|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
73.158.60.206
I keep thinking about adding another tone arm to my Garrard 301 to be dedicated to mono. The phono stage I use would support a second cart - it is the Tavish Adagio, and my stereo cart is connected to a Bob's Devices transformer and then into the MM input, so I could connect a mono cart to the MC input.
I own a good number of mono records - the Beatles mono box, for example, a number of historical classical reissues (Toscanini and Schnabel, for instance), then a number of 50s classical mono orchestral recordings, and a number of jazz recordings made in mono.
But is it worth the extra expense? Has anyone actually heard mono carts on an extended basis?
Follow Ups:
using an Ortofon DG25 MKIII DI- this is a true mono cartridge that only responds to lateral groove content. It is an update of the original Ortofon Mono cartridge introduced in 1947.
Most mono cartridges sold today are stereo cartridges adapted for mono. Some just internally connect channels to derive a mono signal- like a mono switch or Y cable. Others orient internal coils to minimize response from vertical content.
In both cases, the cartridge still responds to vertical groove content. The presence of vertical content, even though it was "summed out" or the coils were re oriented, introduces phase anomalies that can be audible. A true mono cartridge responds to horizontal content ONLY. Unfortunately this generally means that compliance in the vertical plane is either non existent or greatly impaired. For these reasons most true mono cartridges should only be used with roughly pre 1960 LPs.
Groove width is another consideration. Pre 1960 (or so) Mono LPs have a 1mil groove width, and most true mono cartridges have 1mil stylus tips. Stereo LPs and current Mono LPs have stereo width grooves which are .7mil. Using a 1mil mono cartridge to play a .7mil stereo (or recent mono) LP will likely result in damage to the LP. For the recored, your Beatles Mono Box (and all current mono reissues) has .7mil stereo groove width, but the signal is mono.
Current true mono- single coil cartridges:
Denon 102
Ortofon DG25 DI MKIII
Several Miyajima models.
Thats it. Just about every other mono cartridge (AT, Grado, other Ortofon...even the SPU Mono) is actually a stereo cartridge adapted to mono.
My experience is a mono cartridge sounds different. Bigger, bolder, more dynamic. Bass is better than I expected. Surface noise is reduced (as expected). Solo instruments and small ensembles sound very real. Piano and brass have a corporeal presence that I don't get with an adapted stereo cartridge. Center image is expansive but all sound comes from the same point. Music just fills the room in a different way than a stereo cartridge.
If you have a collection of true mono LPs, and can afford the extra expense, then I think you will be well served by deploying a true mono cartridge. The Ortofon I use is a cartridge and head shell combo that plugs into a standard SME mounting collar- like the one one your Jelco. However the cartridge is heavy and you may need additional mass in your counter weight to balance the cartridge.
Just my experience.
You cover a number of topics I was unaware of - for example, the .7mil issue vs. 1mil.
I took a quick look at the Ortofon 2M Mono SE, which they developed especially for the Beatles mono box. Here is one of the claims:
"Another big advantage in using a mono cartridge to play mono records is the absence of response to vertical movement. This means that a mono cartridge is basically immune to the pinching effect which comes into action when the stylus is pushed vertically upward in very narrow grooves. Also the response to dust, dirt and wear is reduced substantially. The final result will be a clean and noiseless reproduction of the mono record."
Wouldn't this suggest "true mono" as you have defined it?
Tom
Is a stereo cartridge adapted for mono. Coils are connected together to minimize signal from vertical groove content. Note they point out the benefits of using a single coil mono cartridge, but are careful not to claim that the 2M Mono is a single coil mono cartridge.
It has a .7mil stylus and is safe to use for -any- mono LP....pre 1960 and modern mono reissues. Current mono LPs are cut using a stereo cutter, stereo groove width, and a mono signal.
Hope this helps.
Ross, your points disclose what I've learned from research for mono playback, and more.
There seem to be unending arguments, or at least differences of opinion, about whether a mono switch or Y adaptor is adequate for mono playback. I think it depends on the records played.
From what I've read, basically no mono cutter heads survived to current days. All the mono records produced for the past 10 to 20 years were made with a stereo cutter head. So anyone playing new mono recordings (do they exist?) or reissues of older mono records can utilize a more modern profile stylus. Playing original monos from the mid-'60s or earlier will be better served by a 1 mil stylus.
Your additional information about true mono designs is a welcomed addition to the stylus profile choice.
"The only cats worth anything are the cats who take chances. Sometimes I play things I never heard myself." Thelonious Monk
Current mono LPs are cut using a stereo cutting head, .7mil groove width, and a mono signal.
Mono cutting heads did survive, and I believe one was used by Classic Records (I think...may have been another reissue label) to create mono reissue LPs that were as close as possible to original mono pressings. They recreated the groove width and shape of vintage mono LPs.
Many listeners prefer to use a modern stylus profile to play vintage mono LPs. The theory is that a modern profile reads a portion of the groove that is relatively unplayed. Modern profiles can read deeper into a groove than a vintage 1mil conical stylus. Something to think about.
I draw the line at about 1960. My opinion is that stereo caused labels to purchase new cutter heads, and a stereo head can also be used to cut a mono LP, so why maintain 2 cutter heads ? By the early-mid 60's it would have been a coin toss as to whether or not your mono LP has a .7mil (stereo width) groove, or a 1mil mono groove. I chose 1960 as the dividing line, and prefer to be safe rather than sorry.
I have a few hundred vintage mono LPs, mostly Jazz.
This subject does get more than a bit murky doesn't it? I try to avoid old mono records cut to pre-RIAA equalization curves, most of them are the wider 1.0 mil grooves. All of my mono cartridges are 0.7 mil and follow the formula you correctly described earlier in this thread. I do have one 1.0 mil conical stylus that gets pressed into service occasionally. In my experience the 0.7 mil stylii, whether conical, elliptical, or Shibata (I have all three) tend to bottom out and are noisy on old 1.0 mono records. FWIW, for someone who has a large collection of very old records, pre-RIAA, a 1.0 mil conical stylus is a must and the very best cartridge for those in my experience is hand made in Japan and extremely expensive.
I concur - for the archivist, a 1mil stylus is a must.
Although not a mono solution as such, for those of us who are happy enough with a stereo cartridge, Ortofon used to make the perfect solution for vintage mono with their Arkiv cartridge which had a 0.5x1.0 mil elliptical stylus in a med/low compliance suspension that was based on their Club (DJ) cartridge, but the response was very satisfyingly neutral. Unfortunately it is now discontinued, but the current DJ cartridge (MkII Club) has the same specifications for anyone wanting a more universal solution with the advantage of an elliptical variation with the 1.0 mil bearing radius.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Folks, I wasn't asking about mono switches vs mono carts, which is what most of the past chatter is about. I wanted to learn actual experiences from those who actually use a a mono cart, and compare that to playing mono records using a stereo cart. FWIW, my system doesn't have a mono switch, and I already knew that doesn't really do the trick in the way I have heard it described.
I really appreciate the responses from those who have the experience I was looking for. I thought about the idea of simply using a replacement head shell with the same stereo and mono cart, but there are simply very few (or few that I could find) mono carts, and that would require either a compromise on the stereo, or significant $$. I currently am using a Koetsu Black, if I wanted to stay with Koetsu I would need to go with the Rosewood Signature Platinum, so something like $18K in carts. I have a Jelco 750L today, so that meets the replaceability factor, but it feels like a mismatch between the cart and the tonearm, not to mention that I probably would not enjoy have to switch headshells after a long day of work. I am looking into how to get a second tone arm installed in my Garrard 301. I am thinking about repurposing the Jelco for the mono cart, and then adding, I don't know, a Kuzma 4 point for the stereo.
As usual I am on the tail end of the conversation. I have several relevant experiences. Since I am interested in old jazz, a lot of my records are mono. In the beginning I thought a tonearm with an interchangeable head shell would do the trick. I started with an SL 1200 MKII. Later I sold this for an SL 1200 GAE. Cartridges include AT 33 and AT 33 Mono, Ortofon 2M Black and 2M Mono SE (the mono version of the 2M Black), and VAS mono and stereo MC cartridges. Eventually I decided to dedicate the SL 1200 GAE to mono and now have a VPI for Stereo. It is quite easy for me to compare dedicated mono vs. stereo and even otherwise identical cartridges on the GAE using the same arm. The phono stage is a Conrad Johnson TEA 1, series III, into a c-j GAT II, which is state of the art. I have 3 different SUTs, the best of which is a silver wire Consolidated from Berlin. So what can I tell you? Is there a difference between mono and stereo cartridges playing mono records? Most of the time yes and it is usually not subtle. Does a switch work as well, some times yes, but usually not as well. Is the expense worth it to have a separate mono cartridge/arm/whatever? I have several thousand mono jazz records, so for me the answer is yes. It really depends, though, on how much mono listening you have available and the opportunity cost of doing so instead of listening to other perhaps more modern recorded music available to you.
Many thanks, exactly what I am looking for.
The mono cartridge vs mono switch/strapped to mono debate has been done to death online. You could spend days reading it all.
Based on my own personal experience over the years a true mono cartridge sounds better on mono recordings than all the other "work arounds" like Y cords. Have Phasemation and Miyajima carts now. Have used Stanton 500, Ortofon etc in the past.
I have a large collection of 45s and 78s so it is important to me. If you only have a few mono recordings just use a mono switch and be done with it!
Yes I run a second arm with my turntable and that is fitted with an Ortofon 2M Mono SE. The SE version is, I believe, only obtainable direct from the factory. It was introduced as a limited edition originally. The introduction was chosen to coincide with the release of the Beatles Mono box set and Ortofon say that they consulted with Abbey Road about about choice of stylus dimensions etc. Of course it sounds wonderful with other mono discs too!
Summing a stereo cartridge does not quite provide the same outcome as using a true mono cart. My Ortofon windfeld ti is a better cartridge but summed to mono it simply does not impress me on mono discs as much as the 2M Mono SE ( in its native stereo role the Windfeld is sublime).
Like you I just embarked on the mono route just as an experiment. It is now a fixture that I would not want to do without. And oh! that Beatles box :-).
"We need less, but better" - Dieter Rams
Their rise and fall as an active group encompassed the early to very late 1960s more or less. Stereo was in vogue already by the very early 60s. All the Beatles LPs that I and my wife bought new during those years (we didn't yet know each other) are in stereo, to include Abbey Road, Sergeant Paper, etc. I also own what I believe to be an original pressing of Revolver on Parlophone, pressed in the UK; it's stereo. Likewise, I have the equivalent on the Capitol label, pressed in the US, also in stereo. So where does the obsession with mono Beatles albums as being more true to the form come from, apart from the fact that the recently issued mono Beatles set may sound better to some than the very same set in stereo?
I know someone is going to tell me I am ignorant of the real history. That's why I asked.
Let It Be and Abbey Road were issued stereo only, and are not included in the Beatles mono box. As posted by another, the Beatles and George Martin focused on the mono mixes through the White Album, and the stereo mixes were left to others.
I have an early stereo reissue of the US version of Rubber Soul, and the stereo effects are what I would call dual-mono and not true stereo - drums and bass in one speaker, vocals and guitar in another - this is the case for a lot of early stereo issues - true of some of the jazz releases in the early 60s as well, and not a true attempt to capture music in a space. I keep, and play, that LP because I of songs that were chosen for the US release - fewer songs sadly, but the US release starts with "I've Just Seen a Face", leading into "Norwegian Wood", which for me captures the vibe of Rubber Soul better than the UK version.
Here's the other thing about the mono box - it sounds great, while the earlier stereo box was sourced from compromised digital masters. You can hear it.
So for me, when I listen to the earlier Beatles, I want the mono box LPs. I probably would switch to the more recent stereo reissues supervised by Giles Martin starting with Sgt. Pepper. For Let It Be, if I had to pick one, it would be the Let It Be- Naked issued maybe 15 years ago.
Ironically, the (stereo) Abbey Road that is included in my stereo box set is clearly inferior sonically to my original pressing of Abbey Road, on Apple Records, that I bought new in ca 1971 and have played on all sorts of turntables ever since. However, I have three stereo versions of Revolver (original Parlophone, original Capitol, and MOFI, I think), not including the one that came with my box set. All of those 3 are terrific. Perhaps the stereo effect is artificial, but I haven't noticed it if so. Perhaps the difference is that those 3 were not subject to digitizing.
there's an excellent Wiki page on this very subject where your questions are answered and then some ... particularly under the 'intent' portion
linked:
I suppose I will be drummed out by the Beatles cognoscenti for my ignorance of this history. At least I am on the path for Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road (my favorite of their albums, anyway), and Let it Be.
Should I set fire to my stereo boxed set? Gosh, I like Sergeant Pepper in stereo. On some tracks, the music seems to benefit from what is the otherwise annoying bounce effect from L to R and back to L. It's psychedelic. (I knew there was a word for it.) Maybe if I actually got stoned, I could imagine I was listening in mono. Or one could use the mono switch. Now that would be a switch.
