Why mono?

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! ;^)

Like Zaikesman, what I've read and been told over the years is that using the mono switch is all that's needed to mimic the operation of a mono cartridge. I can't vouch for its accuracy, but below is an explanation I found on another forum; maybe others will know if it has any merit.

"A stereo phono cartridge has generators that are sensitive to 45-degree motion corresponding the the 45-degree groove walls. It is wired in such a way that lateral motion of the stylus is in-phase and vertical motion of the stylus is out-of-phase. Therefore, when you blend the channels with a mono switch, purely vertical motion is completely canceled and purely lateral motion is maximized. This is exactly the way a mono cartridge operates. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever."

I also like using a stereo cartridge for mono records because my preamp allows me to send either the left or right channel to both speakers. On a few of my mono lp's, one groove wall is damaged much more than the other, and a stereo cartridge lets me listen to the less damaged wall.

And of course, there is the promise on the album jacket of many of my mono records that when played on a stereophonic machine, it will give "even more brilliant, true-to-life fidelity" than when played on a monophonic machine.

However, also like Zaikesman, and for the reasons listed above, I've never tried a mono cartridge in my stereo system, and none of the local dealers have a mono cartridge mounted up to audition. I greatly enjoy my mono records with my current setup, so the expense and hassles of adding to my system a turntable and cartridge dedicated to mono is not one I would undertake lightly.

read this....

about Miyajima Mono cartridges

the translation from Japanese makes for interesting reading but it makes some good points.