MONO cartridge recommendation
How about the Miyajima Spirit Mono HI, I love my Zero and judging by this review the Spirit brings the same feeling at its price point https://www.stereophile.com/content/gramophone-dreams-1-page-2 |
I have the Ortofon 2M Mono SE and love it! Got it back when the Beatles set came out. I did find one just now on Ebay from William Thakker from Germany. I've bought quite a few things from him. Good seller. I also have an Audio Technica AT-Mono/3. It's a pretty decent little cart and isn't very expensive. |
It might be more revealing to ask, "What mono cartridges do you dislike compared to others you've heard?" or "If you've heard more than one mono cartridge in your home system, which did you like best and why?" Most people have one mono cartridge and have only heard that one mono cartridge in their home system. Ergo, they are going to say they love that mono cartridge, unless it's really awful. Whereas, many of us own a dozen or more stereo cartridges and are more qualified to opine on which is best. You've had two examples of that human tendency so far. I myself am in the market for a mono cartridge, and I have been trying to think how to frame the question for one of these on-line forums in order to get responses that have any validity. |
@lewm I’ve owned a Lyra Dorian Mono and heard many other mono Lyra’s. They give great sound in the Lyra house style but to my mind miss the soul, the energy, the brio that the Miyajima’s bring. I also obviously can play a mono disc using my stereo cartridge (an AS Palladian) and while this is arguably more “accurate” than the Zero the Zero is more fun 😉 So yes it depends what the OP is after but please don’t assume that our responses are simply “buy what I have” based on no prior experience of alternatives |
thanks folks, I am new to a quality turntable--although i go back to the 60's and have had a few budget turntables in my life, when younger,I never gave my setup a second thought. It was press,play and enjoy. Now, being an audiophile (self proclaimed) ..( and much to my wife's chagrin)...I would like a worthy mono cartridge for $1000 or so Pro-ject RPM TT....it came with a cartridge --Sumiko Blue Point #2...But i have many mono albums I would love to hear again. This time around in the highest quality. I do prefer a warm sound, detailed but not harsh or bright. Truly,though, I really do not know what to expect. My setup is a krell amp, audible illusions preamp/ w/ phono, martin - logans , once again,thanks for the input mike in pa |
Mikepaul, From your last post it appears you think you need a mono cartridge to play your mono records. Not true! A regular stereo cartridge can play mono records just fine. The output from your stereo cartridge will have essentially the same signal in each channel and at the same level. The reason mono cartridges have become popular recently is that they can sound better playing a mono LP than a stereo cartridge. A mono cartridge can also reduce noise due to record wear. Most importantly, playing a mono record with a stereo cartridge is totally safe. You are not risking damage to either the record or cartridge by using a stereo cartridge. |
In relation to Salectric’s post, for most of my audio life, which is a long time, I played both stereo and mono LPs with stereo cartridges into a stereo circuit, and I never thought much about it, except I always preferred the results with stereo LPs in that set-up. Then, with the resurgence of interest in mono, and because I had acquired a preamp with a mono switch, I started listening to mono LPs played with a stereo cartridge into a phono stage set for "mono". The results were a revelation, and one can immediately understand the appeal of mono LPs. So, to me the main reason for buying a mono cartridge is because mono LPs sound best in mono, for a lot of reasons that I don’t want to detail. You can achieve mono reproduction either with a mono cartridge or a mono switch on your phono, or both. Among mono cartridges, there are only a few (like the Miyajima and the EMT monos) that were built from the ground up to be mono. Most are stereo cartridges where the two channels are internally bridged. Does this difference in construction make any difference in the quality of the mono output? I simply do not know; the makers of the true mono cartridges would like us to think so. In any case, I can make do with a mono switch only. I don't feel that I "need" a mono cartridge for my system that has a mono switch in the signal path. My problem is that i have two systems, and the phono stage for one of them does not have a mono switch; I want to buy a mono cartridge for that system, now that I have experienced the benefits of mono reproduction. Here’s what happens in my system when I flip the mono switch before playing a mono LP with a stereo cartridge: The LP surface noise goes down significantly. The highs coalesce and sound more defined and extended. Instruments are easier to pick out in a band or orchestra. The bass acquires greater definition and actually seems to add another octave on the low end. There is actually a semblance of a stereo effect, too, because the brain picks up cues from the sound pressure and phase differences picked up by the microphone. What’s not to like? |
