2. analog
  3. 150194-1294

Mono Reissues and the Conical Stylus

Hi Folks,

Recently I started buying mono reissues from Speakers Corner, Impex, and have recently ordered a few from Analogphonic. They're all of the 'long haired' variety. In the process, I've come to discovery threads where posters claim that the newer mono reissue grooves are cut in a V (stereo) shape rather than the vintage U (mono) shape.
My AT 33 mono cartridge comes with a conical stylus and from what I can tell, so do the better mono cartridges, i.e. the Miyajima Zero Mono. This of course would then create an issue where it pertains to using a conical stylus in a V shaped groove.

Around November, I plan to purchase a Jelco tonearm for my modified Thorens TD 160 and after that, will be looking to upgrade to a higher end mono cartridge. However, I don't see that they're would be a viable solution to the stylus dilemma given that I will only have one tonearm. I do by the way own a collection of early mono records but would like to find a cartridge that better crosses over between my vintage pressings and my reissues. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
128x128goofyfoot
lewm
13,176 posts
 
Goofy, I did not specifically mention the Cadenza mono cartridge.  I was for a time interested in the Quintet mono.  If you look at the language they use to describe the Quintet, you would think it is "true mono", i.e., like the Miyajima cartridges in that it is insensitive to vertical cantilever displacement.  However, if you then look at the specs, you will see they are identical to those of the Quintet stereo cartridge.  This to me is an indication that the mono version is derived from the stereo one by internal bridging of the two channels.  This was also true of the Black mono.  If the Cadenza blurb says otherwise, check the specs of the stereo compared to the mono version. Does the Cadenza mono have two channels of outputs (4 pins)?  If so, that is usually a sign of a mono cartridge that was created from stereo.  The manufacturers can be devious, and you have to read between the lines.
lewm
13,176 posts
 
On the other hand, like I said earlier, there is nothing "wrong" with deriving mono by internal bridging, in my opinion.  Some purists might argue that cancellation of the signal produced by vertical displacement of the cantilever, in such a design, is imperfect unless the cartridge is perfectly constructed physically.  (The two channels have to be perfectly in balance with respect to gain, etc.) One would have to do a careful study and take measurements to sort that out.
goofyfoot's avatar
goofyfoot OP
1,380 posts
 
Sorry lewm, I didn’t look at the Quintet. The Cadenza Mono webpage claims that the Cadenza is a true mono cartridge for playing mono microgroove vinyl records. However, it states that the Cadenza Mono internal build is based on the internal build of the Cadenza Red. It also mentions that the four pins are connected, in order to receive the same exact sound.
I don’t follow you regarding the number of cartridge pins. My AT has four pins and it’s a true mono build. The same with Lyra, Miyajima and others. I did once own a mid level Grado that was strapped for mono but found it to be inconsistent from record to record. And, I liked my AT 33 mono so much better that I go rid of the Grado.
solypsa's avatar
solypsa
462 posts
 
I totally get it if the GMII (or a Schick) are out of budget.
I will say that the role of the tonearm should not be under estimated. Both in terms of its quality and how well it works with the cartridge.
goofyfoot's avatar
goofyfoot OP
1,380 posts
 
solypsa, I agree about which tonearm with which cartridge. I like the Schick and it's affordable but it's still much more than a Jelco. Additionally what makes the Jelco nice is that it will drop right into my Thorens without modifications. The Jelco will also work well with modern cartridges and from what I've been able to find, the Schick is raved for its compatibility with the better vintage cartridges.
More to discover