I am about to invest in MONO Vinyl playback setup.
The goal - pure, undiluted music straight down the center.
The plan - dedicated 2nd tonearm + mono cartridge + phono
After 6 long months of waiting, my Woodsong plinth with dual arm boards schedule to arrive next month.
I came across a product that peaked my interest. The Monaural Phono Amplifier - Aurorasound EQ-100. No reviews, so I am wondering if anyone tried it yet?
⬆️ Is EQ-100 or something similar, absolute necessary from a purist perspective or should I take the pragmatic path and use the ‘Mono’ switch on my Integrated with a built in phono?
There are ofcourse pros and cons to both approaches so I am seeking advice from folks who have compared both options or adopted another alternative in their vinyl setup.
I have a dual tonearm, dual cartridge setup for stereo/mono playback. Stereo cartridge is a Lyra Atlas Lambda SL and the mono is a Lyra Atlas Lambda Mono, so essentially stereo and mono versions of the exact same cartridge. Both are mounted on identical tonearms (Clearaudio 12" Universal), and I use a dual phono input Boulder 1108 phono-stage.
This allows me to make a rather equivalent comparison. Playing a mono record using the stereo cartridge and phono-stage mono button engaged sounds great. However, it’s nothing like playing using the dedicated mono cartridge. The latter has a lower noise floor, is more dynamic, more detail, and has vastly improved realism and dimensionality.
[this based on info from the Altas Mono manual]
On mono records, the vertical axis of the groove contains no musical information, but it will frequently have noise, in the form of groove damage and dirt. A true mono cartridge is completely insensitive to the axis, which greatly improves the signal/noise ratio. This is one of the largest benefits to using a mono cartridge and why it sounds so much better than using a stereo cartridge with the mono button engaged on the preamp/phono-stage.
Thanks for sharing. I recognize and understand that a Mono cart should offer a better experience over a stereo cart with Mono switch engaged on your phono.
My query was more about, whether a purpose built phono like EQ-100 would offer a superior experience over a phono with mono switch. In any case, it’s good to know that a standard phono stage with proper mono summing might get you 90% there….
Once it’s all setup, It will be interesting to hear the recently released 1964 Beatles (Mono) Vinyl set and handful of other classics from that era.
it’s good to know that a standard phono stage with proper mono summing might get you 90% there
I wouldn’t say that is so. The difference using a true mono cartridge is a lot more substantial. Offhand, I would say using mono summing at the phono-stage or preamp with a stereo cartridge gets you more like 70% there, at the most. At least that’s how I would compare the difference in my setup, where I can try it both ways with nearly identical setups for each.
If you’re using a stereo cartridge, I don’t see how a mono phono-stage would matter, versus summing the mono with a switch on a stereo phono-stage (or at the preamp). The real difference for mono playback is in the mono cartridge itself.
I guess it’s something you have to experience before it sinks in. It’s pretty amazing how much better a true mono cartridge can be, especially with well recorded/mastered albums (like some of the Tone Poet reissues).
The OP will be using a mono cartridge. The query is about whether a dedicated mono phono stage would be superior using the mono cartridge to a stereo phono stage using a mono switch with a mono cartridge.
This subject has been rehashed many times. Many of the mono cartridges on the market are nothing but stereo cartridges in which the two channels have been bridged internally. The mono switch on a linestage also achieves mono output into both channels by virtue of bridging the two channels at the output. So, when comparing this type of mono cartridge to the mono switch, the only difference is that in the one case the two channels were bridged before RIAA correction and amplification; whereas in the other case the mono signal is created after these processes take place. I could imagine reasons why either one is better than the other. The other factor is that when you use a mono cartridge and compare it to your stereo cartridge, unless you are using the artificially created mono version of the very same stereo cartridge you are otherwise comparing two different cartridges. Any two cartridges can differ in sonics by virtue of many factors, so it is hard to say in that case that "a mono cartridge is per se better".
The Lyra mono cartridges (Kleos, Etna, Atlas) are true mono cartridges. They are not strapped versions of the stereo cartridges. Dynavector also makes a true mono version of the XV-1s.
For about $300 one can dip their toes into using a true mono (not strapped) cartridge with the Audio-Technica AT33MONO.
I hope I did not say there are no "true" mono cartridges. I only refer to the type described. Still, the second caveat for comparing is valid; your particular mono cartridge may just be "better" or "worse" than your particular stereo cartridge. Therefore any conclusions are subject to that qualification. I do think even using only a mono switch when playing mono LPs with a stereo cartridge is superior to not using the mono switch. At least in that comparison I am not using two different cartridges. If you want to get really purist, you can use one of those few mono cartridges that only has two pins and use it to drive only one channel of your stereo system. I've never tried that nor heard it on someone else's system.
I think the stereo/mono equivalence for a comparison between my two cartridges is quite valid. They are both Lyra Atlas, i.e. the same design. It’s just that one has stereo coils and the other has mono coils, and if you look at the design diagram on the box of each they are exactly the same. Only the coils differ between them. Otherwise they are the same cartridge (i.e. design and build). I can only tell the difference between them visually by looking at the serial number.
With the Lyra Mono one can also connect the two mono channels in series for additional output when used in a pure mono system.
I had Steve Leung of VAS convert an older BM Ruby 3 stereo cartridge by rotating the former holding the coils 45° and connecting the horizontally sensitive coil to both outputs. He removed the disconnected coil and put a new stylus on it. This was a lot cheaper than buying a new mono cartridge. But back to the original question:
Is EQ-100 or something similar, absolute necessary from a purist perspective or should I take the pragmatic path and use the ‘Mono’ switch on my Integrated with a built in phono?
If you have a true mono cartridge there is no need to use the mono switch on your integrated amp: each channel is receiving exactly the same signal, so it should make no difference. As to whether there is an advantage to using a mono phono stage, that is a matter of the relative quality of the phono stage you use now versus the proposed mono stage, but I don't think there is a reason to say that a mono phono stage is always better than a stereo stage used with a mono cartridge. If a purist approach is to be taken, with a mono amplifier and a single speaker, it would conform, but that involves a whole separate system and I don't think that's your intention.
Thank you for your astute summation of both the logic and the limits of the purist mono path. You have given the clarification I was hoping for, ahead of my implementation. Nope, the playback will still be from L/R speakers.
With a true mono cartridge, the signal coming from both channel pins is already identical (since it derives from lateral movement only), correct?
If above is true then engaging the mono switch on my preamp would be redundant. I don’t have much information to go by here, if my Integrated mono switch performs any phase manipulation or summing after gain, if it does; that might add some noise or coloration, so it’s often best left off with a true mono cart. Something I intend to play around after installation.
Since my post, I did bit more research and found out EQ-100 would be beneficial for early mono records that used non-RIAA EQ curves. Here are the mastering notes from Beatles Mono Vinyl set,
“These albums were cut for vinyl from the original master tapes using a completely analog signal path and with constant reference to first generation pressings of the original albums. They were made using a Studer A80 master recorder with analog preview & program paths, and a Neumann VMS70 cutting lathe originally installed in Capitol Studios in 1971. This specific all-analog cutting technique allows faithful representation of the full musical range and dynamics present on the original tapes”
My wonderful journey into analog playback continues….
If you think you have a true mono cartridge, do try with vs without the mono switch engaged and let us know what you hear. At least some of the Beatles LPs originally came out on Parlophone in the UK and were mono to begin with. However, since the works are from the 60s, it is quite likely that modern RIAA equalization was used. I have never read otherwise.
’Since my post, I did bit more research and found out EQ-100 would be beneficial for early mono records that used non-RIAA EQ curves’
I agree with above statement regarding non-RIAA EQ curves. My phon preamp is a Graham Slee Revelation C (similar functionality as the Aurorasound EQ-100. Cartridge used: Ortofon MC Cadenza Mono).
I do favour this setup to any other setup using other phono preamps and stereo cartridges because of sound quality. I have a lot of old mono records with pre RIAA EQ curves. As per advice of Graham Slee, I am using only Input Right, bridging Input Left with an ’inactive’ plug.
As well as being a stereo RIAA preamp there are settings for other types of record, so rather than guessing the tonal balance, the Revelations have all the EQ settings you should need arranged on a three switch front-panel matrix.
The purpose of a preamp such as the Aurorasound EQ-100 is to playback discs using a pre-emphasis equalization other than the RIAA standard adopted around 1960 or so. If your collection includes original discs from early in the micro-groove LP and 45 era, then some of them may use EQ curves such as AES, Columbia, London, etc. All would be mono, of course.
Note that these early EQs only apply to the original discs mastered and pressed before ~1960. Reissues since that time would all use RIAA.
I have a second system based around an HK Citation preamp that supports these earlier EQs. I have one turntable set-up for 78 playback as well as another turntable for 45/LPs with a swapable mono or stereo cartridge.
My experience is that the old EQs are critical for playing 78s, but more subtle with LP/45s. Most of the early LPs I have with alternate EQs sound OK played back through RIAA. I’ve learned to listen for the difference. Getting the bass turnover correct removes an unnatural thickness/thinness in the lower mid/upper bass range. The correct high frequency roll-off gets the right balance of extension and surface noise reduction. But a casual listen might not notice anything amiss.
So, if you have a number of early LPs/45s in your collection, you might enjoy a preamp like the Aurorasound EQ-100 or other with similar flexible EQ to dial in the correct playback response.
BTW, I am considering adding a turntable with two tonearms to my main system with one dedicated to mono connected to a flexible EQ preamp. Good idea!
lalitik, I'm old enough that I began buying LPs after stereo had been introduced but while mono versions of most recording were still being released. I didn't yet have a stereo system so I have many older mono LPs. As a result I had similar questions to yours.
As a result I also considered a two arm set up, one with a mono cartridge. Then I became concerned about EQ after learning not all labels accepted the RIAA after it was established. I don't claim expertise but here are my conclusions.
It comes down to when the given mono records were produced. For the now many reissues of classic/popular mono recordings, a quality stereo cartridge played through a mono circuit in a phono stage will be good. That is because apparently mono cutter heads are no longer available so the mono reissues were cut with stereo heads. Matching groove width is important and this satisfies that.
For older original mono LPs then a mono cartridge with proper stylus size and lateral only pickup (less noise) should perform best. Along with a mono playback stage.
Regarding EQ, I realized my mono LPs were issued beginning in the late '50s and are all US pressings. So they are all RIAA, thus eliminating my need for adjustable EQ.
In my old age with the desire to simplify as much as possible I settled for a single arm with interchangeable head shells to accommodate both stereo and mono cartridges, along with a mono switch.
My 1Cent (mono after all), is that what I learned here is true: a TRUE Mono Cartridge is best, no need to put my mode switch in Mono Mode.
How Much Better? a little, some, more, a heck of a lot better, depends on the individual LP, but the key is to ONLY pick up the content, NOT pick up anything that might be noise or inadvertently considered content. NOT Sum Noise.
Distinction of individual instruments and/or voices can be significantly improved. Scuffs, scratches, warps, anything in the groove can be totally ignored.
To use a stereo pickup, and sum, is to add the unwanted noise in both channels, that's MUD added to the Mono Content both sides.
It is hard to free yourself of the habit of seeking imaging. Happily, McIntosh's have other options, sometimes the best is to take the input from the MONO Cartridge, and Play that thru only 1 speaker, L only or R only, whichever sounds best in your space at your listening position which can now be anywhere. I can play my L speaker only and sit on the far end of the room at mt position on the sofa with my coffee warmer, or out on the adjacent porch.
I just changed and now have 3 arms, all with removable headshells, to use any cartridge on any arm.
My 1st/Main True Mono Cartridge is Grado ME+, with replaceable elliptical stylus ($100.), MI using standard MM Phono. I just replaced my stylus, easy, did it upside down while mounted on my old fixed arm.
I sent this to Steve at VAS just to confirm that I wanted an advanced stylus shape on the AT33PTG/II Mono Body as my alternate mono cartridge (It;s done he says it sounds great, I'm picking it up tomorrow).
While it's generally recommended to use a mono cartridge for mono LPs, some advanced stylus shapes, like line contact or Shibata, can be used with mono cartridges to improve sound quality. These shapes offer greater contact with the groove wall, potentially revealing more detail and reducing noise.
Elaborating on the benefits and considerations:
Improved Tracking and Detail:
Advanced stylus shapes, such as line contact or Shibata, are designed to trace the groove walls more precisely, potentially revealing more detail and reducing noise.
Reduced Wear:
Some advanced stylus shapes may offer lower tracking forces, potentially reducing wear on the record.
Potential for Better Sound:
Some audiophiles believe that advanced stylus shapes can improve the overall sound quality of mono records.
Mono Cartridge Compatibility:
While advanced stylus shapes are often associated with stereo cartridges, some mono cartridges also utilize them. For example, the Hana SL Mono MK II features a Shibata stylus.
True Mono vs. Stereo Cartridges:
It's important to note that a "true mono" cartridge has only two pins, while a stereo cartridge has four. Using a stereo cartridge on a mono LP can cause damage to the record.
In summary:
If you're looking to upgrade the sound quality of your mono LPs, using a mono cartridge with an advanced stylus shape like line contact or Shibata can offer a potential improvement. However, it's important to ensure the cartridge is truly mono and that the stylus is properly aligned and adjusted for optimal performance. "
Beatles, One of the new friends I met here brought his collection of Beatles, both 3 Mono Versions and their Stereo versions, all in very good condition. We spent a few hours listening.
I found it was always easier or just natural to follow the words, content of the song/story of the songs in Mono, while the added interest/complexity of the Stereo Image sometimes emphasized the musical content more than the story of the song. That is a big deal when the songs are new, not so much after they become familiar, but in a focused comparison, that became apparent to both of us.
///////////////////////////////////////
John's Voice, Paul's Bass Playing on Sgt. Pepper's
I have Sgt Peppers in CD/LP/Reel to Reel (7", 7-1/2 ips). It's great to let people hear/choose among formats.
Any matching content: LP always beats the CD, and people become shocked at how good the tape sounds, to the point I glanced over to find tears coming out of my nephew's eyes (he's a musician). I would love to hear this on Rick's 15 IPS 2 track (another friend I met here). Led Zeppelin on his Otari has to be close to what they were hearing in the studio, making decisions, it is so far beyond any version I ever heard.
I shake my head at the subtleties of Paul's bass playing, John's voice that I am far more easily aware of, and I have to wonder if Mono would be a superior 1st listen even though it is outstanding Stereo.
@elliottbnewcombjrHow would using a stereo cartridge on a mono record damage the record? I can see that using a mono cartridge with no vertical compliance (eg Miyajima) on a stereo record could cause a problem, which is one further reason why I converted the Ruby 3: it retains it's vertical compliance but produces no signal from such movements.
As for the Beatles, I have my brother's original Parlophone mono releases, and have only ever played them with RIAA equalisation. I don't know if they were recorded that way, but they do sound fine.
btw, IF you use different cartridges on different arms, Arm Height Adjustment becomes very important. I am loving my restored JVC Victor UA-7082 and Acos Lustre GST-801, both of which I learned about here.
I had my Sumiko Talisman S on it, switched to my AT160ml a few days ago, and the arm would not lower onto the LP, the height difference of those 2 cartridges is measurable. I simply free the arm post lock, adjust the height with a turn, lock the height. (very small level on the arm)
It's important to note that a "true mono" cartridge has only two pins, while a stereo cartridge has four. Using a stereo cartridge on a mono LP can cause damage to the record.
That's not always true. My Lyra has four pins but it's a true mono. See my earlier posts. Here's what Lyra says about it:
Two totally separate monaural coils are used in the Atlas Mono, since most monaural cartridges are used with stereo amplifiers and stereo speakers. The separate coils also help avoid possible ground loops and hum problems that could otherwise be caused if a single coil is fed into a stereo two-channel amplification system, thereby tying the two channels together electrically.
In addition to parallel mono connection to a stereo system (two amplifiers and two speakers), it is also possible to leave one set of connections unattached for pure mono playback with a single amplifier and a single speaker. However, it is also possible to connect the two mono channels in series for additional output when used in a pure mono system
Using a stereo cartridge on a mono LP is not going to harm the LP. No way. You won’t get the best possible SQ, but there is no harm done. However, many stereo LPs marketed at the dawn of the stereo era do say on the back of the cover, usually in small print, not to use a mono cartridge, for the reason mentioned already, the lack of vertical compliance of most mono cartridges of that era might damage the groove walls that carry stereo information.
For the umpteenth time, using a mono switch when playing a mono LP with a stereo cartridge is not per se going to increase noise because of "sum"-ing. Phase cancellation takes care of that, and reduction, not summing, of common mode noise is the principle benefit of using the mono switch.
lewm, “early” LP’s in my collection with non-RIAA EQs are from 1948-mid 50’s. Sometimes the jacket notes will say “AES playback curve recommended” or similar. However, often there are no notes. There are a number of resources online to help identify the proper EQ. My understanding is that RIAA was universally adopted by about 1960.
I’ve read that the EQ used by RCA in the early 50s became the RIAA standard.
I believe most records from 1955 on use RIAA. My phono-stage has additional equalization settings for EMI, Columbia and FFRR (Decca) but I don't have any records (mono or otherwise) that were mastered with those curves. The 1950s OGs I have already use RIAA.
that ’damage’ comment was from AI, sorry I reposted it.
It is true that an advanced stylus shape with much larger contact area makes less wear (than spherical/elliptical shapes), thus over a lot of plays (unlikely with a large collection), increased wear will occur using either a conical or elliptical shape, due to both less contact area and typically higher tracking force.
Wear is normal, I would not use the word ’damage’ for wear, even though I prefer light tracking linear stylus shapes (Stereo or Mono) (1.0g; 1.25g) because of the reduced wear while hearing preferred performance.
My previously worn LP’s (mine from High School/recently bought) (played with prior spherical/elliptical stylus shapes) sound both better and quieter when thoroughly cleaned (vigorously scrubbed) and now played with linear contact profiles.
"from AI: (contains errors):
"True Mono vs. Stereo Cartridges:
It’s important to note that a "true mono" cartridge has only two pins, (wrong) while a stereo cartridge has four. Using a stereo cartridge on a mono LP can cause damage to the record. "
.............. Both my true Mono cartridges have 4 pins ..........................
MI (uses MM Phono Input) Grado ME+ Elliptical
MC AT33PTG/II Mono rebuilt with advanced stylus shape by VAS
My choice of SUT was lucky in every way, it has 3 front selectable inputs for my 3 arms, thus only 1 out to my preamp’s MM Phono In
and it has PASS for my MM and Grado MI, and 4 optional xfactors and resultant impedances for Low Output MC.
Multiple arms: Choice of Tonearms, Height Adjustment, SUT, solving high/low multiple inputs, I got help with it all here, and my choices turned out to be both good and lucky
I don’t use height adjustment for ’perfect’ SRA/VTA, that’s too fussy for me, I go for the standard ’arm level when stylus down in the groove’, and interchangeable cartridge’s playing heights do vary. I put these levels on the arm, back near the pivot, with a speck of tack, balance them, then add tracking weight .... You can leave it on or off depending on .....
Until my 2019 Overhaul, I avoided Low Output MC because they ALL had HUM back when I was younger (ears better then too). This SUT has ZERO HUM, and is not fussy where you put it. I have had it in several locations, now it is under the Plinth, facing right side, near the TT81 motor, facing the preamp and amp.
I have an SME-309 tonearm which has a removable headshell. I have both the Orthofon Cadenza Black & the Cadenza Mono on different shells, with the same hardware on my GAE. When spinning mono's, I just change the heads, check the azimuth & toggle the mono switch on my ModWright 9.0.
I looked at the specs of your intended Mono Phono EQ, it is versatile but ’locked in’ to Mono, seems unnecessarily so to me, certainly for my mixed use of 3 arms and ’mostly Stereo, frequently Mono’ which I think is fairly common. I also do not have space for Multiple TT’s, perhaps you do.
I would think it thru, research other options, and consider both Stereo/Mono/removable Headshells/Arm Height/methods of hookup and selection/input limitations because I think I’m done and then along comes Beryllium or an interesting Sapphire Tube Cantilever.
and if I was willing to spend the $, starting fresh I would prefer gain and impedance for LOMC were independent rather than my SUT whereby the impedance is ’resultant’ on the gain choice, i.e. 4 fixed relationships. There are cartridges that would not work well in any of my SUT’s 4 choices (most suts probably).
It has it’s own RIAA, Line Level Out, easy in some respects, however that omits the possibility of using my preamp’s MM Phono stage which I have chosen over every other RIAA phono I have heard here. Actually the mx110z has two identical selectable MM Phono RIAA inputs, and is more limited with only 1 aux line in.
It has two inputs, one must be MC, that’s limiting, AND it has no method of passing on a Stereo Signal, what will you be using for your Stereo Cartridges?
It seems to me a Stereo Pass option would be easy.
you are correct, about the AI error I posted: many true mono cartridges have 4 pins (both of mine do), and RIAA being used (for some, not all) earlier, from 1954
"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The RIAA equalization curve for playback of vinyl records. The recording curve performs the inverse function, reducing low frequencies and boosting high frequencies.
RIAA equalization is a specification for the recording and playback of phonograph records, established by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). The purposes of the equalization are to permit greater recording times (by decreasing the mean width of each groove), to improve sound quality, and to reduce the groove damage that would otherwise arise during playback.
The RIAA equalization curve was intended to operate as a de facto global industry standard for records since 1954, but when the change actually took place is difficult to determine.[1]
Before then, especially from 1940, each record company applied its own equalization; over 100 combinations of turnover and rolloff frequencies were in use, the main ones being Columbia-78, Decca-U.S., European (various), Victor-78 (various), Associated, BBC, NAB, Orthacoustic, World, Columbia LP, FFRR-78 and microgroove, and AES. The obvious consequence was that different reproduction results were obtained if the recording and playback filtering were not matched."
///////////////////////////////
My speakers are new enclosures with drivers from 1958, I pulled from the Fisher President II Console I inherited from my Uncle Johnny, here’s it’s Control Panel’s choices for LP and Tape
“A sort of marketplace “AM-FM stereo” system standard for binaural broadcasting appeared, with one channel on the AM (left) and the other on the FM (right). These were the days before NRSC audio frequency reduction, so the audio response on AM was notably better. Vendors offered better receivers to the connoisseur; and the reception environment was far friendlier than today, with less electrification, less band noise and fewer stations. AMs could sound pretty good; all FM signals were hi-fi mono.”
Tune the FM Mono Tuner to CBS and Tune the AM Mono Tuner to CBS. Select ‘Stereo Radio’ on the Control Panel
////////////////////////////////////////
I’ve re-coned the 15" woofer a few times over the years, the horns are original ’impregnated linen’, seemingly indestructible although I did burn out a coil once blasting my reel to reel copy of Iron Butterfly
here’s the back off showing the innards, 3 wheels for alternate toe-in/placements, front block to tilt them back to aim the tweeters at seated ear height.
A pair of L Pads (not shown) are mounted in the back panel to adjust both horn’s volumes in the space, using Test Tones and an SPL Meter on a tripod at seated ear height.
Notice, no internal bracing, yet nothing vibrates off the slanted tops
OP, I’m excited for you, I had a Thorens TD124, single arm, I can imagine the Garrard’s are a similar degree of AWESOME. Best Bass I ever heard, here or anywhere since. I’m happy with what I am getting, but you never forget the difference once you have had it.
It’s funny to see them on spikes, maybe in a concrete bunker, I need a final layer of rubber even with my current JVC Victor TT81 player (since wrapped in black tape)
the TD124 was very sensitive to vertical vibrations from my springy wood floors, and I need/prefer a dust cover.
////////////////////////////////////
These are a combo spike/soft, and adjustable, has anyone tried them______?
the Aurorasound EQ-100 is uniquely different, from the manual:
"When a stereo cartridge is used, any vertical signal on a record is cancelled by an internal circuit of EQ-100. Only the R+L horizontal signal are detected to assure a superior sound stage with less noise."
Cancelling any vertical input seems to me FAR better than producing the noise and then summing the noise in both channels, that is my biggest objection and what I referred to as MUD on top of the Mono Content (Dual Mud?).
It may be the best way to use a single arm, single stereo cartridge to play a Mono LP. Thus my objection that it does not have provision for proper Stereo, ... and
it always ends up Line Level Out (after doing what? complicated for infrequent use, the switches were left in what position?)
"For the umpteenth time, using a mono switch when playing a mono LP with a stereo cartridge is not per se going to increase noise because of "sum"-ing. Phase cancellation takes care of that, and reduction, not summing, of common mode noise is the principle benefit of using the mono switch."
I keep forgetting this, because not always but MOST OFTEN, using my True Mono cartridge sounds FAR better, MUCH LESS NOISE than using my Mono Switch.
is UNLISTENABLE with a Stereo Cartridge, a history lesson at best, (where’s Louis?). When played with my Grado ME+ Mono, $185. elliptical, it is both enjoyable (there’s Louis) and is the easiest demo I can play for others.
A muddy mess with terrific sounding AT33PTG/II Stereo’s advanced stylus via mx110z’s Mono Switch. Play with the Grado Mono Cartridge: Individual instruments and voices become distinct (not imaging, but distinction) to the extent you can imagine the individual players. Definitely DOES NOT OCCUR using the Mono Switch.
Where is phase cancellation mentioned?
If Phase Cancellation is ASSUMED to occur, it doesn’t occur perfectly, not in my experience.
///////////////////////////////////////////
You do not need to spend a lot of money for True Mono Cartridge, $185. is the current price of the Grado ME+, elliptical stylus, if you want to go beyond that, ok, but not needed to simply enjoy your current or future Mono LP's,
especially if you listen to Jazz, so many greats made their reputation before Stereo. If it's in good shape and mono, you will have no hesitation, recording techniques were already very good, buy, plan on it sounding INVOLVING..
for those here who want to know the difference, i.e. "that’s good enough for my small need".
You are a good one to tell us what happens in your system with your particular Mono LPs.
a. play the stereo cartridge with the preamp in Mono position
b. play the mono cartridge, perhaps name a few LPs it makes an ’easily noticeable’ improvement
b1. leave switch in Stereo position (no need to use mono position with a true mono cartridge) (especially interesting for others who don’t have a stereo/mono switch, i.e. you don’t need both
b2. move to Mono position, in your case, is it just habit, or do you hear a benefit?.
Before I had a mono cartridge, I definitely heard improvement engaging the mono switch on my preamp when playing mono records with my stereo cartridge. It mostly came in the form of noise reduction, but it didn't benefit in other ways like the true mono cartridge does. I never engage the mono switch when playing the mono cartridge since that's pointless to do. Even Boulder in their manual says the mono switch is for playing mono records with stereo cartridges.
the Aurorasound EQ-100 is uniquely different, from the manual:
"When a stereo cartridge is used, any vertical signal on a record is cancelled by an internal circuit of EQ-100. Only the R+L horizontal signal are detected to assure a superior sound stage with less noise."
Cancelling any vertical input seems to me FAR better than producing the noise and then summing the noise in both channels, that is my biggest objection and what I referred to as MUD on top of the Mono Content (Dual Mud?)."
First, the long sentence about how the Aurora works can be applied to any stereo preamplifier when the mono switch is activated. That is what they all do, and that is why HF noise from the LP surface irregularities is reduced, not enhanced, compared to playing a mono LP in stereo mode with a stereo cartridge. Then in your second paragraph you revert back to this idea of "summing". Just forget it. It's a semantic twister. None of this is to say that I disagree with your contention that using a mono cartridge is superior to using a stereo cartridge plus mono switch. I am in no position to disagree, because I don't use a mono cartridge at all. Although I do own a Shelter mono cartridge that has been sitting in a box for about 5 years.
For you guys who do use a mono cartridge to feed a stereo phono stage, consider that the two channels of your phono are unlikely to be absolutely identical in all measurable aspects of their performance. Thus the output from one channel may differ very slightly from that of the other channel, thus introducing, say, phase differences or slight differences in distortion or frequency response. Thus there could be an audible difference possibly between activating the mono switch and not activating it. And results might differ from one system to another, particularly because humans are reporting on what they hear. Nevertheless, I urge those of you with mono cartridges to try it both ways, mono switch on vs mono switch off, and report back.
note that Most (not all) Mono Cartridges' compliance material is designed to RESTRICT vertical movement.
from Audio Technica,
"Generally speaking, it is possible to play a mono LP using a stereo phono cartridge, but if it is a true mono record, better performance can be obtained by using a true mono cartridge. So, what defines a true mono record? Vinyl records can be either mono or stereo and each differs greatly in the way that it is recorded and cut. Cutting refers to the mechanical process of imprinting the recorded signal into the record surface. A heated cutting stylus literally cuts the signal into the soft surface of a lacquer-coated blank disc from which vinyl copies will ultimately be made. True mono records are cut laterally: The cutting stylus moves from side to side, cutting the same signal in both record groove walls. We refer to this as horizontal modulation. The playback stylus, therefore, requires compliance (movement) in the horizontal direction only. By contrast, stereo records are cut in both lateral and vertical directions. The cutting stylus moves not only from side to side but up and down as well, therefore the stereo playback stylus requires compliance in both directions.
A stereo cartridge will never quite faithfully reproduce the true mono signal accurately because it is not restricted to horizontal compliance only. Some phase and tracking errors will exist.Additionally, there will be some amount of cross talk between the cartridge’s independent left and right channels. A true mono cartridge eliminates these problems by producing only one signal and distributing the signal to both channels equally; the signal appearing in the left and right channels will be identical. This arrangement produces a sound that is more focused (centred) and has more weight (punch). An additional benefit of the design is that of surface noise reduction. When the same exact signal is reproduced at the same time by two speakers, the signal-to-noise ratio is improved.
Note: A mono cartridge should not be used to play back a stereo LP record unless it is specifically stated that the cartridge has appropriate compliance in the vertical direction. Our AT33MONO moving coil cartridge is one such cartridge.
/////////////////////////////////////
random finds re: Mono Switch might improve even when using a true mono cartridge
Below from Ortofon's mono cartridge page ...
Advantages of using a mono cartridge to play mono records
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.
because a stereo cartridge has no choice but respond in both planes, anything internally that causes phase shifts or differences in inductance and capacitance will affect the output when summed.
..........................
On a mono Lp the only things in the vertical plane are noise and distortion.
Note that you really only need a mono switch for LPs made before 1968 or so. Mono records made after that are cut with a stereo lathe.
That’s correct but not 100% correct. When mono records are cut with a stereo lathe, the cutting head is reconfigured for cutting mono. It’s not quite the same thing as cutting stereo. Kevin Gray has explained that in one of his interviews or white papers (I can’t remember which).
Use a mono switch for mono records cut since the mid-60s too. It can improve the sound and reduce noise.
Thank you all for your feedback. Lot of good advice / information here for anyone looking to dip their toes into mono playback. For clarity, I do not intend to play mono vinyl with a stereo cart or swap headshell’s. I want my mono playback setup as ‘set it and forget it’.
And I do not own any pre RIAA mono Vinyl yet but still remain curious to hear back from anyone have a direct experience with EQ-100. I think it’s an interesting product with really cool retro design.
RE: Woodsong plinth…not sure what kind of feet I’ll get with my plinth. Chris assured me his best work to date so I am really looking forward to experiencing the final product.
I’m so lucky to live near and have Steve and Ray Leung of VAS as friends as well as problem solvers. They are quite busy.
They rewired the tonearm I bought on eBay (came with no right channel), and put a new boron cantilever/microridge stylus on the AT33PTG/II MC Mono body I bought from Yahoo Auctions with a broken cantilever for this purpose. This advanced combo does not exist unless you have it built.
I drove down before lunch, picked them up, got home, re-installed and re-calibrated all 3 active arms: Stereo MC/Stereo MM/Mono MC.
OMG that MC Mono cartridge sounds awesome, far better than I expected, far better than my Grado ME+ Elliptical which does a darn good job with Mono LPs for only $185.. I am glad I spent what totalled around $600.
I played this LP for the 1st time (one of the 4,000 lps my friend left me, mostly jazz, many Mono, the majority played once, a few times at most).
I highly recommend it, and exactly what I mean about players making their mark with excellently recorded Mono techniques. Read the notes, awesome players all.
/////////////////////////////////////
Ray checked and cleaned 5 of my cartridges with their 100 power microscope, I looked at the last one, it’s amazing to view them so magnified. I want one!!!!
He identified each of the various stylus shapes (SAS; Shibata; Van den Hull; MicroLinear; Conical) within seconds without hesitation.
Then he cleaned them, all the way down into the suspension pocket, two of them were tricky to clean, you and I would have shaking hands, he has no hesitation. I think I keep them clean, and yet ...... one had some metal specks, I bet I had it out on my workbench in my shop where my magnifying shop light is, and the cartridge’s magnets pulled some metal dust out of the carpet tiles I have on the surface. I’ll try to remember to be more careful in the future.
He confirmed they all are in good shape and most happily have even wear, i.e. former owners and I are getting the anti-skate correct, and the sellers told the truth, it’s nice to have your ears confirmed with facts. After all, I/we are capable of hearing what we want to or expect to hear.
He said he can try in the future to put a new stylus in the beryllium cantilevers, but no guarantee, they break very easily.
I specifically asked, and Ray confirmed what I have read elsewhere, MOST cartridges they rebuild, the stylus have uneven wear, which confirms MOST people are not getting their anti-skate correct. (that’s us folks)
I no longer trust the arm’s dials, I use a blank side of an LP, and adjust to counteract active skate, not what the dial says, what physically happens while the lp is spinning and I adjust. And I re-check both tracking force and anti-skate frequently.
btw, on an off chance (they have everything) I took them one of the beveled washers I used to repair my JVC Victor UA-7082 Tonearm’s Counterweight Sag.
Sure enough, they have a messed up UA-7082, so I was able to let them know my experiences and sent them photos and measurements. Their brass piece is a disaster, bent, stripped threads, but they are very resourseful.
My repair method allows holding the inner part with a tool when tightening the counterweight, then assemble into the post last, that is a critical difference when the internal part is a mess.
I am so glad I bought and repaired it, it is a wonderful tonearm when working.
I’ll be listening again soon, all 3 headshels allow azimuth adjustment
Notice the yellow levels on two of the arms (adjust arm height so level when playing, cantilever suspension engaged), I’m leaving them on for now, near the pivot, an extra 2+ grams. I noticed, Steve uses VPI with several uni-pivot arms ready, each have a smaller level on the headshell, I’m gonna look into that.
for those here who want to know the difference, i.e. "that’s good enough for my small need".
You are a good one to tell us what happens in your system with your particular Mono LPs.
a. play the stereo cartridge with the preamp in Mono position
b. play the mono cartridge, perhaps name a few LPs it makes an ’easily noticeable’ improvement
b1. leave switch in Stereo position (no need to use mono position with a true mono cartridge) (especially interesting for others who don’t have a stereo/mono switch, i.e. you don’t need both
b2. move to Mono position, in your case, is it just habit, or do you hear a benefit?.
Thank You!
I’ll try this weekend & take notes. Recovering from spine surgery 7 weeks ago. I haven’t even turned my 2 channel system on since the beginning of March. To be continued. Dan
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
