Why mono?

Sorry Yogiboy but as you see from the good advice offered so far, there are not just a few simple answers.

But I might suggest answers start with how many mono records you own (i.e. how much time will you spend listening to mono?) and how anal you are about LP playback? Then consider:

Is it a true mono design cartridge (see above) or internally strapped for mono (some claim this for Grados but I don't know)?

What size and shape stylus do you choose?

Are your mono LPs original (larger, conical stylus could be better) or recent reissues (mono cutter heads no longer available so reissues are cut with stereo heads, thus modern stylus tip could be best)?

Does your arm offer easily adjusted VTA (older LPs cut at different angle, see Fremer's article in recent Stereophile)?

If your mono LPs are originals, you may want to consider alternate EQ adjustments. Although the RIAA curve was approved in the mid-50s, some labels continued using other EQ into the '60s.

Back to the original question, a mono switch on your phono/pre should allow for quieter playback, thus more enjoyment. But there are many steps beyond and only you can decide how far to take it.

Thanks Pryso,all my mono's are reissues so I guess it would be fruitless to go mono!But the explanations are top notch.

Granting that I've never listened to a modern high-end mono cart, I'd be curious to know whether the posters touting mono carts above did their comparisons to stereo carts as the OP suggests (and as I normally do in my system), which is with a preamp mono switch engaged? If not, then you're working at a relative disadvantage in S/N ratio at the least (disregarding for the moment all the other sonic variables between what of course could be quite different carts). If what we're really talking about here is listening to mono records in mono vs. listening to them in stereo -- not simply whether a mono cart sounds better than a nominally equivalent stereo one for playing mono records *in mono* -- then that strikes me as somewhat of an apples-and-oranges comparison.

I still don't think I've heard/read a convincing argument as to why investing in a separate mono cart has an advantage over simply using a mono switch if you have one (assuming your stereo cart is properly aligned), since summing the 2-channel signal cancels out virtually all of whatever spurious vertical modulation info may be present. (On top of which, it is my experience that a minority percentage of mono records in clean condition will actually sound better played with a stereo cart *in stereo* despite the lower S/N ratio, presumably due to disk-mastering/pressing anomolies that can sometimes result in a degree of unwanted HF cancellation when played in mono.)

Zaikesman,

ok, here are a few reasons to go for a Mono cartridge.

--music. early 50's thru early 60's Lps contain among the very best all time musicians and recordings. many only in mono.

--lower noise. a true mono cartridge will be quieter in the groove of a mono Lp than a stereo cartridge used with a preamp in mono.....many times dramatically quieter. i am speaking here of noise from wear and tear or abuse. many mono lps are unlistenable thru a stereo cartridge.

--more dynamic. just the physics of the mono Lp and mono cart.

--mono cartridges have considerably larger and more natural soundstage on mono Lps than stereo cartridges.

--chicks dig mono. :^)

--modestly priced mono cartridges outperform uber-expensive stereo cartridges on most mono lps.

--set up is super critical with mono cartridges. my opinion is that your perception of a stereo cartridge sounding better is mostly the result of a less than optimal setup on the mono cartridge.

Hi Mike. I too own many thousands of vintage mono microgroove records from the 50's and 60's, both on LP and 45, so I need no convincing on that front (and neither does my chick!) -- or that in many cases where both stereo and mono versions were available, mono was often musically superior. (Or more accurately, that stereo was often inferior, for understandable reasons.)

About your last point, as I stipulated, I've never heard a contemporary high-end mono cart, so my "perception" that listening to certain mono records in stereo can sometimes be preferable to listening in mono, can't be explained by what you're saying there.

However, I still don't have a technically persuasive explanation for your assertions, and I'm still not sure I have an answer to my question about whether comparisons were made vs. a mono switch, rather than vs. stereo.

Everything you hear may be absolutely right, I don't know -- it's just that, in my income bracket at least, I'd like to see an empirically convincing explanation for it, before spending on a mono cart when I already have mono switches on both my preamp and my phonostage. But the more anecdotal, nontechnical generalities that I'm treated to instead (by perfectly well-meaning audiophiles, who may or may not have mono switches), the more skeptical I tend to get that there's an explicable rationale. (And Art Dudley touting almost anything also has that effect on me! ;^)