View Full Version : Suggestion for Valve phonostage to play MONO records only
Wakefield Turntables
06-12-2017, 20:29
I'm looking at getting or having made a valve phonostage for mono only records so that I can get the best out of my SPU mono. Any suggestions?
topoxforddoc
06-12-2017, 21:11
How about this? Purpose built valve mono phono stage with different EQ options and custom built to order. Won't be cheap though.
http://www.tron-electric.co.uk/phono-amplifiers/seven-mono-phono-stage/
As I understand it the SPU mono is not a genuine mono system, just only a converted stereo cartridge with coils rotated 45 degrees to reduce vertical sensing. So why bother..? SPU = Stereo Pick Up.
Another top-end one in somewhat the same price range as the Tron:
https://hagerman-audio-labs.myshopify.com/products/violin-mm-mc-vacuum-tube-phono-preamp
montesquieu
07-12-2017, 00:05
I'm looking at getting or having made a valve phonostage for mono only records so that I can get the best out of my SPU mono. Any suggestions?
Ortofon seem to have changed its description over the years ... despite the fact that the specs haven't changed ... it used to say this:
Continuing its commitment to supporting older formats, Ortofon’s SPU Mono GM MkII is specifically designed and engineered solely for the playback of early 25µm monaural recordings. A relatively high output, moving coil cartridge, the Mono GM MkII employs a spherical stylus profile,and its signal output makes it suitable for use with a medium-gain step-up transformer or standard gain phono pre-amplifier. The true-mono design also means that the cartridge can be used with a single step-up device, rather than requiring a stereo unit.
Now it says this:
The SPU Mono GM MkII is a high output Moving Coil cartridge a with a spherical stylus profile, for the playback of early 25µm mono recordings.
The SPU Mono GM MkII provides an authentic method of playing back these early vinyl recordings with remarkable level of sonic accuracy, and its high output negates the need for a moving coil transformer.
However, it does include the Mono GM in its list of True Mono cartridges, which I believe settles the matter:
https://www.ortofon.com/hifi/cartridges-ranges/true-mono
I have seen the odd random post claiming it's not true mono, with no particular evidence presented. As someone who has owned one twice at different times, I believe from the performance of it that it's a single coil design, it's very good and I only sold mine when it was replaced by a Miyajima Premium.
When I had the Mono GM MkII I found it worked perfectly well into the MM input. I had a Carver SUT at one point that had a 100 ohm setting (I think it went 6, 12, 40, 100), but I could hear no difference between moving the MM input - volume and tonal balance didn't change - this was surprising initially.
On the phono stage point, I once had a single input, single output phono stage made for me by Nick Gorham, it also had turnover and rollof controls for adjusting equalisation. I ran this with a single speaker mono system (Quad 63, Leak TL12+). It worked well enough but to be honest I prefer mono produced by stereo speakers, among other things, it creates a better illusion of front to back depth. For this you don't need a mono phono stage as you are outputting the same mono signal into both channels.
montesquieu
07-12-2017, 00:09
How about this? Purpose built valve mono phono stage with different EQ options and custom built to order. Won't be cheap though.
http://www.tron-electric.co.uk/phono-amplifiers/seven-mono-phono-stage/
I use an earlier version of one of these, in the tape loop of my preamp, so it's not always in circuit. I had the opamps and wiring upgraded and I also had a good linear PSU done for it. Works very well indeed and you can use it with any phono stage (there's also the option to use it in-series).
https://www.esotericsound.com/elect.htm
https://www.esotericsound.com/Electronics/REQIII-front-700.jpg
Ortofon seem to have changed its description over the years ... despite the fact that the specs haven't changed ... it used to say this:
Continuing its commitment to supporting older formats, Ortofon’s SPU Mono GM MkII is specifically designed and engineered solely for the playback of early 25µm monaural recordings. A relatively high output, moving coil cartridge, the Mono GM MkII employs a spherical stylus profile,and its signal output makes it suitable for use with a medium-gain step-up transformer or standard gain phono pre-amplifier. The true-mono design also means that the cartridge can be used with a single step-up device, rather than requiring a stereo unit.
Now it says this:
The SPU Mono GM MkII is a high output Moving Coil cartridge a with a spherical stylus profile, for the playback of early 25µm mono recordings.
The SPU Mono GM MkII provides an authentic method of playing back these early vinyl recordings with remarkable level of sonic accuracy, and its high output negates the need for a moving coil transformer.
However, it does include the Mono GM in its list of True Mono cartridges, which I believe settles the matter:
https://www.ortofon.com/hifi/cartridges-ranges/true-mono
I have seen the odd random post claiming it's not true mono, with no particular evidence presented. As someone who has owned one twice at different times, I believe from the performance of it that it's a single coil design, it's very good and I only sold mine when it was replaced by a Miyajima Premium.
Either you have a true mono cartridge with a basically one coil generator that translates lateral movement in the record groove into one output signal or you have a "fake" mono cartridge that is actually a stereo cartridge with 45° -2 coils arrangement providing 2 signals for stereo and internally wired in parallel to deliver mono output signal. Sort of "Mono" -switch inside the system. In the second case you can also use a true stereo cartridge, run both output signals through a phono stage with a "Mono" switch, press the "Mono" button and it is exactly the same as with "faked" mono cartridges.
"claiming it's not true mono, with no particular evidence presented."
You can only see by opening the cartridge, getting through to the generator to get an idea of the coil arrangement which means "smashing up" the cartridge to find out. Such online discussions -mono, not mono- emerge because cartridge manufacturer do not provide detailed information. Likewise you can also say: manufacturer claim true mono, with no particular evidence presented.
montesquieu
07-12-2017, 02:31
Either you have a true mono cartridge with a basically one coil generator that translates lateral movement in the record groove into one output signal or you have a "fake" mono cartridge that is actually a stereo cartridge with 45° -2 coils arrangement providing 2 signals for stereo and internally wired in parallel to deliver mono output signal. Sort of "Mono" -switch inside the system. In the second case you can also use a true stereo cartridge, run both output signals through a phono stage with a "Mono" switch, press the "Mono" button and it is exactly the same as with "faked" mono cartridges.
"claiming it's not true mono, with no particular evidence presented."
You can only see by opening the cartridge, getting through to the generator to get an idea of the coil arrangement which means "smashing up" the cartridge to find out. Such online discussions -mono, not mono- emerge because cartridge manufacturer do not provide detailed information. Likewise you can also say: manufacturer claim true mono, with no particular evidence presented.
I don’t think you understand what you are talking about matey. It’s perfectly possible (as with the Lyra monos) to have a true mono cartridge with two coils, so long as the coils are oriented to pick up a signal only in the horizontal. The coils can then be summed or not as required. Soundsmith do a mod for the Denon 103 that rotates the coils to turn it into a true mono cartridge - I used to own one.
As it happens I use single coil Miyajimas for mono which not only detect only in the horizontal, but also have only horizontal motion (leading to potential damage if accidentally used on a stereo record). But that is NOT the only definition of true mono. Indeed a single coil can cause its own problems - into some stereo phono stages there is a risk of ground loop hum unless the loop is closed via a mono button.
I don’t think you understand what you are talking about matey. It’s perfectly possible (as with the Lyra monos) to have a true mono cartridge with two coils, so long as the coils are oriented to pick up a signal only in the horizontal. The coils can then be summed or not as required. Soundsmith do a mod for the Denon 103 that rotates the coils to turn it into a true mono cartridge - I used to own one.
I don’t think you understand what you are talking about mate. You can align a cross shaped coil system -as intended for stereo where both coils are in 90° to each other- in any position by rotating it, beginning at 0° position. In 0° position if the groove is only laterally modulated (mono) one coil picks up signal resulting from lateral groove modulation the other from vertical modulation. As there is no vertical groove modulation with mono records the only thing the second coil can pick up is dirt in the groove causing pops & noise. Thus any signal that the second coil is able to pick up is to be rejected. Or you do it mechanically by blocking the vertcal degree of freedom. In case of Soundsmith modification the "original" Denon cartridge is stereo thus it can't be said that is a true mono cartridge after having rotating the coil system from 45° to 0° position. It doesn't matter if you had it -as everything else- or not.
