How are you playing your precious MONO Vinyl?

@lewm We don’t know.

There are some mono cartridges that will destroy a stereo record. Which ones I don’t know. Which mono cartridges are not strapped but true mono cartridges; the mono cartridges that house two separate mono coils or a single mono coil cartridge. The stylus is a factor where it pertains to the groove width. Those new remastered mono repressings are cut with the same groove as stereo records. But what I find perplexing about the original post is the idea of using a mono cartridge and a mono phono stage. So would you use two different mono phono stages ( left & right) with a stereo cartridge? That could possibly prove advantages, just like using two separate mono blocks as your power amps. But as was mentioned previously, with a mono cartridge, the signal is equally mono in both channels before it reaches the phono amp. So I would just focus on getting the best phono amp possible. The ASR Basis is my recommendation. 

@lalitk So then the question is whether or not you gain anything by using this two channel mono phono preamp. I’d say that in this case, everything hinges on the design and sound quality. But from what I’ve read here, more than likely no, there’s no difference between using a mono or stereo phono stage if the cartridge is a mono cartridge. So you have three tonearms but do you have three inputs on your phono amp? The ASR Basis I mentioned has two inputs. If you’re having to switch out your phono cable and you don’t care about the inconvenience, then one phono amp is likely all you’ll need. But as I mentioned before, I’d focus more on getting a great sounding phono preamp and not at all about whether the phono stage is mono or stereo. Unless this EQ 100 just flat out sounds amazing.

@lewm Sorry to verge off topic a bit but weren’t the grooves in the mono micro groove pressings wider than the stereo grooves but more narrow than the original mono grooves?

I meant to mention that there is a possibility that a mono cartridge will create a ground loop with a stereo phono stage. If the phono stage has a mono switch, than this will resolve any hum issues.

@billstevenson As I mentioned earlier to what Lewm had posted regarding stylus size and groove width. There are actually two mono groove widths prior to the 1960’s. There is the widest mono groove which is what you’ll find with the first vinyl pressings and then later, a Microgroove width. The Microgroove was a narrowing of the original mono groove in order to fit more music per side. I do understand that Lewm is not an expert however, I am still perplexed why these two mono groove sizes are not mentioned more often whenever the topic comes up.

@lewm Yes, I’ve read it a few times. I wish Miyajima and EMT would offer more of a selection when it comes to styli because I have a fairly sizable collection of mono from all decades with exception to shellac. And shellac is another topic altogether.

@elliottbnewcombjr The purpose behind my mentioning it, is that either stylus size might be perfectly fine for those Microgroove pressings. It’s rather confusing because some websites claim that the Microgroove stylus is a V shaped groove and others say that the Microgroove and the original U shaped grooves are the same. However, I do know that it can’t be both. From looking at the Hana SL MK II Mono, their stylus seems like an alternative to what we usually find; “Stylus: 0.27 x 1.57 mm nude diamond Shibata, tapered aluminum cantilever.”

https://upscaleaudio.com/products/hana-sl-mk-ii-mono-moving-coil-cartridge?pr_prod_strat=e5_desc&pr_rec_id=033425870&pr_rec_pid=9179261698232&pr_ref_pid=816314810428&pr_seq=uniform

@lalitk It says online that the first Microgroove pressing was made by Columbia in 1948. I'm certain that Blue Note released many Microgroove pressings in the 1950's. I have mono records from that era that do not say Microgroove on them and just by comparing them visually, I can see that the grooves are different between the two. The early mono pressings that aren't Microgroove, look like the grooves on the shellac 33&1/3. That period between shellac 78's and vinyl. So again, are Microgroove records the same as stereo, are they the same as early mono that aren't Microgroove (they don't look like it) or do they have a groove all of its own? I realize that Miyajima and other cartridge makers aren't recognizing a difference between original mono and Microgroove mono but they do exist.

@lalitk My relative pitch is all right I suppose. I can usually tell if a piano is off. I get a lot of pitch fluctuation because of the original Thorens tonearm I’m using. The AT 33 mono isn’t the greatest tracker either. Next for me is an Audiomods Classic 7 tonearm and then a cartridge upgrade. I’ve been modifying this Thorens TD 160 MK 1 for a while and it’s a dedicated mono turntable. But I was thinking, if I had a turntable with three tonearms, I’d put on three different mono cartridges, considering I had the budget for it. Anyway, I wish there was more in-depth online discussion about the progression of mono, including cylinders and shellac. 

@lewm You’re correct but the statement behind the trade name is that it fits more music per side than the ordinary record.

@mambacfa Interesting, do you have Joseph Long’s contact? 

Sorry but I just had to bring this thread back given the new information I found about mono cartridge stylus size. So Miyajima claims that their 0.7 stylus is optimal for modern mono re-pressings and that their 1.0 stylus is for those earlier mono pressings that began in 1950. Columbia introduced the Microgroove pressing in 1948. The Microgroove pressing offers 300-400 grooves per inch and AI claims that the correct stylus for these pressings is 0.7. I will say that I don't believe Miyajima to be entirely wrong, as there were labels that still used wider grooves however, I believe nearly all of the major labels eventually adopted the Microgroove band width thus making it the norm by the early to mid 1950's.