Mono Cartridge Question


You chaps have watched me struggle with the issue of my London Decca Reference being irreplaceable, and then joyfully learning that John Wright has a successor after all. You have seen me buy and test three other MI designs (Nagaoka MP-500, Grado Statement3, Soundsmith Sussurro MkII) along with my older MC cartridges (Ortofon Kontrapunkt C and Benz Micro Ruby 3). Since those struggles have led me to owning two SME turntables and four tonearms, I am now torturing myself with the question of whether one of those four should be home to a dedicated mono cartridge. Remember, I only have one ear and cannot hear stereo at the best of times. A mono cartridge for my few dozen mono recordings would be a matter of reduced surface noise and possibly some improvement in dynamics.

I can get hold of an Ortofon Cadenza Mono (two voice coils so not true mono) for about 1600CDN, and a Miyajima Zero for 3450CDN. So the question is this: am I mad to even think about it? Money is not what it once was before I retired. There is no opportunity to go and hear these before purchase, without spending much more than purchase price on travel.

Shall I "make do" with my rather good stereo carts for my mono LPs or is there something better waiting for me when I get out those Parlophone Beatles LPs?

 

dogberry

I can't answer all of the questions raised here, but I can add some light at least.  First let me describe my mono vs. stereo cartridges a bit further.  I have a VAS Mono MC, .07 mil elliptical diamond on aluminum cantilever and the brother in stereo.   Next an Ortofon 2M Black and 2M Mono SE, MM, both Shibata on aluminum cantilevers.  Audio Technica AT33 Mono (2), one is 0.07 mil and one is 1.0 mil.   Here is what I have learned.  Use 0.07 mil styli on modern records, reissues etc., but not on old monos as they sound awful.  Conversely, the 1.0 mil stylus doesn't track on modern records.  So if you have a mix of old and new mono records you will need one stylus of each size.  That is where moving magnet cartridges with user replaceable stylii can be handy.  As I have already said a mono cartridge sounds best on a mono record.  But of course the better the cartridge the better the sound.

Next, If you have a record that you are not sure is mono or stereo, start by playing it with a stereo cartridge.  If the record is mono, the image will be centered between the two speakers.  Switching to a mono cartridge will generally make the record quieter and more lively.  For records that were "rechanneled for stereo" or some such nonsense, that means they are full of reverb and generally sound better if played with a mono cartridge.

The problem is: Define "old mono" vs "new mono".  Definition to be used in deciding whether to use the 0.7mil stylus vs a 1.0mil stylus.  I have read many different opinions on that score, and it may vary by label as well as year of manufacture.

Hi Lewm,

Definitions can get tricky.  What I do is clean it and then play the damn record.  If not sure, I play the record with a stereo cartridge first.  That is always going to determine if it is mono or stereo.  Next, I try a 0.07 mil mono.  If it is really noisy, then I try a 1.0 mil mono.  Usually that process works.  If none of those works, the record is donated to a local charity that sells used records.  But that is very rare. 

My policy is if the performance is old enough to have been recorded in mono, and if neither the jacket nor the label proclaim it’s stereo, then I flip the mono switch. But that doesn’t answer my own question. However as a result I’m playing all mono LPs with modern stereo styli, and I don’t notice any problem related to groove width. It may be that I own very few mono LPs that are old enough to require 1.0mil.

@lewm 

 It may be that I own very few mono LPs that are old enough to require 1.0mil.

The 1.0 mil for the early monos assumes a conical profile and many of the advanced profiles play the early mono's perfectly.

dave