@billstevenson There was confusion on a previous thread about the difference between Microgroove mono pressings and the earliest vinyl mono pressings. Even though I mentioned on that previous thread, that Microgroove pressings had a narrower band width than the early mono pressings that weren't Microgroove, it appeared as though none of us knew what stylus would be best for Microgroove records. When I was able to sort it out and get this information (assuming that AI is correct), I wanted to post it so that other monophiles also understood the differences. I didn't want to keep it all to myself, what fun would that be?
Mono Cartridge Stylus
So a while back there was a thread about mono cartridges like the Miyajima. There was some confusion about stylus size and what should be used for mono re-pressings versus the original mono pressings.
So Miyajima claims that their 0.7 stylus is optimal for modern mono re-pressings and that their 1.0 stylus is for those earlier mono pressings that began in 1950. Columbia introduced the Microgroove pressing in 1948. The Microgroove pressing offers 300-400 grooves per inch and AI claims that the correct stylus for these pressings is 0.7. I will say that I don't believe Miyajima to be entirely wrong, as there were labels that still used wider grooves however, I believe nearly all of the major labels eventually adopted the Microgroove band width thus making it the norm by the early to mid 1950's.
Showing 7 responses by goofyfoot
I've considered getting the Hana SL Mono MK II cartridge because both of my local dealers sell Hana and have recommended it. Just yesterday I sent them an email asking about their Shibata stylus. But now I'm just thinking about getting the Audiomods tonearm I've been wanting for the FrankenThorens that I've been building. That is, after I have all the panels replaced in one of my Quad 2905 ESL's. Those Quads are a pain. Currently I'm using an AT 33 that I bought many years ago after Jonathan Carr of Lyra recommended it on one of my earliest posts about mono cartridges. https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/which-mono-cartridge-at-around-1-300-00 The Miyajima would definitely be a game changer compared to what I've been using however the conical stylus would concern me slightly. For only $1,700.00 there's the EMT HMD 025 which I understand is a refined sounding cartridge but more reserved sounding than the Miyajima (just from what I've read). The diamond on the EMT is listed as an SPH 25, whatever that is. The magnet on the EMT is listed as an AINiCo,nickle-plated and the magnet listed on the Hana is listed as an Alnico. Usually whenever I'm wanting to upgrade my stereo with a new purchase, I just look for quality and value and don't get too caught up in the integration of a specific tone. However that would change when it comes to phono cartridges and my understanding is that the Miyajima is the gold standard where tone is concerned. I primarily listen to classical LP's as that makes up the majority of my collection.
|
@dogberry I recently had them all replaced but had failure after just a few weeks. The tech who did the work is now history and I think I've found someone who's better qualified. |
@billstevenson You're essentially saying the same thing that I posted. Miyajima doesn't mention Microgroove pressings. About stylus size of Zero MONO |
@kennyc I'm referring to their description as to what stylus type is best for what type of pressing. About stylus size of Zero MONO
|
@billstevenson Why are they correct?
|
This is why I posted the preferred stylus size of 0.7 for Microgroove pressings. Miyajima overlooks the Microgroove pressing altogether. I have a fairly large mono vinyl collection and most of them are Microgroove. I'd say one eighth of my collection is modern re-pressings. I'm currently using a 1.0 sized elliptical stylus and haven't had any noticeable issues but if I were to order another mono cartridge, I believe the 0.7 stylus would make the most sense. Or if there's a stylus size between 0.7 and 1.0, that might even be better. |