How are you playing your precious MONO Vinyl?


I am about to invest in MONO Vinyl playback setup.

The goal -  pure, undiluted music straight down the center. 

The plan - dedicated 2nd tonearm + mono cartridge + phono

After 6 long months of waiting, my Woodsong plinth with dual arm boards schedule to arrive next month. 

I came across a product that peaked my interest. The Monaural Phono Amplifier - Aurorasound EQ-100. No reviews, so I am wondering if anyone tried it yet? 

⬆️ Is EQ-100 or something similar, absolute necessary from a purist perspective or should I take the pragmatic path and use the ‘Mono’ switch on my Integrated with a built in phono?

There are ofcourse pros and cons to both approaches so I am seeking advice from folks who have  compared  both options or adopted another alternative in their vinyl setup. 

Thank you for your time! 

lalitk

Just using a stereo cartridge with a mono switch on my preamp. Good sounding mono reproduction. I do have a dedicated 78rpm turntable with just a basic Audio-Technica AT95 with the correct 78 stylus.  If the 78 is clean and not worn/scratched it sounds fantastic…

@elliottbnewcombjr The purpose behind my mentioning it, is that either stylus size might be perfectly fine for those Microgroove pressings. It’s rather confusing because some websites claim that the Microgroove stylus is a V shaped groove and others say that the Microgroove and the original U shaped grooves are the same. However, I do know that it can’t be both. From looking at the Hana SL MK II Mono, their stylus seems like an alternative to what we usually find; “Stylus: 0.27 x 1.57 mm nude diamond Shibata, tapered aluminum cantilever.”

https://upscaleaudio.com/products/hana-sl-mk-ii-mono-moving-coil-cartridge?pr_prod_strat=e5_desc&pr_rec_id=033425870&pr_rec_pid=9179261698232&pr_ref_pid=816314810428&pr_seq=uniform

Read the Miyajima website on w hy they offer cartridges with 1.0 mil styli. But keep in mind they’re trying to sell those cartridges.

@lewm Yes, I’ve read it a few times. I wish Miyajima and EMT would offer more of a selection when it comes to styli because I have a fairly sizable collection of mono from all decades with exception to shellac. And shellac is another topic altogether.

“I am still perplexed why these two mono groove sizes are not mentioned more often whenever the topic comes up.”

@goofyfoot 

You may have missed my earlier post where I mentioned that my mono collection is after 1960’s era. Mono records pressed after the early 1960’s especially from around 1967 onward typically came with stereo-compatible microgrooves, the same groove dimensions as stereo LP’s. 

For our information purposes, let me lay it out for you and others.

Post-1960s Mono Groove Size:

  • Groove width: ~0.7 mil (microns radius of curvature at the groove bottom)
  • Intended stylus size: 0.7 mil conical (standard for stereo styli)

Pre-1960s Mono Groove Size (True Mono Era):

  • Groove width: ~1.0 mil
  • Intended stylus size: 1.0 mil conical or larger
  • These wider grooves were cut for mono cartridges and not meant for stereo styli.

Now let’s look at Implications for Mono playback, 

  • Post-1960s mono LPs can safely be played with a stereo stylus (0.7 mil), and many were cut with stereo cutters, just in mono.
  • Pre-1960s mono LPs benefit from a 1.0 mil stylus, which fits the groove more accurately and avoids:
    • Mistracking
    • Groove damage
    • Excessive noise from riding the groove bottom

 

Record Era

Recommended Stylus

Notes

Pre-1960 mono

1.0 mil conical

True mono groove

~1960 - 1967

0.7 mil conical

Transitional period - check label & country

Post-1967 mono

0.7 mil conical

Stereo-compatible mono pressings