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
moonglum
619 posts
 

Yes, it makes perfect sense Halcro but this is of course assuming one has a mono switch ;^) :)

Minimalist functionality has its price ;^)

(Instead I have a "combiner" box that can be used to sum 2 channels. It's a bit of a hassle hooking it up though....)

jtnicolosi's avatar
jtnicolosi
72 posts
 
I did the same. I was inspired by The Beatles box, went all out with a Miyajima Zero setup (including SUT and mono phono pre), but finally concluded it was slightly irrational to justify the expense with only 100 or so mono albums. 80% of those were reissues anyway, so they were cut with a stereo lathe.

That said where the mono cartridge fanatics are correct is with original mono albums (pre 1964 I believe). The few old jazz albums I have sounded amazing with the mono cart, and noticeably superior to the mono switch on my phono pre.

So I agree with you but with the large caveat that for those with an extensive original mono collection, a true mono cart is indeed the best option.
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,229 posts
 
From what you've written I don't think you can draw any meaningful conclusions about mono vs. stereo cartridges.  You picked a low mono and compared it to very high end stereo and came to the conclusion that mono isn't worth the effort.  Not a fair comparison.
halcro's avatar
halcro OP
2,664 posts
 
What are the "very high end stereo" you claim I've compared it to?

dgarretson
2,599 posts
 
I wouldn’t claim that the AT 33MONO is the last word in mono cartridges, but for me the things that it does well with mono LPs outweigh its shortcomings relative to the excellent stereo cartridges playing mono that I’ve compared it to(AT ART7, Ortofon MC2000, Accuphase AC-5, and many vintage MM/MIs.) The 33MONO performance is calmer, more organized, and less of a shrunken bullseye than the stereo cartridges. It has good bass, but perhaps less "sparkle" and "life", as stated by OP. However--particularly on old records--it is much quieter in the groove. IMO that is the raison d’etre of a mono cartridge. Of 6000 or so LPs I’ve collected just 100 monos, from ’50s/’60s jazz through recent audiophile reissues of Miles, Coltrane, and Beatles. At my modest level of commitment to mono, the 33MONO is my fav cartridge and a reasonable value. It doesn’t deserve a drubbing.
More to discover