2. analog
  3. 123898-486

OK...I've ditched my mono cartridge

Like many others I suspect, after the Beatles Mono release Box Set
http://i.imgur.com/JhcIBai.jpg
I read a lot about the 'supposed' benefits of a true mono cartridge over simply using the 'mono' button in a phono-stage/preamp.
So I was persuaded to try one (without breaking the bank).
http://i.imgur.com/yHeUiPH.jpg
It's now been 18 months of listening and comparing the AT 33Mono
http://i.imgur.com/C3bAOfA.jpg
with all my other favourite stereo cartridges played with the mono button on the Halcro DM10 preamp.
Firstly...I'm not a fan of the AT33 sound. Compared to my short-listed dozen cartridges out of the 80+ I have owned, it lacks sparkle, depth, bass and 'life'...😩
Why have I narrowed down my worldwide search for the 'ideal' cartridge to a mere handful....to then just meekly accept the second rate performance of a 'hack' cartridge simply because it's a 'true' mono?
And why would anyone who has invested in a Koetsu Coralstone, Atlas, Anna, Goldfinger or Airtight for their stereo listening pleasure.....'step-down' to a lesser cartridge for their mono listening?
Oh...I know you can buy better sounding mono cartridges than the AT-33Mono.....but how many are you going to try to hope to match your favourite stereo ones?
Now that I've ditched the 33Mono.....I can listen to all my great cartridges with all their diverse flavours just as I do for stereo recordings.
And I never really did hear a special difference in the dedicated 'mono' one even though I half persuaded myself that I should...🤓
128x128halcro
fleib
1,124 posts
 

Lew,

To say Halcro's results are, or not the result of price is laying it on a little thick.  Are you like a fan boy who must devastate all opposition?

Just because you or Halcro chose not to go with a mono cart, does not mean there is no benefit. 

Regards,

thom_mackris's avatar
thom_mackris
680 posts
 
I like Lewm's thinking, and yes, the Myajima is a fine mono cartridge.

I’m coming to think that, playing "mono a mono" can be very good, but equally important is the stylus profile and general design of the cartridge - irrespective of whether it’s a mono or stereo design.

I think we have two things at play with mono cartridges. The obvious one being that it’s a true mono design (including rejection of vertical motion). The second factor that gets overlooked is that the stylus profile is more suited to the groove profile cut by a mono cutting head.

Taken another way, if "limited" to two varieties of cartridge (i.e. a dual tonearm rig), I’m more inclined to run a vintage stereo cartridge (i.e. Ortofon SPU) in the second position over a mono cartridge. I think this ultimately provides the flexibility to play more of your record collection. 

This isn't to dismiss mono by any means ... just a slightly modified approach, and of course, if that second arm has a removable headshell, then one is free to collect a stable of easily swappable cartridges.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier Design
iopscrl
82 posts
 
Everyone should reach their own conclusion.  My experience is that a mono reissue will sound different than a pre 1964 mono pressing, even when using the same cartridge (be it mono or stereo).  Mono cartridges will sound different, based upon construction.  A true mono cartridge generates signal from horizontal motion, only.  A stereo cartridge modified to become a mono cartridge will still respond to vertical motion.  Why is this an important distinction ?  Even though a modified cartridge is supposed to suppress vertical signal by summing, bridging, coil alignment, etc it is still there.  Unfortunately the existence of the vertical signal introduces phase anomalies that are audible.   It is easier and cheaper to adapt a stereo cartridge than to construct a true mono cartridge, which why there are very few.  At the low end there is the Denon DL102.  Anything better costs considerably more.  Some listeners swear by vintage Fairchild and ESL mono cartridges, that are more than 50yrs old.  However there are a few specialists that can rebuild them.
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
7,068 posts
 
 
Unfortunately, the preamp driving one of my two systems lacks any mono switch (Atma-sphere MP1). I am thinking of replacing the function of its "phase" switch with a "mono" function
Lew, just so you know, we do option the preamp with a mono switch, executed using a custom rotary switch, often with a separate phono input. We've done tape EQ in this same manner.
pryso
1,501 posts
 
Thanks thom and iopscrl for substantiating my perspective.

But let me phrase it a bit differently than I did before.  First off, I probably need to own more than a few mono LPs before I'll consider the trouble and expense of a mono cartridge.  Otherwise hopefully I'll have a mono switch on my pre or phono amp and be content.

However if I've purchased many mono reissues, better optimization may be worthwhile. If those reissues were cut since maybe 1990, they very likely were done with a stereo cutter head.  So choosing an appropriate stylus suggests a modern profile, whether it is in an "adapted" stereo model or a true mono design.

But then if I own a number of original mono pressings, produced with mono cutter heads, my stylus choice will likely be different.  Why would I not want a larger, conical/spherical stylus to better match the groove made by that cutter?  Also in this case I do not want any vertical pick up so that affects my choice as well.

Without beating this into the ground I feel it depends on how many monos and how they were produced that we want to listen to.

More to discover