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.
Mono Reissues and the Conical Stylus
Hi Folks,
Recently I started buying mono reissues from Speakers Corner, Impex, and have recently ordered a few from Analogphonic. They're all of the 'long haired' variety. In the process, I've come to discovery threads where posters claim that the newer mono reissue grooves are cut in a V (stereo) shape rather than the vintage U (mono) shape.
My AT 33 mono cartridge comes with a conical stylus and from what I can tell, so do the better mono cartridges, i.e. the Miyajima Zero Mono. This of course would then create an issue where it pertains to using a conical stylus in a V shaped groove.
Around November, I plan to purchase a Jelco tonearm for my modified Thorens TD 160 and after that, will be looking to upgrade to a higher end mono cartridge. However, I don't see that they're would be a viable solution to the stylus dilemma given that I will only have one tonearm. I do by the way own a collection of early mono records but would like to find a cartridge that better crosses over between my vintage pressings and my reissues. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Recently I started buying mono reissues from Speakers Corner, Impex, and have recently ordered a few from Analogphonic. They're all of the 'long haired' variety. In the process, I've come to discovery threads where posters claim that the newer mono reissue grooves are cut in a V (stereo) shape rather than the vintage U (mono) shape.
My AT 33 mono cartridge comes with a conical stylus and from what I can tell, so do the better mono cartridges, i.e. the Miyajima Zero Mono. This of course would then create an issue where it pertains to using a conical stylus in a V shaped groove.
Around November, I plan to purchase a Jelco tonearm for my modified Thorens TD 160 and after that, will be looking to upgrade to a higher end mono cartridge. However, I don't see that they're would be a viable solution to the stylus dilemma given that I will only have one tonearm. I do by the way own a collection of early mono records but would like to find a cartridge that better crosses over between my vintage pressings and my reissues. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
82 responses Add your response
The topic is MONO REISSUES btw, so we expect stereo cutter head. Anyway stereo and mono grooves are different, but it does not change the fact that Conical/Spherical stylus has the shortest life span even compared to Elliptical, no matter on which records, it's just an oldchool stylus shape. In terms of life span we have Conical/Spherical, Elliptical, Hyper elliptical, Shibata, Microline, MicroRidge, Gyger, Replicant 100, VdH ... etc. No matter how many profiles we can mention the Conical will be the first (simplest) to retip as it wears out quicker than any other profiles. |
A conical stylus theoretically can’t be used as long as Shibata and definitely can’t be used as long as LineContact or Micro Ridge. If you expecting 850-1000 hrs from a well polished nude conical Denon tip then how many hrs do you expect from Shibata or MicroRidge ? The conical/spherical tip is the worst, cheapers and has the shortest life span, you can use Shibata for 600 hrs (or MicroRidge and Gyger for about 2000 hrs), but the nude Conical degrade pretty fast, the reason is the high tracking force (3-4 grams) and very small dots (groove contact area). The contact area is small and with high tracking force associated with low compliance cartridges it wears out quickly. This is the basics. You can read here. links: https://www.ortofon.com/media/14912/everything_you_need_to_know_about_styli_types.pdf https://www.lencoheaven.net/forum/index.php?topic=5267.0 " You should expect at least 300h of good sound. After that it won’t sound as good as new. If it’s not sounding as good as new, it’s time for the replacement. For more technical info, search the Vinylengine forum; we have discussed this topic many many times. " |
Goofyfoot: I would agree with Chakster that conicals are going to wear faster than line contact or microridge styli. I would not agree, however, that it is necessary to retip all conical styli at the 300 hour mark. There are conicals (cheap) and there are conicals (better quality). A high quality nude conical like that found on the Denon 103/103R or the AT 33 Mono, for example, is very likely to go into the 850-1000 hour range before needing retipping if playing clean vinyl in good condition and treated properly. At least in my experience. |
’An MC cartridge with such stylus must be retipped every 300 hrs.’ Regarding the typical life span of the Conical stylus profile you can read online. This is why it is the cheapest profile. It has the shortest life span, that’s it. For this reason it must be retipped often if it’s your regular cartridge. The modern profiles like MicroRidge on any records (including mono) has the longest life span and much better contact area with the groove walls. This is the most expensive and the most accurate profile (well, one of them actually). |
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. |
@goofyfoot 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. F8 is cheap entry level cartridge, F9 is somewere in the middle, nothing special. The Grace i am talking about is F14 Mono with two pins, the high-end Grace cartridges are F14 and LEVEL II models, only those two models comes with the best cantilevers (Sapphire, Boron Pipe, Beryllium) and best styli (MicroRidge). Those are the last cartridges made by Grace before they went out of business in the late 80’s. These models are better than many MC cartridges, but they are not cheap, actually very expensive and superior compared to any F9 version. I have F14 MONO, the stylus does have a vertical compliance and the diamond profile is Luminal Trace. Nice for original mono records from the 60s/70s. This Grace F14 Mono has only two pins to connect leadwires. I don't have any pre-60's mono records and i don't buy mono reissues. Anyway, a Conical stylus is anachronism and must be avoided in the modern world (except for 78rpm SP records). An MC cartridge with such stylus must be retipped every 300 hrs. |
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. |
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. |
On the other hand, like I said earlier, there is nothing "wrong" with deriving mono by internal bridging, in my opinion. Some purists might argue that cancellation of the signal produced by vertical displacement of the cantilever, in such a design, is imperfect unless the cartridge is perfectly constructed physically. (The two channels have to be perfectly in balance with respect to gain, etc.) One would have to do a careful study and take measurements to sort that out. |
Goofy, I did not specifically mention the Cadenza mono cartridge. I was for a time interested in the Quintet mono. If you look at the language they use to describe the Quintet, you would think it is "true mono", i.e., like the Miyajima cartridges in that it is insensitive to vertical cantilever displacement. However, if you then look at the specs, you will see they are identical to those of the Quintet stereo cartridge. This to me is an indication that the mono version is derived from the stereo one by internal bridging of the two channels. This was also true of the Black mono. If the Cadenza blurb says otherwise, check the specs of the stereo compared to the mono version. Does the Cadenza mono have two channels of outputs (4 pins)? If so, that is usually a sign of a mono cartridge that was created from stereo. The manufacturers can be devious, and you have to read between the lines. |
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. |
What you can buy is an MM (true MONO) cartridge like Grace and a bunch of different styli for different records. Practically this is much better solution than many different mono MC cartridges. Grace made some great true mono MM cartridges and styli. Another manufacturer who made so many different MONO styli for any situation is Stanton/Pickering |
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. |
Or you could buy one mono cartridge specifically for vintage (up to very early 50s or late 40s, I am guessing) original mono LPs with a 1.0mil conical stylus (if you have a large number of such records), and use a mono mode switch with a stereo cartridge for the rest. I have none of those early mono LPs, and I bought a Shelter 501 mk2 mono cartridge to play the mono LPs that I do own, last year. However, I am so satisfied with just using the mono mode switch that I have yet to mount the Shelter. |
+1 on lewm's comment: if you want to play 'everything' you'll need a few different mono carts. (Archivists often have considerably more) That said 'modern' monos will sound better with a modern stylii profile for many of the same reasons stereo records do. Since you are adding an arm with removeable headshell plan on getting two carts. (As an aside if you want to mess with SPU carts or other heavy-low compliance carts take a look at the Audiocreative Groovemaster II as well as the jelco you have in mind) |
One reason for the use of exotic shaped styluses in modern mono cartridges is practicality. Most modern mono cartridges are actually stereo cartridges that are bridged internally to create a mono output in two channels. So, it is very easy for any manufacturer to create a new mono cartridge by that method. Miyajima is one of only a very few that builds mono cartridges from scratch; their mono cartridges do not react to vertical deflection of the cantilever at all. Lyra achieves the same goal by re-orienting the coils such that the output is mono. After much digging I was able to ascertain that Ortofon mono cartridges are created by internal bridging of a stereo cartridge. Their website is misleading on that subject. However in my opinion there’s nothing wrong with that approach. If you have a mono mode switch on your preamp, that works too. |
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-mono There has to be a valid reason why Miyajima chooses a conical stylus and why Lyra incorporates a microcline stylus. |
Goofyfoot, There is a lot of information on this subject available on the internet, but no matter how much knowledge you acquire (and I do recommend that you acquire more than you have already), there will always be some gray areas and areas where knowledgeable persons disagree with each other. If you go to the Miyajima website, English version of course, and read what they have to say about how their cartridges should be used, that would be a good place to start. If memory serves, they recommend a 1.0mil conical stylus for older original mono recordings. 0.7mil conical for later recordings, mono LPs into the mid-to-late 1950s. I don't recall what they recommend for modern mono re-issues, but I am confident 0.7mil would work. I am also sure that Sleepwalker's choice works too. With only one tonearm on one turntable, you're going to have to decide what compromises you want to make. Also, search on this site and on Vinyl Asylum and Vinyl Engine for more info. |
My take on this is that re-issues and late sixties original mono records are cut with narrow groove, and as such a modern stylus profile is optimal for reproduction even if only in mono. To that end, I’ve gone with the Audio-Technica VM540ML and it’s mono sibling, doing a mix and match, taking the microline stylus from the VM540ML stereo body and putting on the mono cartridge body to play mono records. This limits me to just narrow groove records though. On a related note, I have yet to see a perfectly definitive way to identify exactly when mono record production in wide groove format stopped and narrow groove production started. Any ideas on that would be most welcomed. |