The reason why alignment at 0° and vertical + lateral groove modulation for stereo playback is not used -theoretically it could be- lies in the record itself: vertical groove modulation causes more distortions than lateral and large amplitudes are not possible.
montesquieu
07-12-2017, 09:48
I don’t think you understand what you are talking about mate. You can align a cross shaped coil system -as intended for stereo where both coils are in 90° to each other- in any position by rotating it, beginning at 0° position. In 0° position if the groove is only laterally modulated (mono) one coil picks up signal resulting from lateral groove modulation the other from vertical modulation. As there is no vertical groove modulation with mono records the only thing the second coil can pick up is dirt in the groove causing pops & noise. Thus any signal that the second coil is able to pick up is to be rejected. Or you do it mechanically by blocking the vertcal degree of freedom. In case of Soundsmith modification the "original" Denon cartridge is stereo thus it can't be said that is a true mono cartridge after having rotating the coil system from 45° to 0° position. It doesn't matter if you had it -as everything else- or not.
The reason why alignment at 0° and vertical + lateral groove modulation for stereo playback is not used -theoretically it could be- lies in the record itself: vertical groove modulation causes more distortions than lateral and large amplitudes are not possible.
Whatever the mechanics (and the above is a useful observation which would suggest that where the coils are rotated as in the Soundsmith approach, then only one coil is used for output) it's pretty clear that when Ortofon write True Mono in caps and have a special page for all their cartridges, they are obviously NOT talking about simple strapping of a stereo cartridge. Likewise Koetsu who do the same (and who like Ortofon don't have a Miyajima/vintage-like approach with single generator and horizontal only motion), and Lyra who have two mono coils (their approach is documented, Jonathan Carr has several write-ups out there). And Audio Technica whose AT33 monos are true mono as well (I've also owned these in both LP and SP form).
Or do you claim to know more than the engineers behind these illustrious companies? Are they all putting lies out there?
Whatever the mechanics (and the above is a useful observation which would suggest that where the coils are rotated as in the Soundsmith approach, then only one coil is used for output) it's pretty clear that when Ortofon write True Mono in caps and have a special page for all their cartridges, they are obviously NOT talking about simple strapping of a stereo cartridge. Likewise Koetsu who do the same (and who like Ortofon don't have a Miyajima/vintage-like approach with single generator and horizontal only motion), and Lyra who have two mono coils (their approach is documented, Jonathan Carr has several write-ups out there). And Audio Technica whose AT33 monos are true mono as well (I've also owned these in both LP and SP form).
Or do you claim to know more than the engineers behind these illustrious companies? Are they all putting lies out there?
What is your problem? It is very simply a question of definition -HOW do we define a true mono design and WHAT is a true mono cartridge in 2017 ? When we have got a definition for something then we can evaluate everything and anything by this definition. That's all. And the opening question for discussion in this thread was if a SPU Mono -not Koetsu, Lyra, Miyajima, Soundsmith- is a true mono cartridge or not...? You can't answer it and Ortofon doesn't address this issue either. So why bother...?
walpurgis
07-12-2017, 11:24
What is your problem? It is very simply a question of definition -HOW do we define a true mono design and WHAT is a true mono cartridge in 2017 ? When we have got a definition for something then we can evaluate everything and anything by this definition. That's all. And the opening question for discussion in this thread was if a SPU Mono -not Koetsu, Lyra, Miyajima, Soundsmith- is a true mono cartridge or not...? You can't answer it and Ortofon doesn't address this issue either. So why bother...?
Knock it off George. The first four words and the last three in your post are unnecessary and not helpful!
montesquieu
07-12-2017, 13:09
Knock it off George. The first four words and the last three in your post are unnecessary and not helpful!
No worries Geoff. Life's too short to bother with trolls, I've finally found out how to add someone to the ignore list, in a decade here I've never felt the need to use it before.
No worries Geoff. Life's too short to bother with trolls, I've finally found out how to add someone to the ignore list, in a decade here I've never felt the need to use it before.
Moderated...
edited out...
forsell, any more from you and your out! (struth)
edited out...
forsell, any more from you and your out!
Delete my account please. I am too tired and bored of this "elite club" of a handful "senior members" and adms who think that with +2000 posts they automatically acquire a right for insults and offensive behaviour. Cheers and Good Luck.
you were the one handing out the insults. its same rules for everyone.. bye
I've come late to this 'discussion', so my contibution is probably post hoc, but if the question is to whether the Ortofon SPU Mono (or however it is designated) is a true mono cartridge, then the answer is simple: undo the screw holding the belly plate in position and look inside.
Are there only two wires connecting to a single coil arranged to respond to lateral groove motion? If yes, then it is a true mono cartridge.
I can't see why Ortofon would go to the bother of adding a second coil to respond to vertical motion only, because no mono records are cut using vertical modulation. And to replay a stereo record, the coils would have to be connected in a sum and difference arrangement to extract the LH and RH signals.
