Mono Cartridges

Another Johnson

VIP/Donor
Jan 13, 2022
945
1,082
275
Music City, USA aka Nashville
I know it’s not true but latched mono but I’ve had an A-T VM610MONO on order for half a year now. A nice thing with this cart is that I could use a VMN40ML stylus if I want to. Why should styli for mono be spherical only?
Because there is only one cut track. Stereo is reading left and right cuts, and working to eliminate crosstalk. A complex stylus is necessary. No such animals in mono.

FWIW, in the days before stereo you had one amp channel, one preamp channel, one speaker, and a mono tape recorder and/or a mono cartridge feeding a one channel tonearm wiring harness.

During the transition to stereo many hobbyists regularly complained that stereo was a gimmick to sell you a whole new system, and to their ears, without significant benefits. I remember hearing the complaints about the new format. So … that aspect of the hobby is not new.
 
Last edited:

Lynnot

Member
Dec 30, 2022
25
49
15
Tremonia
Hi,

the ML needle may make sense for modern mono reissues.
My mono records are mostly from the 50ies of the past century and I prefer the contemporary round tip.

Best regards, Tony
 

Yeti

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2020
113
82
93
France
I’ve been using a London Decca Maroon mono variant for a while now. Vertical compliance is rather lower than horizontal. Used on old mono cuts it was fine in a Naim Aro but put it on a modern mono disc like the Schnabel Beethoven box sets and it jumps out of the groove. Moving it to my 18g effective mass Schröder and it behaves itself in those too and will play nicely in a stereo groove. The Miyajimas and Ortofon SPU CGs with no vertical compliance are too risky for my liking as I don't always spot a stereo disc before playing it.
 

tony22

Well-Known Member
Nov 4, 2019
558
240
133
62
The Miyajimas and Ortofon SPU CGs with no vertical compliance are too risky for my liking as I don't always spot a stereo disc before playing it.
But is Mr. Carr right (it feels weird even asking if he could be wrong) about carts like that damaging modern mono recordings?
 

Yeti

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2020
113
82
93
France
You’d think that the grooves on a modern mono cut would be flat as vertical movement is under control and they don’t have the frying bacon background noise with a stereo pickup that is common from an original mono cutter but my groove jumping Decca suggests otherwise for at least some of them, whether you’d nitice the damage with your mono cartridge is another matter. An SPU CG25 wouldn’t do a stereo disc any good though and not all mine are marked and less are obvious without careful inspection. I contacted Ortofon, this was their reply.

“Only two of our True Mono cartridges will damage stereo discs, the SPU Mono CG 25 Di MkII and SPU Mono CG 65 Di MkII. The two SPUs are build using one of our oldest Mono designs.”

To those I’d add most of the mono Miyajimas and the Denon 102.
 
Last edited:

Argonaut

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2013
2,380
1,618
530
N/A
You can't view all mono LPs the same way. A "modern" mono LP pressed this year is a whole different animal than a mono LP pressed in 1954.

So I'll approach the question in the title this way - first from the two different ends of the spectrum to illustrate the easier cases, then fill in the middle which the question can be a little more difficult to answer cleanly due to many factors. (note I own well over 1000 mono LPs, from all eras, many mono / stereo carts, and my answer also comes from hours of trying many combos over the last few years, plus the hours I've spent researching).

1. What percentage of pre-1958 mono LPs justifies a mono cartridge? Answer: 100%. During this era, everything was mono, plus the groove was cut wider (the 1mil groove vs the modern 0.7mil groove, which appeared post-1958 with the onset of Stereo). You can dip your new microline into 1956 groove all day long, hit the mono switch, and music will come forth from your speakers
:)
but you're not getting the best sound possible. End of story.

Note this class not only requires mono, but further benefits from mono with 1mil (25um) conical stylus, which are not as easy to obtain. I utilize the Ortofon CG DI series and Ortofon SPU Mono - both 1 mil (25um) stylus, with the DI series being a true mono, and the SPU Mono being strapped. Realize though these Ortofons are not ideal for most TT's due to their mass / compliance.

