Mono Cartridge Question

@intactaudio So what's the antidote?

@dogberry I can't even think of a mono cartridge with both vertical compliance and a micro line stylus. I'm eventually planning on getting the EMT HMD025 mono but the stylus description is; Diamond: SPH 25. Does anyone know this stylus? Also, nothing is said about vertical compliance.

Lots of good advice here. My understanding is that a true mono cartridge can have two coils but that each coil is designed as an independent mono coil, one for the left channel and one for the right channel.

There are many cartridges who entered the mono cartridges market in the past twenty or so years like Miyajima and Hana but other designers have been offering mono designs for decades. DECCA/London, Ortofon SPU and EMT have been at it for a very long time.

Personally I’m still modifying my Thorens TD 160 and it is a dedicated mono table with an AT 33 Anniversary mono cartridge. After upgrading my tonearm, I’ll probably replace my AT 33 with an EMT mono.

So I recommend at least looking at the EMT. It is considered as being in the same league as the Miyajima Zero but it costs a bit less.

Also, you may benefit from reading an older post of mine regarding mono cartridges. Jonathan Carr shared some his insights about his Lyra mono designs.

Finally, the stylus size and the groove width is a very real thing. I can hear the differences myself though it isn’t drastic. Hana offers a shibata stylus on their mono cartridge for those who play both micro groove and stereo lathe cut mono pressings.

The AT 33 mono has a 0.65 conical stylus with vertical compliance which is why anyone can play a stereo record with this mono cartridge. I had a Grado mono with elliptical stylus and without vertical compliance and it destroyed any stereo record in came into contact with.

@dogberry I’m just skeptical about the idea that using a certain mono cartridge on mono records will damage the mono record. I appreciate everyone’s views and experiences but I’d make the radical assumption that many cartridge designers would not share this opinion. And while accepting that some cartridge designers would agree with the above opinion, a discourse should happen between those designers for and those designers against. My reasoning is that although certain theoretical principles are considered absolute, there is still a possibility that certain variables might offer a work around.

@intactaudio Saying that a conical stylus causes premature wear isn’t an outrages claim but I have no idea about what the groove would look like before and after. This is the first time I’ve heard anyone say as such and while it’s a perfectly plausible statement, is it something to fret over?

@wallytools Yes, I understand the theoretical principles involved. The size of the stylus is a factor here too. A larger stylus being exponentially more detrimental than a smaller stylus. My stylus is a 0.65 conical and my arm is a 9 inch set for  Baerwald. I'm getting more noise with newer records than with my older records. For me, noise would be significant inside one groove and then it clears up for the remaining LP.

@wallytools From my understanding and maybe I'm wrong but I have read this claim, that a larger stylus will still ride far down into the groove wall and the difference in distance between the larger and smaller conical stylus is very minimal. This is why I believe the larger stylus will create more damage, because it is in contact with a larger portion of the groove than a smaller stylus.

@wallytools Of course not all grooves are the same size. Just after shellac 33 1/3, the vinyl groove was at it’s widest, then came the microgroove and now we grooves equal to the size of a stereo record. So I’m not sure which of these grooves you’re talking about but I’m assuming you're referring to the microgroove. If someone is using a 1.0 ml stylus on the early mono records, it is reaching very far down into the groove but slightly less in the microgroove. Most likely only a 0.7 ml stylus should be used for later records and recent remasters. Pretty much any cartridge designer will tell you not to play newer records with a 1.0 ml stylus. So I’m curious,what are the variables between the different stylus and the different groove sizes?

@dogberry Forgot about the Cadenza. I'm sure that's a good sounding cartridge. It would be interesting to hear your opinion after you get it up and running.

@dogberry I have about two hundred mono LP’s myself. Folkways, Archive Productions, Mylodia, etc… and remasters. Some 1950’s vinyl I’ve bought still has shards of vinyl along the edges from when they were cut. There is a treasure trove of mono out there, I honestly believe I’ve barely scratched the surface in my record collecting endeavors. I’m looking for a local professional record cleaning service, given the age of many of the originals I’ve purchased.

@jcarr I was wondering if and when you would make your presence known, glad you’re back! Since you joined the conversation back in the day, several other cartridge manufacturers have created a mono cartridge of their own. One that stands out in my mind is the Hana SL Mono for $750.00. This is a pragmatic option due to its affordability. I know the Lyra cartridges are excellent and I’m guessing that the mono cartridges have made advancements over the years. For the large majority of audio enthusiasts, price is a factor. Especially if mono records amount to just a fraction of one’s entire collection. So to get some of the Lyra magic in a mono cartridge, what’s the price point?

@eagledriver_22 What tonearm are you using and how important is the tonearm when tracking strictly mono records? Does the Cadenza sound better with older mono versus newer remasters?