I probably only have about less than 50 mono LPs, so I'm happy to use a stereo cartridge and the 'mono' switch on my preamp to play them.
There is no need for these discussions to descend into rancour and acrimony.
Wakefield Turntables
07-12-2017, 20:09
Just got back to this myself. I cant believe how far off topic this thread has gone. I only wanted suggestions for a mono phonostage, crikey!
topoxforddoc
08-12-2017, 13:04
Like Rexton, I am also rather befuddled about the goings on. Somehow this thread about true valve mono phono stages has drifted into a bit of "handbags" (as one would call it in rugby) about mono cartridge design.
Forsell is correct in that the original mono cartridge design only included one coil to read lateral modulation on the groove. Many of the modern mono cartridges (not Mijayima) have two coils with the coils rotated 45 degrees, so that the vertical modulation signals cancel out each other (except they don't quite cancel each other out perfectly, according to some). The use of two coils may be a manufacturing cost saving, so that cartridge makers don't have to tool up to make a single coil design for vanishingly small numbers of sales.
Forsell's point is not unreasonable and I'm afraid that I have a bit of sympathy with him. I don't think his posts were particularly abusive - bit forthright perhaps. OK maybe I'll get banned now.
montesquieu
08-12-2017, 20:22
Like Rexton, I am also rather befuddled about the goings on. Somehow this thread about true valve mono phono stages has drifted into a bit of "handbags" (as one would call it in rugby) about mono cartridge design.
Forsell is correct in that the original mono cartridge design only included one coil to read lateral modulation on the groove. Many of the modern mono cartridges (not Mijayima) have two coils with the coils rotated 45 degrees, so that the vertical modulation signals cancel out each other (except they don't quite cancel each other out perfectly, according to some). The use of two coils may be a manufacturing cost saving, so that cartridge makers don't have to tool up to make a single coil design for vanishingly small numbers of sales.
Forsell's point is not unreasonable and I'm afraid that I have a bit of sympathy with him. I don't think his posts were particularly abusive - bit forthright perhaps. OK maybe I'll get banned now.
Surprised you look at it that way Charlie. Rexton, the OP, asked for some advice on getting the best out of his SPU GM Mono mkIIi. In post 3 a relatively new member decided to piss on his chips by asserting that the SPU Mono GM was no better than any old stereo cartridge strapped for mono. As someone with more experience than most in getting the best out of mono I thought I would challenge that. My background is not technical (my first degree was in music, I was an organ scholar, and later became a journalist and, post MBA, a management consultant - I'm no engineer and have never claimed to be one) but I have been through a shed load of kit in this area, in my efforts to get the best out of a large collection of early microgroove mono LPs as well as a fair smattering of 78s.
Are you saying Charlie that like a certain poster you agree that the entire range of Ortofon 'true mono' cartridges are no better than any old stereo cartridge with the mono button pressed? Because that's what I was challenging. (On the basis of having owned a few of them as well as other mono cartridges, at one point I even had a dedicated mono system).
My experience of the Tron stuff is that it’s really very good. These days I’m heavily involved in the custom/bespoke end of hi-fi design and I would say the Tron stuff is remarcably competitive with ‘build it yourself A class designs’ requiring many years of component building experience - all Tron stuff is beautifully built and finished too - both inside and out.
However, I’m absolutely sure Jez (Arkless), Alan (Firebottle) or even Glenn Croft would be prepared to build you one if you showed them the money.....
Lee Henley
11-12-2017, 10:31
When I was researching mono carts recently a suggestion was to use the Y cable method, where the signal is split, would this be a viable option to try out?
There has been several discussions on the internet regarding this method and might be an option??
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/using-a-double-y-cord-for-mono-recordings.45635/
montesquieu
11-12-2017, 11:02
When I was researching mono carts recently a suggestion was to use the Y cable method, where the signal is split, would this be a viable option to try out?
There has been several discussions on the internet regarding this method and might be an option??
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/using-a-double-y-cord-for-mono-recordings.45635/
A simple Y connector will work after a fashion but may not sound quite right ... when I was experimenting with a single mono phono stage/amps/speaker, Nick Gorham built me a little box which had a Y resistive network which ensured that when two stereo inputs were connected, the signal had the proper characteristics for use with the phono stage. This is what you'd get if you pressed a mono button done properly inside the preamp.
