@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.”
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!
- ...
- 129 posts total
@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.” 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:
Pre-1960s Mono Groove Size (True Mono Era):
Now let’s look at Implications for Mono playback,
| ||||||||||||
Buying OEM, I would pick the Ortofon 2M Mono SE (special edition Shibata). Price; MM Technology (no SUT or MC Phono Stage needed); User Replaceable Stylus; Advanced narrow profile long contact stylus shape. The only consideration is a stiffer/lighter cantilever material than the Tapered Aluminum, i.e. Ruby or Sapphire (colorless ruby); Boron ; Beryllium; Diamond (stiffer/reduced mass; lighter/stiffer tubes preferred over solid rods). this is the text and 6 minute video about the Ortofon 2M MONO SE https://ortofon.com/pages/2m-mono-se "Leif Johannsen, Ortofon’s Chief Officer of Acoustics and Research, reveals the story behind the MONO cartridges and features the 2M MONO SE, the one MONO cartridge to play all the old and new mono records in existence, including the latest “The Beatles: The 22 Singles Collection”, released November 22, 2019." this states ALL, which includes early/any width groove. In the video, he mentions 1948 beginning of mono microgroove 1958 beginning of stereo microgroove 1968 stereo adopted as preferred to mono So I conclude, prior to 1948 is not considered
he calls the SE version a "Line Contact Shibata" So, I can conclude I could play any LP from 1948 to today with any variation of Shibata, without concern for groove damage (because they are all Line Contacts, all with minor ’patentable’ differences). (I have read that the S.A.S. claims the largest amount of contact surface). /////////////////// ?????????? anyone disagree___________ ?????? /////////////////////////////////// this person clearly disagrees, in which case it seems Ortofon is WRONG "As long as you don't use a Shibata stylus on vintage mono recordings and old 45's that were designed to be played with a conical stylus. |
- 129 posts total