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. |
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. |
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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
Roberjerman, Lots of folks seem to agree with you about the Denon DL102, especially where cost is a concern. (Same goes for the Audio Technica AT33mono) Have you compared the DL102 to any other mono cartridges in your system? Thanks.
|
Thanks, Folkfreak. That response is helpful, I agree. But in effect, you responded to my re-phrasing of the OP's question, which brought out your significant prior experience, which was my point. I once had designs on the Dorian Mono, only to learn that it had been discontinued, I think. |
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. |
