|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.169.136.159
For the last day I have been listening to my system in mono, mono records only. I really like the focus, intensity and listenability of the sound, compared to stereo.
I have it set up as follows: stereo cartridge (or cd player) into stereo preamp, using only one channel of the preamp, preamp into my Hafler DH120 which fortunately can be set up for mono, then into one Quad speaker.
I'm not concerned about the cartridge being stereo, but is the preamp being stereo holding back the sound quality of the system?
Follow Ups:
If you haven't done so, take a look at the schematic for both the Heathkit wap2 and the Fisher 50-C (RIAA version). Sans the loudness circuit and having an AC filament supply, the Heathkit is identical to the venerable 50-C.
I found that the quality of the Heathkit is good w/ the default W5M supplying B+ & heater but sounds fantastic with a dedicated power supply. Compared to my 50-C, there's nothing embarrassing about the Heahtkit mono preamp aside from being most hideous looking component I've ever seen. :-)
The focus and intensity you mentioned is a coherence that can be further achieved and refined with a dedicated mono cart but don't overlook the importance of a proper (massive) tonearm too for compliance.
Have you read this blog on mono hifi yet?
http://jelabsarch.blogspot.com/search/label/JE%20Labs%20Mono%20playback
I've seen worse!
Dave
Later Gator,
Dave
Yeah, a lot worse.
Don Brian Levy, J.D.
Toronto ON Canada
Thanks for the informative and useful responses.
I've tried using a Y splitter vs. just using one channel of the stereo preamp, and, even on mono records, I would say the sound is fuller and more present with the splitter cable.
I also tried hooking up a Lexicon preamp in its mono mode, but the sound was vastly inferior to my CJ stereo preamp with the splitter.
Right now I'm wondering if a vintage mono preamp like a Heathkit or the like would sound as good as my beloved CJ stereo. After the experience with the mono mode on the Lexicon, I'm doubting it.
Any opinions?
Going from a CJ to an old Heathkit would be a large step backwards. Stick with the splitter and enjoy!
Yes,... I had come to that conclusion ... thanks for the reaffirmation.
Now, what to do with the hundred and fifty dollars I just saved?????
What else? Get some more mono records!
There is a lot of debate about this in the Vinyl Asylum. There are many who feel that a true mono cartridge is the only way to go. Others feel that a strapped stereo cartridge or a mono switch is just as good. Also, the grooves are different for mono records produced before and after the emergence of stereo. Many advocate a larger 1.1 Mil diameter stylus for the early disks. Other recommend extreme tips like the Shibata or Fritz Geiger. Some of the early mono records use different EQ, but that is fare more important for 78's. 78's are another whole can of worms.
I have an extensive collection of mono records, bot pre-stereo and post-stereo and they sound great on my Sure M97xe/Grace 707/Linn LP12, with the mono switch hit on my Yamaha C-2x preamp. So I don't worry much about it. I do plan to have a mono system with my father's old setup, but that will more be for fun then fidelity. My tone controls can handle any EQ issues that come up with LP's, but for 78's you need more adjustment (IMO).
Dave
Why not just use an RCA type "Y" connector to combine the outputs of boith channels of the preamp. If you are pulling only one channel off the preamp, you are listening to only one side of the stereo cartridge. You COULd also use the same RCA "Y" connector to combine both channels of the cartridge and go into just one side of the preamp, but if it were me I would Y the output of the preamp. This assumes there is no mono switch built into the preamp, which would do the same thing and send the same signal to both outputs of the preamp if there is a MONO switch.
He is playing mono records so, there is no need to add the left and right channels of the cartridge. I agree with you 100% if he were playing stereo records.
If you plan on continuing to and expanding listening to mono records, it would be better getting a mono cartridge as the grooves are different between mono and stereo and the stylus shape is different for each type to get the best from the record. Also, many mono records are de nominated as 78rpm but speed control back in the heyday of 78s, especially pre-ww II shellac was not all that good as mechanical spring motors were in use, then. You may want to consider a table that has an adjustable speed and has a wide adjustment ability as some were made off by an octive. Lastly, the shellac records are pretty heavy as well as early vinyl pressings. This was a challenge for many tables designed for the later stereo pressings and using those records on these tables can significantly slow down the table and strain the motor. You may want to get the likes or the Lenco L75 or L78, a puck drive table with a continuous speed control. There is a lot of discussion about these where guys make new plinths, bases, and change arms. Modding them is fine but, in stock form with the original wood base, they are great whether used as a stereo or mono table.
Get a true mono cartridge and wire it to a dedicated headshell and the switch cartridges and use the mono when playing mono records. There is some debate about which to use when playing stereo records in mono. I am in the use the stereo cartridge camp. When using the stereo cartridge and a stereo preamp, flip the switch to mono.
If you get into mono and use mono records, you maY want to get a dedicated mono preamp to use with the dedicated mono turntable. Again back in the earlier days, the record equalization curves had not been agreed to and there were numerous ones in use. Some stereo preamps had the popular ones built in and you selected them as you would using a decent mono preamp. Others did not but published a chart of how to set the tone controls of that particular preamp to approximate the curves. You may want to consider a dedicated mono system and get a mono preamp, amp and speaker. They mostly have more limited frequency responses or useful controls to reduce rumble and high end hiss than later stereo preamps. Also, in these mono days, big high efficiency speakers were king as amps being tubes had low power output. Back then single Concert Grands, Klipschorns, Aristocrats etc. in the living room were not uncommon and when stereo hit things had to get smaller so, enter smaller speakers like the KLHs and ARs.
It is as important to plan out a good mono system as a stereo and the results can be easily just as satisfying.
Don Brian Levy, J.D.
Toronto ON Canada
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: