How are you playing your precious MONO Vinyl?

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.

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).
 

@lewm 

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.

@lewm 

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.

See here what Lyra (i.e. @jcarr) has to say about it: https://lyraanalog.com/atlas.php (you’ll need to select the Mono link on that page)

@elliottbnewcombjr 

 

• 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. 

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

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.

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.

@elliottbnewcombjr 

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.

@faustuss  mono records have been cut with stereo heads since the mid-60s, but they are reconfigured to cut a mono signal, so it's not the same thing. Using a true mono cartridge makes a big difference even with the reissues. They are cut true mono, with the signal in the horizontal grove and nothing but noise/distortion in the vertical part. A true mono cartridge ignores that vertical part to improve signal/noise ratio.

It works fine to use a stereo cartridge with the mono switch engaged, but it still isn't the same as using a mono cartridge, even for modern reissues.

@faustuss 

I have stereo and mono versions of the same cartridge. Each is mounted on identical tonearms, both on the same turntable, both running through the same phono-stage. I mentioned this above, but maybe you haven't read through the entire thread. 

Even with modern mono records – all cut with mono-configured stereo heads since the mid-60s – there is a big improvement playing those mono records with a mono cartridge. Playing them with a stereo cartridge and engaging a mono switch is just not the same thing. It doesn't sound the same. I'm sure it sounds good enough that way to most people with a small investment in mono records, but if one has a sizable collection of monos, it can be worth using a true mono cartridge.

This has all been stated already and confirmed by those with experience using mono cartridges. You are welcome to disbelieve it all if you want, but what you claim is not rooted in fact. It's just your opinion, but is it an informed opinion? I am interested to know what mono cartridge you used to play mono records, that leads you to conclude it makes no difference vs using a stereo cartridge and a mono switch.

I really don’t know why I would ever need a separate mono phono-stage when I already have a great stereo phono-stage. Even if I really want to run a one channel system I can just connect one channel of my phono-stage (which happens to be a dual mono layout internally, at least in part, AFAIK). I guess if one wants to have a separate complete mono system for mono records then a mono one-channel phono-stage makes sense. Even then my phono-stage has two sets of outputs so I could even send a stereo output to a stereo system and a mono output to a mono system.

@lewm 

 

High mileage cars tend to lose a little compression and therefore lose the requirement for high octane fuel. I don’t know whether this applies to Elliot’s report or not. 

I drove and tracked BMWs for some years, including my favorite E46 M3 SMG. The BMW engines that require high-octane do that for a reason. Among other things they have a special valve system that requires it. Running regular octane forces the ECU to adjust timing and that's not optimal for the valves. It also doesn't have the engine cleaning that high octane has. We tried to tell my wife's friend who bought a BMW and scoffed at running high octane. Years later she faced a $2000 valve adjustment and maintenance long before anything like they would have even been necessary.

AI claims that the correct stylus for these pressings is 0.7.

Oh, brother. AI is a real FU mess. It gets many things wrong. It's worth using for research; however, "don't trust and verify first" is key to claiming as fact anything it has to say about anything, 

The quoted statement may be wrong or right, but when it's "AI claims" I consider that suspect until verified.