Mono vinyl, how do you know if really single channel mono or if stereo recorded to mono


I'm exploring the possibility of getting a mono cartridge. 

Please, I am not trying to start a debate about whether or not that is a good idea. I simply have a question about monophonic records.

How can you tell which records are truly mono and which are actually stereo with 2 identical channels to simulate mono?

I know that for all mono records before stereo there was only one channel cut laterally into the record .  When stereo came out some so called mono recordings were actually 2 channels just like a stereo record with both horizontal and vertical information but  L and R were the same so ended up as mono. I also know that a "true mono" cartridge only has output from the horizontal motion and that the stylus size is different than a stereo stylus, which means according to many aficionados of mono recordings,  in an ideal world you would want a cartridge optimized for mono to play true mono records

again, I do not want to debate the pros and cons of this, just want the facts about the records. If you want to debate something else please start another thread

thanks


herman
Sorry, June Christy, not Julie Christy.  I think I was mixing her up with the British actress of the same era.
I have many records that were recorded mono before stereo existed or was just catching on so no stereo masters exist. .Any stereo version of these is "electronically enhanced" .. tough to see how the stereo version could be better... I’ll let you know. I’ve read review after review and many opinions from those who repeatedly attest that the mono versions of these early recordings especially played with a quality mono cartridge are absolutely better. I have yet to read where mono turned into stereo is better, I’ve yet to hear anybody say that they prefer these older mono recordings played with a stereo cartridge.

You’re talking about OLD mono. If mono is the only version (originally recorded in mono) then it’s fine and it’s better to buy mono LP, right. You need only one speaker for those records and it’s OK.

But in the 70’s stereo is the way to go, I much prefer original stereo records (not fake stereo). I don’t know why do we need mono today if stereo is available? Who prefer to record in mono today and why?

For archivist of very old mono records (when stereo was not available) mono is the right format, but in general real stereo records are absolutely amazing. Maybe it was a bit weight with early stereo, but in the 60s and 70s stereo records are fantastic!

P.S. I'm not talking about reissues

"Sorry, June Christy, not Julie Christy "

lewm-
You are referring to Julie London. I bring a  1955 mint  mono copy of "Julie is her name" to demos/shows. It's on the Liberty Label. Always catches the attention of anyone in the room. It is a fine example of a mono recording. 

This is my favorite rendition of "Laura". A perfect recording. Dixie McCall(Julie in the TV show "Emergency") is in the room
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBnqZDdQ18Y

There is a 45 reissue available of this album, almost as good a clean original.

Everyone should have this album in their collection. Jazz heavyweights playing on the album.My favorite guitarist-Barney Kessel playing beautiful as always.
You’re talking about OLD mono. If mono is the only version (originally recorded in mono) then it’s fine and it’s better to buy mono LP, right. You need only one speaker for those records and it’s OK.

But in the 70’s stereo is the way to go, I much prefer original stereo records (not fake stereo). I don’t know why do we need mono today if stereo is available? Who prefer to record in mono today and why?

Here is one instance where I see absolutely no use for stereo. . think Bob Dylan on his early records when it was him, guitar, and harp. When they put some of them out in stereo they panned the guitar one way and the harp the other with his voice in the middle. Completely unnatural and distracting, much better in mono

In the early days of stereo  they tended to show it off by putting some instruments hard left , some hard right, and often left a hole in the middle. There are a lot of small group jazz recordings (trio, quartet) like that. Debatable which is preferable, but definitely not the best use of stereo.

One argument you hear for mono is it allows you to concentrate on the music because your brain doesn't have to process the stereo. Makes some sense.. at a live performance you seldom if ever get the sense of separation and the precise location of instruments in space that you get with a "well done" stereo recording. For most amplified concerts it is a wall of sound, there is no left and right. If the goal really is the proverbial "Absolute Sound" of recreating live performances most stereo falls far short in that regard.

So the question is.. do you prefer the music in stereo or is it the fun of listening to the soundstage they are creating, the unnatural soundstage in most cases. No right or wrong, but a perhaps a valid reason why some may prefer mono for recordings done in stereo.

.
Tablejockey, No, I am referring to June Christy, not Julie London. I well know the difference between them, and I own albums by both artists. June Christy started her career shortly after WW2, before Julie London hit the scene. She was briefly married to the bandleader, Stan Kenton. She started her career singing with the Kenton band. She was later superseded in that band by Chris Connors. June Christy’s album “Something Cool” is a jazz vocal classic and one of my favorites. Which is why I own both stereo and mono versions.