mofimadness wrote: I also have an Audio Technica AT-Mono/3. It’s a pretty decent little cart and isn’t very expensive.I have that cartridge, too. It’s officially imported and sold by LpGear for $189.99. I got mine through a Japanese storefront on Amazon for a mere $112 and change two years ago. Dollar-to-Yen exchanges fluctuate over time and it’s currently $127.95 from that vendor. Here are the 20 Amazon customer reviews for this cartridge: https://www.amazon.com/Audio-Technica-AT-MONO3-LP-Moving-Cartridge/dp/B0002ERE2Q/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1509037302&sr=8-1&keywords=audio+technica+at-mono3%2FLP I really like this cartridge. I won’t dispute that you might get some higher highs and lower lows from more expensive mono carts, but there is a fundamental honesty to this cartridge that I find endearing. It has a full, rich tonal balance while maintaining good detail. Internal wiring is PCOCC (monocrystal) copper. I bought mine specifically for playing my 2014 release of the Beatles mono LP collection. After playing that colIection with a stereo cart for a full year, I was not disappointed with the mono cart; in fact I was enlightened. I also found that I had far more mono LPs than I realized, both modern reissues (e.g., Beach Boys) and vintage LPs of all kinds pulled from thrift shops, antique pavilions, and bargain bins. Right now I’m listening to a 1969 mono Capitol pressing of "Echoes of a 16th Century Cathedral" performed by the Roger Wagner Chorale. I got it for 49 cents at an antiques pavilion, and all the music is intact and with the mono cartridge the presentation is dead quiet. With a stereo cartridge it is unbearably noisy. My wife, who grew up singing sacred vocal works, loves this album. It also quiets down the dogs. I also have vintage mono jazz, a genuine Everest mono pressing of a Mozart woodwind ensemble, another 1969 mono pressing of the Vince Guaraldi Trio of "You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown," reissues of Miles Davis on Prestige and Riverside, some Gene Krupa, etc. True, I don’t have a collection of mono cartridges for comparison, but when I find what I’m looking for, I stop looking. |
In theory, there is absolutely no difference between using the most common type of mono cartridge, which is a stereo cartridge within which the two channels have been bridged to give a mono output on both channels, and using the mono switch on your phono or linestage. No difference at all. Mikepaul, You should be using your mono switch. When and if you do buy a mono cartridge, you can be the one to tell us whether you hear any further improvement from using both the mono cartridge and the mono switch in unison. There is certainly no possibility for harm in using both or either one alone. The big question for me is whether the minority of available mono cartridges that are built for mono from the ground up (which means they have little or no vertical compliance and no capacity to respond in stereo to the groove modulations) are intrinsically superior in reproduction to the rest. |
The big question for me is whether the minority of available mono cartridges that are built for mono from the ground up (which means they have little or no vertical compliance and no capacity to respond in stereo to the groove modulations) are intrinsically superior in reproduction to the rest.My cartridge is vertically compliant but does not transmit any signal in the vertical plane. When the needle drops to the record surface, it makes no sound, whereas my AT150Sa makes a very loud THUMP! When I play a munged up mono record with any stereo cartridge, the surface noise is unbearable. When I play the same record with the AT-MONO3/LP, all I hear is the music. As I said before, I got my AT-MONO3/LP cart for a paltry $112. and change. KABUSA's mono switch is $229. My tonearm uses interchangeable headshells, so switching to the mono cart takes very little time including balancing and resetting the VTF. If, however, I had a tonearm with integrated headshell and had to swap carts on one of those every time I had a hankering for mono, you can bet I'd buy the KABUSA mono switch instead. I still stand by that modern mono carts with vertical compliance are a good thing as long as the cart doesn't transmit signal in the vertical plane. |
