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.
How are you playing your precious MONO Vinyl?
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.
Thank you for your time!
129 responses Add your response
lalitk OPI used the shorter SME 3009 on my Thorens TD124 for many years, loved the knife edge design. So obvious what everything does. Note: those arms have a concealed rubber tube that isolates the rear counterweight tube section, if buying used, make sure it has been renewed. I was just admiring the two longer 3012’s Steve has among the forest of TT’s you pass by. It was that combo, with Shure’s V15VxMR beryllium/microridge that I mentioned earlier as the best bass I ever had and will never forget. Tracked at 1.0g It’s not tool free or quick to change the height, but it seems like you will leave things alone after setup, unlike me who changes headshell/cartridge combos frequently (including friend’s cartridges we listen to here). I never saw or heard a Groovemaster, it sure has nice features, what do the reviews say about comparison to SME, others a. very thin wire, thus no forces back onto the arm interfering with anti-skate which is happening on my re-wired 12.5" New Art Vinyl Blackbird Arm (didn’t happen with it’s original litz wire). That is why I changed to the 11-1/8" long JVC Victor UA-7082, with internal 5 pin din. (current Blackbird uses 5 pin din). b. magnetic anti-skate, awesome (my Acos Lustre GST-801 has that) c. optional 9, 10, 12" lengths c. Rotary Lift, tool free height adjustment. Looks as easy as my Acos Lustre GST-801 which is so smooth I change height while playing. Note: both my friend’s Micro-Seiki 505 and my JVC Victor have similar tool free rotary height adjustment, but neither (both bought used) is smooth enough to adjust while playing. It doesn’t matter, I am not refining VTA, I am just getting the cartridge’s height differences dealt with to achieve horizontal headshell when playing. Ability to adjust while playing is amazing. d. removable headshell, I would order a spare OEM headshell. or, when you take a chance on one of these vintage beryllium/microridge, you get a vintage AT headshell with azimuth adjustment. Tracks at 1.25 g. Notice, not a slot adjustment, has two sets of concealed threaded holes for two optional locations, you need screws the correct length for any different cartridge. I have a collection of mounting hardware from over 40 years, and Vail Hardware one town away with nearly anything I need. I have made custom length screws in the past: I put two pairs of nuts on, cut, then when you take the old nuts off, they straighten the cut end of the threads for you. The Rigid Float, may be the best thing ever made, it’s just too ugly for me.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
here's the AT160ml Cartridge without a headshell, from Samurai, I took a chance on two used with headshells, VAS checked them, they both were good! One body turned out to be a model 150 with 160ml beryllium/microridge stylus, seller gave me 1/3 refund I asked for when I informed him. The cartridge model is only marked on it's top, so seller did not know until I removed it from the headshell to move it to the other screw position. I highly recommend Samurai and the cartridge.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lalitk OP 1st: is it a True Mono Cartridge? Always ask that. No signal generated by vertical motion is what you want. next: what stylus profile shape? then the cantilever material? because good mono can be VERY Dynamic tracking force? (a lot has to be right to track lightly and get excellent measurements). the combination of light tracking with large contact area of advanced stylus shapes is my preference, which has both longer stylus life and less wear to the grooves. Stereo or Mono last: tech talk/achieved results/specifications, my copper is better than your copper cartridges, SUT, cameras, at first I want to run from the technical crap, but after a while, it’s not that complicated, I’m a college graduate for god’s sake (art school) ..... Of your choices, two are conical, no way would I consider them, the Grado ME+ is elliptical, Ortofon Quintet Mono is Elliptical, both on aluminum, Ortofon a lot more $ I would definitely go for an advanced stylus profile for your system Hana is Shibata on tapered aluminum https://www.hanacartridges.com/products/hana-sl-mono-mk-ii Ortofon 2M Mono SE VERSION is Shibata (the basic Ortofon 2M Mono is conical) https://ortofon.com/products/stylus-2m-mono-se My AT33 Mono, I like MC technology and the tech, but not like the aluminum cantilever or conical tip, which is why I searched for a broken one, and had VAS rebuild with boron/microridge (nowhere available to purchase). Yahoo Auctions $40. including Aledo fees/bank fees/shipping in Japan. Air shipping to usa $30 (should have chosen surface ship). VAS $400. total $470. plus 2 round trips 35 min each way, gas and tolls, I call it $600. total. It sounds awesome! One of my used AT160ml was also Yahoo Auction, win auction cost $160., aledo fees/bank fee/ship in Japan to Aleado. ship to usa: $63, total $223. ////////////////////////////// I’m a bargain hunter and willing to take risk, you win/you lose: I may lose -$250. on the tonearm I bought from Germany that had to be rewired, time will tell, seller is stalling. Or, it’s total price will be $404. incl customs and shipping to usa + $250 VAS rewire = $654. I’m not crying or giving up yet. My search: the only arm that fits in that location with a removable headshell
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
