|
Mono Phile Unregistered guest | Greetings - I recently e-mailed some questions to the manufacturer of a mono cartridge, and received a vague reply. I have lots of mono LPs, and need a primer on the lower end, afordable mono styli/cartridges available (I typically buy Grado styli in the under $100 price range). Are mono cartridges merely wired to sum the left and right channels, and if so, is this any different from listening with a stereo cartridge with the mono switch on amplifier engaged? Or is there something inherently different about the size/shape of the stylus that results in better sound on mono LPs? Assuming the latter, how does this apply to more recent (1980s or later) LP releases of older mono recordings? Do the grooves on more recent mono albums more closely resemble those of stereo albums? Any info on these topics would be greatly appreciated. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4736 Registered: May-04 | Stereo is derived from what is called a 45/45 cut in the record groove. This is an indication the stylus has to move in four directions (left/right and up/down) to accomplish the task of retrieving the two channels of frequency and level information. In a mono record groove, the information has only been pressed as left/right information and is derived by simple horizontal movement of the cartridge's stylus and cantilever. This makes a true mono cartridge somewhat simpler in construction than the comparable stereo version. Because of the information the stylus needs to retrieve, and since there was no variable pitch to the speed of the cutting head on a mono disc (look at the grooves, they're all evenly spaced compared to later stereo LP's where the loud passages have more space between the grooves), most mono cartridges will use a conical stylus. Since most listeners do no have a dedicated mono cartridge any longer, most modern "mono" discs will assume the need for playback with contemporary stylus shapes. You should look for any information that goes contrary to this advice and that should be on the record jacket. |
|
Mono Phile Unregistered guest | So are you suggesting that the older mono records will sound better with the conical stylus? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4743 Registered: May-04 | The stylus is just part of the equation of playing older mono records. As I said the construction of the internal parts is simplified with a mono cartridge. Parts can be more robust when the complications of space are mitigated. As a rule, mono recordings sound best when played with the equipment designed for that purpose. Lightweight tonearms and eliptical styli were not around in the early 1950's. If you are playing records older than that era, a conical stylus is essential as the smaller dimensions of the elliptical stylus will allow the stylus to "bounce around" the groove of 78's. This can permanently damage the record groove. Stereophile magazine has been writing about mono cartridges in the last several issues. M. Fremer does a column dealing with analog playback and has reviewed and commented on mono recordings and the playback equipment designed for that prupose. Another contributor to Stereophile, Sam Tellig, also listens and comments on older recordings on occasion. Unfortunatly, Mr. Fremer believes we all have the disposable income of the governor of California. However, while the equipment Fremer reviews is probably beyond the budget you or I have for our hobby, his comments on mono playback are of interest. He recently discussed how to wire a stereo cartridge to give mono playback. For someone who wants to experiment with some of the mono LP's they are finding in the used record shops, this was a good article. I suppose you could look at the article as something that will get people buying the mono LP's before we get to them, but it will bring more listeners to a corner of the hobby we enjoy. That's always a good idea. Unfortunately, Mr. Fremer's recent columns are not yet on the Stereophile web pages. http://www.stereophile.com/ |
|
Mono Phile Unregistered guest | "He recently discussed how to wire a stereo cartridge to give mono playback." Is this any different from hitting the "mono" switch on the amplifier? Wouldn't either method simply sum the left and right, albeit at different points in the chain? "As a rule, mono recordings sound best when played with the equipment designed for that purpose. Lightweight tonearms and eliptical styli were not around in the early 1950's." The vast majority of my mono LPs date from the mono/stereo era, circa 1957 - 1967. How do these pressings compare to LPs from the mono-only era? Do you think the conical stylus would be better for them? |
|
Anonymous | Any more info on this topic? |
|
Bronze Member Username: DvautierBellevue, Wa Usa Post Number: 27 Registered: Feb-05 | I would suggest you get yourself a good stereo cart, go on with your life and stop beating a horse that has been dead for a long time. I seriously don't think you can loose any "fidelity" with a good stereo cart playing mono records, at least that is what I experience, even with my feeble ears. Back in 1956 or so when just about the entire industry went stereo, all the new equipment was designed to be "downward" compatible meaning that the 45-45 vector would get all the older 90 stuff and translate it into good sound. Hate to say this but just deal with it dude. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4950 Registered: May-04 | Sorry, I didn't see this marked as "new" and haven't checked this section for a while. Too an extent, I have to agree with DV above. What you need in terms of equipment is a matter of what you want to hear. Most eliptical styli will do an adequate job playing an older mono pressing. However, the typical stylus size in the late 1950's through the 1960's was much larger than today's cartridges will possess. If you want to get a cheap stereo cartridge with a larger stylus then that's your choice. It will play 1950's mono recording better than a stereo cartridge of today. But, if you're buying a cartridge to play mono records, why not buy a mono cartridge? The idea of engaging a mono switch on pre amp is not the same as having a dedicated mono cartridge. Firstly, as I said, a mono cartridge is made differently than a stereo cartridge. The simplicity of the mono design makes for a different presentation than a stereo cartridge pressed into action. (How much different? I can't give you numbers or statistics.) A mono button on a pre amp does the action after the phono pre amp. Using a mono cartridge retrieves the information correctly and includes no vertical information in the process. You decide how important that is to you. There is no way to generalize about the pressing quality of the 1950-55 era any more than I can say something about any era of recording. Different labels and master cutters and pressing plants had different degrees of sophistication and quality. Listening is the best way to decide if any one label, producer, master cutter or pressing plant suits your tastes. As with CD's and DVD's today, you'll learn who has good sound and who has less good sound. Yes, I would go with the conical stylus. |
|
Mono Phile Unregistered guest | Thanks for all the helpful info. Grado manufactures 2 different mono cartridges. I'm going to order one. |