Based only on my reading, which means to say "based on the opinions of others whom I do not even know" (i.e., flimsy logic) and the technical aspects of its design, I would choose the Miyajima Premium Be. The question in my mind is whether one even needs the "Be" version, since as far as I can tell the only difference between it and the Premium is (i) cost, and (ii) the color of the wood used. The non-Be version costs around $250 less. I also have had a notion to have one of my favorite but broken MM cartridges rebuilt as a mono, which would cost far less than $1300. |
Goofyfoot, Your rationale is as pointless as mine, so, go for it. I will say that I trust Syntax, since he is not one to say anything at all, unless it is from his personal experience and is strongly felt.
By the way, I do not know why building a cartridge as 2-channel mono would be more expensive than building it as 2-channel stereo, especially not "exponentially" more expensive. For one thing, a spherical stylus tip is usually preferred for mono, and such a tip is less expensive than any other shape. Be that as it may, the Miyajima Premium is built from the ground up as a mono, for what that's worth. |
"More expensive" than what? Compared to their stereo equivalents, e.g., a Lyra Delos vs a Lyra Delos Mono? Is the latter more costly? If so, I would guess that it's a matter of marketing and very low production numbers. If the Delos Mono is more costly than a Miyajima Premium, then I would opt for the latter, but that's pig-headed me. |
What Pryso said. My predilection for the Miyajima is based on the clear statement on their website that the Premium is a "true" mono design. Added to that, as I understand it (could be wrong) the best stylus for original early to mid-50s mono LPs, which describes most of mine), is an 0.7mil spherical. As I also understand it, if you mean to play even older mono records, especially 78s, you want a 1.0mil spherical stylus. The Premium can be had either way (1.0 or 0.7mil radius, spherical), I think. Then Pryso (Tim) makes the point that possibly later re-issues of those mono LPs may well be best played with an elliptical. I had not thought of that, but he could be correct. I would not go further than spherical or elliptical, however, for mono. No exotic shapes are necessary or recommended. What I would like to know is whether the various Lyra mono cartridges are "true" mono designs, or not. |
Correction: Miyajima supplies a 3.0mil stylus for 78s, not 1.0mil. However, for some reason I seem to recall that there is a class of mono LP that plays best with a 1.0mil spherical tip (or "conical", as Miyajima describes it). There is more information on this subject to be found at the KAB website, I think. Note also that Miyajima says not to use their mono cartridges on stereo LPs. |
Thanks, JCarr. I think it was I who conflated "Dorian Mono" with "Delos Mono", which may have created some confusion (at least in my own mind), or maybe it was my own wishful thinking that you would build a Delos Mono. Also, you confirmed what I always thought had to be the case; even a mono cartridge has to have vertical compliance. Good to know you do make a Kleos Mono. That one should be a "contenda", to borrow from Terry Malloy in "On the Waterfront". |
Goofy, MC cartridges are typically classified as "High Output" (HO) or "Low Output" (LO). LO is loosely defined as something less than 1.0mV at 5cm/sec. (This is not written in stone.) Most of the mono MCs under discussion here have an output somewhere between 0.3 and 0.8mV. If your phono stage has enough gain for a stereo cartridge with such an output voltage, then it will also work with a mono cartridge of that ilk. You need to find out what is the gain afforded via your phono stage in order to decide whether you need a step-up transformer (SUT). If the use of a SUT can be avoided, so much the better for both your wallet and your results. On the other hand, some would say that the net result of using a SUT with a phono stage of modest gain capability is to be preferred vs using a hi-gain phono stage that may not otherwise sound as good. There is endless debate on this subject; I have no dog in that fight. You don't HAVE to use a SUT if you don't need it. This is basic stuff. |
Dear Goofy, What you need to find out is what is the rated gain of the phono stage via the MC inputs. What you quoted is just advertising fluff. Somewhere somehow they must also report the gain capability. However, just based on the fact that it is an ASR, I think it is quite likely that you will have adequate gain if you plug your tonearm cables into the inputs labeled "MC" or "MC phono". That is, you probably do not need a SUT. The factors that determine the need for a SUT are (i) cartridge signal voltage output, and (2) phono stage gain. Period. If you have enough of (1) and (2), you don't need a SUT.
Not all cartridges are "created equal", but the requirements for amplifying their outputs are the same regardless of brand, stylus shape, or whether they are mono vs stereo types. The only cartridge parameter that matters in this case is the voltage output for a given stylus velocity. Most manufacturers state the voltage output for a velocity of 5 cm/sec, these days. See also my post above your last one. |
Yes, I guess S/N would have an effect on whether one would prefer to use the highest gain available from the phono stage or set it to lower gain and use a SUT. I am SUT-less myself, never owned one. My revised Atma-sphere MP1 phono has, if anything, more gain than I ever need for any cartridge. I am thinking of ways to reduce gain, in fact.
Anyway, Goofy, your quote:
"3.3 Adjusting the gain
The gain can easily be adjusted on the 6 fold DIP switches Gain Adjust. The switches can be combined to get higher gain. The minimal gain of +30 dB is obtained with all Dip switches in OFF, the Maximum gain of +72 dB is obtained by putting all DIP switches to ON."
72db is more than enough gain for anything you might choose. In fact you can probably cut back a bit from that max amount of gain, using the DIP switches. |
I would be interested in Al's thoughts on this, but my subjective impression is that with an "excess" of gain and the attenuator therefore in action, background noise typically seems to be lower (and dynamics much better) than when the gain setting is closer to the "minimum" necessary such that the attenuator is essentially out of the picture (meaning one has to turn the volume control nearly all the way up for adequate SPLs). I am not saying that my attenuator or any attenuator enhances sound quality; I am saying that the sense of musical ease and background silence seems superior with an excess of gain, or maybe what I am describing could better be thought of as the "correct" amount of gain. There is a lack of strain and better S/N, subjectively. This is a subjective judgement, not based on actual measurements of S/N. I know there are a lot of purists who would like to build equipment with "just enough" gain so as to obviate even the need for an attenuator; I don't hear it that way. |
I made my statement in terms of generalities, but your response serves to remind me that I am speaking from my very limited personal experience of comparing my MP1 (pre- and post-modification) to various other phono stages that I have actually had in my home. And perhaps there are some aural memories of the sound of other phono stages I have owned prior to the MP1 that also contribute to the formulation of my statement (which, being subjective, was not really a question, but I am glad you treated it as such). I dislike analogies because of their inevitable flaws, but one that rings reasonably true for me is how it feels to drive a Yugo at 30 mph vs how it feels to drive a Ferrari at 30 mph. The two are equally adequate for driving 30 mph, but with the Ferrari, if you need to change speed in a hurry, the reserves are there for you to hit 100 mph with no sense of effort. The Yugo will protest mightily if you try to take it up to 50 mph. The stressed low-gain phono stage will tend to sound thin and a bit more distorted when pushed to its limits, and noise inherent to its circuitry will be closer to the surface. That's the way I hear it. That's why I put a lot of thought into attenuators; the attenuator quality will become very critical in my way of thinking. |
On second thought(s), I don't much care for my analogy. There are problems with it. |
