Lewm, I'm not ignorant, rather I'm keeping my post simple. I've found this Ortofon website to break things down more but still question whether or not a microcline stylus would be ideal for pressings from both the 1950's and the 2000's. https://www.ortofon.com/hifi/cartridges-ranges/true-monoThere has to be a valid reason why Miyajima chooses a conical stylus and why Lyra incorporates a microcline stylus. |
Thanks chakster but I’d rather own an MC, just a personal preference. I am familiar with Grace as I owned an F 8 but I wasn’t all that impressed with it, though it filled a need at the time. Maybe the F9 would have left me with a different opinion.
Honestly, I really have no objections concerning my AT 33 mono. I do however notice a different sonic signature between my 1950’s vinyl and my reissues.The reissues have a better mix/mastering but my vintage vinyl sounds fuller. Also, I have an ASR Mini Basis phono stage which sounds nice with the AT but my thought is to move up some to a more refined sounding cartridge. The Lyra Kleos mono would be a dream to audition! Anyway, the tonearm will be my first upgrade.
|
Using a mono switch is nill. Neither my phono amp or amp offers a mono switch.
Lewm, I am somewhat surprised to hear you say that the Ortofon Cadenza mono cartridge is a strapped stereo cartridge as Ortofon claims otherwise. What is your source that states otherwise?
Solypsa, the Groovemaster is out of my reach. However, someday in the future it might be possible. The Groovemaster reminds me of the Thomas Schick and it appears that both tonearms have a type of cartridge and playback in mind where it concerns their design. Which brings up another point; being that a particular mono cartridge and tonearm combination could be a perfect match depending on whether the cartridge is meant for vintage or contemporary pressings.
I'm beginning to think that the only true way of determining what stylus/cartridge type would be best would be to compare between them. However that is just plain impossible for me to do. What might be best for this post would be to hear from someone who actually owns and plays a variety of mono cartridges. |
Sorry lewm, I didn’t look at the Quintet. The Cadenza Mono webpage claims that the Cadenza is a true mono cartridge for playing mono microgroove vinyl records. However, it states that the Cadenza Mono internal build is based on the internal build of the Cadenza Red. It also mentions that the four pins are connected, in order to receive the same exact sound.
I don’t follow you regarding the number of cartridge pins. My AT has four pins and it’s a true mono build. The same with Lyra, Miyajima and others. I did once own a mid level Grado that was strapped for mono but found it to be inconsistent from record to record. And, I liked my AT 33 mono so much better that I go rid of the Grado.
|
solypsa, I agree about which tonearm with which cartridge. I like the Schick and it's affordable but it's still much more than a Jelco. Additionally what makes the Jelco nice is that it will drop right into my Thorens without modifications. The Jelco will also work well with modern cartridges and from what I've been able to find, the Schick is raved for its compatibility with the better vintage cartridges.
|
solypsa, thanks for showing me the Groovemaster II tonearm. It gets great reiews and certainly looks the part. I suppose I could put off buying the Jelco and wait until I'm able to afford a 9"GM at roughly $1,700.00, twice the price of the Jelco. I notice that an Ortofon SPU is show mounted on the webpage. |
'An MC cartridge with such stylus must be retipped every 300 hrs.'
According to who and why?
I don't own 1960's mono, just earlier (no shellac) and a few reissues.
|
solypsa, the biggest problem would be installing either on a modified Thorens TD 145 MK1. |
’Regarding the typical life span of the Conical stylus profile you can read online.’
chakster, I’ve never seen this claim, do you have a URL? Some mono cartridges use a conical stylus because it fits the way earlier mono records were cut. The stylus is still a diamond. |
Actually chakster, you're reiterating the dilemma. The post is about finding a stylus that works optimally with both 1940's /50's mono and mono reissues. The fact that a conical stylus is suited for early mono records is something that, I believe, we've gotten past. The discussion is about a stylus and cartridge that works for both old and new. |
lewm, it would be unfortunate for you to be right concerning the Ortofon Cadenza mono, as this cartridge is at a good price point for what it claims to do. I've always been of the understanding that a true mono build is superior over a strapped stereo cartridge.
|
lewm,
I have neither a mono switch on my ASR amp nor my entry ASR phono stage, so that's out of the question. It was suggested in my earlier post on this sight (Which mono cartridge under $1,200.00) that I look for a true mono cartridge. I went from a strapped mid level Grado to the AT 33 mono and I prefer the AT. |
pryso,
The Ortofon Cadenza mono makes claim for being ideal for any type of mono vinyl despite the era, however it is still questionable as to whether or not the Ortofon is simply just a strapped mono cartridge.