Though a proper mono cartridge will work better and then you can use only one phono lead if you have a one am/one speaker arrangement. The difference between hitting the mono button using my Miyajima Madake (quite a decent stereo cartridge) and using the dedicated mono Miyajima Zero is quite dramatic, indeed after hearing it Petrat of this parish went out and bought himself not one but a pair of Zeros (one each with 0.7 and 1.0 tips)
A simple Y connector will work after a fashion but may not sound quite right ... when I was experimenting with a single mono phono stage/amps/speaker, Nick Gorham built me a little box which had a Y resistive network which ensured that when two stereo inputs were connected, the signal had the proper characteristics for use with the phono stage. This is what you'd get if you pressed a mono button done properly inside the preamp.
Though a proper mono cartridge will work better and then you can use only one phono lead if you have a one am/one speaker arrangement. The difference between hitting the mono button using my Miyajima Madake (quite a decent stereo cartridge) and using the dedicated mono Miyajima Zero is quite dramatic, indeed after hearing it Petrat of this parish went out and bought himself not one but a pair of Zeros (one each with 0.7 and 1.0 tips)
I would agree with this based on a similar recent experience.
As I had an extra tonearm and cartridge kicking around and about 125 pretty decent mono records (both vintage late 50's to mid 60's and modern reissues), I figured that I would take a crack at a mono setup in the past year.
I had two retipped Ortofon MC 20 Supers here, one with a boron cantilever and microridge stylus and the other with a sapphire/microridge combo, which was in use for stereo mounted on a Jelco 750D. So I strapped the boron MC 20 Super for mono and stuck it on an older Sumiko FT3 and started running both arms on my Gyrodec. In the end I also ended up buying two identical tonearm leads for the arms as well, so that was also consistent.
This thread is indicative of the often contentious debate on the whole issue of mono cartridges and the concept of "true mono". I did as much reading as I could before I embarked on the adventure and figured that I would start with a stereo cartridge wired/strapped for mono as many of the most vocal types online insist that a summed stereo cartridge, or a mono switch, or Y connector for that matter, will do electronically exactly what a true mono cartridge does physically.
I was actually very pleased with the results of the strapped MC 20 Super. Even mounted on an inferior tonearm it offered up a significantly superior presentation (simply much more fleshed out and alive) while also reducing surface/groove noise as predicted.
The bug hit me, though, to go "true mono" to see if there was something that I was still missing using the strapped stereo cartridge as the true mono advocates with experience seemed to be equally vociferous about that being the way to go.
Figured I would do it on the cheap at first which would give me the option of going back to the strapped MC 20 Super if it was superior and didn't work out, so I opted for an AT 3/Mono LP for $120 U.S. off Ebay. I had some concerns about it matching up with my phono stage, which is a bit unusual (an Aqvox, which is a current mode phono stage that essentially presents a short circuit to moving coil cartridges with a very low impedance-about 2-3 ohms-at its balanced input), but I looked back on a review of the stage in which another higher output/higher internal impedance MC was used pretty successfully with it so I figured I'd give it a shot and didn't have much to lose.
The AT 3 Mono is an odd cartridge in terms of its output (1.2 mV) and its higher internal impedance of 40 ohms. Frankly, it is a cartridge that will present a lot of problems with a lot of phono stages but, in the end, it does work pretty well here. I probably have a slight excess of gain, maybe 2-4 dB, and the AT 3's bigger brother the AT 33 Mono would probably be a better match to my stage.
If you look at the data sheet for the AT 3 Mono, it has two horizontal voice coils wired in series (according to AT) and can be used connected two pin as a straight mono cartridge in a single speaker setup or with all 4 pins connected and run into a stereo preamp (as I'm doing) and two speaker system. The AT 33 mono, on the other hand, has two independent horizontal coils and can only be used into a stereo preamp and two speaker setup.
As you pointed out up-thread Tom, Jonathan Carr at Lyra is on record as suggesting that for mono playback the orientation of the coils is the critical factor as opposed to the purist view that one must have a single coil. From an Audiogon thread, I will quote him here:
""The key issue for mono playback is not the number of signal coils - but their angular orientation, which determines whether they are sensitive to vertical groove modulations or not. A coil design that does not pick up any vertical modulation in the first place gives better sound than picking up the vertical modulation, then attempting to cancel it out later.
