannot play a stereo LP with this cartridge. When it played a stereo LP with this cartridge, a sound is that a distortion and a needle do not work lengthwise, and there is the thing that a needle injures the ditch of the LP. What does injure the ditch of the LP mean? The reviewer is a dumbass. I was talking about tip wear. We already know a Zero will tear up a stereo groove. How many hours will you get from a spherical tracking at 3.5g ? I guess it depends on diamond quality and polish. I think any MM/MI type you look at is going to use stereo coils connected in such a way to cancel vertical output. MCs like the 33MONO only have a horizontal coil, but vertical compliance. I'd think with your mono collection you'd want a tip with a more advanced profile. The Cadenza mono has a fine line and is less expensive than a Zero. Can't say I've heard it, but my MONO3 has a nice presentation but lacks some resolution compared to better stereo carts. Regards, |
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. |
Lewm:
...For my upstairs system, which has no stereo/mono switch, I require a low output Mono cartridge. ... 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. The ATMONO3/LP that I got is an HOMC with output of 1.2mV, but the AT-33 MONO is a mono version of their AT-33 series. It’s an LOMC with 0.35 mV output. Since this model is not officially imported to the US and you want to avoid Amazon, you could pick one up from any number of international vendors on eBay for BIN prices that range from $309 to $475. http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xaudio+technica...You can also custom order any cartridge from Grado in mono. They have a series of wood-bodied low output moving iron cartridges (Statement series), one of which (the Sonata v2) is $600. The Ortofon 2M Mono SE is available directly from Ortofon for $499 Euro. It has a Shibata stylus, but is a high output MM. |
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.
|
Regarding stylus shape, I expect one must consider which records are being played. Few if any mono cutter heads remain which means these "modern" mono reissues are being cut with stereo heads. And that leads to consideration of tip shape and size for playback.
Some time ago I posted my findings about stylus tip and record groves. Here is what I learned for optimizing mono LPs:
- Pre-stereo era, '48-'57, 1.0 mil conical
- Early stereo era, '58-'70, 0.7 mil conical
- Recent reissues, any narrow elliptical profile
Jonathan Carr (Lyra) stated his research determined narrow elliptical stylus profiles are best for their current mono cartridges. But while he didn't specify which LPs were tested I expect they were all recent reissues, thus cut with modern stereo cutter heads.
So if all your mono LPs are reissues produced within the past 20 years or so, that can simplify your choice. Same if that are all original mono pressings from the pre-stereo era. It's when you have a mix of old and new monos this can become more complicated. |
Did I say 62? Tonight I discovered that I have an original Ray Charles "Modern Sounds in Country & Western, vol. II" in mono. It was too noisy to play in stereo. Sounds much better with my mono cartridge, with a few rough edges. |
Here's a really enlightening rundown on stylus shapes' advantages and disadvantages from someone who should know, Soundsmith: http://www.sound-smith.com/articles/stylus-shape-informationConical doesn't get too much love there, but my ATMONO3/LP is nice, especially since I only have about 62 (and counting) mono LPs out of around 1500. However, the Ortofon 2M Mono SE (available only direct from their website) has a Shibata stylus and is more or less within the budget range (499 Euro). |
The Miyajima Zero is a scary cart. My mono reissues (many Japanese) are irreplaceable. That cart tracks at 3.5g (4g max) with a spherical tip and will tear up a stereo groove. Seems like a bad idea. Wonder how many hours till the tip wears out. I'd be more inclined to check out a Lyra or a Cadenza Mono w/fine line. Switch from accurate to romantic just for mono? |
... or even a $112.65-189 experiment for the ATMONO3/LP.
