• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Webcor Musicale Coronet Hi-Fi phonograph w/ GE VR-II cartridge

Doug G. said:
Scuzzer is correct on this.

It doesn't matter when a mono record was made or on which type of equipment. It is still going to have only horizontal engravings. No vertical.

The playback needle, regardless of type of cartridge is still going to move only back and forth, not up and down at all (except for incidental noise engravings which we don't care about).

Doug
Click to expand...

You guys are missing my point. A mono recording cut on a stereo lathe is no different from a stereo record cut on a stereo lathe (except the information in both channels is the same). It still requires vertical and horizontal compliance from the stylus. This would apply to the vast majority of records mastered from 1968 on.

Mastering engineer Steve Hoffman (who knows more than any of us about this stuff) says:

People, one more time, be careful of the mono cart you install. Make sure it can play a stereo groove without damage. Over and out.
Click to expand...
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=5766772&postcount=22

After 1967, most cutting rooms junked their mono stuff, including mono playback machines, etc. Chances are that a mono recut after 1967 was done on a stereo machine IN STEREO MODE cut on to your record with a stereo tip.

This means that there is a really good chance that throwing the record into mono will throw the actual music out of phase (all the highs vanish and you hear that swish sound) because it was not mastered carefully or correctly.

I know several engineers who STILL cut mono on a stereo machine IN STEREO so that when you play back in mono (either with a mono cart. or by combining the channels l+R) you get bad sound.

If you can confirm that the record you are playing back was mastered in true mono (simply by previewing the thing in stereo and then combining the channels and verifying that no damage is being done to the signal) you can play the record safely on a modern mono cart. But I ask you, this hobby is hard enough, is it worth it?

I would say about 75% of the modern cuttings that are supposed to be full mono are NOT and need to be played in stereo or the signal is mangled.

It's just not fun to trust everything to a mono cart if the music was recorded in mono. You could be missing out on top end, dudes. You have to check each record by trying it in the stereo mode AND the mono mode. A true pain in the butt.

Over & out.
Click to expand...
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=5772002&postcount=48
 
Last edited:
Well OK bc, if you're going to talk out-of-phase channels on a stereo machine cutting mono then, yes, there could be vertical modulations but I would think most engineers would be astute enough to ensure a true mono cutting by checking stuff like that out.

Hoffman has made other assertions in past that make me not 100% trusting of his advice anyway. With all due respect, of course. He is a very political animal.

Doug
 
beatcomber said:
You guys are missing my point.
Click to expand...

Ah, I get it now. You're saying not to play poorly made non-mono records (that are labeled mono) using a non-vertically compliant true mono cartridge. But if I only play mono records using my mono setup how would I ever know that the vertical info that shouldn't be there was wiped out?

beatcomber said:
A mono recording cut on a stereo lathe is no different from a stereo record cut on a stereo lathe (except the information in both channels is the same).
Click to expand...

If they run the same input into both channels on a stereo cutter it will only produce horizontal modulations. The basic system parameters are L+R is the horizontal modulation and L-R is the vertical. Once again, if L=R then L-R=0.

Doug G. said:
Hoffman has made other assertions in past that make me not 100% trusting of his advice anyway.
Click to expand...

+1
 
Last edited:
Scuzzer said:
Which looks identical to the mono visualization using a stereo cart. So a 68 and newer mono would be identical (modulation-wise) to a 68 and older mono which makes sense since they're both mono.
Click to expand...

Yeah, rethinking it that makes total sense. Still, don't play stereo records with a true mono cartridge. I say "true", because many of the current mono carts are simply stereo carts with both channels strapped together.
 
NO NO NO! The post 1968 mono reissues are cut on Stereo cutting heads. Therefore they must be played on stereo compliant cartridges at light forces. True Lateral complaint only mono cartridges WILL DAMAGE THEM.
 
How many mono cutting heads are still in usage? Very few. How many mono cutting heads were available after they were obsoleted by vendors? Stereo took over. Reissue mastering engineers used Stereo cutting equipment fed mono signals to cut new lacquers for the most part, easier or only possible to use the newer gear (many mono cutting heads got retired when lathes got replaced by newer lathes with Stereo cutter heads). Many a jukebox owner who had a mono cartridge which tracked unacceptably heavy and not be stereo compliant has had to upgrade their VR II and Seeburg Blackheads to more modern cartridges. Back when I was little and mono LP discs got phased out, I had to upgrade my portable to be able to play modern discs.
 
Last edited:
KentTeffeteller said:
How many mono cutting heads are still in usage? Very few. How many mono cutting heads were available after they were obsoleted by vendors? Stereo took over. Reissue mastering engineers used Stereo cutting equipment fed mono signals to cut new lacquers for the most part, easier or only possible to use the newer gear (many mono cutting heads got retired when lathes got replaced by newer lathes with Stereo cutter heads).
Click to expand...

Kent, explain why that makes a difference. Using a stereo cutting head to cut mono ends up with the same groove as a mono cutting head. The only difference is the mono head would have been 1 mil while the stereo head was 0.7mil.
 
Celt said:
Yeah, rethinking it that makes total sense. Still, don't play stereo records with a true mono cartridge. I say "true", because many of the current mono carts are simply stereo carts with both channels strapped together.
Click to expand...

Absolutely and this is really the only rule that MUST be followed.

Never, but never, play a true stereo (not mono cut on stereo equipment) record with a true mono cartridge. The needle cannot move up and down and will gouge the record vertical engravings instead.

Doug
 
That one channel groove is still 45/45 Stereo due to it being cut on a Stereo cutting head and having a .7 groove radius. Therefore, it requires a 45/45 compatible cartridge. Unless that reissue 45 was using leftover 1960's stampers (quite a few actually did for years). Now, strapping a Stereo cartridge for mono output is commonly done. Later mono records wore very quickly compared to their older siblings in that era on our old VR II cartridges, which is why the station I worked for replaced them with Stanton 500 AL cartridges summed to mono at the preamp output. The mono output going to the cutter heads at the mastering studio got sent to both coils of the Stereo cutter heads. Older 1950's and 1960's mono cut grooves were wider than the later re-cuttings using newer stampers due to that.
 
Let's put it this way.

If you were to look at a master engraved on mono equipment and a master correctly engraved on stereo equipment and looked at the same place on the masters under microscopy, the two sections would look identical.

The wiggles would only go from side-to-side. They would necessarily have to. Otherwise they would not be mono.

So, all a stylus needs to do is move side-to-side to play a record made from either of these masters.

Doug
 
You still regardless have the issue of the new cuttings needing a .7 mil stylus and the GE VR II tracking at 4 grams bare minimum. So, you do need a .7 mil stylus at minimum to play the newer records.
 
beatcomber said:
There is a lot of misinformation in this thread.
Click to expand...

Mostly coming from you and Kent. The nice thing is that all of this only applies to a very, very small percentage of folks listening to records.

KentTeffeteller said:
So, you do need a .7 mil stylus at minimum to play the newer records.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I play all of my monos using a 0.7mil stylus. It's much easier to find one than a 1 mil as well.
 
Last edited:
beatcomber said:
Thanks, professor. :thmbsp:
Click to expand...

Instead of being snarky you could point out where we went wrong. It would be nice if you could show us proof instead of quoting vague references by the Hoffmeister. A Barry Diamented quote doesn't count either.
 
Last edited:
Also, a 1 mil. stylus will play a .7 mil. groove just fine. It will just ride a little higher in the groove.

There really is no such thing as a 1 mil or .7 mil. groove anyway. The groove walls still end up meeting in a point at the bottom anyway. And the walls are 45 degrees from each other in both. It's not like one type has steeper or shallower walls than the other.

The .7 mil stylus was chosen for stereo just to get it down in the "V" further to reduce the chances of skipping with highly modulated stereo information. This isn't as critical with mono records since the stylus only moves side-to-side.

EDIT: OK, I guess they could optimize a groove for one type of stylus or the other by varying the groove depth so the stylus tracks right in the center of the groove wall and maybe they did change the groove depth when stereo was developed. I haven't been able to find info yet on that.

Most of what's out there still just calls one groove 1 mil. and the other .7 which, without qualification, is nonsensical.

Doug
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom