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
1,380 posts
 
gerrym5,
From my understanding, having a mono switch option is comparative to using a stereo to mono splitter. It is taking a stereo signal, by reading the left and right sides of the groove, via the azimuth tonearm adjustment and then channeling that into mono. Doing this is not a substitute for what a mono cartridge will do. The detail, musicality and quiet background that is characteristic of a mono cartridge will not happen by using a stereo cartridge, even with a splitter or a mono switch. Once you have a mono cartridge installed, then you may find that using the mono switch is preferable but that could go either way.
lewm
13,176 posts
 
Googyfoot, Based on all that has gone before in this thread, I am not sure how you arrived at the "understanding" you describe above.  What you wrote may fairly be characterized as your opinion.  In your 3rd sentence, you use the term "mono cartridge" without specifying which type.  I assume you refer to a "true mono" cartridge, best described by Intact Audio, one that cannot read vertical deflections of the cantilever for any of several reasons based on its construction.
hdm
1,062 posts
 
My experience is consistent with Intactaudio's above with respect to the retip of the Myajima mono and his experimentation with Denon 103 converted to mono with a MR stylus.

I had Steve Leung at VAS install a Namiki MR stylus on a boron cantilever on a very low hours AT 33 Mono last year and it is a better cartridge than the original. On both modern and vintage mono. 

Would never go back to the conical. IMO it is an audiophile myth that conical is the way to go with vintage mono. 
goofyfoot's avatar
goofyfoot OP
1,380 posts
 
lewm you’re correct and I didn’t realize that I had forgotten to mention that my cartridge description would apply solely to a true mono cartridge design. The criticisms toward a strapped stereo cartridge would be the same as the comments I had made above concerning a splitter or a mono switch. So yes, I recommend purchasing a mono cartridge built as a true mono design.
intactaudio
302 posts
 
Would never go back to the conical. IMO it is an audiophile myth that conical is the way to go with vintage mono
.
I agree 100%.  Just because the conical was the tool of the day to play mono doesn't mean the advanced profiles would have been shunned if they had been in existence.  I actually see them as the correct profile to play back anything since it best mimics the pattern cut by the cutterhead.

dave

More to discover