Lewm, I have an Audio Research LS-1 specifically for it's Mode switch, which offers Stereo/Reverse/Mono/Left/Right from it's main outputs. It's fun to switch between Left and Right on early Stereo LP's, like The Beatles. Vocals on one channel, instruments on the other! But a mono switch is not the same as a mono cartridge. The mono cartridge senses only the horizontal modulation, ignoring the vertical. The mono switch blends the left and right channels, and a stereo cartridge creates it's signal from both horizontal and vertical modulations. When tracing the grooves of a mono LP, the signal a stereo cartridge creates from the vertical modulation is of only the noise contained therein. It's true that putting your Mode switch to Mono when playing mono LPs with a stereo cartridge reduces groove noise, but how and why? I gotta get me a mono cartridge! The Decca/London stereo cartridges are unique in having each of it's two coils dedicated to one of the two modulation planes, one for the horizontal, one for the vertical. That's the stereo version; London makes a mono cartridge, which omits the vertical coil. I'd say that's a "from the ground up" mono design! |
bdp24, I really don't know what you are trying to say. Using a mono cartridge that was built from a stereo cartridge by internally bridging the two channels is precisely the same thing electrically as using the mono switch on a preamplifier. Bridging, either inside the cartridge body or at the mono switch, has the effect of cancelling the surface noise from a mono LP, just as you say, by cancelling the signal derived from vertical movement of the stylus tip. One could argue that deriving the mono signal at the linestage level is possibly less effective than doing it inside the cartridge, because the stereo signal has to pass through RIAA correction and amplification before the noise can be cancelled. Maybe, just maybe, doing it at the cartridge body is audibly more effective. Which is one reason (besides the fact that in one of my two systems I have not even a mono switch) that I too am curious to acquire a mono cartridge. I would wager that 90% or more of "mono" cartridges in the current marketplace are derived by internal bridging. Have fun trying to figure out which cartridges (other than Miyajima, EMT, and perhaps one of the Ortofons) are "true" mono cartridges, if you want to find out whether that is a better way to go; most manufacturers use a lot of double-talk in describing their mono cartridges such that it is usually impossible to be sure. I know this because I spent a great deal of time at their various websites researching mono cartridges and came away disappointed by the total lack of clarity, again with the exception of Miyajima. |
I can't answer Lewm's question but I do know my Miyajima Premium BE Mono cartridge sounds great with all my mono LPs. Unfortunately I don't use it very often because I have to switch tonearms to do so, and I am basically lazy. I will take slight exception to some comments made earlier in this thread to the effect that playing mono records with a stereo cartridge results in a lot of noise unless you use a mono switch to parallel the outputs. I listen to many, many mono LPs with my Benz LP stereo cartridge without a mono switch, and most of these are just as quiet as my old stereo LPs. A mono cartridge (or a mono switch) will make the noisy LPs quieter, that's true, but I wouldn't want anyone to avoid playing mono records just because they don't have a mono cartridge or a mono switch on their preamp. |
@salectric not sure if it was my comments you were referring to but to clarify. I've no reason to believe (nor have I ever experienced) a reduction in record related noise (i.e. from the playing surface) in using a mono cartridge over a stereo, with or without a mono switch. However going to a true Mono cartridge may (and often will) induce objectionable hum in your setup. This is intrinsic to the challenges of adding a mono source in a system not designed for it (see the reference below for a discussion of the issue and some solutions) http://www.durand-tonearms.com/Support/Mono%20connections/monoconnections.html In my experience having a mono switch or having the ability to lift, or part bypass via a resistor, the ground at the cartridge input to your phono stage or step up is essential to rid your system of this hum |
salectric wrote: In fact, looking over the whole thread I’m not sure who I recalled suggesting that mono records played with a stereo pickup will be too noisy.That was probably me, but I need to clarify that I was only referring to vintage 1950s-’60s mono LPs, not modern reissues. I have several from both categories. I have several modern mono reissues--the 2014 Beatles EMI/Parlophone reissues, the Capitol Beach Boys reissues including Pet Sounds and Smile, Acoustic Sounds Nat King Cole reissue, etc. All are really quiet, even when played by a stereo cartridge. OTOH, I have many original 1950s-60s mono LPs rescued from bargain bins for 50-99 cents, that are totally noisy with all 3 of my stereo carts and totally quiet with my one mono cart. |
Salectric, If your mono LP is truly pristine, I don’t suppose you would have a particular problem with noise due to surface wear, but the point was and is that on mono LPs, the audio signal is encoded only via lateral deflections of the stylus. Any vertical deflection of the stylus will induce surface noise and no music. The point about a true mono cartridge is that such cartridges produce no signal in response to vertical deflections. Many such cartridges, in fact, have no vertical compliance. Ergo, playing a mono LP with a mono cartridge is very likely to result in less noise due to surface irregularities than playing the same LP with a stereo cartridge. This is just a fact, not subject to opinion. With a mono cartridge derived from a stereo cartridge by internal bridging or if you use a mono switch on your preamplifier, the noise due to vertical deflection of the cantilever is also cancelled via the summing of the two channels. However most of the latter type mono cartridges do have vertical compliance and some of those do respond to vertical motion of the stylus; it’s just cancelled later in the pathway. (In some cases, mono cartridges derived from stereo are built such that there are no coils or magnets to transduce vertical motion of the stylus, in which case the cartridge cannot respond to vertical with signal voltage output.) I mentioned that I played mono LPs with stereo cartridges for decades with no thought to this issue. So, I certainly never said that such a practice is "too noisy". I did say that now that I am cognizant of these issues and use a mono switch where I have one, there is a very obvious improvement in signal to surface noise ratio and in addition in other areas of reproduction. Mono LPs that I heretofore have avoided due to what I thought were noisy surfaces sound much much better even in feaux mono (using a mono switch). Sorry. I am sure you know all this stuff, and I see that you are way ahead of me in already owning a Premium Be Mono. That's the one I want. |
Lew, I should have posed it as a question rather than a statement. As in: "Is a mono switch the same as a mono cartridge?" I ask because the stereo pickup creates it’s output signal from both the horizontal (monaural) and vertical (stereo) modulations. When the stereo pickup plays the groove of a mono LP, the signal resulting from the cartridge trying to read a vertical modulation (of which there is none on a mono LP, correct?) contains any noise and/or distortion obtained or created by that attempt---it is now an intrinsic part of the signal. Does putting the Mode switch to it’s mono setting enable the pre to cancel that noise? I don’t know. A true mono cartridge, in contrast, does not try to create a signal from the vertical modulation to begin with---it is deaf to the noise/distortion created by trying to do so. If it is done perfectly, a mono cartridge should sound the same whether the Mode switch is set to stereo or mono, I would think. Of course, perfection is an unachievable goal! I posted this, only to see Lew's post directly above it. Never mind! |
For the OP, the only recommendations in this thread that will really work for him in terms of the gain and his phono preamp, without getting into complications with a step up, are the Ortofon 2M Mono SE (from Thakker on Ebay) or the Denon 102. If I was forced to choose between those I'd definitely opt for the Ortofon as it offers a better stylus (although much more critical of setup) and does not have the restricted frequency range of the Denon, which is a bit off-putting for me. I'm currently using a rebuilt Ortofon MC 20 Super (boron cantilever & microridge stylus) strapped in parallel for mono (no mono switch here) and it sounds very good, but am going to experiment a bit with it soon wired in series instead as I have slightly quirky phono stage (current mode as opposed to voltage mode). I'm a cheapskate, so if I was to pop for a mono cartridge, pretty sure that I would do the AT 33 Mono, run it for 400-500 hours and then retip it with a very good (boron or sapphire) cantilever and microridge or line contact stylus. I bet that would be an absolutely killer mono cartridge for about $700 all in and give some of the very pricey mono cartridges a run for their money. Unfortunately that won't work for the OP with his phono gain. |
I as of recent had also been thinking about a mono cartridge for Beatles and vintage lps. Before I decided to drop down any money it dawned on me I had a Grado 78 cartridge laying around. The next thing I did was grab my paratrace stylus off my gold 1 and threw it on the 78 mono cartridge. The sound is as expected warm of neutral but very clean and cohesive with a nice bass. I'm not sure if this really helps but maybe a Grado mono perhaps with an upgraded stylus if needed like the 8mz or better. But then again I have no experience with any other mono cartridges I just like tweeked Grados. All the best JP. |
There are very few true single coil mono cartidges available. The vast majority of current mono cartridges are in fact stereo cartridges modified for mono reproduction. Decco London is an outlier in that their stereo cartidge is derived from their mono design !! Sounds strange, I know, but it is documented in several places on the 'net. Mono cartridges will sound different, based upon construction. A true mono cartridge generates signal from horizontal motion, only. A stereo cartridge modified to become a mono cartridge will still respond to vertical motion. Why is this an important distinction ? Even though a modified cartridge is supposed to suppress vertical signal by summing, bridging, coil alignment, etc it is still there. Unfortunately the existence of the vertical signal introduces phase anomalies that are audible. It is easier and cheaper to adapt a stereo cartridge than to construct a true mono cartridge, which why there are very few. At the low end there are the Denon DL102 and the AT3 mono. Anything better costs considerably more. Some listeners swear by vintage Fairchild and ESL mono cartridges, that are more than 50yrs old. However there are a few specialists that can rebuild them. Cost of a vintage true mono cartridge is abt $200-300 in the current market. Rebuld cost is about $300-$500. Total investment would be about $500-$800. i use the Ortrofon CG25 DI MK2. This is an updated version of their first MC mono cartridge. 1mil conical stylus, tracks at about 3 grams, and comes as an integral cartridge headshill designed to attach to an SME terminated arm. List price is about $900 but no one pays list....and you can fnd it from several japanese on line sellers. I have 2 TT and use one for pre 1960 mono LPs. I play all 60's era and later reissue mono LPs on my stereo TT. Works for me. Your opinion and experience may be different. |
My mono cartridges are Lyra Dorian Mono, Audio Technica AT33 mono and Shelter 501 mono. My understanding is that these are "true mono" cartridges in that they only respond to horizontal stylus movement, although the styluses are still vertically compliant. The Shelter is a single coil while the Lyra and AT33 are dual coil, which should reduce the tendency to hum. I previously owned an Ortofon Quintet mono, which I believe is a strapped stereo cartridge (similarly to the other Ortofon cartridges), although Ortofon do describe all of their cartridges as "true mono". From information I have gained reading various forums over the years (particularly from Steve Hoffman), it appears that: - After 1968 most mono issues were pressed from stereo cutting heads and it is virtually certain that this is true for most recent mono reissues (such as the Beatles LPs) - Using a mono cartridge on LPs cut from stereo cutting heads will generally sound worse than using a stereo cartridge, since there will be some loss of high frequency information. If you have a mono switch (or a Y-cable arrangement) you can tell when an LP was cut from a stereo cutting head since engaging the switch (or Y cable) will result in some loss of HF. If there is no difference, you can use a mono cartridge and there will be the usual benefits of lower noise and wider soundstage. - The benefits of a mono cartridge will only be heard with pre-1968 mono records, and this will depend also to some extent on the stylus dimensions and the equalisation curve used. For these reasons I only use my mono carts on older LPs that I know were cut on mono equipment - pre-60s and earlier. For recent mono reissues I use a stereo cartridge. If I have got any of the above wrong, please feel free to correct me. |
rossb, You've certainly thrown a monkey wrench into the discussion, if what you say is true. Can you cite some sources to support the idea that a mono LP derived using a stereo cutting head will react differently from a "pre-1968" or true mono LP (to take your own cut-off date), to the use of a mono cartridge? And what about modern mono re-issues of recordings that were made in mono back in the early 50s? (So the reproduction chain is: mono master tape to stereo cutting head to mono LP.) There's a lot of those around and more coming available every day. Presumably, the mono signal after a stereo cutting head is re-derived by re-combining the stereo channels, which are actually identical to each other. You're correct, incidentally, about the Ortofon Quintet. The Ortofon website uses a lot of double -talk to make the reader think their mono cartridges are "true mono", but in most cases that ain't so. |
@rossb It’s a bit more complex then that For example, anyone purchasing ERC can be confident they’re using a mono cutter ... https://electricrecordingco.com/about ... but comparisons with other pressings of the same material cut on a stereo large suggest that this isn’t always a good thing ... http://www.coupdarchet.com/reviews.html ... which likely explains why if you’re cutting a mono disc these days you’re best off using a stereo cutter incidentally and somewhat off topic I was discussing the virtues of mono playback with Tim de Paravicini and his assertion was that mono cutters offered superior high frequency response due to the lower weight and simpler construction |
lewm, as I mentioned, the information I provided was based on reading from a number of forums over the years. There are quite a number of discussions of mono recordings on the Steve Hoffman forums (as there are here) and Steve (who is probably as knowledgeable as anyone on this subject) has made some comments from which I have derived most of this information, so I suggest you do a search of that forum. folkfreak, thanks for those links. I wasn't aware that ERC used a mono cutter, nor was I aware that Coup d'archet use a stereo cutter, even though I own the Johanna Martzy set from Coup d'archet that is the subject of the review. It therefore makes sense to listen to this reissue with a stereo cartridge. It's interesting that although discussions of mono cartridges and mono recordings come up frequently, they almost inevitably lead to more confusion than clarity. I don't claim to be an expert, so if anyone has any better information, I for one would certainly appreciate it. |
@rossb I also own all the Coup Martzy’s (I’m not so rich that I can justify ERC prices) and love how they sound with my Zero. They also sound good with my Palladian but somehow there’s more vim with the Zero which suits the material. Have you tried them both ways and liked the stereo set up best? Some other works, such as the recent 45rpm Pet Sounds, seem to work better with the stereo cartridge. I have two arms and so can make comparisons easily. Still great to have the dedicated mono for the older stuff in any case. |
Actually, it would make more sense to compare the LPs using a Shelter 501 mono vs a Shelter 501 Stereo with the same phono stage. The only variable then would be mono vs stereo version of the same cartridge. Fortunately, I have both versions of the Shelter 501 and my EAR 912 preamp has two phono inputs. But that comparison will unfortunately have to wait until my new arm arrives in a few weeks. |
That’s the problem in most of these comparisons. The basic cartridge is different. Not surprising that a cart costing 5 times as much (as in my Palladian vs the Zero) can drag out some more detail, but often the cheaper Zero is more sympatico. Anyway the 501 comparisons are just the way to go, would love to hear your results |
I've just listened to the Martzy LP of the Mendelssohn concerto with Kletzki on Coup d'archet. First, the Etna SL (with and without mono switch engaged), then the Shelter 501 mono, then back to the Etna SL. It wasn't even close. The stereo Etna SL has more extended highs, a more natural tone and a very sweet tonal balance. The Shelter 501 mono sounded flatter, duller and just less engaging. As a new LP, surface noise was not a factor. The mono switch on my preamp hinted at the result, since engaging it with the Etna SL immediately removed some high frequency information and dulled the sound slightly, so the result from the mono cartridge was not really a surprise. Of course, the Etna SL is a much better cartridge than the Shelter 501, and it is on the better of my two turntables and arms. Even allowing for this, the result was pretty clear. Soon I will be able mount both the stereo and mono versions of the Shelter 501 on similar arms on the same turntable, and that will be a more interesting comparison. But I suspect I know what the outcome will be, at least with this particular record. |