2. What percentage of "modern" mono LPs (say post 1970 for ease of illustration) justifies a mono cartridge? Answer: For those with a modest mono collection - 0%. Even for those with more than a modest collection. During this era, it's all a stereo lathe, and use your stereo cartridge (any profile stylus) and a mono switch (or ycables if its all you have) to achieve near everything you're after. Now, I've played modern mono numerous times with good mono carts too, but most of the time I'm trying to convince myself I'm squeezing more detail out with a mono cart........ but for most it'd be hard to justify a mono setup in this case.

OK, now the tougher era, not so cut and dry.

3. What percentage of mono LPs between 1958 and 1970 justifies a mono cartridge? Answer: Varies - depends on the LP. This one gets a little tricky for a number of reasons - and those with many early 60's mono / stereo pressing know what I'm talking about. I still go back and forth in some instances on what I try, but in others it's clear cut a mono cartridge is better. In some instances, with as much as I've learned on the topic, I'm just taking an educated guess. Here's why.

3.1 First consider, the 1958 cutover to stereo pressings was not an overnight event, and some smaller shops / labels took years to switch from mono to stereo lathes, some into the mid-60's. Then, even with the big labels, all plants did not switch overnight, there will still mono cut LPs coming out into the early 60's for even the big labels in some cases, at the same time producing stereo pressings. So you could be holding a 1962 mono pressing, still cut on a mono lathe, still 1mil groove. Or you could be holding a 1962 mono pressing, but cut on a stereo lathe with the 0.7mil groove. This is where a little knowledge of label and clues to what it is helps.... though it's never fail safe. If in doubt, don't try and play it with a 1mil stylus (which most don't have anyway).

3.2 Next, I still find that the early 60's mono pressings cut on stereo lathes still sound a little better with a mono cartridge than a stereo - all the way until the late 60's early 70's. These LPs were cut / produced at a time where conical cartridges were the mainstream choice, and many of them were tested with a conical cartridge. I've found even if you don't have a 0.7mil mono cartridge, a conical / spherical stereo cartridge with a 0.7m tip (like DL-103, many others) played, and utilizing a mono switch is better than more modern profiles and a mono switch.
Some of the cartridges I own / utilize for this era are things like a DL-102 (true mono conical, 0.7mil tip), DL-103 variants and a mono switch, AT33Mono, and even some elliptical profiles that are 0.7mil / 18um tip profile with good results. There are a number of mono carts on the market today, for instance the Ortofon 2m mono series, that I'd rather use a DL-103 and a mono switch for this era.

Anyway, as always, it depends on both what LP, and of course what you're willing to invest for sometimes small incremental improvements. I did it partly because I was intrigued by it, and enjoyed experimenting and learning hands on.
I was busy penning a reply when I recalled that I had saved an excellent summation from elsewhere that will save me the bother.
 
Last edited:

tony22

Well-Known Member
Nov 4, 2019
558
240
133
62
I was busy penning a reply when I recalled that I had saved an excellent summation from elsewhere that will save me the bother.
I’ll be interested to see that. :)
 

tony22

Well-Known Member
Nov 4, 2019
558
240
133
62
  • Like
Reactions: Another Johnson

Another Johnson

VIP/Donor
Jan 13, 2022
945
1,082
275
Music City, USA aka Nashville
FWIW, I use a special cartridge for my vintage 78s. It has a very large Stylus The 78s are all mono, of course. I only play them for their nostalgic value. And some of them are now showing up on Qobuz, so that’s really convenient. The music is really enjoyable because it transports me back to my grandparents’ living room, sitting on the floor in front of the big single speaker built into their console.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Argonaut

mtemur

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2019
1,351
1,312
245
48
I was busy penning a reply when I recalled that I had saved an excellent summation from elsewhere that will save me the bother.
I agree most of it except using spherical tip. I have many records from true mono era and I believe they benefit from a modern profile stylus. Playing them with EMT TMD25N isn’t always better than a modern stereo cartridge. If it’s cut deep enough there is no problem like bottoming the tip which is true most of the time. Additionally cutting stylus profile during mono era was also closer to modern profiles than spherical.

BTW my EMT TMD 25N has 25um (1.0 mil) spherical tip and is made in Germany around 2013 before switching manufacturing to Switzerland.
 

Argonaut

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2013
2,380
1,618
530
N/A
I agree most of it except using spherical tip. I have many records from true mono era and I believe they benefit from a modern profile stylus. Playing them with EMT TMD25N isn’t always better than a modern stereo cartridge. If it’s cut deep enough there is no problem like bottoming the tip which is true most of the time. Additionally cutting stylus profile during mono era was also closer to modern profiles than spherical.

