[David Ellis]

Gents,

This is my first post in this forum and I would like to thank all of you for your contributions and especially The Chair Guy for moderating.  For several years I thought about Vinyl, and the gentle nudge of your presence helped me over the edge.

Intially I had problems with a bad stylus on my Technics 1200 and an aging transistor in my Marantz 2270 (phono preamp).  Things just didn't work well and the system gathered dust for about 4 years.  I eventually spent slightly too much money on a Scott 355 tube tuner (with phono stage) that still needed new tubes and some new capacitors  .  My wife really wasn't happy about the tuner  .I also discovered there is a terrific record player store right here in the Twin Cities called The Needle Doctor http://www.needledoctor.com/ .  I purchased a cork mat, and they setup an Ortofon Blue cartridge.  The result...    . 

I have gone through about 300 random records, purchased a few intentionally, and am VERY happy with the sound.  Most strikingly:

Julie London & Cole Porter - All Through the Night


 
Al Hirt - Sugar Lips Mono

Chuck Mangione's recordings are merely mediocre compared to Al Hirt.

Holy Buckets.  These recordings were done in 1965 and they are on par with Chesky in terms of quality - In My Opinion!   

Oh, there is also the Beatles - Abbey Road.  I thought that might sound good, but it's MUCH better than I expected  .

And, I have NOT geeked out on this thing yet.  I haven't tweeked the tonearm wiring, new eichmann plugs, fancy cleaners, damping, etc. etc.  Nonetheless, it sounds really really good!

So, anyhow, thanks guys for providing a terrific information base in this forum.  I really apprecaite your contributions.

I have 2 questions:

First, the RCA Dynagroove recording for Al Hirt is terrific.  Are the other Dynagroove recordings similarly good?  There may be some "muck" about Dynagroove https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynagroove but I really like this recording.

Second, are mono recordings from the 1960s better?  I initially thought mono recordings from the 1960s might sound bad and that stereo should sound better.  Perhaps I should be seeking the mono recordings?

Thanks in advance for your wisdom.

Sincerely,

Dave

[S Clark]

Dave,
First of all,  The Chair Guy is would be happy to acknowledge your thanks, but you may not know that he suddenly passed away a month or so ago.  Regardless, the circle goes on.

As far as Dynagroove RCA's are concerned, they were RCA's attempt to find a more dynamic miking for their recordings.  They moved the mike to closest proximity to the solo instrument to make it jump and mixed it to the forefront.  They also used early computers to control the cutting lathe to correct some inner groove distortion.  But most of this was based on spherical styli and became the cause of distortion with more modern shaped styli.  Classical enthusiast tend to hate them, since they really don't sound like the performance- hence the higher value of the earlier RCA white dog and even earlier shaded dog.  Having said that, they can be real dynamic show pieces and can work very well for stuff like Al Hirt- and you're not having to pay collector prices.  London did similar things with miking with their Phase 4 recordings, and without the added distortion.  They can be fun, but ultimately odd recordings.

As far as mono goes, it can sound great... with a dedicated mono cartridge.  I use a Denon 102.  The early mono Beatles are actually the most sought after by collectors.  Unless you have a mono cartridge, or are collecting for collection's sake, I'd stay with the stereo versions.  I think you'll get better sound and more bang for your buck.

Scott

[David Ellis]

First of all,  The Chair Guy is would be happy to acknowledge your thanks, but you may not know that he suddenly passed away a month or so ago.

This is very sad news. 

Thanks for the scoop on the mono versus stereo recordings.  I really don't have the gumption to setup a dedicated mono turntable, so I'll stick with the stereo recordings.  Following some direction in your post I found this on audiogon:

05-23-09: Eldartford
A stereo cartridge is sensitive to vertical modulation of the groove. A mono record has only horizontal groove modulation, and whatever vertical movement occurs (and this includes turntable rumble) is pure noise, and you don't want it. It is essential to remove sensitivity to vertical modulation by jumpering the two channels together, or using the MONO switch on your preamp (if it has one).

 

And I thought Vinyl was for the simple minded guy    .

Dave

[roscoeiii]

There are a number of reasons that mono is sometimes preferred.

1) The stereo version is distracting. This is sometimes the case with eat stereo LPs where right and left extremes dominated  with little in the center. As folks became better at mastering stereo this became less of an issue.

2) The mono mastering of the LP is preferred to the stereo. SH Forum is a good place to get an idea of which is preferred and why.

3) Mono was the artist approved mastering, with stereo left for others to master. This was the case on some of the major Beatles, Dylan and Beach Boys LPs IIRC. So you hear what the artist wanted you to hear.

4) For reasons unrelated to the mastering, mono is sometimes more "punchy" than the stereo version. Not sure why this is.

Then we get to mono carts, if you are able to use one of them (do you have a swappable headshell?). Their advantages:

5) They don't pick up anything from the sides of the groove. Making for much lower noise.

6) Related to #5, this means that some beat up records that may sound awful with a stereo cart can sound perfect with a mono cart.

7) A mono LP played on a mono cart also sounds bigger and more substantial than when played on a stereo cart.

So you can see that some advantages of mono don't depend on having a mono cart. But some do.

Hope this helps.

[neobop]

I've been thinking about a mono cart lately.  I have some mono records, but not enough to invest a lot of money. 

There are some inexpensive solutions, possibly with a cart(s) you already own.  Some mono carts are actually stereo bodies with a conical stylus.  The Ortofon OM D25M is such a cart.  http://www.lpgear.com/product/OROMD25M.html
To use this in mono either hit the mono switch on your preamp or combine the channels.  Jumpering the channels sounds intimidating, but all you really need is 2 Y adaptors to get it going.  The 1st adaptor has 2 females jacks going to 1 male plug.  The 2nd has a female into 2 males and into the preamp.  Walla!
This might not seem like an elegant solution, but it's a lot easier than jumping the pins.  The OM D25 can also be used as a stereo cart with an OM replacement stylus. There will be VTF/arm matching considerations though.

Some mono carts are truly mono with only 2 pins.  The DL102 is like that.  http://www.lpgear.com/product/DENONDL102.html
These pins are extra long to accommodate 2 tags on each.  There are other mono carts that are internally strapped and have 4 pins. 
http://www.lpgear.com/category/MONOCART.html

Modern reissues of mono recordings are cut on a stereo lathe, and you don't need a fat conical tip to play them.  The 102 has a .7 mil conical and is said to do an excellent job with stereo records.  I've read that this tip will also do a great job with vintage records, so I think this would be a minimum tip radius for vintage. 

Some people use a disco cart for mono.  Strap the output but watch out for preamp overload.  There's a Shure that's popular for this.
http://www.lpgear.com/product/DJSHM44G.html  And this one made by Nagaoka looks good:
http://www.lpgear.com/product/TONBAKTRACK.html

Of course you can spend thousands on a high end mono cart.  Depending on your set-up you can figure out in advance, the suitability. 
neo   

[roscoeiii]

Ideally you want a mono cart that isn't picking up anything from the sidewalls of the groove. Strapping a stereo cart will still have you reading the sides. Which on mono LPs will only be noise.

[neobop]

Uh, no.  A mono record is only cut horizontally - one reason vertical compliance isn't the same factor as in stereo.

Because a stereo groove is cut at 45 degrees there's a vertical component. 

http://www.ortofon.com/products/cartridges/cartridges-2m-series/2m-mono

"•2M Mono uses a strapped output to deliver the same output signal from both sets of pole pins. This effectively eliminates the need for mono-specific equipment, making it possible to enjoy true mono reproduction on any stereo playback system."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramophone_record#High_fidelity

"While the stylus only moves horizontally when reproducing a monophonic disk recording, on stereo records the stylus moves vertically as well as horizontally. During playback, the movement of a single stylus tracking the groove is sensed independently, e.g., by two coils, each mounted diagonally opposite the relevant groove wall.

The combined stylus motion can be represented in terms of the vector sum and difference of the two stereo channels. Vertical stylus motion then carries the L-R difference signal and horizontal stylus motion carries the L+R summed signal, the latter representing the monophonic component of the signal in exactly the same manner as a purely monophonic record."
neo

[roscoeiii]

I am  not totally clear the point you are trying to make here. When I was researching mono carts earlier this year, it seemed that the best mono carts were those that picked up nothing from the vertical plane.

But that is not how all cart manufacturers  construct their mono carts.

[S Clark]

..., it seemed that the best mono carts were those that picked up nothing from the vertical plane.

From what I've read, the mono info is in the side walls, and not in the vertical.  So your second post is correct, with any vertical movement being read as distortion.  The statement in your earlier post "Ideally you want a mono cart that isn't picking up anything from the sidewalls of the groove" is backwards, if I'm reading things right.

[neobop]

Roscoeiii,
I think you just said it wrong the first time. 

Because vertical motion carries the difference between the 2 channels, strapping cancels vertical output. 

Just a note about tip size - Some companies offer larger tips for vintage mono.  Ortofon SPU has  18um that can play stereo, 25um for old mono and 65um for 78s. 
neo

[roscoeiii]

Got it.

But even better than cancelling vertical output out, is not picking it up at all. That was my main point.

[neobop]

From a purist point of view I think you're right. 

Vertical noise would be cancelled as well, except maybe if it was equal in both channels.  If that were the case, it would probably be present in the horizontal but maybe less so?

I have a number of modern mono pressings that should benefit from strapping, with I suspect little negative consequence compared to a true mono cart.
On the other hand a noisy vintage record might be much better with a true mono cart. 
neo

[roscoeiii]

From a purist point of view I think you're right. 

Vertical noise would be cancelled as well, except maybe if it was equal in both channels.  If that were the case, it would probably be present in the horizontal but maybe less so?

I have a number of modern mono pressings that should benefit from strapping, with I suspect little negative consequence compared to a true mono cart.
On the other hand a noisy vintage record might be much better with a true mono cart. 
neo

Yeah, one of the things I like most about the Miyajima true  mono cart that I have is that I can play some really horrible looking records with little to zero surfave noise. All of the damage is above what the mono cart will pick up in the groove. So a lot of G, G+ mono records and some even worse sound great.

[David Ellis]

mono cart that I have

Which mono cart do you use?

//

Also, I have something subjective to offer when comparing similar quality recordings in stereo and mono on a stereo cartridge.  The bottom line is that using a stereo cartridge on a mono record is... okay.  I don't find a HUGE detriment by using the "wrong" cartridge. 

Hopefully my conveyance regarding this matter will be cohesive.  I have discovered that Al Hirt's recordings from the mid 1960s are absolutely terrific. The recording quality is almost on par with modern Chesky and Reference Recordings.  I suppose Al Hirt is on par with TelArc.  Anyhow, I compared a mono and stereo recording from Al Hirt and found both recordings very very good.  I actually preferred the mono recording - despite using the stereo cartridge.   The recording used was Al Hirt - Sugar Lips.  It's dandy good music and the recording quality is absolutely excellent.

Alternately, Meet The Beatles (mono) sounds like a tin-can.  It's very listenable, but Abbey Road (stereo) is vastly better.  However, these recordings are seperated by several years and this is NOT a fair comparison.

My Elvis record (the first one - mono) also sounds like a tin-can and bad too.  Unfortunately, it's... not very listenable.

//

I have another quesion.  I scoured the warr website http://www.warr.org/JAtop20.html .  These guys accomplished a terrific body of work.  The records they recommend seem to be well recorded too.  Their sound quality is very good.  Is there another good website that has a somewhat condensed list of records (or labels??) with good recording quality?

Thanks,

Dave