My experience does not match up with the info on the Hoffman site at all, namely that high frequency info is compromised using a mono cartridge on mono reissues or mono records cut using a stereo cutter, or that mono cartridges sound inferior to stereo cartridges on post '68 monos. FWIW, I use two Orfoton MC 20 Supers, one strapped for mono on what is an arguably slightly inferior arm and another on the better arm for stereo. Both on the same table, both into the same phono stage. In the interest of full disclosure, both Ortofons have been rebuilt (and IMO are significantly better than original), one with a boron cantilever and microridge stylus (that is used for mono but I put about 1000 hours on it playing both stereo and mono records before dedicating it entirely to mono, so am quite familiar with its sound), and the other with a sapphire cantilever and microridge stylus also. Both cartridges were rebuilt by Andy at phonocartridgeretipping.com but the boron version did need a completely new coil. The result is that it has a slightly lower output than the other MC 20 Super (not really a big deal as my phono stage has infinitely adjustable gain to compensate for this); not sure but it is possible the internal impedance is slightly different as well. Over the years the MC 20 Super specs seemed to vary in the output department, from .2 mV to .25 mV and the internal impedance was also quoted differently at either 3 ohms or 5 ohms. In any event, probably about the closest you can get to comparing the same cartridge in stereo vs mono mode; it's at least closer to most of the comparisons I've read in the forums which is, as folkfreak suggests, a bit of a problem. There's no question that, even with a decent strapped to mono cartridge, the presentation is significantly improved on both vintage and modern mono pressings. It might be easy to confuse that presentation with one that is inferior in the high frequencies as (at least IMO) the presentation with a stereo cartridge is thinner, more lightweight and with more sense of "air", resulting in a sense of perhaps more high frequency info being presented. In my system at least, this is a bit of an aural illusion, as the strapped mono cartridge presents the high frequencies very well indeed, while the rest of the frequency spectrum is fuller, more fleshed out and robust. Just more solid and realistic, with the high frequency information being presented as much more an integral part of the whole as opposed to in isolation. I have to admit that I am biased toward line contact or microridge styli as opposed to conicals and really would not be that interested in owning a cartridge with a conical stylus at this stage, even to play vintage or modern monos. I've done 4 retips on Denon 103R's in the past after running the conical on that cartridge for 1000 hours or so, and although the Denon conical is very good and perhaps one of the best of its kind, it simply gives up too much in performance to a more sophisticated stylus profile in terms of information retrieval and high frequency performance, even with vintage records. It is a subjective hobby, but there are obviously some manufacturers of fairly high end mono cartridges (Lyra and Ortofon come to mind) who also believe that a more sophisticated stylus profile is beneficial in mono playback. |
hdm"It is a subjective hobby, but there are obviously some manufacturers of fairly high end mono cartridges (Lyra and Ortofon come to mind) who also believe that a more sophisticated stylus profile is beneficial in mono playback." |
Mikepaul: I think you will be quite happy with your purchase. Should be a very good matchup as well with the phono board in your preamp which is something that is very, very important. Just make sure that you are very careful with setup on this new cartridge as the Shibata, unlike the conical, is demanding of very precise setup to get the best from it. Very small adjustments in alignment, azimuth, VTA/SRA and VTF can reap big rewards with this kind of stylus; alternatively, a not so great setup can result in substandard sound. If you do not have access to some good alignment hardware (I'm partial to the Mint and have a couple) like the Mint or Feickert, and do not have a lot of experience with alignment it may be worthwhile to seek out someone who has a very good protractor and is experienced in alignment to give you a hand. The Ortofon should prove a very nice choice for you for playing both modern and vintage monos and when you wear it out you can economically improve its performance with a retip using a better cantilever as well. |
Mono LP playback seems so basic it should be simple. And yet there are multiple posts here and in other sites which suggest otherwise. I don't pretend to have great expertise but since I own a few hundred mono LPs I've done a fair bit of reading on optimizing their playback. From all that I've drawn two conclusions. 1. It can depend on when the LPs were produced, and 2. How deeply one gets into this may depend on how many mono LPs they own. The mono cartridge VS mono switch/strapping (either with Y interconnects or hard wiring) a stereo cartridge may relate to how many monos one owns. If you have only a few, does it make sense to spend the time and money in buying and setting up a mono cartridge? To me it wouldn't. I'd use the switch, or find a way of strapping a stereo cartridge if my preamp didn't include one. For those who decide to buy a mono cartridge, what type should they buy? I suggest that can be guided by when their mono records were produced. It is not just a question of true mono VS internally strapped stereo and whether the cartridge has vertical compliance or not, it also brings up stylus size and shape. I've offered this timeline previously - Pre-stereo era monos (roughly '48-'57), select a 1.0 mil conical stylus. Early stereo era monos (roughly '58-'68), select a 0.7 mil conical stylus. Recent mono reissues (mid '90s to present), select a mono cartridge with a modern narrow stylus profile. Many early stereo LPs carried warnings against playback with mono cartridges. I believe that was because of differences in cutter heads. Groove dimensions have changed over the years. J Carr has posted that he believes the modern profile tip styli sound best with their Lyra mono cartridges. He didn't say this but I suspect it is because he auditioned with current mono reissues, produced with stereo cutting heads. Also, the 1968 date for stereo cutter heads is not an absolute. Hoffman identifies that date as the time when mono heads began to be phased out (it didn't happen overnight). Similarly, if you have a number of original mono LPs and you are serious about playback quality, then you'll also need to consider playback EQ. While the RIAA was adopted in 1955, alternate EQs were still utilized until nearly 1970 by some labels. At least with 33 1/3 LPs we are not concerned with alternate recording speeds, as are serious 78 collectors. That is unless of course you have LPs like the original "Kind of Blue" which had a defective tape machine utilized for the master for one side! ;^) |
I don't have any monos dating into the 40's (earliest I own would be a copy of Ellington's "Uptown" from '53, but do have a fair number of '55-'65 monos and even for those my definite preference in terms of styli is a good line contact or microridge, Just too many limitations with a conical IMO. Primarily a lack of information retrieval in the midrange and an inability to render high frequencies as accurately. It's apparent even on 50's monos in my experience, regardless of groove width. |
hdm, to be clear, those dates I suggested referred to time when the record was produced, not when they were recorded. That is why nearly all mono reissues may be better served with a modern narrow stylus profile. Still, we listen for different things so there are no universal or absolute answers here, only guidelines. After all, there are many experienced listeners who still enjoy conical styli even with stereo cartridges, such as the Denon 103. |
@pryso Yes, I understood that is what you meant. The Ellington Uptown that I was referring to is an original pressing from '52-'53, a Columbia Masterworks six-eye with machine stamped 1A matrices. Of the 200 or so monos that I own, about half are 50's to mid sixties originals and I was actually referring to playing those vintage pressings with line contact or microridge styli specifically. Interesting that you should mention the 103. As I stated upthread, I've spent a fair bit of time with 103R's (about 6-7 years actually) including running the stock conical playing both stereo and mono records for about 1000 hours before experimenting with a couple of different line contact styli (Peter Ledermann's standard line contact as well as his OCL, which strongly resembles the Ortofon Replicant stylus). So I'm familiar with not only how the Denon conical sounds but exactly how different (and IMO how improved) a line contact will sound on exactly the same cartridge. The link below is to a photo of one of my modified 103R's. This one was installed and potted into an aluminum body (kind of a DIY Zu 103R) and then retipped with Soundsmith's ruby cantilever and line contact stylus. I also had an ebony bodied 103R with the both the standard line contact and later an OCL on it. So as well as running the 103R stock, I've also run that aluminum bodied version both as a stereo cartridge and strapped for mono in the past (it is now a back up cartridge in storage). As you say, we all have our preferences, but, based on my experience, I can't imagine anyone not wanting to run the Denon with a line contact or microridge over the stock conical, including on vintage pressings, after having the opportunity to hear one with a decent, more exotic stylus profile. That experience is in fact what my preference for the LC or MR is based on. http://img.canuckaudiomart.com/uploads/user_image/2507/21842.jpg @devilscucumber You don't HAVE to sum or run a mono cartridge on modern mono reissues, but it is not simply an issue of noise/scratches; by summing or running a good mono cartridge on those records the performance itself will be enhanced and improved, regardless of noise that may or may not be present. |