I think you'll be OK Lew ... the label's stereo remixes are what I first heard and listened to for years, when I did listen, so that's what I'm used to as well
though I respect what the Fab4 accomplished I'm actually not a Beatles fan
I've got some favorites scattered across their albums but never actually owned any on vinyl ... I filled out my wife's CD collection for her though
for me, because of their pervasiveness, it's almost like Xmas music!!
so if I never hear Let It Be again that would be just wonderful
with regards,
Yeah, Beatles are a bit like KOB. Great but been there. (Actually I deliberately do not play KOB except once a year, maybe, and that way I do not tire of it.)
I just hope your acronym is for 'Kind Of Blue'
the others take your post in some strange directions ; )
thanks for the reply!
Not in the mono box but in the stereo box. So there are three stereo only, not the two I was thinking.
ah ... it was common practice back then for the producers to totally take recording projects over once the band stopped playingthe Fab4 were an exception as they muscled in on mono mixing but the stereo stuff was snatched away from them where the labels hired hands did what they were used to doing ... and did it really fast too!
artist were really under the thumb of the labels back then eh?
regards,
Edits: 11/18/21
Before the release of the Abbey Road box (was that last year?), my go to was my copy that I bought a very long time ago...can't recall when. The version in the stereo box was inferior. I have not compared the new Giles Martin version to the old one. I doubt if old one is a 1970 or so - I did not have a good TT before the mid-70s, and few of my LPs (or perhaps none) date from that time. I am guessing that I own a last 70s pressing.
Although stereo had been available since the late 1950s it did not attain general acceptance in the UK until the late 1960s/early 1970s when there was a boom in stereo.
At the time that most of the Beatles albums were made the mass market for pop music was centred on mono discs. Although stereo versions for some (not all) pop albums were released, until around 1965 they were often put out weeks after the mono release and were often stocked by record shops only as special orders from customers. They also carried a premium price over the mono, at least during the early years of the sixties.
That market background impacted the Beatles, their record company EMI and label Parlophone.
The Beatles were heavily involved with their producer George Martin in finalising the mix of their records. The final mix was made with them present and it was the mono mix - that was the multi-million seller. The Beatles themselves were not involved in the stereo mix which was left to studio staff to concoct later.This is why the mono records have primacy amongst Beatles fans.The first Beatles album where the original artistic intention was for it to be in stereo was Abbey Road - paradoxically the last Beatles album (in production terms although Let It Be was released subsequently).
So the mono records (aside from Abbey Road) are considered as the true representations of the Beatles intentions and that is why they are valued above the stereo ones.
"We need less, but better" - Dieter Rams
Your post explains a lot. For example, I also have some early Rolling Stones LPs on Decca UK label and in mono. These were inherited from the estate of a dear friend, so I was not sure of their provenance. It did surprise me that the 'Stones LPs would have been issued in mono, since their rise to fame began after that of the Beatles, at least in my mind.I happen to have been in the UK in the summer of either 1966 or 1967. As a college student about to enter med school, I was doing research at the University of Sussex, just north of Brighton. After work, I would often go into Brighton for dinner or whatever. There was a huge record store in town, and I distinctly recall seeing "Revolver" being stocked in bins shortly after its release. Thus I was thinking "Revolver" would have had to have been released in stereo, by 1966. Now I understand.
Edits: 11/17/21 11/17/21
Yes I have those first two Rolling Stones mono albums, red label Decca (1) and red label London (2). As you may know London was the imprint that Decca used to use in the USA because of the American Decca label. So how come I have a copy intended for the USA (both were pressed at New Malden in London)? Well so did everyone I knew in South London who had the album. A truck loaded with them mysteriously "lost" several boxes at the docks. I would have a good guess that mine was one of those although I didn't get it until few years ago second hand.
Yes the Stones first records came out a few months to a year later than the Beatles.
Incidentally , in line with the topic of this thread, those original Decca pressings in mono sound astonishingly good through my mono replay system. Decca had great engineers and the raw excitement of the group is undeniable. They are demonstration discs of mine for mono doubters.