BTW my EMT TMD 25N has 25um (1.0 mil) spherical tip and is made in Germany around 2013 before switching manufacturing to Switzerland.
Yes … There are variables to be had across various true mono and mono re-issue pressings.
 

mtemur

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2019
1,351
1,312
245
48
Yes … There are variables to be had across various true mono and mono re-issue pressings.
It’s predictable that mono reissues (18um) cut by stereo cutter head which is unavoidably mounted on a suspension unit benefiting from a modern stylus profile but mono era records (25um) cut by a mono cutter head with advanced ball mechanism also benefit from modern stylus profiles. That’s my observation.
 

Argonaut

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2013
2,380
1,618
530
N/A
but mono era records (25um) cut by a mono cutter head with advanced ball mechanism also benefit from modern stylus profiles.
Could you explain the physical mechanism behind this please ? Modern stylus profiles simply cannot contact the same *live* surface areas of the groove containing the signal on a true mono cut as well as a 1.0 mil conical or elliptical stylus tip .
 

Solypsa

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2017
1,811
1,399
275
Seattle
www.solypsa.com
It’s predictable that mono reissues (18um) cut by stereo cutter head which is unavoidably mounted on a suspension unit benefiting from a modern stylus profile but mono era records (25um) cut by a mono cutter head with advanced ball mechanism also benefit from modern stylus profiles. That’s my observation.
Would not, if anything, the use of a stereo cutter head possibly introduce unintended vertical movement? In this case it's vertical compliance at issue. Playback stylus profile would, if anything, relate to the cutting stylus profile used and settings for the cut...
 

mtemur

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2019
1,351
1,312
245
48
Could you explain the physical mechanism behind this please ? Modern stylus profiles simply cannot contact the same *live* surface areas of the groove containing the signal on a true mono cut as well as a 1.0 mil conical or elliptical stylus tip .
On the contrary modern stylus profiles provide better contact with groove walls than a spherical tip because just like stereo cutter head mono cutter head's stylus is close to modern stylus profiles too. Spherical tip has never been best for reading information in the grooves. It is just convenient but not good. On the other hand modern profiles better replicate cutter head's stylus profile and tracks more accurately.

Mono era cutter head is not spherical and does not cut for spherical. Modern profile almost always in better contact with the groove walls and reads better both mono and stereo records. The only problem is bottoming due to wide groove width (25um) but it rarely happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bonzo75

Yeti

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2020
113
82
93
France
There is at least one mono record in my collection, though I forget which and haven’t happened on it again, that sounds terrible with the Decca’s spherical stylus and much better with the Replicant 100 on my SPU Royal N using the mono switch. Most mono cuts, even old ones, are preferable on the Decca mono but with these the margin to the R100 isn’t so large. I don’t mind running a second arm for mono and even a second deck but I can’t be doing with constantly swapping cartridges so I want a mono for all mono discs and the occasional accidental stereo one too. That eliminates anything without at least some vertical compliance and probably the 0.25?m styli as well, 0.18 and 0.15?m are not going to be a universal solution either so that leads me to the larger major radii styli, both the micro ridge on a 17D and the Ogura PA on a Proteus sounded lost in a mono groove but the R100 and Gyger S don’t, I’m not sure about Shibata yet, it seems promising so far. I note that Hana’s mono cart uses one and it’s a lot less outlay than the Ortofon MC A mono with its R100.
 

mtemur

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2019
1,351
1,312
245
48
Would not, if anything, the use of a stereo cutter head possibly introduce unintended vertical movement?
I know that, that's why I also mentioned suspension unit. I'm trying to point out that a mono record in mono era in a purely mono setup without even the word stereo spoken is cut with a cutter head which has a stylus profile similar to the stereo cutter head's. That cutter head's stylus profile is replicated better by modern stylus profiles compared to conical/spherical. And that's why modern profiles conform better and makes a better contact with groove walls.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bonzo75

Solypsa

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2017
1,811
1,399
275
Seattle
www.solypsa.com
Agreed.

There is some debate as to which modern one is best but doesn't change the basic concept.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mtemur

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing