@dwette
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.
|
@dogberry
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….
|
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.
@elliottbnewcombjr
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.
|
|
|
@elliottbnewcombjr
May your trifecta of stylus track true and oodles of nifty accessories stretch the soundstage to the heavens!
|
@elliottbnewcombjr
Thank you for your positive feedback with Mono playback. That’s my plan as well, buying a mono cart. I am contemplating between Miyajima Zero vs Hana SL Mono MK II or Ortofon. The choice of cart would be contingent upon choice of tonearm. So far, I have narrow down my options to SME 3012R, ViV Rigid Float snd Groovemaster IV.
|
@elliottbnewcombjr
Thanks for taking the time to research and your recommendations. I am less likely to consider a used cart at this juncture of my analog journey. I don’t want to 2nd guess the condition or setup of my analog chain.
|
To @dwette @elliottbnewcombjr point, if you are going through the trouble of maintaining analog setup, buying mono vinyl, then why settle for stereo cart with mono switch. That’s like investing in a classic car, detailing it every weekend, then filling it with 87-octane and calling it “close enough….LOL!
I am committed to the full analog ritual—cleaning vinyl, precision tonearms, chasing dead-quiet backgrounds. I am not going to cheat myself out of the magic of true mono playback.
What I gather after reading here and online, a mono cartridge isn’t just about collapsing channels; its about, reduced noise (no vertical modulation pickup) and matching proper stylus profile for mono grooves.
Once installed, I am hoping for a fuller, more centered imaging that feels solid and alive, not smeared in any possible context.
And what about honoring the original intent of the recording?
Thank you all for your valuable input!
https://dgmono.com/mono-cartridge-database/
|
“Oh, don’t tell me about that $20 repress you bought that was mastered from a dubiously disclosed source mastered and pressed who knows where! ”
@faustuss
This reminds me of someone like disheveled, bitter audiophile in a dusty record store, side-eyeing a younger collector holding a shrink-wrapped LP :-)
As far believing, I get that we see this differently; we all have our own perspectives.
Peace!
|
”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? ”
@goofyfoot
My original post is about a true mono playback. Two arms in the works, one for true mono cart and 2nd one for a stereo cart with dedicated phono’s.
A true Mono cartridge has only one coil (or two coils wired in parallel) and outputs the same signal from both channels. You can use any normal stereo phono stage and you’ll just get identical signals in both left and right channels.
As far as ‘mono switch” on a preamp or phono stage, I don’t have any direct experience. Can it be further use to collapse any remaining noise artifacts, or completely redundant with a truly mono cartridge, we will see!
The EQ-100 is designed with a monaural configuration with a L/R output for easier connection to a stereo system. The output signal from EQ-100 remains true mono or monaural. I am hoping to compare EQ100 in my system to see if mono vinyl sounds better with a purpose built phono,
➡️ True mono cart + EQ 100
➡️ True mono cart + AD60 (phono board in my Integrated).
|
“I’d say that in this case, everything hinges on the design and sound quality”
@goofyfoot
Exactly, the value of a two channel mono phono preamp comes down to design execution, sonic character, how it complements my system’s voicing and not some theoretical advantage from its dual-mono nature alone.
My current phono has ONE input. If I don’t hear any audible advantage with EQ-100, I may upgrade to a high quality stereo phono preamp with TWO inputs and that would be the end of my phono quest for a foreseeable future.
|
“I don’t understand exactly what you are after”
@lewm
Let me try to clarify.
You described how your UK EMI mono pressings of Ella & Louis sound “off” with RIAA EQ, while the US originals sound wonderful. I was just curious: have you ever tried listening to those UK EMI pressings using a different EQ curve, like CCIR or EMI, if you have access to a phono stage with that option (like the EQ-100)?
Sometimes switching to a different EQ curve—by ear—can make those “off” pressings come alive. I’m not suggesting it’s about being historically precise, but rather asking…. have you experimented to see if any other curve actually sounds better to you on that specific recording?
I recognize without definitive info on the original mastering EQ, dialing in playback EQ is largely educated guesswork. And while something like the EQ-100 offers flexibility with its 10 curves, it’s ultimately your ears not the curve selector that decide what sounds “right.”
That’s all I was getting at—purely from a listening and enjoyment perspective.
As I said before, EQ-100 is an interesting product and it may lead to new discoveries, such as musical expressions and the performer's intentions that have previously been buried or hidden.
|
⬆️ It makes sense not to chase a specialized phono stage for just one anomaly, especially when the rest of your collection sounds great through RIAA.
