Why mono?

Acsusreus,

In my system I really didn't notice much (any) difference using the mono switch on my BAT line stage or a K&K phono stage.

I have a Miyajima Premium BE mono cartridge mounted on a Triplanar tonearm and it is terrific on mono recordings. It sounds better on the vast majority of my ~300 mono recordings when compared to my Dynavector XV1-S stereo cartridge on a Talea tonearm. Great explanation Elizabeth.

Thom has done a great job articulating the dedicated 'mono experience'. I think his description of the soundstage, especially the 'enveloping' quality and depth are spot on. On some records there is an incredible tonal richness that is unique to mono...perhaps reflecting differences in the recording technique, i.e. recording equipment, miking, etc., rather than mono versus stereo.

As Thom and Mike have noted, this applies to the majority, but certainly not all mono recordings. In my experience, the better the recording, the greater the benefit from the dedicated mono cartridge.

I look forward to hearing what the Miyajima can do mounted on the Artisan ;-)

My experience is with original, older monos.

Recently snagged a mono first pressing of Mile Davis' "Round About Midnight" from 1955 and it absolutely wipes the floor with my other two stereo versions.

Another recent purchase was Barney Kessel, Ray Brown and Shelley Manne's "Poll Winners 3" from 1962?...one of the best sounding LPs I own.

I also recently rediscovered some original Mercury Living Presence monos and they are spectacular.

Again (and similar to current vinyl releases) pressing and recording quality will vary.

Zaikesman,

Sorry I missed your earlier question.

I have played mono albums as follows:

a. Stereo cartridges with stereo setting on phono & line preamp

b. Stereo cartridges through summed mono setting on phono & line preamp

c. Mono cartridge

I strongly prefer the sound of (c) with the vast majority of mono recordings.