MONO cartridge recommendation

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. 

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.  

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.

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. 

@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.