IME, what works best in a normal stereo system, is a cartridge with two mono coils. This eliminates any sensitivity to vertical groove modulations, yet avoids the hum issues that a single-coil cartridge may be prone to."
Going to a true mono single coil with absolutely no vertical compliance was not of interest to me as I wanted to play modern reissues with it as well. Both the AT's, although generating signal only with horizontal movement, have an adapated vertical compliance so modern monos cut on a stereo cutter head can be played safely. Are they true mono? I think they are, although a purist might suggest they are not. I think at that stage we're getting into semantics more than anything else.
And, based on my experience, J Carr is correct.
I've been running the AT 3/Mono for about a week or two now and it is fully broken in at this stage I think. I'm pretty surprised at just how much better it is than the strapped Ortofon (which is a much more expensive and sophisticated cartridge and sounds very good in stereo) which was in turn better at playing mono than its non-strapped (almost exact) counterpart.
Even with a relatively crude bonded conical and basic aluminum pipe cantilever (the AT 33 Mono improves on both these for marginally more money) the AT 3 sounds noticeably fuller/more fleshed out and lifelike while at the same time reducing surface noise even more. A bunch of late 50's, early 60's monos that I had seriously considered trading because of playback noise now play virtually near mint. And sound stunning. If the AT 3 has a weakness, it might be in its high frequency playback and midband detail retreival; frankly I expected it to be weak in those areas compared to the strapped Ortofon and am surprised at just how good it really is. I'm kind of clutching at straws looking for weaknesses when, in reality, it really makes the strapped Ortofon sound quite poor for the most part.
So in the end, I think J Carr has hit the nail on the head with respect to mono playback, and what I'm describing applies to both vintage as well as modern reissues (there's a school of thought online that modern monos cut on a stereo head should be played back with a stereo cartridge but you cannot convince me of this now).
I really think that if one has the resources/capability (ie. second table, 2nd arm, removeable headshell on one arm) and the desire to play mono records that it makes sense to go the extra mile with a mono cartridge as opposed to the mono switch, Y cord or strapped stereo cartridge based on my experience.
An expenditure on something like the Miyajima is not in my future as I really want an all rounder to play modern reissues as well; my initial thought on the AT 3 Mono was to wear it out and if it showed promise to send it off for a retip with a better cantilever and stylus but I am rethinking that based on how good it sounds. I might just step up to the AT 33 Mono in 500-600 hours when it wears out and then retip that one way into the future.
montesquieu
12-12-2017, 10:49
Great comments Blake, I hadn't appreciated that the horizontally-oriented coils would be wired in series, this of course explains the funny specs that most of them have.
I have great respect for Jonathan Carr, I had the Lyra Dorian mono and it was my favourite Lyra cartridge by some margin (I've also owned the Argo i, Dorian, Helicon and the older Clavis).
I had two AT33 monos for a while, I had one of them re-tipped with a 1.0 spherical at Expert Stylus for a better sound with early microgroove mono - totally agree they are a big improvement over almost any stereo cartridge, however exhaulted, when playing mono, fantastic value. I replaced the 1.0-tipped AT33 with an Ortofon Mono GM MkII, and the standard AT33 mono 0.7 with a Miyajima Premium BE 0.7 and later a Miyajima Zero 0.7
The Miyajima 0.7 works superbly with reissues and all later mono (I would say that's what it was intended for - just make sure you don't use it by accident on a stereo record), I now also have a Miyajima Premium 1.0 for the early stuff. (And I also have a Miyajima Spirit 78 on the way - for 78s).
That is good to know on the Miyajima .7 Tom. I am a bit envious of your stable of mono cartridges :)
It seems that, even more so than with stereo cartridges, it pays to have a variety of different mono cartridges for the different mono eras (excluding 78's of course which require an entirely different non-compatible animal). For the guy (like me) who's looking to do all mono with one cartridge it's a little bit daunting and probably fraught with compromise.
In that vein, I'm curious to know, having owned the Dorian mono, what your thoughts are with respect to the line contact stylus it had on it? I know it's an apples vs oranges comparison with the Dorian and the Miyajimas but am wondering if you feel you are giving anything up in the way of detail retrieval or high frequency tracking/performance with either vintage monos or reissues with the conical styli on the Miyajimas vs. the LC on the Dorian.
Based on fairly extensive experience over the years running heavily modified Denon 103Rs (with improved bodies, cantilevers and line contact styli), along with the fact that both Ortofon and Lyra (and Koetsu I believe) seem to be pretty content with putting line contact styli on some of their pretty upmarket mono cartridges, I was actually leaning toward a retip of either the AT 3 I currently have or possibly an AT 33 in the future with something like a boron or sapphire cantilever and LC or Microridge stylus.
With the 103R and stereo playback, I could never have gone back to the stock conical as it was just missing too much information and a bit crude in the high frequencies when compared to better stylus profiles but I have to admit that I'm a bit uncertain that would be or is the case with mono playback and am rethinking the issue after using the AT 3 with an obviously modest bonded conical with such good results on both older and newer monos.
I've been trying to work out what coil arrangement my Ortofon 2M SE possesses. Here's what I've seen quoted:
"Though the 2M mono series uses stereo coils, designer Leif Johannsen told me "In the MM we cannot turn the armature or anything else. So the mechanical geometry is the same as in the stereo 2M’s. But we can couple the two coils in a clever way (NOT simply parallel between L and R)) and thereby making it work as one coil. The point is to have a design not sensitive to vertical movements and that has been achieved."
It's not possible to tell what they've done but it sounds promising if it's not sensitive to vertical movement.
montesquieu
14-12-2017, 20:39
That is good to know on the Miyajima .7 Tom. I am a bit envious of your stable of mono cartridges :)
It seems that, even more so than with stereo cartridges, it pays to have a variety of different mono cartridges for the different mono eras (excluding 78's of course which require an entirely different non-compatible animal). For the guy (like me) who's looking to do all mono with one cartridge it's a little bit daunting and probably fraught with compromise.
In that vein, I'm curious to know, having owned the Dorian mono, what your thoughts are with respect to the line contact stylus it had on it? I know it's an apples vs oranges comparison with the Dorian and the Miyajimas but am wondering if you feel you are giving anything up in the way of detail retrieval or high frequency tracking/performance with either vintage monos or reissues with the conical styli on the Miyajimas vs. the LC on the Dorian.
Based on fairly extensive experience over the years running heavily modified Denon 103Rs (with improved bodies, cantilevers and line contact styli), along with the fact that both Ortofon and Lyra (and Koetsu I believe) seem to be pretty content with putting line contact styli on some of their pretty upmarket mono cartridges, I was actually leaning toward a retip of either the AT 3 I currently have or possibly an AT 33 in the future with something like a boron or sapphire cantilever and LC or Microridge stylus.
With the 103R and stereo playback, I could never have gone back to the stock conical as it was just missing too much information and a bit crude in the high frequencies when compared to better stylus profiles but I have to admit that I'm a bit uncertain that would be or is the case with mono playback and am rethinking the issue after using the AT 3 with an obviously modest bonded conical with such good results on both older and newer monos.
The Dorian mono was a great cartridge, for all it used a fancy modern stylus. Of course most of the mono out there was recorded and pressed (reissues excepted) in the era of conical styli. Jonathan Carr's position is - if the detail is on there, why not go for it? And this is true up to a point, and arguably beneficial for later mono/reissues that were in any case cut with a stereo cutting head/v-shaped groove, rather than the u-shaped one of earlier mono. But you are also changing the sound you are getting.
All my current monos are conicals but I have been tempted to find an old broken Miyajima mono and have it retipped with a fancy tip, to see what comes out. I did discuss this with Ana Mighty Sound when they re-did a Premium 78 that I had with a 1.0 stylus for early microgroove - they recommend conical, certainly for early microgroove (a lot of the early stuff has quite limited frequency response, a consequence of the technology at the time). So I would only do it with a 0.7 for later mono. I would happily own another Lyra mono but none are a great match for the very high mass tonearms I have on my idler decks.
As for the detail .. well mono mastering only has depth front to back. What you are looking to capture is ambience (I think in most concerts the stage is essentially mono, what is stereo is ambience), plus a front to back depth that adds to the ambience. I think conicals can perform that trick really well. But I certainly enjoyed my time with the Dorian mono.
I agree with you on the AT3's BTW they are fantastic value, as I say I had one retipped with a 1.0 for early microgroove and was well pleased with it. If it's something you are only using a small percentage of the time I wouldn't sweat it. Maybe a quarter of my fairly large mostly classical LP collection is mono so it's well worth it for me, I have whole nights where that's what I listen to. If you are looking at a retip I would unhesitatingly recommend the guys at Ana Mighty Sound they are by far the best I've come across.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.