How are you playing your precious MONO Vinyl?

@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.

I only said “high mileage “. Was thinking >100,000 miles. Of course different engines react differently. I would not follow Elliot’s advice with a new or near new car. Plus, I’m not a BMW guy. 

For primarily listening to jazz my ears tell me that irrespective of manufacturer MC cartridges tend to be smooth, MM and MI cartridges tend toward more edgy.  The last cartridge I would choose to listen to jazz, maybe excepting a classic 1950 Ellington record, would be my Myajima.  

Bill, my experience is entire different from yours. Most MC cartridges do not accurately reproduce piano in either of my systems. My Koetsu Urushi and Ortofon M2000 being notable exceptions. The others are inferior to my best MMs and MIs in reproducing the attack of a piano note. And otherwise the latter are generally more”musical”.

So what octane fuel should I use in my Lincoln Continental?  It has the 400 HP 3.0 liter V6.  From Elliott's info it sounds like 93 octane might offer a marginal performance boost, but I don't drive it hard.  Since Lincoln went out of the car business and I don't like SUVs, I am more concerned with longevity.

Actually it sounds like our experience is quite similar.  It is the limitation imposed by the English language that is impeding communication here.  I used the adjective smooth to characterize MC sound.  You more precisely use the example of a piano and attack, or lack of same, as a limitation of MC sound.  It seems clear to me that our observations are converging.  My preferred stereo cartridge is an Experion, a MI.  We both listen to a lot of jazz.  My guess is that our favorite piano is not a Steinway, at least for jazz.  Something a with a little more edge to it serves jazz better.  A good Baldwin perhaps, or one of my favorite sounds from the past, a Mason & Hamlin?

this 16 minute video popped up,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb5VfiFy0kY

It says emphatically: ALL Octane Levels have the same energy level, the power difference is about whether you get good detonation or not (which includes clean fuel injectors).

At minute 16, this video makes a distinction between premium ’REQUIRED’  and premium ’RECOMMENDED’. I had a 1994 Jag XJS (that’s what he shows) it had the straight 6, not the masochist’s V12 that his example must be.

He says twice ’you can use regular in a vehicle that says recommended’.

I say: two cautions: if you sense knocking, irregular detonation, that would mean you tried, your computer, anti-knock is not handling it smoothly and go back to higher octane. 

additives, carbon deposits, clean fuel injectors is a separate issue, he shows dirty parts, injectors .... Watch your mpg, if it drops, you must/might be getting poor detonation must/might have dirty fuel injectors ...

Like most audio items, I would never buy a new .... BMW, the late 2014 model year 2015 sticker was $121K, I got it late 2024 for $33k (with 33k miles). Bought a 6 year warranty, used it 3 times already: window regulator; oxygen sensors; blind alley camera, there's a lot ot tech on the beast. 

All my vehicles: I put the recommended for several months, then try regular, ok, every once in a while run a tank of Premium, back to regular if I cannot feel/hear tell any difference, and drive hard up a hill frequently to verify you are getting good detonation, IOW make sure you are not unaware of poor detonation. The Volvo C70, just regular for 7 years.

lalitk OP

thanks for the links

I/we hear what we wanna, read between the lines, but we can only quote what’s there to find

"Stephen Russ, senior technical leader for gas engines at Ford, says this normal knock is usually detected and addressed within one or two combustion cycles and poses no threat to the engine. —ET"

"The Charger’s manual says 87 octane will provide "satisfactory fuel economy and performance." In our testing, "satisfactory" proved to be nearly identical to how the car performed with premium gas. Similar to the BMW, the Dodge’s gains on the dyno (14 horsepower and 23 lb-ft of torque) translated into negligible improvement in our real-world acceleration testing. Saddled with elephantine heft and eager to spin its rear all-season tires at launch, the Charger posted the same 4.9-second hustle to 60 mph on 87 and 93 octane. At triple-digit speeds, the higher power on 93 octane gave the Charger an advantage measured in tenths of a second. The Dodge also posted a 0.3-mpg improvement on premium with its average of 23.5 mpg. Just as important, the bellicose roar of the iron-block Hemi and the Charger’s ability to reduce its rear tires to jungle-gym ground cover are unaffected by the fuel in the tank."

//////////////

what they didn’t do is put 87 in the BMW or any vehicle that recommends higher, i.e. go against ’recommendation’. Who would do that? Mine’s nearly new at under 40k miles now.

//////////////////////////////

"Gasoline with a higher octane rating does not self-ignite easily, and burns more evenly than lower-octane fuel under harsh conditions, resisting detonation and knocking. Modern engines, with electronic sensors and controls, are very good at preventing detonation of lower-octane gas (this is why drivers no longer hear much knocking). But high-octane fuel is still specified when designers want to achieve better acceleration and power output, and when they are willing to accept a slightly bulkier and heavier engine with higher operating costs."

back to the 1st article: the increased power is measurably SLIGHT

"The higher-octane fuel trimmed a single tenth of a second across all of the (BMW) M5’s acceleration times.

///////////////////////

I’m not bragging, I might need engine repairs, just to say, I buy used cartridges, in this way also I am more of a risk taker, you win some, you lose some, I just cannot continue to feel like a sucker.

repeat: high-octane fuel is still specified when designers want to achieve better acceleration and power output

It’s barely measurable, not felt on the street. Get up that hill girl!

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.

Thanks for this information.  It seems clear that if there is a performance difference for a specific vehicle that boost is coming from the engine management software adjusting the settings such as timing based on the knock sensor readings.  Without the benefit of this information what I have done is listen to the engine.  Not sensing pre-ignition, I dropped from 93 first to 91 and then to 87 octane fuel.  This in the cool months.  In the summer, I use 93 just because it is hot.  

Because it makes very little difference UNLESS you play mono with a 1.0mil stylus, I would guess. In that case there may be a slight issue with playing the micro groove, loss of extreme treble. Maybe not a big deal.

goofyfoot

I thought I was going to have to get a wide groove spherical mono tip. Most if not all of my Mono LPs appear to be made in the 50's, 60's 70's and there is not good info given.

i.e. the Chicago South Side Jazz, Vol. 1 was a collection of music from the late 1920's, early 1930's, but it was produced in 1971. Smooth appearance, looks like a currently produced LP, hard to see the tiny grooves exist.

I play it with my elliptical or microridge.

I imagine playing a modern shibata variant in an old wide groove could cause damage and not be expected to sound good either, maybe even an elliptical would be 'wrong'. ?????

Just using a stereo cartridge with a mono switch on my preamp. Good sounding mono reproduction. I do have a dedicated 78rpm turntable with just a basic Audio-Technica AT95 with the correct 78 stylus.  If the 78 is clean and not worn/scratched it sounds fantastic…

@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

Read the Miyajima website on w hy they offer cartridges with 1.0 mil styli. But keep in mind they’re trying to sell those cartridges.

@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.

“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

Buying OEM, I would pick the Ortofon 2M Mono SE (special edition Shibata).

Price; MM Technology (no SUT or MC Phono Stage needed); User Replaceable Stylus; Advanced narrow profile long contact stylus shape.

The only consideration is a stiffer/lighter cantilever material than the Tapered Aluminum, i.e. Ruby or Sapphire (colorless ruby); Boron ; Beryllium; Diamond (stiffer/reduced mass; lighter/stiffer tubes preferred over solid rods).

this is the text and 6 minute video about the Ortofon 2M MONO SE

https://ortofon.com/pages/2m-mono-se

"Leif Johannsen, Ortofon’s Chief Officer of Acoustics and Research, reveals the story behind the MONO cartridges and features the 2M MONO SE, the one MONO cartridge to play all the old and new mono records in existence, including the latest “The Beatles: The 22 Singles Collection”, released November 22, 2019."

this states ALL, which includes early/any width groove.

In the video, he mentions

1948 beginning of mono microgroove

1958 beginning of stereo microgroove

1968 stereo adopted as preferred to mono

So I conclude, prior to 1948 is not considered

he calls the SE version a "Line Contact Shibata"

So, I can conclude I could play any LP from 1948 to today with any variation of Shibata, without concern for groove damage (because they are all Line Contacts, all with minor ’patentable’ differences). (I have read that the S.A.S. claims the largest amount of contact surface).

///////////////////

       ??????????    anyone disagree___________  ??????

///////////////////////////////////

this person clearly disagrees, in which case it seems Ortofon is WRONG

"As long as you don't use a Shibata stylus on vintage mono recordings and old 45's that were designed to be played with a conical stylus.

In that event, you will likely damage your vintage records with the Shibata stylus."

this is about 45 rpm Mono

https://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=126179#p1147684

@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.

@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. 

@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. 

I use an AT33MONO cartridge that I had retipped with a boron cantilever and a micro ridge stylus by Joseph Long. This cost more than the cartridge, but it was well worth the investment - this cartridge is a giant killer. I only connect the right channel cartridge leads and I use only the right channel of my amplifier (Decware Torii.) I also use only the right speaker, placed in the middle of my system. This replicates the mono experience of the pre-1960 era. 

“Microgroove” was likely a patented trade name, which is probably why you don’t see that exact word on all mono LPs dating from 1948 or later. Perhaps not all labels were licensed to use that term. 

@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? 

My point is that the absence of a Microgroove label on a post-1948 LP does not necessarily mean the LP doesn’t use the 0.7mil groove width.

@lewm We don’t know.

A multi-EQ preamplifier is not strictly necessary to play mono records unless those records are from the pre-RIAA period. And if you want to play 78 RPM records, you'll not only need a multi-EQ preamp, you'll also need a phono cartridge with a larger profile stylus, like 3 or 4 mil, as opposed to the .7 to 1 mil used with mono LPS. In my all-mono system (single amp, single speaker) I have two Miyajima MC carts, one with .7 mil stylus and the other with a 4 mil. stylus. I swap these in and out with my Jelco arm with removable headshells. I am currently using a Graham Slee Revelation C for phono preamplification, but Sun Audio, Tempo Electric and other multi-EQ phono preamps are available for that purpose. Esoteric/Rek-O-Kut also offer a clever "re-equalizer" for your standard stereo preamp that will not only offer you every possible EQ curve but will also allow you to dial in true dead-center mono with your stereo system. I have not heard it, but an earlier version got good reviews in Stereopile and it's quite reasonably priced.

Now, when playing regular RIAA mono LPs (33 or 45 rpm) there is no substitute for a true mono cartridge (as opposed to a strapped stereo cartridge or using the mono switch on your preamp. Mono cartridges have more life, better dynamics and no phase problems.  I have a stereo system in my living room which uses a wood-bodied Grado stereo cartridge and its identical true mono sister.  I have the two Grados on matching headshells and I swap these in and out of my SME arm. The mono has the same two pairs of pins as the stereo pickup but are connected to the same coils, so have identical output. I play both into a regular stereo preamp and never touch the "Mono" switch. One important difference between my Grado and Miyajima mono cartridges. The Grado has some compliance in the vertical plane so stereo records played on the mono Grado would not be damaged, whereas the Miyajima has no vertical compliance so could damage a stereo record. For this reason no stereo records enter the all-mono room.

@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.