Mono vinyl, how do you know if really single channel mono or if stereo recorded to mono

Lastly, a mono record cut with a properly aligned stereo cutterhead will be no different to using a mono head, as long as the signal supplied is the exact same for both channels. The cutting stylus chosen should also ensure the production of sufficiently deep and wide grooves in order to accommodate those users wanting to replay mono with a traditional spherical 25µm stylus.

I found this on the Ortofon site so answers one question.

a good resource

https://www.ortofon.com/hifi/cartridges-ranges/true-mono/

it also appears that for optimum performance a "true mono" cartridge is desirable i.e one that only generates output from lateral motion, not a stereo cartridge strapped to mono or by using a mono button on a phono stage if it has one.

It sounds like you want to use your stereo cartridge

no.. At this point I’m not wanting to do anything other than understand what is happening. As I stated in my post .... I am exploring getting a mono cartridge

What’s the point to make mono press out of stereo master ? Why ?

My question has nothing to do with converting stereo to mono. It has to do with how a mono record is made with a mono master, how the groove is cut in the vinyl... and how a cartridge "reads" that groove, , are mono records cut with stereo heads the same as those cut with mono heads, and ultimately, what kind of mono cartridge is best to get?

before stereo there was only one way mono records were made, with a mono cutting head that only moves laterally.

after stereo you can also cut a mono record with a stereo cutting head by applying the same signal to both channels. So one question is.. does this result in the same thing as using a mono cutting head i.e. only lateral motion during playback? In other words, if I used a mono cutting head to make one record and a stereo cutting head to make another from the same recording, would the grooves be identical? So I admit my initial question about how to tell the difference was not the right question, the question is, are they different?

I ask this because I don’t know if a "modern" mono recording cut with a stereo head is better off played with a stereo cartridge since it was cut with a stereo head, or does playing it with a mono cartridge offer the same advantages as playing one cut with a mono head. I ask this because there are a variety of mono cartridges, some that are actually stereo cartridges strapped to mono, and some are true mono i..e. they only have output in response to lateral motion. I ask this because I am exploring getting a mono cartridge and I’m trying to understand the differences in this variety of cartridges and which is the best kind to get. It obviously isn’t just a matter of buying a cartridge that is labeled as mono because there are different ways they are made and different stylus profiles.

thank for the responses but I obviously wasn’t very clear in my initial post so I am trying again...

I am finding Mono LP’s is a messy world, and information is often missing.

amen

I suggest/hope you research and find a Mono Cartridge BODY with interchangeable/optional Stylus,

good idea... does that exist?

Nearly all of them are guilty of obfuscating to one degree or another, in order to allow the reader to believe that their product is "true mono". Not many actually are

Thanks Lewm, I see that. Ortofon uses the term "true mono" all over their website, but when I contacted them about their cartridges they replied

Firstly, please read some background information about the TRUE MONO concept on our web here https://www.ortofon.com/hifi/cartridges-ranges/true-mono/.

MONO models use a strapped output to deliver the same output signal from both sets of pole pins, which makes it possible to get true mono reproduction on any stereo playback system. So there is only one signal out and this is on both pair of terminals (for convenience - most people have stereo equipment and need signal for both channels).

so their use of the term "true mono" is to me.. very misleading if not basically an outright lie. 

I just ordered this to play with.. not much money and if correctly described it is a mono cartridge.. thanks so far for the info

https://www.audio-technica.com/en-us/at-mono3-lp

Due to the horizontal configuration of its PCOCC (Pure Copper by Ohno Continuous Casting) voice coils, the AT-MONO3/LP cartridge only generates electrical signal with horizontal movement, yet it also has appropriate compliance in the vertical direction, making it safe for use with stereo records.

I apologize for the title of the thread, it should not say "stereo recorded to mono." that makes no sense... I was thinking about mono recorded as 2 equal channels on a stereo record... so it should be the other way around.. I was interested in mono recorded with a stereo cutting head

so again, I apologize for causing any confusion.

doorbell just rang. UPS with my copy of the 3 LP set Beatles "Mono Masters"

in case anyone is still paying attention , I decided there is only one way to satisfy my curiosity and that is to get a real mono cartridge. Consensus of the online reviews is a Miyajima Zero is one of the best so ordered one. true mono with only lateral motion. I've also been cleaning my record collection and didn't realize I have a lot of classic jazz records (late 50's and 60's) that are mono as well as a fair number of older classical. Ordered the Dylan and Coltrane mono boxes too.. OH BOY another thing to collect !!!

