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
goofyfoot's avatar
goofyfoot OP
1,384 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
1,384 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.
chakster's avatar
chakster
6,144 posts
 
@goofyfoot

Thanks chakster but I’d rather own an MC, just a personal preference. I am familiar with Grace as I owned an F 8 but I wasn’t all that impressed with it, though it filled a need at the time. Maybe the F9 would have left me with a different opinion.

F8 is cheap entry level cartridge, F9 is somewere in the middle, nothing special.

The Grace i am talking about is F14 Mono with two pins, the high-end Grace cartridges are F14 and LEVEL II models, only those two models comes with the best cantilevers (Sapphire, Boron Pipe, Beryllium) and best styli (MicroRidge). Those are the last cartridges made by Grace before they went out of business in the late 80’s. These models are better than many MC cartridges, but they are not cheap, actually very expensive and superior compared to any F9 version.

I have F14 MONO, the stylus does have a vertical compliance and the diamond profile is Luminal Trace. Nice for original mono records from the 60s/70s. This Grace F14 Mono has only two pins to connect leadwires. I don't have any pre-60's mono records and i don't buy mono reissues. 

Anyway, a Conical stylus is anachronism and must be avoided in the modern world (except for 78rpm SP records).
An MC cartridge with such stylus must be retipped every 300 hrs. 



lewm
13,321 posts
 
F 9 Ruby has sapphire cantilever.
More to discover