Mono cartridges

[bonzo]

Hi, who has had experience with multiple mono carts on mono classical recordings?

Please state impressions.

Also, is the SPU mono similar to SPU stereo in sound signature - full bodied tone, flowing, less highs? and are the Lyra monos similar to their stereo carts?

I have heard the Miya zero in a couple of systems and like it. It does not sound similar to the madake

[Jazid]

PM Tom, he's your man for this I think.

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk

[Wakefield Turntables]

PM Tom, he's your man for this I think.

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk

Seconded!

[dwhistance]

I was hoping Tom might reply to this thread as it is something I am interested in myself.

David Whistance

[Wakefield Turntables]

Send him a PM

[bonzo]

Did

[WESTLOWER]

Hopefully any impressions won't be kept to pm, always nice to read about experiences on a thread.
Tom is incredibly helpful and generous with his knowledge of such things.

[montesquieu]

Sorry I didn't see this thread I've just been pointed to it.

The Zero is a superb cartridge and I thoroughly recommend it ... it's available in 0.7 mil for later mono and reissues, as well as 1.0 for the earlier stuff.

Ortofon don't really have a mono SPU that's 100% ideal later mono/reissues as all their monos have larger tips (1.0/.25 which is the right size for microgroove, or 2.5/.65 for 1950s 78s - it's a bit too narrow for earlier 78s). The CG series are like the Miyajimas and only have horizontal compliance. The Mono GM Mk II is still true mono but has vertical compliance as well.

The AT-Mono3 is superb and quite a bit cheaper with a 0.7 mil tip for reissues.

Essential on mono classical I think ... however good the stereo cartridge is it's just not up there with proper mono reproduction when it comes to a mono pressing.

Some vintage monos are pretty good, I have a GE VRII that works very well though it's hard to get high quality tips. Heavy tracking weight though.

I've posted a lot on mono cartridges over the years, a quick google turned up a few threads


http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?53161-Miyajima-cartridge-re-cantilevered-in-bamboo!-Lots-of-mono-fun&highlight=microgroove

http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?55485-Suggestion-for-Valve-phonostage-to-play-MONO-records-only&highlight=microgroove

http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?54093-Mono-carts-what-we-all-using&highlight=microgroove

http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?46347-Mono-Revelation&highlight=microgroove

....

[bonzo]

Thanks. So what is the sonic difference between the zero and the bambooed premium (or the 0.7 and the 1) on the older records

[montesquieu]

Thanks. So what is the sonic difference between the zero and the bambooed premium (or the 0.7 and the 1) on the older records

As I wrote in one of the posts above, 1.0 sounds better on the older records, the 0.7 on the more modern ones. They are pretty different cartridges anyway, the Zero is more detailed and power output, the 1.0 more robust and higher output. This suits the characteristics of later mono vs microgroove, the latter having a more limited frequency range and the groove being u-shaped rather than v-shaped. I love the character of the bamboo'd Premium 1.0 and think it suits early mono very well but it does sound quite different to a Zero. Both are quite SPU-ish in their full body, full soundstage width presentation.

Petrat has Zero 1.0 and 0.7 monos so he might have a view about direct comparison.




Also, is the SPU mono similar to SPU stereo in sound signature - full bodied tone, flowing, less highs? and are the Lyra monos similar to their stereo carts?



Just to answer these questions - SPU mono and stereo have very similar character as you'd expect. I've never had any problem with SPU highs, they are quite natural (as opposed to screechy and exaggerated as in some 'hifi' cartidges with their treble lift designed to make you think they are super-detailed).

I had a Lyra Dorian mono and did like that very much, though it suits very different arms than you'd use for a Miyajima or SPU. Yes very similar to the stereo Lyras, interestingly they use two generators turned to operate only in the horizontal, different to the single generator of the Miyajimas or CG SPUs.

[dwhistance]

Hi Tom,

May I ask you a couple of questions please?

The majority of my mono LP's, if not all, are pre stereo era (microgroove?) so presumably will play best with a 1mm stylus. How different is the sound if these are played with a 0.7mm stylus?

How does the sound of the lesser Miyajima's, i.e. Kotetu or Spirit (if they are still available) compare with the mono SPU's?

Lastly I know from our PM's that you have spent quite a bit of time with shims and headshell weights to make swapping between your various cartridges a quick and easy task. Have you had to measure/weigh each cartridge yourself or have you been able to rely on the manufacturers data, such as it is? As you know I'm looking for a simple solution and at the moment am tempted to just buy three (or more) SPU's to cover Stereo, Mono and 78's, albeit even that isn't plug and play given the large weight disparity between the two CG Mono cartridges and the stereo SPU's.

Many thanks for all your help.

David Whistance

[garrard]

The majority of my mono LP's, if not all, are pre stereo era (microgroove?) so presumably will play best with a 1mm stylus. How different is the sound if these are played with a 0.7mm stylus?


I have some OJC Jazz reissues that are mono. I wonder if they are meant to be played with a 1 mil (not mm) stylus?

[montesquieu]

Hi Tom,

May I ask you a couple of questions please?

The majority of my mono LP's, if not all, are pre stereo era (microgroove?) so presumably will play best with a 1mm stylus. How different is the sound if these are played with a 0.7mm stylus?

How does the sound of the lesser Miyajima's, i.e. Kotetu or Spirit (if they are still available) compare with the mono SPU's?

Lastly I know from our PM's that you have spent quite a bit of time with shims and headshell weights to make swapping between your various cartridges a quick and easy task. Have you had to measure/weigh each cartridge yourself or have you been able to rely on the manufacturers data, such as it is? As you know I'm looking for a simple solution and at the moment am tempted to just buy three (or more) SPU's to cover Stereo, Mono and 78's, albeit even that isn't plug and play given the large weight disparity between the two CG Mono cartridges and the stereo SPU's.

Many thanks for all your help.

David Whistance

I've done quite a bit of back to back on this and in particular Petrat and I did a session at my place where we investigated this at length. Which one you buy will depend on the balance of your collection - a lot of people have later mono/reissues, but jazz and classical fans in particular tend to have a preponderance of older mono, with pop/rock fans having most of their mono made later.

The distinguishing issue is whether the record was cut on stereo cutters or not. Early microgroove mono has a u-shaped groove most at home with a big 1.0 spherical, whereas later mono is v-shaped as it was cut on stereo cutters. Yes you can use a 0.7 spherical on these wide groove records, it will play, but it won't sound as good or as quiet as with a big 1.0 that fills the groove. I would most definitely avoid playing 0.7 cartridges with fancy stylus profiles (eliptical and the like) from the likes of Lyra with early mono as it just won't sound good at all. You can often get away with a fatter 1.0 spherical stylus on later mono but you might lose some detail and there's a small risk of damage (though it will be riding higher in the groove).

Note that stereo cutting heads were not universal by the early 60s and I have monos as late as 1964 that are microgroove - this is rare but it does happen.

I do all my measuring with a set of jewellers scales and fine tune with a digital stylus gauge on the turntable itself. Published data only gets you so far.

You won't go wrong with a set of SPUs if that's what you fancy. In some cases with SPUs the weight disparity is planned as they track at different weights you might find they aren't so far out at all. At a push I guess you could always add some weight inside an SPU headshell, the base screws off.

The result of the experiments BTW was that Petrat ended up buying both 1.0 and 0.7 Miyajima Zero cartridges - an expensive solution but a comprehensive one.


I have some OJC Jazz reissues that are mono. I wonder if they are meant to be played with a 1 mil (not mm) stylus?


Reissues often have all the microgroove labelling on the outside and are frequently pressed on thick vinyl so can feel like originals, but in my experience they will have been cut on a stereo cutter with a stereo era standard 0.7 groove, so you need the smaller tip for these. I'm not aware of any exceptions where authenticity has been taken to that extent but no doubt there is somebody somewhere out there cutting brand new microgroove reissues!

[dwhistance]

Thank you Tom thats very helpful. Following on from the above I had more or less decided to go for two SPU's for mono and 78's - I'm too mean to invest in the Miyajima's without hearing them first. I therefore decided to phone Expert Stylus to follow up on an email conversation regarding SPU's. They however recommended the AT Mono-3's which they offer with a choice of styli much as they do for the Shure M44 series. They are more expensive than the off the shelf Audio Technica versions but still a fraction of the price of an SPU. Given Toms comment on these cartridges above I thought this would be worth trying so to get started I have ordered an AT Mono-3/SP with a 0.003" truncated conical stylus (standard is a 0.0028" conical). This should work well with the majority of my 78's which fall into the period from the mid 1930's to perhaps 1950. If it does then I will follow up with another with a 0.001" truncated elliptical stylus for my mono LP's. I will report back on this thread with my comments once I have the cartridge in place.

David Whistance

[bonzo]

Hi - has anyone compared original mono LPs played with the Miya zero or some other genuine mono cart, to 45 rpm mono reissues by Analog Productions, Classic records etc - played by a mono or a stereo cart?

[montesquieu]

Hi - has anyone compared original mono LPs played with the Miya zero or some other genuine mono cart, to 45 rpm mono reissues by Analog Productions, Classic records etc - played by a mono or a stereo cart?

Yes, I have. No difference in principle or practice. Playing mono LPs cut at whatever speed with a stereo cart is compromised, in comparison to using a mono cartridge.

[WESTLOWER]

Hi - has anyone compared original mono LPs played with the Miya zero or some other genuine mono cart, to 45 rpm mono reissues by Analog Productions, Classic records etc - played by a mono or a stereo cart?

I believe Tom & Peter (PetRat) have done that, with a Miles Davis Analogue Productions Box set of the Prestige dates. You'll have to search through the archives here to locate the thread.

As i understand it the Classic Records Monos, were cut not as modern reissues, but with the same size cutting head as the original late 50's. So choosing the correct tip is pretty essential.

[bonzo]

Yes, I have. No difference in principle or practice. Playing mono LPs cut at whatever speed with a stereo cart is compromised, in comparison to using a mono cartridge.

Fine, but what to buy - I believe that classic records and speakers corner did an excellent job with their stereo reissues, and am happy to have them over originals, especially due to cost, but also in many cases sonically. So, with mono, are the reissues better than the originals, sonically?

[montesquieu]

Fine, but what to buy - I believe that classic records and speakers corner did an excellent job with their stereo reissues, and am happy to have them over originals, especially due to cost, but also in many cases sonically. So, with mono, are the reissues better than the originals, sonically?

I'm a complete tightarse I very seldom spend a lot of money on a record. I buy reissues only rarely and in any case most classical reissues are symphonic repertory or operatic extracts - not the solo piano, chamber music or Lieder recordings I like (and which on the whole are still accessible for sensible money in second hand record shops). I just noticed on PFM someone is selling some Nimbus Supercuts for up to £2k a pop - £900 for a recording of the Eagles. I simply don't understand that at all.

[bonzo]

I'm a complete tightarse I very seldom spend a lot of money on a record. I buy reissues only rarely and in any case most classical reissues are symphonic repertory or operatic extracts - not the solo piano, chamber music or Lieder recordings I like (and which on the whole are still accessible for sensible money in second hand record shops). I just noticed on PFM someone is selling some Nimbus Supercuts for up to £2k a pop - £900 for a recording of the Eagles. I simply don't understand that at all.

Ok, good point. So the small good performances still on the originals

[montesquieu]

Ok, good point. So the small good performances still on the originals

In my opinion money is better spent on a good record cleaning machine than on expensive reissues. (On the whole - sometimes you just have to have a record).

Funnily enough most of my reissues are Jazz where I don't have a big collection to start with and where my tastes are not exotic enough to be delving into rare recordings - the opposite of where I am with classical where (by and large) I already have most of the mainstream recordings I would want to buy, and it's fishing out rare gems where the fun (and a degree of risk) is. Thankfully 'collectors' haven't really got to grips with classical yet, and where they are, they are mainly hoarding stuff I wouldn't buy anyway. So unlike Jazz it's not really an expensive exercise.

[bonzo]

Reissues by orginal stereo standards aren't expensive. I am talking about under 50 quid as compared to what stereo originals cost.

[WESTLOWER]

Fine, but what to buy - I believe that classic records and speakers corner did an excellent job with their stereo reissues, and am happy to have them over originals, especially due to cost, but also in many cases sonically. So, with mono, are the reissues better than the originals, sonically?

Well, In my experience, A Music Matters premium 45rpm or 33rpm reissue is equal to a NY Blue Note original, for example.
Small variations in differences, but nothing too much. I had in fact in a moment of madness, I considered selling all my originals and replacing with these beautifully crafted reissues. I just couldn't do it though.

As you maybe be aware, A Music Matters reissue will cost you £45 - £100 plus postage, many Blue Note originals are now fetching many hundreds of $$££.. So for me, Premium reissues are the way to go, sonically. Besides, originals are getting really hard to find in near mint condition, if not impossible. The better your vinyl front end, the more I found I was hearing the snap crackle & pop.

The chaps recutting these records are very passionate about the reproduction process, they balance the integrity of the original sound with premium vinyl product and sympathetic remastering control and great packaging. It appears to be a real labour of love.

Prestige records for example, used inferior recycled wax to cut their records, so even if you find excellent condition mono titles, vacuum wet cleaned, they will still sound hissy. So another thumbs up for the mono Analogue Productions reissues of this great label's catalogue.

Coincidently, just this week, I purchased Miles Davis 'Seven Steps to Heaven', Mono (1963 Columbia 8851) .. to be totally frank, using various Stereo carts, it sounded near unlistenable! Utter Shite. But I will wait to try it on a true Mono cartridge before I launch it across the garden. I can tell you now, a MFSL of the same title would blow it away!

[montesquieu]

Reissues by orginal stereo standards aren't expensive. I am talking about under 50 quid as compared to what stereo originals cost.

I'm not sure I've ever spent £50 on a record.

[struth]

I'm not sure I've ever spent £50 on a record.

only once.

[WESTLOWER]

I'm not sure I've ever spent £50 on a record.

unfortunately ...I have many times. Jazz seems to be the genre where trophy collectors lurk. Sods!

[Mike Reed]

... I just noticed on PFM someone is selling some Nimbus Supercuts for up to £2k a pop - £900 for a recording of the Eagles. I simply don't understand that at all.

I know there are a lot of Nimbus Supercuts, and Sgt. Pepper's is and was one of the most expensive. I believe they were all limited to 1000 per run, which would at least be one reason for their inflated values. I've got two, and although they are of excellent s.q., they are not that exceptional, i.m.o.

[Moko]

If you have a suitably heavy Tonearm the GE VRII is an absolute bargain (often less than £100) finding good quality styluses is not too hard and Expert Stylus can retip old ones.

In my system I have a Japanese Gray copy arm fitted with a GE VRII which has both 1.0 and 0.7mm styluses fitted..now this is only used to play 50/60’s Mono LPs I really wouldn’t trust it with modern Mono reissues but the sound it produces in my mind easily competes with the Stereo GM E SPU I use for playing more modern records.

[montesquieu]

I have a VRII. It works fairly well but I wouldn’t say it competes with a Miyajima. Always fancied checking out a Fairchild but prices have got a bit silly (damned collectors). I have a Sonovox on the way which is supposedly up there with the Fairchild - we’ll see.

[WESTLOWER]

I have far more Mono records then i ever realised, maybe north of 1500 or so.
I've always played them with Stereo cartridges and generally thought they sounded pretty good. Sometimes the odd record had a lack of focus or felt a bit of a mess in the mix. I had always put that down to old records, maybe poorly recorded, maybe poorly pressed.
Anyway after reading bits about Vinyl Mono playback, there seems to be two camps.

1. You Just need to push the Mono button on your pre/phono amp, should it feature one, job done, simple, no need to further faff.
2. Purchase a dedicated Mono cartridge, with the correct stylus size for the corresponding Mono cuts you have and maybe push that Mono button on the pre.

Montesquieu, PetRat and a few others, of this parish, have well trodden this Mono path and on a recent visit demonstrated what different Mono cartridges can offer in comparison to a Stereo cartridge on a Mono record. I was pretty impressed at what the Mono cartridge does to the presentation. It felt like someone had fiddled with the focus knob, it just came together and felt right. Anyway Tom had used some lovely examples of Miyajima Mono cartridges for the demo, after climbing the Mono cartridge upgrade tree.

So could Mono playback be done using a less exotic Mono cartridge as a taster?...

For a few days I have been messing about with an old, inexpensive mono cartridge from the 50's I believe, a General Electric VRII, kindly loaned by Tom. Excuse my ignorance, but this thing was industry standard in the states for a long time. I have to say this thing looks crude, tracks at 5g... If i'm honest, initially i didn't entirely have confidence it would produce good music.

Well, Blimey! partnered with my SME 3012 on the 401 idler, it was a revelation, not the last word in refinement by any means, but detailed, smooth, great bass and lovely midband, the focused Mono reproduction is very satisfying indeed. A great intro to Mono reproduction and for sure I will be looking at more refinement from a higher end Mono cartridge in the future.

On further rummaging around the internet I stumbled on this piece written by a Jazz Record collector, it may have some benefit posted here, I hope it inspires one or two to think about those old Monos that don't entirely show their beauty on a stereo cartridge.

cheers

http://dgmono.com/2018/04/06/deep-groove-mono-and-the-great-groove-width-mystery/

[speedracer]

I am currently trying out a Lyra Helikon Mono on my Lenco GL75, which is 0.7 tip I think, & it sounds super to me, but most of my mono records are from the '50's & '60's so I believe is the one I should be using, either way I am delighted by the sound of it.

[montesquieu]

I am currently trying out a Lyra Helikon Mono on my Lenco GL75, which is 0.7 tip I think, & it sounds super to me, but most of my mono records are from the '50's & '60's so I believe is the one I should be using, either way I am delighted by the sound of it.

I've had a Helikon stereo as well as a Dorian Mono so I think I have a fair idea of what you are experiencing - I'm quite a fan personally although I'm pretty tied into low compliance these days which rules out any Lyras in my setup. Lyra's approach is rather different to Miyajima or to vintage mono cartridges... they use a fancy, modern 0.7 stylus profile, and also two coils, each oriented for mono (horizontal only pickup) with suspension enabled in all directions so there's no danger of groove damage.

The upshot is a cartridge that sounds a bit different to other mono cartridges. It will pull out more detail - most of the vintage or vintage-inspired mono cartridges use spherical tips, the better to sit in the u-shaped groove of early mono records, rather than the v-shaped ones made by stereo cutters. However the feel may be a bit different to a more vintage approach to mono reproduction which may sound more authentic, with a wider, conical tip and a thicker, wider sound.

Consequently I would say the Helikon is generally better suited to later mono and mono reissues (from the mid to late 60s or even the 1970s onwards) than 1950s and some 1960s mono which has a wider, non v-shaped groove. Though it should still sound a good bit better even with older stuff than an equivalent stereo cartridge.

A lot of the thinking around this is set out in the fascinating link Adam posted earlier - I had come across much of this info before but there are a few gems I was unaware of, and as a mono primer it can hardly be beaten. Great find!

[rockhopper]

http://dgmono.com/2018/04/06/deep-gr...width-mystery/

What a great link

Thanks for posting.

[WESTLOWER]

Link above is not working
Try this
http://dgmono.com/2018/04/06/deep-groove-mono-and-the-great-groove-width-mystery/

[WESTLOWER]

the same chap's blog Deep Groove Mono who wrote the informative article on Mono Groove width etc has just made a data base of
Mono Cartridges that are currently on the market.
pretty helpful if you have the Mono itch and are on the hunt
http://dgmono.com/mono-cartridge-database/

[montesquieu]

the same chap's blog Deep Groove Mono who wrote the informative article on Mono Groove width etc has just made a data base of
Mono Cartridges that are currently on the market.
pretty helpful if you have the Mono itch and are on the hunt
http://dgmono.com/mono-cartridge-database/


Very useful but he's missing quite a few:

- 47 Labs do a Miyabi mono cartridge
- Koetsu do several at different price points
- Ikeda does a quite superlative mono cartridge (would love to get my hands on one)
- Phasemation do one (the mono-PP)
- He misses a few Miyajimas (Kotetu, Premium and Spirit models)

It always surprised me that Peter Qvortrop - a record collector par excellence - doesn't do a mono version of the Io. That would be interesting.

There's a great discussion on Audiogone where Jonathan Carr of Lyra (who apprenticed with Ikeda) sets out his view of mono as a cartridge maker. Essentially he's gone down the route of fancy stylus profiles for maximum data retrieval but I would suggest that's better for later mono .. early in my opinion is better with spherical. Good viewpoint though and he talks about the economics of it being marginal due to low demand https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/which-mono-cartridge-at-around-1-300-00

[WESTLOWER]

Jonathan Carr in that post talks of such low numbers produced.
A real artisan product. Gives even greater appreciation of whats involved in the process to produce such things.