Funny to ask here and to buy what's in the reviews online.

how so "funny" ?? You find it odd to seek out as many opinions as I can before I buy ??

what other sources of information would you suggest ?? Believe it or not, there aren't any bricks and mortar dealers within 200 miles of here and those that exist don't deal with analog very much if at all  .. so online reviews, online opinions here, online opinions on other forums, online whatever is all I have to go with. 

I have not yet owned any MONO record that better than Stereo.

I have many records that were recorded mono before stereo existed or was just catching on so no stereo masters exist. .Any stereo version of these is "electronically enhanced" .. tough to see how the stereo version could be better... I'll let you know. I've read review after review and many opinions from those who repeatedly attest that the mono versions of these early recordings especially played with a quality mono cartridge are absolutely better. I have yet to read where mono turned into stereo is better, I've yet to hear anybody say that they prefer these older mono recordings played with a stereo cartridge. 

You’re talking about OLD mono. If mono is the only version (originally recorded in mono) then it’s fine and it’s better to buy mono LP, right. You need only one speaker for those records and it’s OK.

But in the 70’s stereo is the way to go, I much prefer original stereo records (not fake stereo). I don’t know why do we need mono today if stereo is available? Who prefer to record in mono today and why?

Here is one instance where I see absolutely no use for stereo. . think Bob Dylan on his early records when it was him, guitar, and harp. When they put some of them out in stereo they panned the guitar one way and the harp the other with his voice in the middle. Completely unnatural and distracting, much better in mono

In the early days of stereo  they tended to show it off by putting some instruments hard left , some hard right, and often left a hole in the middle. There are a lot of small group jazz recordings (trio, quartet) like that. Debatable which is preferable, but definitely not the best use of stereo.

One argument you hear for mono is it allows you to concentrate on the music because your brain doesn't have to process the stereo. Makes some sense.. at a live performance you seldom if ever get the sense of separation and the precise location of instruments in space that you get with a "well done" stereo recording. For most amplified concerts it is a wall of sound, there is no left and right. If the goal really is the proverbial "Absolute Sound" of recreating live performances most stereo falls far short in that regard.

So the question is.. do you prefer the music in stereo or is it the fun of listening to the soundstage they are creating, the unnatural soundstage in most cases. No right or wrong, but a perhaps a valid reason why some may prefer mono for recordings done in stereo.

.

I know everything about LPs.

ebm7,093 posts

ebm, i think we can ask you the same thing... what are you talking about? That's the second nonsensical post you've made to this thread.

I hate to say it but some of the earlier rock and jazz recordings of the 50s and 60s sound the best in mono.  Its not even close

.
Any recommendations, any favorites? In my never-ending quest to spend all of my retirement savings before I retire, I would love to add some to my collection.

Great... I have that in mono and listened to it many times on CD. It is a double album reissue in the Verve VSP series (Very Special Performance). No idea how it compares to the originals or the 45 rpm reissues. 

Ella, Louie, Oscar Peterson, Herb Ellis, Ray Brown and either Buddy Rich or Louis Bellson... how can it be anything but great ?

can't wait to get my cartridge!

In case anybody is still paying attention. The Miyajima Zero  is here

 I can’t say definitely why because I’ve never had a mono cartridge, so is it because it is mono or because it is just a good cartridge or ??? But there is something that sounds very “right” about playing my old mono jazz and classical records with it. The horns have a bite and an “in the room” presence that I don’t get from my ZYX. It sounds like music and that's about as good as it gets.

The Original Jazz Classics I have sound very good as well as old mono classical records I inherited years ago from my grandfather. I bought the Beatles "Mono Masters" and so far it sounds like crap.. very bright, but only played side 1 so maybe it gets better. Reissue of Coltrane's mono Atlantic recordings on the way.

so here goes my retirement fund !!