[woodsyi]

On mono records, is signal picked up with a dedicated mono cartridge any better than signal pick up by one side of a stereo pickup (comparable model) which then is split to both speakers (manually with a Y-connector or with a mono/stereo switch on the pre)?  If there is no special structural difference on the stylus tip or the cantelever, why spend the bucks for mono cart?  Or is there a difference that justifies spending extra for a dedicated mono cartridge?

[csero]

Mono cart is picking up only the lateral movement of the groove, reducing the noise coming from the vertical movements.
IMHO The crucial point of mono playback ( if you are not looking for big orchestra sound from mono) is not the mono or stereo cartridge, but using only one, wide dispersion speaker in a relatively live room, possibly wall or corner placed. Better methods also available, but they are much more complicated.

[woodsyi]

Moving my speakers around is not possible and I do have a bunch of full orchestral music on mono LPs.  If I were using no more or no less than 2 speakers (dedicated 2 channel set up) what would be the best approach IYO?

[csero]

With 2 speakers it is hard. The comb filtering will definitely change the tonality in the midrange. Just compare the one and two speaker sound.
If you want big orchestra sound from mono the only viable way is adding ambience channels.

[woodsyi]

With 2 speakers it is hard. The comb filtering will definitely change the tonality in the midrange. Just compare the one and two speaker sound.

I will do that and more.  I am also going to stand up a pair of acoustic panels (Realtrap minis for mid/high freqency) in the middle in such a way that I will only  see the edge from my listening position but hopefully they will present an absorption wall to DECIMATE comb filtering.   I am curious how this will sound.

[csero]

Absorption betwen the speakers will not reduce comb filtering, you need absorption between the speaker and the opposite ear. For mono it does not worth it, just use one speakers, for stereo there are more advanced DSPs.

[woodsyi]

Absorption betwen the speakers will not reduce comb filtering, you need absorption between the speaker and the opposite ear. For mono it does not worth it, just use one speakers, for stereo there are more advanced DSPs.

Hhhhhmmmm.  So I need to stick an absorption panel protruding from my nose for about a foot or so to block the delayed signal coming from the opposite speaker......  How effective would this modified Groucho Marx nosepiece be if I sit off center? As for DSP, it would seem to be restricted to a small listening spot and heavily dependent upon room acoustics. I remember reading sometime ago where you indicated your disenchantment  with stereo reproduction and are now advocating multichannel reproduction. I am not ready yet to convert to multichannel DSP reproduction but I have my ears peeled for information on the topic on boards like this.  Going back to the original question, it sounds like mono carts do have stiffer(?) cantelever designed for mono reproduction. I think I will trade in one of my cart for mono version while upgrading it.  Thanks for the replies.  It's always a pleasure to hear from you and others who have been at this for a long time........

[csero]

Hhhhhmmmm.  So I need to stick an absorption panel protruding from my nose for about a foot or so to block the delayed signal coming from the opposite speaker...

It is a less weird idea than the " 2 speakers in a room with completely different acoustics from the original venue can be "high-fidelity"    

Back to the original, the canteliever is not stiffer, just it has only lateral compliance. I have a sizeable mono collecton and I don't think the mono or stereo cart makes any valuable difference ( except the noise characteristics). The big difference is in wether you listen to one speaker only or to a fake center image with the two.

[JoshK]

Woodsyi,

I've had the pleasure of listening to Frank's system twice, in two different iterations of his "ambiophonic" (is it technically ambiophonic or something else?) setup. For clarification to this thread and its readers, this has nothing to do with multichannel ala 5.1, 7.1 or the like.  Frank has the two de-correlated stereo (or mono) channels closely together in front of you and matching pair behind you firing at the back of your head.  Then there are numerous channels (during my visits 4 "surround" channels) to the sides, these are the ambience channels.  The affect is entracing.

I wanted to note that--particularly with the first iteration of his setup, which used acoustat panels--the sweet spot was actually larger than with normal stereo. Moreover, when you moved far off center the sound changed obviously but still was more "normal" sounding than with far off axis stereo listening.  This perplexed me the most, but Frank has a good explanation for why this is the case.

Frank played a number of mono recordings for me on his system and it does far more justice to mono than my system, that is for sure.

[woodsyi]

Josh, Frank,

I know the ambiance approach that I have read bits and pieces of in different thread is not some commercial multi-channel format.  I don't have the knowledge of recording process, origial recording environment nor the know-how to coordinate my drivers to recreate the original performance in a most fidelious manner.   That is several level of expertise over my head.   Perhaps, some day.  In the mean time I am trying to get the most out of my system as flawed as it is.  Fortunately, tonal balance is the most important aspect for me personally and I can live with a some displacement of instruments and voices.  Frank, I would love to hear your system when I get a chance.

[csero]

Any time you are in NJ. meanwhile read this:
http://www.lafolia.com/archive/glasgal/glasgal200107caruso.html