That’s a small price for proof of concept. You could always take your time to research and pick the ultimate mono cart. In the meantime, that ATMONO3/LP takes care of all the stereo vs. mono cartridge issues and then some for a pittance. It sounds really good and brings out the advantages of mono.
|
Lewm, FWIW the AT33MONO has turned my world upside down-- or at least tilted it 45 degrees-- w/r to mono records. By comparison a fine stereo cartridge playing a mono record sounds disorganized, desiccated, and noisy in the grooves. Well worth a $330 experiment, even if that subsequently leads to a grail quest for a Zero. |
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.
|
I've been looking through my original and subsequent posts, and realize I have conflated two different Audio Technica moving coil mono cartridges: The ATMONO3/LP, which has 1.2mV output and is the one that I have, and the AT33MONO, which is 0.3mV output. The ATMONO3/LP has an official US distributor, LpGear.com, who prices it at $189. You can also get it for as low as $112.65 on Amazon (which is what I did). The AT33MONO is not officially imported, so you can get it from eBay or Amazon. It's usually in the $270-340 range.
Both have the same weight and both feature an aluminum cantilever and spherical (conical?) stylus.
My stereo cartridge is an AT150MLX, which is quite an overachiever for an MM cartridge. As good as the AT150MLX is, the ATMONO3/LP holds up well when I switch to it, and it really brings the advantages of a mono cartridge--a great sense of immediacy, much lower noise floor (esp. on old mono) and a really coherent sound that smacks you in the middle of the head. It sounded so good on the new Beatles Mono LP releases that it sent me searching for other mono albums I have, some 50 and more years old. It turns out I have 57 and counting.
|
Like a few who have posted here I've been looking for a mono cart - so I've been following this discussion about the AT33MONO with interest. I wonder if anyone has a handle on how it compares to others in the price range of up to $500 or so. |
JohnnyB53, thanks for this thread. Today I mounted a $327 AT33MONO ebayed from Japan to a SME 3012R. Very impressive sound, even at zero hrs. Next step was a complete sort through the jazz collection to extract all mono LPs for further listening. Pleased to find about 50 LPs-- which together with the Beatles box, easily justifies the purchase. Just seeing the all these mono issues spread wide across artists, genres, and eras all together in one box is a refreshing and new way to approach a listening session. |
Speaking of Art Dudley, and the "mono-ness" of the Decca cartridge (as I did above), Dudley talks about that in his review of the Decca Maroon (the entry-level model) in his column in the current (December) issue of Stereophile. |
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. |
Lewm, the full paragraph on the Ortofon website that you excerpted says:
Quintet Mono uses a strapped output to deliver the same output signal from both sets of pole pins. This effectively eliminates the need for mono-specific equipment, making it possible to enjoy true mono reproduction on any stereo playback system.
In that context it looks pretty clear that the cartridge is only reading the horizontal cut and then strapping it to both outputs so it'll play nicely centered mono on a stereo pair of speakers. Secondly, in June 2014, Michael Fremer published an online article about the Ortofon 2M Mono SE that was being developed to honor EMI's new Beatles Mono LP collection coming out later that year. In the comments section, a reader asked just how "mono" this and other Ortofon mono cartridges are. Fremer said he'd ask Ortofon about it. True to his word, further down in the comments he replies:
Here is what designer Leif Johannsen writes about the Ortofon lineup: SPU CG: The old 1948-design with only lateral compliance and one coil SPU Mono, Cadenza Mono, Quintet Mono: Both lateral and vertical compliance and one coil. The armature has been turned 45 degrees from the stereo-position. 2M Mono and 2M Mono SE: In the MM we cannot turn the armature or anything else. So the mechanical geometry is the same as in the stereo 2M’s. But we can couple the two coils in a clever way (NOT simply parallel between L and R)) and thereby making it work as one coil. The point is to have a design not sensitive to vertical movements and that has been achieved.
Also, note that the Dudley column you referenced was written more than ten years ago. There is a lot more mono activity going on now than there was then. We now have mono reissues of the Beach Boys, Beatles, Prestige and Riverside jazz labels, etc. The market has expanded and so hast the number of mono cartridge models and mfrs, which makes the task of sorting out their topologies more challenging. And if you look at the Dudley article, he notes that the Grado wood cartridge is potted, and therefore difficult to determine the inner workings. He suspected that Grado's suppression of vertical signal wasn't as strong as that of the other two cartridges. But when he played it, it was as noise-free as the others. Circuit and mechanical design is a means to an end. What's important is the end result. How things are strapped isn't as important as how it tracks and sounds. |
If a cart has vertical compliance it is not tracking only horizontally. The question is, the how and why of vertical rejection. Does the cart actually avoid the pitfalls of a stereo cart + mono switch as described in their literature?
They repeatedly refer to their mono offerings as "true mono". If a cart has stereo coils hooked up internally to reject vertical cantilever motion output, can or will it also avoid said pitfalls? |
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. |
11-13-15: Lewm
And Haha, here is a quote from Ortofon on their "Quintet Mono" cartridge. Caveat emptor:
"Quintet Mono uses a strapped output to deliver the same output signal from both sets of pole pins."
Thus, even for a given manufacturer, one must read the fine print to find out what they're really selling.
I don't think Ortofon means "strapped" the way you do. They mean they have a true mono design inside a stereo-looking cartridge. Internally the stylus/cantilever/ coil/magnet assembly tracks the groove only in the horizontal plane and produces a mono signal from it. Then that SINGLE signal is strapped (e.g., like a Y-adapter) to both the L and R pole pins on the back of the cartridge so it sends an identical in-phase single-source mono signal to both channels through the stereo system to both speakers. It's not a stereo pickup sending a summed signal to both sides of the pins. The rest of the product description that you don't quote makes that pretty clear. And really, considering the market would be made primarily of stereo users, isn't that exactly what users would want? It makes the cartrtidge very usable both for modern mono reissues and old vintage ones. |
11-13-15: Lewm
And Haha, here is a quote from Ortofon on their "Quintet Mono" cartridge. Caveat emptor:
"Quintet Mono uses a strapped output to deliver the same output signal from both sets of pole pins."
Thus, even for a given manufacturer, one must read the fine print to find out what they're really selling
And what does "strapped" mean to you in this context? |
And Haha, here is a quote from Ortofon on their "Quintet Mono" cartridge. Caveat emptor:
"Quintet Mono uses a strapped output to deliver the same output signal from both sets of pole pins."
Thus, even for a given manufacturer, one must read the fine print to find out what they're really selling. |
Hereis 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. |
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. |
A true mono cart is one with no vertical compliance. Such carts usually track at more than 3g. Tip size is another factor. A 1 mil tip can be used on a stereo record, but I wouldn't want one tracking with excessive weight. For a discussion of this, here's a VE thread. Poster Guest, is Luckydog:
http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=48089
From AT:
The AT33Mono is made specifically for use on mono systems. It has a horizontal coil, and so in principle only generates electricity horizontally.
The AT33Mono produces sound to a very high quality because it does not easily pick up unnecessary strain components from distorted or scratched records, producing audio that you couldn't possibly get from a stereo cartridge.
The AT33Mono also has appropriate compliance in the vertical direction, so will not cause damage to stereo records. Enjoy those well-known classic mono records of yesteryear with the AT33Mono.
That does not sound like bridged channels to me. Even MMs with mono output are not bridged (strapped or parallel connection). The coils are connected in in such a way to cancel most vertical cantilever movement. As long as a cart, either MC or MM, has vertical compliance, vertical rejection will be imperfect. Nevertheless, Ortofon is correct about using a stereo cart on a mono record. A mono switch cancels 30dB of vert noise on a mono record, but can not correct stereo differences described.
Even the Miyajima Zero has some vertical compliance, it's very little and not designed to play a stereo LP. |
"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. |
Lew,
I tried the test again, with a Victor Z-1E cart going into the Mitsu. I cleaned the Mozart again and it wasn't nearly as noisy. Maybe the stylus mucked out the groove? Results were not as dramatic. The mono switch took care of most clicks/pops. I also played a couple of sides of Lee Morgan Vol 3, and Brownie Eyes, both "modern" pressings in good shape.
