New Mono records - Cart?

[Irv]

A stereo cartridge will work fine. If you want a mono cartridge though, check out those from Audio Technica and Grado.

Hi MisterDK, I was reading the Posts of Mono Cartridges and have a 'newbee' question...
I see that there are Mono and 78 specific Cartridges.
What's the Difference?
A 78 record IS by design [back in the day] a Mono record so why would there be two different styles/types of cartridges made?
I know that there ARE Mono records, but really, WHY would anyone want a Mono record, of we have expensive STEREO (Two channel) sound systems that we are all so proud of?
It doesn't seem logical to me, could you please explain for me.
Thanks.
Irv in Maine

 

[beat_truck]

Hi MisterDK, I was reading the Posts of Mono Cartridges and have a 'newbee' question...
I see that there are Mono and 78 specific Cartridges.
What's the Difference?
A 78 record IS by design [back in the day] a Mono record so why would there be two different styles/types of cartridges made?
I know that there ARE Mono records, but really, WHY would anyone want a Mono record, of we have expensive STEREO (Two channel) sound systems that we are all so proud of?
It doesn't seem logical to me, could you please explain for me.
Thanks.
Irv in Maine

Mono LPs and 45s, depending on age, either had a groove size of .7 mil or 1 mil. 78s have a groove size of ~3 mil. They won't sound right and can do damage if the styli are interchanged.

Some mono recordings are preferable to their stereo counterparts because they are mixed differently. Some of the stereo versions really sound terrible when compared to the original mono mixes.

 

[MX117.MC7150]

Plus, there are many mono-LPs that have never made it to stereo or digital formats. If it is a recording you want it may only be in mono.

 

[MisterDK]

Hi MisterDK, I was reading the Posts of Mono Cartridges and have a 'newbee' question...
I see that there are Mono and 78 specific Cartridges.
What's the Difference?
A 78 record IS by design [back in the day] a Mono record so why would there be two different styles/types of cartridges made?
I know that there ARE Mono records, but really, WHY would anyone want a Mono record, of we have expensive STEREO (Two channel) sound systems that we are all so proud of?
It doesn't seem logical to me, could you please explain for me.
Thanks.
Irv in Maine

Hi Irv,
Like beet_truck said above, the 78s were designed to use a fatter needle tip. Those 78s can be used with either a mono or stereo cartridge - but - must have the bigger needle for their inherently wider grooves. If you have 78’s to play on a modern turntable, just get a 78 specific cartridge, which will most likely also be a mono cartridge.
Check with Grado Labs for their 78 cartridge; they’re reasonably priced.

One of these days, I’ll look into a modern 78 cartridge for one of my tables. All I have to play them on right now is my grandparent’s old GE record player from the 50’s.

 

[beat_truck]

I haven't kept up with the latest carts that are designed for 78s, but not all were mono. Like the discontinued Shure M78S. It was just a plain stereo cartridge with the pins strapped from the factory.

3 mil 78 styli are actually available for many popular cartridges. Usually cheap, too.

I use the same Pickering V15 that I use for mono LPs and 45s, just with a 3 mil 78 stylus installed. Lots of archivists use Stanton 500s for 78 RPM use, so the Pickering V15 (which is the same as the Stanton 500) is good enough for me.

 

[Irv]

Mono LPs and 45s, depending on age, either had a groove size of .7 mil or 1 mil. 78s have a groove size of ~3 mil. They won't sound right and can do damage if the styli are interchanged.

Some mono recordings are preferable to their stereo counterparts because they are mixed differently. Some of the stereo versions really sound terrible when compared to the original mono mixes.

Hi Beat Truck, Hey 'Groovy' information that I never knew about! [Sorry...]
Now you said that 45s, depending on their age had a groove size of .7 mill or 1mil...
Are newer 45s wider or more narrow? ----- do they even MAKE 45s in 2020?
- I have many 45s from the 60's - 70's, so what size grooves are they?
Should I NOT play them now, with the cartridge that I'm using on my Yahmaha yp-211, until I get the SP-10 later this week.
That being an Ortofon 2M Bronze?
They sound good with it, but I going to damage it?
Who measures the groove widths?
A very small man, with some micro calipers?
- I suppose that is a standard with the cutting of the vinyl, right?
This is great information, as I knew 33, 45 & 78 records were all different, not just by their speed, but in their manufacture.
- Is THIS why some people use two or God help me three tonearms, on one Turntable?
Thanks!
Irv in Maine

 

[beat_truck]

Hi Beat Truck, Hey 'Groovy' information that I never knew about! [Sorry...]
Now you said that 45s, depending on their age had a groove size of .7 mill or 1mil...
Are newer 45s wider or more narrow? ----- do they even MAKE 45s in 2020?
- I have many 45s from the 60's - 70's, so what size grooves are they?
Should I NOT play them now, with the cartridge that I'm using on my Yahmaha yp-211, until I get the SP-10 later this week.
That being an Ortofon 2M Bronze?
They sound good with it, but I going to damage it?
Who measures the groove widths?
A very small man, with some micro calipers?
- I suppose that is a standard with the cutting of the vinyl, right?
This is great information, as I knew 33, 45 & 78 records were all different, not just by their speed, but in their manufacture.
- Is THIS why some people use two or God help me three tonearms, on one Turntable?
Thanks!
Irv in Maine

I haven't looked into it, but I doubt they are pressing many 45 RPM singles today. Maybe some specialty stuff or jukebox reissues. They are pressing 45 RPM audiophile albums, because the faster speed is beneficial for sound quality.

Mid 60s and back 45s are nearly all mono, and should be 1 mil, but it is perfectly fine to play them with a .7 mil, or even a .6 mil. I wouldn't use the Bronze on styrene 45s. According to some, a microline or shibata stylus can ruin a styrene 45 in as little as one playing. Others say they get away with it OK. They are fine for vinyl 45s, though. A conical is preferable, especially to use on styrene 45s. A conical stylus also helps mask some of the noise, which is good because most 45s were played on crap over the years.

 

[jrtrent]

Gramophone magazine did an article on playing a mixed collection of stereo and mono records. As others have mentioned, the older mono records had a slightly wider groove, and the best fit stylus size was a 1 mil conical. However, Gramophone found that sizes down to a .5 mil, though riding a bit lower on the groove wall, worked quite well and could give less tracing distortion. For stereo records, .5 mil was considered the best fit, but sizes up to .7 mil worked quite well (the 1 mil mono stylus rode too high on the groove wall and tracked poorly). The .7 mil was the size RCA used in modeling tracing characteristics when they developed the Dynagroove system.

At present, I use a .6 mil conical for all my mono and stereo lp's, regardless of age, as well as all my 45's, and it plays everything quite well. Before my last Shure N97xE stylus wore out, I would have said that I played all those record types with a .2 X .7 mil elliptical, and it played everything quite well. For 78's, I use a separate cartridge with a 3 mil conical stylus.

 

[Gibstone]

The thing is that a lot of very excellent recordings can be found on older mono records (sometimes exclusively). These are 60-70 years old at this point, so very few are in like new mint condition. Some of these are the best available recording of a given performance, since some of the early stereo (or fake stereo) efforts were lackluster. It is surprising how rich these recordings can sound.

The records themselves, like I said, are OLD. So the ability to reduce noise is, in my mind, as important as the ability to extract every detail from the groove.

After a lot of research, I picked up an Audio Technica HOMC mono cart that is the main part of a dedicated mono setup, mounted on a modest Sansui belt drive manual TT with a decent s-arm. It is "safe" for use on any LP record so new mono records are safe too...but it only sends a true mono signal to the amp (or so they say). Certainly $$$ will get you better results but this seemed to me to be the best compromise to enjoy these wonderful older recordings. I can't see myself spending much more on this endeavor since the source material I'm interested in is a compromise to begin with due to age.

Because of this I've developed a minor obsession with finding rare and interesting mono recordings. It's fun, since I'm (slightly) less obsessed with the condition of the LPs themselves.

 

[tubeactive]

I listen to Mono discs often, using my normal stereo system, in "thrilling dual mono"....When using two speakers like this, equal loudness between channels is imperative to obtain any realistic soundstage efx (Effects). This is why the Balance control or two Level controls were invented....

With some vintage and new eqpmt, the Mono switch is combining the stereo output AFTER the two channels from a stereo cartridge and still after the phono preamp stage. That means a stereo cart has added different snap, crackle n pop from each side of the groove and then we added these intrusive signals through the phono stage, along with the wanted music. The typical Mono switch combines the two channels into one, thus reducing the hiss and crackles, but cannot remove all of the intrusive snap, hiss, crackle n pop which happened, because the stereo cart has vertical (up and down) compliance as well as the needed lateral compliance for most of our old and new mono discs.

If you simply combine the channels of the stereo cart into mono at the rear of the cartridge with a jumper wire between the two + pins and a jumper between the - pins, then interconnect the tt to the stereo preamp/control unit, while playing mono discs the intrusive crispies are reduced still more. But, the lowest level of intrusive noise will be from a genuine mono cart which has no vertical output. Some mono carts actually have vertical compliance but no electrical output. That would be the best of both worlds, the safest for your precious stereo discs as well as the lowest noise floor.

Since stereo uses a "45 degree x 45 degree" groove configuration, half of each channels's stereo cartridge's signal is sensitive to vertical compliance of the grooves and half of each channel's signal is sensitive to lateral compliance of the grooves. Early mono grooves (re: this topic) have only lateral groove information. This is why the early mono disc playback systems were more tolerant of turntable rumble and motor bearing noises. Without vertical sensitivity, rumble is reduced tremendously. Use the wrong mono table with a stereo cart and not only will the crackly noises never completely null, but the rumble and bearing noises may also not go away.

A true mono cart, with lateral compliance and no or some vertical compliance (but no vertical output) will not come reasonably priced, unless bought used. When building a mono disc playback system, there are many factors and issues to consider. Mono LPs, EPs and 45s pressed before the mid-1960s will undoubtedly have been cut with a 25 micron (1 mil or .001 inch) type cutter stylus tip. If the 1948 to 1965 music era is your passion, you might consider a genuine vintage, mono cartridge. If you like 78s, that is a definite, serious reason to procure and setup a vintage mono cart. The GE Variable Reluctance, "moving iron" type cartridges, like the RPX-040 single play(either a 1 mil stylus plugged in, or a 2.5 to 3 mil stylus plugged in), the RPX-050 "Triple Play" or the VR-II "Triple Play" (plays 33 1/3 and 45 plus 78 rpm discs) with their red knob atop, "push and swivel" baton stylus change.

For "period correct" setups, the GE RPX-040 arrived in 1947 and remained very popular well into the 1950s. That cartridge ushered in and ensured the home HiFi boom soon after WWII. In late 1949, GE intros their RPX-050 which stays popular through the 1960s. In late 1957, GE brought us their lightest tracking mono cartridge the (4 gram required) VR-II. VR-II popularity also extends through the swingin' sixties. Any of these VR carts are sonically well worthy. If you like sweet and detailed sound, the RPX are for you, but they require 6 grams tracking force. The VR-II is definitely more "neutral" and has been characterized as "more forward sounding."
As I write, 8/23/2020, each of these GE VR carts can be procured stateside for $50. to $100. New styli can still be found from $10.-$25. Diamond 78 rpm tips can be found for a bit more. Sapphire tips last for 50 to 100 hours, provided only very clean discs are played. However, let's do some quick math. Average 3 minute sides of singles can play for 20 times per hour, with quick handling. 50 hours multiplied by the 20 single side plays equals 1000 single side plays ! Thatza lot of spinning n groovin....

 

[tabarddn51]

Hi, I had a thought about this today after listening the Tchaikovsky No 6 in mono, You could always go for a cart like an OM30 (tremendous cart for it's money) & also buy one of their Mono styli. Then when you want to play mono you just swap over the stylus assembly, very simple 20 second job. The alignment will say exactly the same.
Just a thought,

Cheers

 

[beat_truck]

Hi, I had a thought about this today after listening the Tchaikovsky No 6 in mono, You could always go for a cart like an OM30 (tremendous cart for it's money) & also buy one of their Mono styli. Then when you want to play mono you just swap over the stylus assembly, very simple 20 second job. The alignment will say exactly the same.
Just a thought,

Cheers

You could do that, but just changing the stylus doesn't make the cartridge body into a mono one. It will still be a stereo cartridge, just with a conical stylus mounted on it.

 

[tabarddn51]

Hi, Well that is simple to fix, just make a simple switch box to flick between 2 stereo singles to one mono single. Would cost maybe $10 to 15 to put together.

Cheers

 

[Toblerone]

Thanks for the idea. I have a Marantz 3200 pre amp with mono switches. Which I've already concidered using in this situation.

My main question, the question, was which stylus shape and cart is best to use with modern mono records. Which many people have weighed in on.. Thank you all who've replied.

I run an ortofon bronze daily. And, I like ortofon in my system. Thinking about picking up an Ortofon mono... maybe. And only a maybe, because I don't have, at the moment, many modern mono presses.

(side note, unrelated. I have considered swapping in an OM 30, with it's slightly higher compliance, from time to time, which I think would match my setup a bit better. No immediate need though.)

(edit: quote didn't work. Darn cellphone.)

 

[BamaBilly]

Play it with whatever you play the rest of your records with, and sit back and enjoy.

Exactly what I do and it sounds fantastic on my system. Could it sound better, I’m sure it could but I’m pretty certain that’s always going to be the case. It can always sound better.

 

[Toblerone]

Hi, Well that is simple to fix, just make a simple switch box to flick between 2 stereo singles to one mono single. Would cost maybe $10 to 15 to put together.

Cheers

Yep. That's exactly why I asked....

I always want it to sound better!

Again, from my prevoius, and most recent post in this thread.. The record arrived, with a few other modern mono records since this posts inception, and I've played them with my bronze, and even swapped in a blue stylus, just to hear with elliptical. They sound good.

I'm now weighing the benefit of a mono cart. Should I get one now or later? If ever? Depends, I guess.

(edit: still can't these quotes right on the cell phone. Problem for another day.)

Exactly what I do and it sounds fantastic on my system. Could it sound better, I’m sure it could but I’m pretty certain that’s always going to be the case. It can always sound better.

 

[BamaBilly]

Yep. That's exactly why I asked....

I always want it to sound better!

Again, from my prevoius, and most recent post in this thread.. The record arrived, with a few other modern mono records since this posts inception, and I've played them with my bronze, and even swapped in a blue stylus, just to hear with elliptical. They sound good.

I'm now weighing the benefit of a mono cart. Should I get one now or later? If ever? Depends, I guess.

(edit: still can't these quotes right on the cell phone. Problem for another day.)

Oh absolutely, better is always the goal.

 

[Mellotronix]

Whatever, indeed.

Most modern mono records are cut with a stereo lathe, so using your preferred stereo cartridge is perfectly fine, if not ideal.

Something like a MOFI or any of the Beatles 2014 mono or recent Beach Boys QRP mono pressings will likely be cut with mono heads, but even stereo cutting heads can do a great job cutting mono if they are properly setup and aligned.

I have two mono cartridges and they both do an excellent job, although they couldn't be more dissimilar. I have a Grado ME+ that I like very much ($150). Don't let the bonded elliptical diamond dissuade you. Tracking mono is quite different from stereo since there is very little vertical compliance and the ME+ is an agile little tracker. I have played older LP recordings with wider grooves and it does just fine, but it's NOT optimal for 1950's--early 60's. It's wonderful with modern recordings and I think that's what you're after. I believe that the stylus is .07 mil.

The Ortofon 2M Mono which I currently have mounted on my mono turntable, is surprisingly punchy and musical. It sounds especially good with Sinatra's 100th Birthday mid 50's reissues from a few years back. I was reluctant to consider it because of the spherical stylus and, but it is narrower than styluses from the 50's and 60's--radius is 18µm as opposed to the older 25µm. It seems too expensive at $356, but it is very good and should last forever.

I go back and forth on which I prefer. I think for rock, I like the Grado and for pop/folk/jazz, the Ortofon really has a nice sheen to it's upper end.

But, having said all of that, I think if I were in the market, I would consider having Grado build a low output Sonata 3 with a nude elliptical diamond or even a Master 3 with a fine line diamond. I'm not convinced that a fine line is necessary for mono though.

You would never know that the Ortofon 2M Mono that I'm using is spherical. The depth, detail and frequency response are impressive, but like I mentioned, for the price it should be. I've learned never to judge cartridges based on specs or preconceived ideas about stylus shapes.

The Grado will hum with unshielded AC motors.

 

[ehoove]

I recently set up my modified Thorens TD160/Project 9CC table for mono ant run a AudioTechnica AT33Mono LOMC on it with great success. I have used the Ortofon 2M Mono as well which is a MM cartridge which was very nice as well, but I prefer the AT personally.
Enjoy,
Jim

 

[tubeactive]

Greetings ! I almost bought the SP version of the AT, for 78s...An overseas collector whose ears I trust also treasures his AT mono LP lomc cart.

A genuine mono cart can outperform a stereo cart. Many scratches and dirt can be heard with the vertically oriented compliance and output a stereo cart inherently reproduces, even when switched or wired as a mono cart. The genuine mono cart certainly wins for less background noise.

For the cleanest condition discs, elliptical line contact et al styli can definitely elicit better high frequency delineation than a conical stylus tip. However, when spinning average condition discs, the spherical undoubtedly has a lower noise floor than an elliptical or line contact tip. For the early mono discs, sourcing 25 micron wide(1 mil or .001 inch) elliptical tips is not easy.