2. analog
  3. 181017-174921

Mono Cartridge Question

You chaps have watched me struggle with the issue of my London Decca Reference being irreplaceable, and then joyfully learning that John Wright has a successor after all. You have seen me buy and test three other MI designs (Nagaoka MP-500, Grado Statement3, Soundsmith Sussurro MkII) along with my older MC cartridges (Ortofon Kontrapunkt C and Benz Micro Ruby 3). Since those struggles have led me to owning two SME turntables and four tonearms, I am now torturing myself with the question of whether one of those four should be home to a dedicated mono cartridge. Remember, I only have one ear and cannot hear stereo at the best of times. A mono cartridge for my few dozen mono recordings would be a matter of reduced surface noise and possibly some improvement in dynamics.

I can get hold of an Ortofon Cadenza Mono (two voice coils so not true mono) for about 1600CDN, and a Miyajima Zero for 3450CDN. So the question is this: am I mad to even think about it? Money is not what it once was before I retired. There is no opportunity to go and hear these before purchase, without spending much more than purchase price on travel.

Shall I "make do" with my rather good stereo carts for my mono LPs or is there something better waiting for me when I get out those Parlophone Beatles LPs?

 

dogberry
lewm
13,110 posts
 

All of you guys who extoll the virtues of using a mono cartridge on a mono LP, do you have a mono switch on your linestage?  And if so, do you hear a difference between the mono switch used with a stereo cartridge vs a mono cartridge?  My opinion is I get a large fraction of the benefit by just using a mono switch, and the trade-off with a mono cartridge is that the cartridge must compete against your stereo cartridge for overall SQ.  Thus with an inferior mono cartridge, you might taking two steps forward and one step backward.  (Or something like that.)

dogberry OP
672 posts
 

I may be in error here, but my understanding is that mono cartridges on mono records tend to reproduce far less surface noise. If this is because surface noise results from vertical movements of the stylus, it makes sense as the vertical movements are ignored. IF any of that is true, there is then the complication that a cartridge for modern mono recordings must have some vertical compliance so as to avoid damage to a stereo record played inadvertently. This may be why I see some mono cartridges (eg from AT) labelled as dual moving coil cartridges. I assume the innards are the same as in stereo versions, but the coils are connected to sum the output to both channels. Now if we have the 45° arrangement of stereo coils, but wired to output mono, surely that just does the same job as a mono switch on the pre-amp?

lewm
13,110 posts
 

Which is why I asked the question. The difference between using a mono cartridge vs a mono switch is that in the first case the mono signal is derived before loading, RIAA correction, and amplification. Whereas using a mono switch on a linestage operates after those processes. Could make a difference.

billstevenson
361 posts
 

Lewm,

 

I have owned many preamps with mono switches and of course many cartridges, both mono and stereo over the years.  In my experience a mono cartridge always sounds better.  With that said, a mono switch used with a high grade stereo cartridge should beat a cheap mono cartridge.  But it doesn't.  I first discovered this years ago comparing Shure M44 mono vs. Shure V15 Type II (McIntosh C28 at that time). I have a not overly expensive AT33 Mono today that outperforms all of my best stereo cartridges including a favorite Experion on mono records.  This still astounds me.  But invariably mono cartridges are quieter and have greater presence.  And higher end mono cartridges are just flat awesome. 

lewm
13,110 posts
 

I respect your opinion, because you’ve tried it both ways.

More to discover