In all cases the MONO3 had a superior presentation, more natural sounding, like as the recording was intended. The Z-1 had superior resolution on the reissues. It sounded crappy on Mozart, grainy and hard to take, where the MONO was far better, but still substandard.
Considering your collection, I think it will require a very good mono cart to fit in.
Regards, |
Here is why a true mono cartridge will sound better on mono playback than using a stereo cartridge with a mono switch - From the Ortofon website - If you play a mono record with a stereo cartridge you will not achieve the same signal in the two channels due to imperfections such as crosstalk, noise, phase errors, tracking error, antiskating and distortion. This difference between the channels will result in an unstable and partially fuzzy image. A mono switch, to some extent, can improve this.
Playing the same record with a mono cartridge will have none of the aforementioned problems, as this cartridge only produces one signal, which afterwards is directed to both channels in the system. This will provide a much more forceful and stable image with a fuller sound.
Another significant advantage of using a mono cartridge to play mono records is the absence of response to vertical movement. This means that a mono cartridge is essentially impervious to the pinching effect which comes into action when the stylus is pushed vertically upward in very narrow grooves. In addition, the response to dust, dirt and wear will be reduced substantially as the vertical component will not be heard. The final result will be a much more clean and noiseless reproduction of the mono record. These effects simply cannot be achieved merely by the use of a mono switch. |
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. |
11-10-15: Johnnyb53
" ... These days if you want a mono switch, you have to shop for 40-50 yr-old preamps or integrated amps, order a custom unit or DIY."
Sorry, but this is mistaken. Many modern preamps include mono switches, including ARC. |
11-09-15: Lewm
Johnny, What is a "phono head with a mono switch"?
I just meant a mono switch at the phono stage instead of the line stage. Beyond that I don't know and don't care. The mono switch is a footnote in the history of high fidelity. Handy if you need one, just another switch if you don't. These days if you want a mono switch, you have to shop for 40-50 yr-old preamps or integrated amps, order a custom unit or DIY. Since I have a TT with interchangeable headshells (as do you), I'm happy to swap carts in about a minute. The ATMONO33/LP (you know, the topic of this thread?) starts off right with PCOCC copper wiring, extracts a pure mono signal at the source, suppresses the vertical plane a minimum 30dB, and just sounds quiet, smooth, luscious, and right. This cartridge makes my latter day mono reissues sound cleaner and more dynamic. My '50s and '60s thrift shop mono albums have gone from unlistenably noisy to very enjoyable. For anyone with some mono albums who has an interchangeble headshell, second tonearm, or rack space for a mono turntable, I highly recommend going the mono cartridge route. For $112.65 you can get a $300 list (built and sounds like it) HO moving coil true mono cart that'll light up anyone's mono collection I'm done talking about mono switches. |
"$1000 Quicksilver". Right Lewm, and an ARC LS-1 (the last ARC line stage to include a Mode switch, I believe) can be had for even less. I send mine the signal from the tape out jacks on my main pre, and send the LS-1's output (main, not tape, as the Mode switch is after the tape output jacks in the circuit) back to an input on the main pre, to listen to Mono. Sometimes! |
11-09-15: Lewm
Johnny, What is a "phono head with a mono switch"?