I'm afraid I can't see myself affording a Lyra anytime soon though yes, that would be ideal. I don't understand Lyra's stylus description or why it's different;
Kleos
Stylus: Lyra-designed long-footprint variable-radius line-contact nude diamond (3um x 70um), slot-mounted
|
chakster, When I mention vinyl from the 1940's, I'm actually referring to that period of time where shellac changes to vinyl but exactly when, I don't know for certain. I do have some very early vinyl. As for my phono stage, I have an ASR mini basis exclusive phono amp which is perfect for all playback. |
chakster, in this case the actual pressing would be different, am I not correct? |
stringeen, I agree that many mono records sound better than stereo despite the style of pickup used. |
iopscrl,
Hana makes a low output mono cartridge which they say is a true mono cartridge and it has shibata diamond. Would this stylus stand up to a cartridge with a conical stylus when playing 1950’s mono pressings? Please keep in mind that I’m looking for a cartridge/stylus type that performs equally on earlier as well as reissued vinyl.
|
pryso, thanks for the URL! |
Dave, are you saying that late 1940's to late 1950's mono records are cut with the same V shaped groove as stereo records? |
Dave,
I'm thinking that your London LP should be a microgroove pressing. I suppose technically you're correct, that the shape of the groove is a V looking shape however that groove opening is wider than the later stereo cut grooves. In fact, the grooves on LP's started out wider and progressively got more narrow over time. When Columbia introduced their microgroove pressings, manufacturers complained about how narrow the grooves were in comparison to the earlier records (i.e. 78's)
As Lewm mentioned, the U shape description is just a vernacular term for specifying the difference in dimensions in order to clarify the point being made. Mono cartridge makers will use a nude conical stylus because of those earlier groove dimensions.
|
Dave, here are a couple of sources which explain different styli and groove dimensions as well as other things. https://www.badenhausen.com/VSR_History.htmhttps://dgmono.com/2017/02/17/modern-mono-playback/I think we're loosing site of what matters, being what stylus type would work well between older mono pressings and newer mono pressings? The reason why I believe this is in need of discussion is because stylus geometry changed with the evolution of the record. I don' think anyone would disagree that the 1 mil. conical stylus, while optimal for early mono records, wasn't ideal for later stereo records. I understand that early mono styli track well and sound fine riding higher in the groove than a stereo styli needs to (i.e. pinch effect) however this is not he only reason for considering what differences between styli are important. |
miijostyn,
thanks for the URL. My nude conical is 0.65 mil and I have no real objections to the richness of sound that I’m getting from 1950’s mono. So maybe a mono cartridge with a Shibata stylus of 0.7 mil or more could be fine; I’m not certain but I do think that the shape of the stylus is also an important consideration, just as the tonearm is.
|
intactaudio,
have you heard the Miyajima Zero? I personally have not but many will claim that it is one of the best mono sounding cartridges. What mono micro ridge cartridges do you believe to be a good choice. And, are their good micro ridge mono cartridges that are more affordably priced? |
'Maybe I should plug myself into a phono preamp. Any body try that?'
Sounds as if your already convinced but if you wish to, then go ahead.
|
gerrym5,
From my understanding, having a mono switch option is comparative to using a stereo to mono splitter. It is taking a stereo signal, by reading the left and right sides of the groove, via the azimuth tonearm adjustment and then channeling that into mono. Doing this is not a substitute for what a mono cartridge will do. The detail, musicality and quiet background that is characteristic of a mono cartridge will not happen by using a stereo cartridge, even with a splitter or a mono switch. Once you have a mono cartridge installed, then you may find that using the mono switch is preferable but that could go either way.
|
lewm you’re correct and I didn’t realize that I had forgotten to mention that my cartridge description would apply solely to a true mono cartridge design. The criticisms toward a strapped stereo cartridge would be the same as the comments I had made above concerning a splitter or a mono switch. So yes, I recommend purchasing a mono cartridge built as a true mono design. |
