 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.144.45.192
One of the revelations of the past 20yrs is the quality of golden age recordings. First early stereo and now mono recordings have been rediscovered.A dedicated mono cartridge can improve monophonic reporduction but are there tradeoffs ?
Mono record grooves are wider than stereo grooves and require a larger stylus for proper reproduction. One of the advances in stereo cartridges has been to lower tip mass in order to enhance transient responce and extend HF responce. Given that mono cartridges require a larger stylus for optimum playback, how are transient responce and HF extension affected by the higher tip mass of a mono cartridge ?
Assuming you can find a mono pressing that wasn't damaged by the sledgehammer cartridges of the era, will a stereo cartridge (with stereo stylus) extract more information than an optimised mono cartridge ?
For the record, I like mono. My purpose is to see what the thoughts of others are.
Best,
Ross
Follow Ups:
Ross, this may not answer your questions but here is info I posted on Agon but save you the trouble of surfing over there -I believe you must first consider which records you will be playing before buying a mono cartridge. From reading I've done, here are my conclusions. Note this applies only to 33 LPs, not 78s. Dates refer to master cutting, not performance date for reissues. This is a function of the groove shape created by the cutter head.
Pre-stereo era monos (roughly '48-'57), select a 1.0 mil conical stylus.
Early stereo era monos (roughly '58-'68), select a 0.7 mil conical stylus.
Recent mono reissues (mid '90s to present), select a mono cartridge with a modern narrow stylus profile.
Lyra may have been the first to promote narrow profile stylus tips for better performance in mono cartridges. I suggest this may be true for playback of the many mono reissues, but not as good for older originals. I've heard that mono cutter heads are no longer available so reissue monos are now cut with stereo heads, but with lateral motion only. This is not to say a mono cartridge with a narrow profile stylus would not sound OK on earlier pressings, it simply would not be optimal.
I don't pretend to be an expert on this [I'm researching to buy my own mono cartridge(s)] so anyone with more knowledge who can correct any false assumption here, please chime in.
Well, most of the mono LPs I have are pre '58, so that means the grooves are 1mil in width. Should I use a 1mil stylus or go with a .7mil and a modern profile to get a part of the groove that maybe has been unplayed all these years ?I understand that mono reissues (except for classic records) use a modified stereo cutting head (hence a modern stylus shape is best suited). Classic uses a restored Westrex mono cutting head from back in the day- unsure about groove width though.
I guess what I am trying to find out is if a 1mil stylus can reproduce all of the transient and HF information in a pre '58 mono groove or is that stylus too massive for this task ?
Thanks,
Ross
I use a SPU Mono with 1mil stylus to play EVERYTHING in my mono system, including new stereo pressings, and I must say it never disappoints. The sheer musicality more than makes up for any loss at the HF extremity.
But then I have old ears..... :o)Brian.
A 1 mil won't get down into the groove deeply enough to get all the information on stereo era mono LPs. I know, but I have done this experiment myself, with the same cartridge using different stylus tips.Your pre-microgroove mono LPs are best served by a 1mil stylus. Grado uses this on their mono cartridges. The .7mil styli are adequate and will certainly do the job on all LPs, regardless of era.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
