Do You Own And Use A Mono Phono Cartridge?

I'm perhaps pushing nearly five hundred or so monaural recordings on our favorite format, so I feel it is about time to buck up for an appropriate mono setup.
Would love to go ol' school with a Schick or Schröder, perhaps one of Noriyuki Miyajima's wood bodies, or an EMT, and an Auditorium 23...?
Nothing would delight me more than adding another TT to the arsenal...

Wait a minute, already have three tables and arms, where/when is this audio bug going to be satisfied???

 

Using a mono stylus on a Shure M97xe cartridge at the advice of one of the members here. Just don't want to risk damaging my mint 1950s classical mono recordings, some operas with Mario Lanza and a mint box of Arturo Toscanini conducting NY Philharmonic in Beethoven's nine symphonies. The $47 I paid for the stylus, to me, is well worth it and the .7mm stylus is supposedly a good fit for mono

 

It can never be satisfied!!!

 

A quick question if someone could kindly explain...

I have a Project Debut SE III, with the Super OM cartridge (that takes the 10, 20, 30 & 40). Can I attach an Ortofon mono stylus (is it the 25?) to this set up, or do I need an actual mono cartridge?

 

The super OM series are all stereo cartridges as far as I know, but Ortofon made a mono one recently. A beatles edition.

 

I've got a Denon DL-102 fitted to a Thorens TD 160 and I can say that I'm very happy with the performance. Nice warm, fat sound with significantly reduced surface noise. It's a worthwhile investment to have a second table (or second arm, if possible) fitted with a cartridge wired for mono if you have a lot of mono albums as I do.

 

So I do need a cartridge, rather than just a mono stylus?

 

I'm kind of surprised that the DL-102 is compatible with that arm.

 

@Steve Douglas: Yep

 

Yes and no. It depends on how 'hardcore' you want to get.

A true mono cartridge, like the aforementioned DL-102, only reads the horizontal signal, which is how true mono grooves are cut (no vertical signal). A 'fake mono' cartridge (which many appear to be) are really stereo carts with the left and right channels internally strapped.

Vintage true mono records were cut with a U-shaped groove optimized for a 1 mil conical stylus with horizontal compliance. The Ortofon OM Pro S or D25M are stereo cartridges, but are available with 1 mil conical styli, and many report that they are well-suited to mono records. I believe that SH'er Wally Swift uses one on a Technics SL-1200 for mono playback.

I am not aware of any current-production true mono cartridges that have 1 mil conical tips.

 

It's just within compliance tolerance. Right on the fence. It's a lighter-end medium mass arm, so I was a little worried about purchasing this cartridge for that reason. But once it was setup my worries melted away!

Ideally, given that the DL-102 is a low-profile shell, I would have preferred to mount it on my Rega but it is not compatible with the RB300. So, it took a while to figure out how to lower the VTA on the TP16. Sometimes I worry about playing a warped record because the arm rides so close (within millimeters) of the cue bar in its resting position but it hasn't touched yet. The stock headshell also rides low, but that's more of an aesthetic annoyance than anything that would cause concern. I can't seem to find a replacement headshell that is for a straight arm, just those for S-curve. So I'll live with it.

 

I've been curious about the DL-102 for years. One of these days I'll plunk down the cash and try one out.

 

You won't be disappointed. Neutral, but on the warm side. I was surprised with the Denon sound. I assumed they would be analytical like an Audio Technica, but not at all.

 

Isn't that a contradiction?
That said, many components that measure flat (ie: AR4x speakers, Shure M97xE cartridge) have a character that is often described as warm.

Anyway, that sounds good to me... I can't stand top-end tizzle.

 

I should be more careful with my words. Close to transparent, but slightly romantic

The Ortofon Rondo Red on my Rega is as close to neutral as I've ever heard from a cartridge that I've used. It's incredibly transparent, which can also be a curse. When a turntable setup is completely dependent upon the sound of the records being played, it neither improves upon or detracts from the signal. This makes great records sound great, but bad records sound, well, bad... :/

 

I'm about to order an Ortofon 2M SE Mono. I'm convinced, after hearing not only a couple of mono cartridges in my system (and having owned a couple -- a Benz ACE and a Grado ME+), that having a true mono cartridge is the best way to hear mono records. Sure, a stereo cartridge summed (either via a mono switch or a Y-cable) will solidify and stabilize the image which includes better rhythmic precision, but a stereo cartridge will still pick up vertical stimulus such as dust and scratches that move the stylus vertically. The downside to the Y-cable or mono/stereo switch is that you potentially put inferior quality wiring and switches in the way of the signal that you wouldn't be doing if you had a true mono going directly without the additional signal path. Finally, a stylus that has been designed for playing mono records' groove will improve the sound you're getting. To my understanding, a line contact stylus and a Shibata stylus are ideal for cartridges that will play mono records cut by stereo cutters as well as mono cutters.

 

A .7mil or 1mm conical stylus is actually preferably for vintage mono.

 

BTW, I tried a DL-102 on the mono-wired Rek-O-Kut that I worked on last winter, and it was very nice, but I much prefer the ancient GE VRII that I'm using now. It really needs a massive arm to deliver the goods though.

 

I've wondered the same thing. As far as doing no harm to your records, I think the mono stylus is perfectly safe. As far as absolutely minimizing the ambient noise from the non existent "hill and dale" channel, you'd probably still want a mono cart. But I've played 78s with a Super OM cart and 78 stylus for years. Been thinking about picking up a mono lp stylus, too, as it's so much easier than changing the whole cart.

 

Apparently something like the line contact and Shibata styli have enough width to satisfy all but the earliest '50s monos. Those designs are unique, and they have an advantage of possibly being able to get down deeper into the groove where less wear is likely to have occurred. From what I'm reading, though, the type of stylus you describe would be ultimately best if one were to have an extremely clean mono record from the early to mid-fifties.

 

The early monos were cut for playback on a 1 mil conical. The smaller 0.7 mil stylus came about as stereo was introduced in 1957. However the wide groove monos continued in production some time after that. (termed "microgroove" since the groove was smaller than that of a 78) Their frequency range was limited to roughly 12K to 15K. (the definition of hifi at that time) The early mono groove is cut so widely, that even a 0.7 mil may have a problem tracking these records, and will produce distortion. The Shibata, and line contact types of stylus may play them, but I have not tried this. An exception would be for the purpose of transcription, then it's always ok with informed discretion, to try different stylus shapes to obtain a clean play, or play an unworn part of the groove...

Care must be taken to NOT PLAY a later pressed record on a 1 mil conical, as they were not intended to be played on a 1 mil, and as their frequency range and modulation was greatly increased. The 1 mil will just wipe out the higher frequencies, and destroy your record. The 0.7 mil may sometimes cause damage on some post-1957 mono and stereo records, again the frequency range and groove modulation test its limits as well. (Distortion and sibilance abound)

My opinion is that the 1 mil conical stylus (and 0.7 conical) are specialty styli, only compatible with certain vintage mono records (which will play better) but should be strictly avoided for all other records.

 

I've never heard that one before.

 

A few examples would be a Chesky record, or Telarc, an "RL" Led Zeppelin II on the inner bands, Moody Blues "Days of Future Passed" 1st press high modulation pressing, I wouldn't touch them with a 0.7 mil conical. If the stylus produces IGD and sibilance, it can not handle the acceleration of the groove, (needs a smaller tip radius to navigate) and/or can not handle the higher frequency range.

A record cut at a lower groove pitch does not pose a problem for the 0.7 conical, even in the higher frequency range. But many LP's are cut hotter, and beyond the capability of the 0.7 conical.

 

Ah, I see what you mean!

 

I think many confuse the question, or the point...Pushing the mono button is all good and fine, but the issue is , at least for me, the
wide mono groove in the early 49-late 50's lp's. The stereo .7 will do, but with more noise due to it scraping the bottom of the groove,
sort of like playing a standard 78 with a .1, it will; but not very well. The new Beatle and such mono reissues, I would play with my modern stereo
cart, .7 stylus, conical or shibata- mono button if desired. The issue is that the older pressings need a different instrument to get the most out of them
better groove contact..