Why mono?

In answer to an earlier question on whether I've tried summing the signal after the fact, the answer is yes, but too long ago to say anything meaningful about it.

It's worth revisiting, and I intend do so, but at the moment, it's all I can do to iron out the wrinkles in order to get the Stelvio II flying in formation in time for RMAF.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galiber

Greetings,

The evidence would suggest a 16-22 gram effective mass for the wonderful Myajima mono cartridge. While the Tri-Planar is objectively and observably a superior arm to the humble Artisan, the latter (with a slightly higher effective mass) is a better match for the Myajima. I’m curious about Jazzdoc’s observations about the Artisan/Myajima pairing, and he’ll likely be able to report back on this combination in a few weeks.

So far, I’m getting mixed results with mono, in that some mono records aren’t improved through a mono cartridge, while others are dramatically better. In some cases the noise drops off dramatically (the noise generated by vertical movement which mono cartridges ignore). In others, there’s no difference.

In short, if you have a mono collection, exploring a dedicated mono arm/cart is a worthwhile avenue. For me (others may differ), it’s the only justification for running a dual arm rig, and the only reason my new designs will continue to have this feature.

BTW, Mike L. inadvertently added an extra zero. The Myajima mono series of cartridges runs in the $900 to $1,200 range (there are three mono cartridges in the line). All of this makes me wonder how good the mono version of the Dynavector XV1s is.

The mono experience (through a mono cartridge) is very “spatial”, but in a different way from stereo. Shifting to a mono cartridge (on a mono recording) “grows” the sound field in a spherical way – the central image grows, frequently to the bounds of your stereo speaker pair. You get a sense of engulfment you didn’t think possible through your mono recordings.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier