MONO cartridge recommendation

Mono LP playback seems so basic it should be simple.  And yet there are multiple posts here and in other sites which suggest otherwise.

I don't pretend to have great expertise but since I own a few hundred mono LPs I've done a fair bit of reading on optimizing their playback.  From all that I've drawn two conclusions.  1. It can depend on when the LPs were produced, and 2. How deeply one gets into this may depend on how many mono LPs they own.

The mono cartridge VS mono switch/strapping (either with Y interconnects or hard wiring) a stereo cartridge may relate to how many monos one owns.  If you have only a few, does it make sense to spend the time and money in buying and setting up a mono cartridge?  To me it wouldn't.  I'd use the switch, or find a way of strapping a stereo cartridge if my preamp didn't include one.

For those who decide to buy a mono cartridge, what type should they buy?  I suggest that can be guided by when their mono records were produced.  It is not just a question of true mono VS internally strapped stereo and whether the cartridge has vertical compliance or not, it also brings up stylus size and shape.  I've offered this timeline previously -

Pre-stereo era monos (roughly '48-'57), select a 1.0 mil conical stylus.  

Early stereo era monos (roughly '58-'68), select a 0.7 mil conical stylus.  

Recent mono reissues (mid '90s to present), select a mono cartridge with a modern narrow stylus profile. 

Many early stereo LPs carried warnings against playback with mono cartridges.  I believe that was because of differences in cutter heads.  Groove dimensions have changed over the years. 

J Carr has posted that he believes the modern profile tip styli sound best with their Lyra mono cartridges. He didn't say this but I suspect it is because he auditioned with current mono reissues, produced with stereo cutting heads.  Also, the 1968 date for stereo cutter heads is not an absolute.  Hoffman identifies that date as the time when mono heads began to be phased out (it didn't happen overnight).

Similarly, if you have a number of original mono LPs and you are serious about playback quality, then you'll also need to consider playback EQ.  While the RIAA was adopted in 1955, alternate EQs were still utilized until nearly 1970 by some labels.

At least with 33 1/3 LPs we are not concerned with alternate recording speeds, as are serious 78 collectors.  That is unless of course you have LPs like the original "Kind of Blue" which had a defective tape machine utilized for the master for one side!  ;^) 

I don't have any monos dating into the 40's (earliest I own would be a copy of Ellington's "Uptown" from '53, but do have a fair number of '55-'65 monos and even for those my definite preference in terms of styli is a good line contact or microridge, 

Just too many limitations with a conical IMO. Primarily a lack of information retrieval in the midrange and an inability to render high frequencies as accurately. It's apparent even on 50's monos in my experience, regardless of groove width. 

hdm, to be clear, those dates I suggested referred to time when the record was produced, not when they were recorded.  That is why nearly all mono reissues may be better served with a modern narrow stylus profile.

Still, we listen for different things so there are no universal or absolute answers here, only guidelines.  After all, there are many experienced listeners who still enjoy conical styli even with stereo cartridges, such as the Denon 103.

So, does that mean we should be fine playing back a modern re-issue on a stereo cart, without Y-connector or Mono switch, as long as there is no extraneous vertical motion from scratches etc? (Assuming that both channels are putting out the same output, so there is no need to "sum" both channels).

@pryso

Yes, I understood that is what you meant. The Ellington Uptown that I was referring to is an original pressing from '52-'53, a Columbia Masterworks six-eye with machine stamped 1A matrices. Of the 200 or so monos that I own, about half are 50's to mid sixties originals and I was actually referring to playing those vintage pressings with line contact or microridge styli specifically.

Interesting that you should mention the 103. As I stated upthread, I've spent a fair bit of time with 103R's (about 6-7 years actually) including running the stock conical playing both stereo and mono records for about 1000 hours before experimenting with a couple of different line contact styli (Peter Ledermann's standard line contact as well as his OCL, which strongly resembles the Ortofon Replicant stylus). So I'm familiar with not only how the Denon conical sounds but exactly how different (and IMO how improved) a line contact will sound on exactly the same cartridge.

The link below is to a photo of one of my modified 103R's. This one was installed and potted into an aluminum body (kind of a DIY Zu 103R) and then retipped with Soundsmith's ruby cantilever and line contact stylus. I also had an ebony bodied 103R with the both the standard line contact and later an OCL on it.

So as well as running the 103R stock, I've also run that aluminum bodied version both as a stereo cartridge and strapped for mono in the past (it is now a back up cartridge in storage). As you say, we all have our preferences, but, based on my experience, I can't imagine anyone not wanting to run the Denon with a line contact or microridge over the stock conical, including on vintage pressings, after having the opportunity to hear one with a decent, more exotic stylus profile.

That experience is in fact what my preference for the LC or MR is based on.

http://img.canuckaudiomart.com/uploads/user_image/2507/21842.jpg

@devilscucumber

You don't HAVE to sum or run a mono cartridge on modern mono reissues, but it is not simply an issue of noise/scratches; by summing or running a good mono cartridge on those records the performance itself will be enhanced and improved, regardless of noise that may or may not be present.