@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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anyone like the idea of MC at33 mono rebuilt with new boron cantilever/new microridge stylus? here's one on Yahoo Auctions, 20 hours left, with OEM used conical on aluminum. (I bought mine with a broken cantilever) https://yahoo.aleado.com/lot?auctionID=v1184076322
Allow about +$65. extra for Yahoo Auction costs have VAS put a new microridge on boron cantilever for +$400. A totally unique and unavailable combo that sounds awesome! //////////////////////////// If you don't know how Yahoo Auctions work: Aleado is a bidding agent, you open an account with them and pre-deposit enough money ahead of time for them to bid on your behalf. Like eBay, you put in your maximum, it only bids enough to win, up to your maximum. Seller ships to Aleado who verifies that it is what the seller says it is. Aleado gives you several shipping options to choose from, with time estimates. You confirm which shipping method/cost, they ship, it does not take that long, even surface these days. Aleado takes a fee Bank transfer fee In-Japan Shipping to Aleado by seller Aleado ships to you. I have won several auctions, the one mistake I made was fearing long shipping time during covid and choosing $30. airmail, surface would have gotten here eventually. A complete bargain may only be achieved with patience. Oh yeah, the small print: they might end early, or they might extend the auction by a day or two, just put your max in and let it happen. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faustuss"The only mono’s I have are reissues which are all lacquered with modern stereo heads these days. I simply use my stereo micro line cartridge and throw the mono switch on my phono preamp and I’m golden. No muss no fuss!" Exactly what I did for years, I used to feel sorry for people who didn’t have a MONO switch. Until, I read here what dwette and I and others who know are saying: A True Mono Cartridge is BETTER. I clarify that by saying, a little, some, a lot, a whole heck of a lot better (depends on each LP content, engineering, condition). Many things Phono, I emphasize the difference between ’prefer’ and ’better’. I prefer my mx110z's MM Phono RIAA EQ to any other I have heard in my system, I would not claim it is better, your ears/your system .... In this case, notice I said BETTER! (In anyone's system) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Those of you who play mono records cut back in the hey day when that was the only format but today reissue producers don’t want to try and sell records that customers have to jump through hoops to play them back properly. Mono reissues are at a marketing disadvantage already just because they’re mono. The only reconfiguring they might do is and probably electronically, is to limit the cutting head’s movements lateral only to reduce noise and keep in check out of phase anomalies if they were to occur, its the same stylus profile, geometry etc. The advantage to using your preamps mono switch is to cancel the surface noise picked by your stereo cartridges vertical motion (the opposite stereo channel) and most reissue vinyl is so meticulously pressed these days that it’s free of surface noise most of the time anyway and can be played just fine with systems that lack the ability to combine the channels. 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! Believe what you want though if it makes you feel better. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sorted the list OP gave us 1st by tracking force, lightest on top 2nd by stylus type, line contact at the top (all line contact are subtle variants of original shibata, avoiding patent disputes) (note no SAS with further increased contact area seems to exist) https://dgmono.com/mono-cartridge-database/ The new Ortofon 2M Mono SE VERSION wins both categories, and happens to be the most affordable at $600! That's a solid recommendation if I ever saw one. ANYONE OWN/HEARD IT? My AT33 is boron, better than aluminum, however, I would choose the lighter 1.5g tracking NEW OEM Ortofon 2M Mono SE over my created 2.0g tracking cartridge. I did this a few years ago, the new SE didn't exist.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
“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! ” 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! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pertinent topic for me. I use2 TT: a Linn LP12 for stereo, and Technics SP15 for mono. I have 2 dedicated mono cartridges, and I will send a Fairchild 225a to a rebuilder for restoration. My current mono cartridges are a Ortofon CG25 DI MKIII- this is a current version of Ortofon's original mono MC cartridge introduced in the late 40's, The other cartridge is a VAS modified Denon 103- one set of coils is removed, and the other set is reoriented for horizontal content. Both cartridges sound a lot different than an adapted stereo cartridge, or pressing the mono button. The Denon sounds better to my ears and in my system. It provides an extremely solid mono image with all of the improvements noted for mono cartridges, along with the extended frequency response of a current cartridge. Solo instruments and small ensembles sound shockingly real and "in the room". It is uncanny to listen to a 70yr old LP that has a silent background and music explodes from the grooves ! Others have noted that most "mono" cartridges are in fact stereo cartridges internally bridged to sum L/R channels to create mono output. These cartridges STILL respond to vertical groove content. A true mono LP does NOT have any vertical content, all signal is cut in the horizontal plane IE side to side. What is left in the vertical plane is noise, dirt etc. A stereo adapted cartridge still reads vertical content, and still includes vertical content in what is summed to create mono output. Some believe that the presence of vertical content that is then summed introduces distortion and phase anomalies that are audible. A TRUE mono cartridge (single coil plane) only responds to horizontal content, and does not reproduce any vertical content- it is immune to the distortion and phase anomalies mentioned earlier. Most listeners note a shocking difference when hearing a true mono cartridge for the first time. Mono LPs pressed from 1948 until the early-mid 60's have a groove width of 1mil. Mono LPs pressed after the mid 60's and including current mono reissue LPs have a groove width of .07mil...a smaller groove width. True mono cartridges from the golden age have 1mil conical stylus profiles, and some believe this larger stylus can damage an LP cut with a modern/smaller groove width. For this reason, many believe that the best compromise is to use a single coil true mono cartridge, with a modern .07mil stylus. Opinion is about equally divided regarding stylus shape, with many supporting conical shapes, and just as many preferring more exotic shapes (elliptical, hyper-elliptical, shibatta etc). Regarding cartridges, phono stages and preamps, it seems that the most preferred and best sounding true mono cartridges are moving coil, that require additional amplification of signal. Some use SUT / step up transformers, some use head amps/active phono stages etc. In my experience the choice of preamp is not as important as making sure you have a true mono cartridge. What is important is to be sure that your preamp has adjustable cartridge loading. Phono EQ is another contentious issue. Some believe that non RIAA EQ coexisted until the early 60s and many report a more satisfying listening experience when playing an LP from the 50's and using a NON RIAA playback curve. So it may be beneficial to consider a preamp that includes adjustable EQ playback curves. There are several preamps that include selectable EQ along with cartridge loading. The OP probably did not realize there was so much to consider regarding mono cartridges and mono LP playback ! Good Luck.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iopscrl thanks for sharing your extensive knowledge. I think your Technics SP-15 is a great TT. Many years ago, Wayne, my friend at Harveys, 45th st, nyc called me whenever something great was coming out of trade-in/repair to their used shelf. (my office was on 44th st, 1 long and 1 short block away) I bought an SP-15, with a Grace Arm and Grace Cartridge. I gave it to my good friend, and recently installed the B500 arm base on it, and we got a replaceable stylus from Soundsmith for the Grace Cartridge. Changing headshells and/or armwands, tool free arm height adjustment, it is a great way to have alternates in a compact setup, WITH a dust cover, one of my pet peeves. He ended up with this
What is your SP-15 in? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
”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? ” 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). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Some believe that the presence of vertical content that is then summed introduces distortion and phase anomalies that are audible." Whether or not such distortions are "audible" is a matter for belief or individual acuity, but whether there is distortion and phase anomalies introduced by bridging a stereo cartridge to produce a mono signal or by using the mono switch on a linestage ought to be measurable, in other words a matter of fact, not belief. Does anyone know of any published science on this subject? Preferably, the results would be compared to those obtained using a "true mono" cartridge on the same program material or a test LP. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
@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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Mono LPs pressed from 1948 until the early-mid 60’s have a groove width of 1mil. Mono LPs pressed after the mid 60’s and including current mono reissue LPs have a groove width of .07mil...a smaller groove width. " Not that it matters much, because the point is correct but the numbers are not. Stereo grooves are 0.7mil in width, not .07mil. Also, I have read that the 1mil groove went out in the late 50s or even earlier, not the mid 60s, but that factoid was not documented any more than is the claim it went out in the mid 60s. There was a period of time in there when top artists recorded the same material both in mono and in stereo, two entirely separate recording sessions. For example, I have a recording by June Christy, "Something Cool", separate versions in mono and stereo. Same album cover, same sequence of songs on each, but if you listen to both, you can easily hear differences in phrasing of lyrics and in the improvisations. Both on Capitol. One wonders whether there is any difference in groove width between the two versions and whether an LP side with 1.0mil grooves for mono would have to contain fewer minutes of music than a corresponding recording in stereo which has to use 0.7mil grooves (because 1.0mil grooves would take up more space). I am sure there is someone out there who knows. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
“I’d say that in this case, everything hinges on the design and sound quality” 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A "two channel mono phono preamp" is any phono preamp or phono driving a linestage where the mono mode is engaged, when you feed that phono section with a true mono cartridge. Lalitk, I don’t understand exactly what you are after. If you want to go the ultimate purist route, then use a true mono cartridge with only two pins for output driving one channel of a stereo phono stage which in turn drives one of the two amplifiers driving one of your two stereo speakers, like Elliot says he sometimes does. The added advantage of the EQ100 is only the ability to select the compensation curve. If you don’t know for sure what pre-emphasis curve was originally used, then fiddling with the de-emphasis curves is pure guesswork. You might find one curve that pleases you most, but you cannot be sure it is the algorithm that was actually used in the making of the mono LP. I’ve got one set of mono LPs, Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald, the classic recordings, on EMI in mono (UK pressings), where when you play them with RIAA filtering something sounds off. Whereas the original US pressings on Capitol (I think, or maybe Verve) sound wonderful with RIAA filtering. I have always suspected that the EMI pressings were done differently in some way. Of course, no matter what, the music is sublime. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
@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 don’t understand exactly what you are after” 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I don't have any phono stages with options for the de-emphasis curve. They are all RIAA. And since this one pair of LPs on EMI are the only LPs where I have ever noticed a possible problem, it has not and will not be worth my while to buy one. I have several other copies of Louis and Ella both original pressings and re-issues that sound fine with RIAA. I would wager those EMI pressings are original in the UK, because the LPs are obviously very old; the quality even of the album cover jackets is sky high. If I ever have access to a phono with options for EQ, I will give them a try. when I was a kid, my parents had a Harmon Kardon mono receiver which did provide at least 3 curves. I used to play with them while listening. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If you look at graphs of the various curves generated by the different algorithms, they are not terribly different from one another, because after all the goal was essentially the same. So I might be happily listening to some of my 50s mono LPs where the pre-emphasis was other than RIAA via the RIAA de-emphasis curve built into all my phono stages; I just don't hear a problem, except maybe with those Louis and Ella recordings on EMI, which date from 55 or earlier. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The difference between what we are calling a true mono cartridge and a stereo cartridge that has been bridged to produce a mono signal in both channels is presumably that the true mono cartridge has had one of the pair of coils that serve each channel (assuming a MC design) either re-oriented so it does not pick up vertical movement of the cantilever, or there is no coil for that function. So my question really in disguise is what electrical measurement would tell you that? It is interesting that Ortofon responded to your question in the way you describe, because it was my experience a few years ago when I was investigating which cartridges are true mono, and which are not that Ortofon is very vague in describing how they derive their mono cartridges. As I recall, the description of the Quintet mono cartridge in particular was so ambiguous that one could not tell whether it was a true mono or a bridged stereotype. And I think that was deliberate. Surely the engineers at Ortofon do know the different ways to build a mono cartridge and the structural differences that result. Ortofon is not the only cartridge maker that leaves the question open or ambiguous. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
@billstevenson If what Ortofon told you is true, then all of us who can hear a difference between a true mono cartridge and the mono button must be mistaken, which seems unlikely. I spent a long time examining the description they give of the Cadenza Mono (which used the same wording at that time as for stereo Cadenza cartridges, and added the term "dual coil mono") and ended up buying one. It doesn't get used—I'll happily sell it—as it doesn't sound anything like as nice as the Ruby 3 I had converted to mono (coil assembly rotated 45° and the laterally sensitive coil connected to both sets of pins). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Honestly I do not know. 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. My take is that Ortofon, ever practical, has probably determined the same thing, that is that all these methods all work, therefore, they settled on the bridged stereo to mono approach as the most practical for them. That is likely true from a manufacturing perspective in allowing them to offer mono versions of cartridges across several models at various price points in both MC and MM. Also, the number of units sold per annum is probably relatively small. Again looking at from a practical perspective this makes sense. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
“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. 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lalitk, Using your ears makes sense, but it only will take us so far. This thread makes clear what a mine field the whole mono record business can be. For example, as lewm points out, when and how a record was made matters. Records cut late 1940s until early 1960s were mostly cut with groove width of 1.0 mil. The exact dates vary by label. Miyajima and AT, for example, make conical stylus cartridges with no vertical compliance that work for those, but for records made on modern cutting lathes the grooves are 0.07 mil wide, and these need a different stylus altogether. Just using ears can land the unwary in trouble because using the wrong stylus can damage the record not to mention not sounding very good. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
“what a mine field the whole mono record business can be” 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? I cannot understand using a conical stylus UNLESS it is specifically for the very old wide grooves, the opposite of your intentions. Without a doubt, the lighter/stiffer boron cantilever, advanced microridge stylus shape (any shibata variation), lighter tracking force, refined LOMC technology of my VAS rebuilt AT33PTG/II Mono is my best sounding Mono cartridge. I expected some improvement over the elliptical, hopefully enough to justify the cost: if is far better. good/better/best bonded, nude, pure, the various grades of diamonds may wear differently, but I cannot imagine you hearing any difference among the same profile shape, amount of contact surface will definitely sound better, last longer, and if a favorite is repeatedly played, cause less wear to the grooves. Steve and Ray (lunch near me today) test/compare their own and customer’s cartridges on the same familiar content, they have perhaps 5 various pressings of some, and get new copies frequently. They learn and listen for differences. Usually Steve plays a cartridge for you when you pick it up, sometimes he sends it, and waits for the customer to tell him, he is as impressed as I am with the one I had him build. He wants to come hear it here sometime soon. He mentioned a few wood body cartridges he has/has rebuilt/likes a great deal. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
“Are you concerned with aligning/calibrating an advanced stylus shape” 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).
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lalitk OP"filling it with 87-octane and calling it “close enough….LOL!" Hah! Now you and others will know more about me. After buying this 10 year old beauty and using recommended Premium for 7 months, I just filled the tank with the cheapest 87 I could find, it still runs like a Jack Rabbit. It’s the same to me, not close enough, the same. V8, Twin Turbo, 445 HP, I admit I will NEVER experience that FULL power, or even close to it. It’s not about the money, it’s about feeling like a sucker. The computer’s handle it, it is not an accumulated effect like lead deposits, different octane just alters when the explosion ideally occurs and the computer alters the timing for when that occurs (at all times with any octane grade’s explosion timing). Either the computer figures it out smoothly or it doesn’t. Either you notice a difference or you don’t. A good test is up a long hard hill, I’ve got 2 near me. I gave my prior 2012 Volvo C70 Hardtop Convertible to my Granddaughter. My son asked me what grade fuel? I forgot what the manual says, I told him I only put 87 in in for 7 years, never better, it jumps without hesitation when you hit it. My wife’s 2005 Thunderbird, every once in a while I have her put in a tank of Premium, the idea is, do you notice an improvement you forgot about? No, back to regular. A periodic re-assessment. I’ll do the same thing with the BMW. My wife and her twin sister are on their annual trip to Florida.I mentioned my car now has 87, Just so happens, her twin sister filled the T’Bird with Premium while Donna was napping. They both said it seems identical to all the driving they did the past 2-1/2 weeks. Those 3 vehicles, 2005, 2012, 2015 all have anti-knock sensors that adjust the timing successfully. Maybe on a bench or track you could measure a difference, but driving around they all continue to get out of their own way aggressively. /////////////////////// Based on past success, I filled it up! Tempted but naturally anxious: Hedge your bet: get near empty, put 1/4 tank of 87, drive it for a while, if you actually feel a loss of power, any knocking, then just fill it the rest of the way up with 93, and go back to 89 or 91, whatever you were doing. ///////////////////////// IMO, It’s a game of specmanship that I don’t want to get caught up in. If there’s a measurable difference in ultimate power the maker can publish, a difference I never use or need, never aware of, it’s not real for me. Did I mention I'm a Left Handed Leo?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There is no one answer to this riddle. VAS offers some great cartridges too. My collection includes a matching pair of VAS Nova MC, one mono, one stereo, both aluminum cantilever with a 0.07 mil elliptical stylus. The VAS mono is my preferred mono cartridge for classical. As I said in a previous post the 2M Mono SE is my preferred mono overall, but I should clarify that preference is based on jazz recordings. I listen to jazz 80-90% of the time. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
“It’s not about the money, it’s about feeling like a sucker. ” 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.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A quick search lead me to this Car & Driver article. I am sure you can find more articles around the benefits of using a higher octane. I was bit surprised to see the results for Ford F-150. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