So it's 1967 and you were up in Falmer, Brighton studying and I was down in Brighton itself at Brighton College of Art. I hope that you got to see some of the classic rock bands appearing there at around that time (and into 1968). I saw Jimi Hendrix twice, once at Sussex University and once at the Dome. Incredible String Band and Pentangle (Dome), Pink Floyd (Dome), Fleetwood Mac (King & Queen), Ten Years After (Jimmy's Blues Club). What a time to be young!
"We need less, but better" - Dieter Rams
That summer, I discovered Biryani, at a tiny Indian restaurant in Brighton. It was so spicy hot that my scalp would start sweating and my hair was drenched by the time I left the place. Yet I could not resist it, twice a week. I have never yet found Biryani as delicious and hot anywhere here in the US, since that summer. I am now remembering it was 1966 for sure, because I watched England win the world cup, along with a few dozen foreign students who were marooned at the University. We watched every game on the single large screen TV; it was a great experience.
Brighton was definitely swinging that summer. I know there were concerts going on, but I did not attend any. Met a lot of nice girls, though. Yes, the stony "beach" was not a very comfortable place to stretch out, unless you brought an air mattress or the like.
nt
I'd probably agree with John Elison's observation that a stereo cartridge summed to mono and a mono cartridge will sound much the same.
That said, I do have dedicated mono cartridges, one being an Audio Technica MONO3SP. This is a high output moving coil with a 3.0 mil stylus. I use that (and a Stanton 500 stereo cart summed to mono) for spinning 78s. The Audio Technica is a bit brighter while the Stanton has richer sounding bass response. Summing a stereo cartridge (when playing back a mono record) will 'center' the spurious clicks and pops making for a cleaner sounding playback versus using a straight stereo cartridge.
The other cartridge in use is a Grado ME+, a moving iron mono cartridge w with a 1.0 mil elliptical tip. It does a fine job with mono LPs and 45s.
The reason true mono cartridges are recommended is because the output is restricted to the lateral movement therefore no out of phase information from any vertical motion of the cartridge (which would otherwise be reproduced with a stereo cartridge) appears in the output signal.
I agree with John that it is unnecessary if the stereo cartridge is properly aligned for azimuth and any residual channel imbalance is nulled BEFORE summing the channels. In principle, one should achieve the same result as a true mono cartridge. Once the azimuth is perfectly set and channel balance error is nulled, then summing the channels should eliminate the out of phase vertical component from the stereo output and you get approximately the same result as a true mono cartridge. I say approximately, because lateral tracking error and tip zenith error introduces phase differences between the channels above critical frequencies, so when you sum the channels you don't get a perfect sum - there will be a slight reduction in output at mid to higher frequencies depending on the source of the phase difference.
In practice it is highly unlikely that perfect azimuth will be achieved for the average user - before azimuth can be optimised, there are basic requirements for the arm alignment to the platter; the arm height has to be is perfectly set, the offset angle of the cantilever perfectly matches the vertical bearing offset and the horizontal bearing maintains a perfectly parallel relationship to the record platter.
All of this is a long, round about way of saying, you will have to put in a considerable effort in making a stereo cartridge play mono to a similar standard (assuming you have the requisite tools/jigs and test discs), or you can throw money at the problem and buy a true mono cartridge which will probably get you to a better result.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Some people believe that a true mono cartridge will sound better when playing mono records. If you have a mono switch on your preamp, I believe there will be little to no difference at all in playing a true mono cartridge versus a stereo cartridge with the mono switch engaged. People argue with me about that all the time, but I know what I hear.
Several years ago an inmate recorded a CD-R of a mono record using both a stereo cartridge and a mono cartridge. There was certainly a difference when playing his CD-R through my stereo system. The main difference that I heard from the stereo cartridge was that the clicks and pops and other noise played in stereo whereas the music itself played in mono. Therefore, it was easy to hear the difference between the two cartridges. However, when I engaged the mono switch on my line-stage preamplifier, I could not detect a significant difference between the stereo cartridge and the mono cartridge. They both sounded virtually identical playing the same mono record. I believe they would have sounded exactly identical had they been the same brand of cartridge.
In other words, if the stereo cartridge had been a Dynavector XV-1s and the mono cartridge had been a Dynavector XV-1s mono, I believe they would have sounded exactly identical after engaging the mono switch on my line-stage. Unfortunately, I've never had the opportunity to conduct a test with two of the exact same brand of cartridges. Nevertheless, I haven't felt the need to spend the extra money for a true mono cartridge given that I have a mono switch on my preamp. YMMV
Good luck,
John Elison
nt
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: