Thinking of buying a Mono cartridge...need help, thanks

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by bayen, Sep 2, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. chacha

    chacha Forum Resident In Memoriam

    Location:
    mill valley CA USA
    Which is a fold down of the stereo mix anyway.
     
  2. ROFLnaked

    ROFLnaked Forum Resident

    Location:
    California
    Hello--

    Naturally I realize it's a fold-down. It still sounds like $1,000,000 bucks on my lo-fi mono system.
     
    chacha likes this.
  3. chacha

    chacha Forum Resident In Memoriam

    Location:
    mill valley CA USA
    Too Busy Thinking Bout My Baby!
     
  4. blue

    blue Mastering rules

    Location:
    sweet spot
    I got an instant reply from Kevin Gray by mail on my question I put here some days ago, so the answer is the following (thanks a lot for his input! He agreed to post it here for the folks):

    „I have never cut anything with a mono head. Modern stereo heads have much less distortion and wider frequency response than any of the older mono heads. It's always better to play mono with the mono switch, as it cancels the vertical component. It would not make any difference if it was cut with a mono or stereo head.
    Best,
    Kev“
     
    Twinsfan007 and missan like this.
  5. TheVinylAddict

    TheVinylAddict Look what I found

    Location:
    AZ
    Some musings on the topic.... note I have a couple of questions at the end, so if you don't want to read my ramblings, please skip to the bottom, any help would be appreciated.

    Tonight, I took my M44G and strapped the L/R hot and ground pins to sum for Mono, and listened to a few different pressings from the early, mid and late 1950's to get a feel for it. On an early 50's pressing of RCA Victor Beethoven's 1st symphony for example, it played fairly well, though I am certain that LP was cut with for 1.0 mil. Retrieval and playback wasn't bad, but I could tell it was not ideal. I then tried a 1958 UK Angel, a 1959 Telefunken and a 1960 London pressing (all Mono) and was surprised with the result, it was quiet and seemed to retrieve the sound well. I am fairly certain these were Mono cut at 0.7 mil, but again not 100% sure.

    I have a DL-102 (0.7 mil cartridge) on the way to play with -- I have a high mass tonearm (22g) on my GT-2000L, so it should be able to carry the DL-102, though it is still a tad on the heavy side. I used 3-4CU @ 10Hz compliance estimate in my calcs for the cartridge, and came up with a resonance of 11-12HZ for my tonearm - on the high side of the green zone, but definitely in bounds. My thoughts are that it (the DL-102) being a true mono cartridge it will do a better job on the early, mono cut 0.7 mil pressings than a strapped M44G, or other stereo cartridge.

    I also purchased a D5110J Stanton Rek-o-Cut 1.0 mil last night, and plan on strapping the pins and using that for Mono also. (bought from Esoteric for $55). I have a couple Stanton 500 carts lying around (one an 500 AL-II, the other a 500) and the D5110 should fit no problem. I plan on trying that for the early 50's pressings I have that were cut for 1.0 mil. I seem to have amassed quite the collection of early 50's mono in the last couple of years, and to date have not been totally happy with any attempts at playing with other styli like the AT3/LP, AT33Mono, the M44G mentioned above....

    Some questions:
    • This first one I think I know the answer to - but will try anyway. Is there any way to tell, any cues, if a Mono LP was cut for 1.0 mil vs 0.7 mil? I know there are some rough guidelines - mainly in 1948 -49 is when the 1.0 mil LP started, and then somewhere in the mid-50's is when the switch was made to 0.7 mil, coinciding with the intro of Stereo 0.7 mil. I also know it depends on the label, some made the transition earlier, others later and there is no one date for the cut over. But is there any way to tell, other than a guess-timate using your ears?
    • What is the dynamic compliance of the M44G? Shure does not publish the dynamic compliance, they only provide a static compliance number of 25 cu, even then don't publish if it's a 10Hz or 100Hz spec (probably 100Hz like most, but not positive). I searched around with no luck. I am currently using it on my high mass tonearm because I am guessing it is probably a low-ish compliance due to its use by DJ's, plus it has a beefy cantilever which can be a tell tale sign... but not sure. I am currently using it on my high mass 22g tonearm, and it sounds like a good match, but have other TT's / tonearms of medium mass also that I could run it on. Anyone have any guidance on the M44G dynamic compliance?
    • Lastly, when using these stereo cartridges on older mono pressings (like the M44g, D5110, etc) - am I leaving some sound retrieval "on the table?" I am not an expert on horizontal / vertical signals of a mono vs stereo cartridge, and something tells me that although the stereo cartridges are sounding good on older 0.7 mono records, from a purist standpoint I may not be fully retrieving the sound as intended.
    Anyway, I 've gotten long winded again... :) any help on the questions would be appreciated.
     
  6. Dubmart

    Dubmart Senior Member

    Location:
    Bristol, England
  7. TheVinylAddict

    TheVinylAddict Look what I found

    Location:
    AZ
    Thanks. I've seen / read that before.

    What part did you think I would not expect?

    To summarize, my question was how I can tell if an LP is 1.0 mil vs 0.7mil from visual.... knowing full well I am not sure anyone will have a definitive answer as I don't think you can...

    If you want to summarize that would be fine...
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2018
  8. Dubmart

    Dubmart Senior Member

    Location:
    Bristol, England
    Rich reached the conclusion that based on his sample mono LPs well into the sixties were cut for 1 mil styli, you seem to assume the switch to 0.7mil happened ten years earlier.

    I guess there are only two ways to tell which is which, use a microscope as Rich did or play the record with both sizes and decide which sounds best, I currently only have a 1 mil mono cart, but when funds allow I will get a 0.7 mil of the same type and adopt the latter approach, although so far everything has sounded good to the extent that I think having a genuine mono cart and as good a mono cart as possible are of more importance than the stylus size.

    I assume that there is some pattern to when individual labels switched, assuming they did, so that with some effort it should be possible to build up a database of catalogue numbers for each label before which they were cut for 1 mil and after cut for 0.7 mil, said database could be be shared with others and open to contributions.
     
  9. TheVinylAddict

    TheVinylAddict Look what I found

    Location:
    AZ
    Ahh, I see. The problem as I see it is there are no hard cut overs --- and moreover this topic does not have definitive answers, and there are always exceptions to the rule as different labels have a different chronology and timeline for their progression from mono to stereo to modern mono, etc. At the same time you could STILL find 1.0 mil into the sixties, from my readings some made the cutover in the late 50's to correspond with the 0.7 mil groove introduced with the Stereo cut. I have read that in a number of places. Is it correct? I dunno, but that's the beauty of this topic, we have to rely on anecdotal evidence from "experts" because there are so many different suppositions / answers on the web. Even the experts disagree many times from my reading! Bottom line - it is not black and white and we are probably both right and wrong at the same time!! :)

    By no means was I intending with my post to pose any definitive timeline of the chronology of the progression from 1.0 mil mono to 0.7 mono / stereo, etc. Sorry if it came across that way, I am no expert and don't have all the answers --- and I would go even further to say not many do, and those who present themselves as experts are immediately questioned / doubted from what I have seen.

    One thing for sure about this topic - again, there is always an exception to the rule. We throw around dates like "post 1968" for mono cut on stereo lathe, but it is not hard and fast --- some shops ditched their mono lathes earlier than others, some hung onto them into the 70's (again, if someone wants to disagree, please post your source - there are so many opinions here and conflicting documentation. I wish SOMEONE was the definitive source and had the definitive answer). For every article, conclusion on this topic there seems to be an exception.

    Besides, my question was about how to tell a 1.0 mil when I had it in my grubby hands, I wasn't trying to give a chronology!!! I understand your point and agree with your premise, but will say again it is a complex topic. :)

    Cheers and thanks!! BTW - are you an expert on this topic?? :cool::winkgrin:
     
    Dubmart likes this.
  10. Dubmart

    Dubmart Senior Member

    Location:
    Bristol, England
    Yes, I'm pretty sure that nobody around on the internet in 2018 has any definitive answers and I've seen so many contradictory opinions stated, I think the interesting thing about Rich's research is he was expecting the opposite result based on what he'd read and smaller grooves to be in the majority, at least that's how I recall discussing it with him prior to the event, hopefully I've not remembered that incorrectly. As I said I think the only way we are going to get definitive answers is to find them for ourselves and share the information freely, as you say there are just two many variables to make assumptions, bigger labels may have switched earlier, yet small independents probably kept the same lathe with the original mono head into the seventies, I have seventies releases that were mono only, even recorded in mono.

    Because I think it's really important I'll repeat once again that in my experience getting a genuine mono cart is more important than worrying about the stylus size, I doubt if many sixties audiophiles worried about stylus size either though perhaps they were all embracing stereo instead.:)

    I'm definitely not an expert, just someone with a lot of mono LPs who has finally got a deck and cart to do them justice and rival my stereo set up which it does to a shocking extent.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2018
  11. TheVinylAddict

    TheVinylAddict Look what I found

    Location:
    AZ
    Thanks for your thoughts on the topic... I will take them into consideration. I can only speak for myself on the topic! :)
     
  12. All Down The Line

    All Down The Line The Under Asst East Coast White Label Promo Man

    Location:
    Australia
    UK Decca Stereo inner bags from Sept 65' (for Out Of Our Heads) comment on the grooves appearing differently to the consumer.
    .07 ?
    Could on surmise that from this point their Mono was now .07?
    No idea just throwing it up for the experts to see if there is any relevance.
     
  13. missan

    missan Forum Resident

    Location:
    Stockholm
    There can of course be a slight difference in vertical components if the levels from left and and right channel aren´t the same. It´s rather easy to check the levels vertically cut, when using a stereo cartridge, by switching polarity on one channel and sum to mono. What we then will hear is info that isn´t the same in both channels.
     
  14. rl1856

    rl1856 Forum Resident

    Location:
    SC
    I have a cartridge with a 1mil stylus, used exclusively for playing mono LPs. Your question is a vexing one that very few have attempted to answer. My personal interpretation is to use 1960 as a cut off date. If the LP was pressed before 1960, I play it using a 1mil cartridge; if after I use a stereo cartridge and a mono switch.

    I understand it is highly likely that 1mil mono pressings were sold well into the 60s. For example, a Blue Note title recorded in the 50s and still in print in the mid 60s but using -original- metal work for subsequent pressings.

    Conversion to stereo (58-59) is a convenient demarcation point. However budget minded engineers etc may have retained or adapted mono equipment rather than convert everything immediately. Another variable came up in the mid 60s.....conversion from tube to SS equipment. Another demarcation point, and this was a complete conversion whereby all equipment was replaced. Surely this would have included components in the cutting chain ?

    Once again, a vexing question that few are capable of addressing.
     
    TheVinylAddict likes this.
  15. rl1856

    rl1856 Forum Resident

    Location:
    SC
    Yes much was made of their use a mono cutting chain. But I never saw anything regarding groove width....unknown whether they cut to .7mil or 1mil. I suspect the former as to make the LPs as compatible as possible with all equipment.
     
  16. ROFLnaked

    ROFLnaked Forum Resident

    Location:
    California
    The advent of the internet with unlimited access to information on virtually every subject is something of a double-edged sword. For every seemingly informed opinion stating that a VTF of 4.5 grams is quite safe for the older LPs that were intended to track at that weight, there is another guy who promises that LPs will absolutely get ripped up in no time if subjected to such a primeval VTF.

    Same goes for 0.7mil vs 1mil styli with respect to 1960s mono LPs, I'm afraid.
     
    All Down The Line likes this.
  17. CDBSX780

    CDBSX780 Member

    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    So, can this thread achieve a simple answer that using a new Grado Mono cartridge in any of these situations is okay?
     
    Oliver Meyer likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine