No mystery about it, if you use a mono cartridge with no vertical compliance you have to be careful to never set it on a stereo record. Or, you can use a stereo design made in a mono version (hopefully with the magnets mounted 45° away from usual as described above in my chat with Peter Ledermann, rather than simply strapped coils to sum both channels) and it will have the vertical compliance so that a mistake will do no harm. Those are the choices.
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?
- ...
- 80 posts total
@dogberry I’m just skeptical about the idea that using a certain mono cartridge on mono records will damage the mono record. I appreciate everyone’s views and experiences but I’d make the radical assumption that many cartridge designers would not share this opinion. And while accepting that some cartridge designers would agree with the above opinion, a discourse should happen between those designers for and those designers against. My reasoning is that although certain theoretical principles are considered absolute, there is still a possibility that certain variables might offer a work around. |
@wallytools You wrote "I think a conical stylus is simply not appropriate for playing back ANY groove cut by a cutting stylus made in the last 75 years (and perhaps more). If the playback stylus is not a facsimile of the cutting stylus - or if it is misaligned - it will NOT take the same path through the groove as the path used to cut the groove in the first place. This is NOT to say a conical stylus won’t sound good! I am only saying you are giving up information in the groove and adding distortion (including, but not limited to, some second order harmonic which could be pleasing, but certainly not accurate.)" What do you think then of the DaVa field coil cartridge that features a conical stylus? Many, including the few on this forum who don't trash a cartridge they have never heard, claim that the DaVa is one of the worlds' best. Do you think these claims are simply emanating from a love of colouration and that the DaVa cannot by your definition be anywhere near a great cartridge? |
@intactaudio Saying that a conical stylus causes premature wear isn’t an outrages claim but I have no idea about what the groove would look like before and after. This is the first time I’ve heard anyone say as such and while it’s a perfectly plausible statement, is it something to fret over?
|
- 80 posts total