Thanks for your participation!
|
“I have all of the above: true mono cartridges (Myajima and AT), bridged stereo to mono (Ortofon 2M Mono SE - personal fav), and a stereo switch (KAB). all work.
@billstevenson
Thank you for weighing in on mono vs stereo cartridges based on your experience. I have been reading up on design attributes of some of the mono carts and what sets them apart.
Ortofon’s mono cartridge line (like the 2M Mono SE, Quintet Mono, and even Cadenza Mono) all use stereo generator bodies internally wired for mono, exactly as you say. To me, that’s a smart scalable manufacturing strategy, perhaps a conscious decision especially given how niche the mono market is…..
I have no reason to doubt your hands on experience, of course they all work! However, that’s not the point of this discussion…I was trying to access the purist approach to play mono vinyl.
Your Miyajima with its true mono generator and lateral-only compliance is arguably the “purist” approach—perfect for pre-1960 deep groove pressings. The 2M Mono SE is one of the best examples of a stereo-bodied mono cart done right and possibly the ideal companion for modern mono vinyl re-issues.
I plan to do exactly what you’ve done, i.e. trusting your ears and the only way to cut through the theory or assumptions. Hopefully my approach of comparing different mono carts and phono’s lead me to a setup with minimal to no compromises.
|
“what a mine field the whole mono record business can be”
@billstevenson
You’re absolutely right! Fortunately, I don’t own any pre-60’s mono vinyl. I am aware of the grooves width on mono reissues, so I am considering to start with Miyajima Zero Mono cart with 0.7 mil pure conical diamond stylus spec.
And yes, use your ears but only after you’ve used your eyes, loupe, and Discogs.
|
“Are you concerned with aligning/calibrating an advanced stylus shape”
@elliottbnewcombjr
No, I have all the necessary tools and dealer support to ensure proper alignment and accuracy. I am still contemplating my options as far mono cartridges. I am still a month or two away from mono setup (all contingent upon completion of my Woodsong plinth and delivery to my door).
|
“It’s not about the money, it’s about feeling like a sucker. ”
@elliottbnewcombjr
It’s all about the perspective under given conditions. You can buy a 10 year old used BMW and fill it up with cheapest gas and not feel like a sucker.
Would you fill a brand new BMW as a first owner with cheapest gas….may be you will, maybe you won’t. That would be your prerogative. You and I both know, what is a recommended fuel rating for a BMW.
My comment about 87 Octane stems from ownership of Alpina B7 and M3 (purchased new)….would they run on 87 Octane, without a doubt. But a 91 or higher Octane ensures optimal performance and longevity of the engine.
|
|
@billstevenson
Thank you for sharing your perspective on two carts and the genre. Like you, I listened to Jazz primarily as well.
|
“I am still perplexed why these two mono groove sizes are not mentioned more often whenever the topic comes up.”
@goofyfoot
You may have missed my earlier post where I mentioned that my mono collection is after 1960’s era. Mono records pressed after the early 1960’s especially from around 1967 onward typically came with stereo-compatible microgrooves, the same groove dimensions as stereo LP’s.
For our information purposes, let me lay it out for you and others.
Post-1960s Mono Groove Size:
- Groove width: ~0.7 mil (microns radius of curvature at the groove bottom)
- Intended stylus size: 0.7 mil conical (standard for stereo styli)
Pre-1960s Mono Groove Size (True Mono Era):
- Groove width: ~1.0 mil
- Intended stylus size: 1.0 mil conical or larger
- These wider grooves were cut for mono cartridges and not meant for stereo styli.
Now let’s look at Implications for Mono playback,
- Post-1960s mono LPs can safely be played with a stereo stylus (0.7 mil), and many were cut with stereo cutters, just in mono.
- Pre-1960s mono LPs benefit from a 1.0 mil stylus, which fits the groove more accurately and avoids:
- Mistracking
- Groove damage
- Excessive noise from riding the groove bottom
|
Record Era
|
Recommended Stylus
|
Notes
|
|
Pre-1960 mono
|
1.0 mil conical
|
True mono groove
|
|
~1960 - 1967
|
0.7 mil conical
|
Transitional period - check label & country
|
|
Post-1967 mono
|
0.7 mil conical
|
Stereo-compatible mono pressings
|
|
@goofyfoot
You’re absolutely justified in treating your earlier mono LPs differently from your later ones—and your eyes and ears are picking up what most overlook.
|
@vinylrestingplace
Thank you for your comprehensive summary of what’s required for high-quality mono and 78 RPM playback. You’ve outlined several key nuances that some of us may overlook or those newer to mono playback.
Congrats on building a thoughtful and deliberate mono system, the kind that lets you hear records from 1948 to today as they were meant to be heard.
|