I just meant a mono switch at the phono stage instead of the line stage. Beyond that I don't know and don't care. To me the mono switch is a footnote in the history of high fidelity. Handy if you need one, just another switch if you don't. If you gotta have a mono switch, you're looking at shopping for 40-50 yr-old preamps, getting a custom unit or going DIY. Since I have a TT with interchangeable headshells (as do you), I'm happy to swap carts in about a minute. The ATMONO33/LP (you know, the topic of this thread?) starts off with PCOCC copper wiring, extracts a pure mono signal at the source, suppresses the vertical plane a minimum 30dB, and just sounds quiet, smooth, luscious, and right. This cartridge makes my latter day mono reissues sound cleaner and more dynamic. My '50s and '60s thrift shop mono albums have gone from unlistenably noisy to very enjoyable. For anyone with some mono albums who has an interchangeble headshell, second tonearm, or rack space for a mono turntable, I highly recommend going the mono cartridge route. For $112.65 you can get a $300 list (built and sounds like it) HO moving coil true mono cart that'll light up anyone's mono collection I'm done talking about mono switches. |
Lew,
I'll try the mono switch again. It did help, but not like a mono cart.
Something to consider - there is always a difference between channels with a stereo cart. Any small azimuth difference will contribute, as will skating. There is no perfect anti-skating setting. Skating varies with groove velocity and offset angle. Except for 2 null points on the record, there is always a phase difference between channels w/pivoting arm.
These differences are combined with a mono switch and eliminated with a mono cart. I'll dig out that Mozart record, clean some thrift store finds and test the mono switch again.
Regards, |
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. |
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, 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? |
The mono switch on most preamps will function with any source, not just phono. In one of those links they were talking about some separate phono stages which include a mono switch. If you try to duplicate this with Y adaptors there are impedance/load considerations which could alter the sound, depending on where you combine/split channels.
Most of my listening is with a preamp w/o mono switch or with a passive preamp. I tried Y adaptors both on the phono signal going into the preamp, and on the preamp output. Both of these approaches were unsatisfactory. SQ was degraded to the extent that any noise reduction didn't matter. I didn't think to try it in a tape monitor loop. Also, I used solid body Y adaptors w/Teflon or nylon insulation.
I also have an old Mitsubishi tuner-preamp with a great sounding tuner which I use on a second system. It has a mono switch. This is where the mono switch did not provide adequate noise reduction with a stereo cart playing a compromised mono record. For the price of the MONO3, trying one was a no-brainer. A beat-up copy of Mozart Requiem, formerly unlistenable had noise reduced about 95%. It was astounding. SQ was still imperfect. This is an old wide groove pressing and I think the tip was bottoming out in-groove. This is where you need a 1 mil tip.
Although it seems that all microgroove mono pressings sound much better with this cart, it occurs to me that my direct comparisons to a stereo cart + mono switch, are limited.
Perhaps someone else made similar comparisons?
I went to a thrift store and bought some old mono records which looked to be in decent shape. I wouldn't have considered them with stereo pressings. Results should be interesting. |
Hey Lewm, I found some threads that may address the mono switch feature you were talking about. Here's something to consider, however. Some mono switches may occurr at the phono stage; others may be implemented at the line stage. They would behave differently. Here's a thread about preamps with mono switches in general. And here's a thread about a specific circuit design at the phono stage that does the things you were talking about such as noise cancellation. However, note that these are not features you can just go out and buy. The first thread mainly addresses vintage classic items (such as an Audio Research unit) that would cost a lot on the vintage market. The second thread addresses a design that probably has to be custom-ordered and handbuilt. Then there's the third alternative, particularly the cartridge that started this thread. The Audio Technica unit is a high output (1.2mV) moving coil cartridge, true mono with a -30dB rejection in the vertical plane, and it's readily available for anything from $112.65 to $299.99, depending on the vendor you choose. Furthermore, if your System profile is up-to-date, I see you have a Kenwood LM07 turntable, which has a universal headshell. You could get the Audio Technica AT33MONO/LP and a headshell, mount and align it, and just play the mono records in native mode. It's much easier than hunting down a phono head with mono switch, and the results would be at least as good. I'm really happy with that cartridge and it has increased my enjoyment both of latter day mono reissues (Beatles, Beach Boys, Nat King Cole, Gene Krupa) and digging out 45-60-yr-old mono original pressings. Highly recommended. |
