[James Romeyn]

I wouldn't have thought current sales would prompt them to get the tapes back out and recut just to use a mono cutter head.  While a cool idea, I'm not sure that recutting with a mono head would make a radical difference from the current reissues, which used a stereo cutter head and a mono tape machine.

Well, I waited this long, so I guess I'll wait till the promised mono cutting head mono appears (Real Men wait for mono cutting head version...friends don't let friends buy mono produced with stereo cutting head....my friend Bradley at the show came up with something like, "Mono is what stereo wishes it could be").

I auditioned a dozen times at shows all kinds of TAD systems displayed by designer Andrew Jones (one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet), all IIRC with his Pacific Microsonics Professional (literal, not figurative) ADC/DAC, played back with the same hard drive and same ADC with which the program was recorded.  Heard his 5.0 HR multi channel, etc, etc.....the very very best ever, well, till this latest mono rig, was stereo only, Reference 1s, oodles of Pass Labs Class A, Boz Scaggs, My Funny Valentine, 9' grand piano, solo, recorded in his San Francisco home, right before show closing time at CES....made me cry.  That's the only time I really fell in love with TAD.  Other times, OK, so-so, good, but nothing like that.  ]

I'm still thinking this mono rig on TAD CRM-1s beat that.   

As good as the demo sounded, I wondered if it could possibly be better with only one speaker.  When I was a teenager my friend's dad built Altec or similar mono speaker, driven by tubes of course.  I have limited experience playing mono as it existed a loooong time ago, prior to Blumlein's "binaural" (later called stereo) invention.  I asked David from my seat while he changed records, if he had listened on one speaker.  He said yes, when one channel was down or just to try it.  I further investigated, suggesting it might be improved with one speaker centered in the room.  He said even though the single speaker was off center, he would listen centered IFO it.  I suppose that's about as good.

First choice would still seem to be moving one large speaker, off center line and spaced several feet from a room corner.  Second choice would be your favorite stereo pair, but with higher weight given to speakers with the absolutely best center fill image (I have something in mind). 

I think, if there is/was a weakness in that demo, it's that all these years of stereo listening tend to make you expect to hear L/R image placement differences if/when the stage is so wide...and believe me that stage was absolutely wide...pretty large room.  The strange thing is I thought I did hear L/R image placement.  Weird.

The main features were dynamic presence and extreme, absolutely extreme density of sound and images, with incredible transparency of detail and nuance.  It was like a great, ultra transparent horn system with none of the awful qualities causing listeners to strongly dislike horns.

[James Romeyn]

double post, sorry

[James Romeyn]

Sckolnik's Beatles mono demo is largely responsible for me resurrecting my vinyl rig today, which was dormant for too long.  Had to shorten four steel vertical supports for the rack, rewire custom input switch box, etc. 

Purchased Beatles mono late last year and hearing it at home for the first time.  I would estimate these mono LPs played on a decent quality TT/arm/catridge outperforms the best digital front end, even cost no object like the dCS stack circa $100k.

I suspect these mono LPs demonstrate better than any stereo Beatles source exactly why the Beatles hold their unique place in modern music history.  It's interesting and remarkable how the LPs demonstrate better than stereo how great was their musicianship, especially Paul on bass. 

Michael Fremer did an apparently interesting A-B test, Beatles mono vs. stereo LPs at a recent show.  IIRC participants unanimously agreed the mono blew away the stereo demo.

I can't more highly recommend this collection.     

[Devil Doc]

Sckolnik's Beatles mono demo is largely responsible for me resurrecting my vinyl rig today, which was dormant for too long.  Had to shorten four steel vertical supports for the rack, rewire custom input switch box, etc. 

Purchased Beatles mono late last year and hearing it at home for the first time.  I would estimate these mono LPs played on a decent quality TT/arm/catridge outperforms the best digital front end, even cost no object like the dCS stack circa $100k.

I suspect these mono LPs demonstrate better than any stereo Beatles source exactly why the Beatles hold their unique place in modern music history.  It's interesting and remarkable how the LPs demonstrate better than stereo how great was their musicianship, especially Paul on bass. 

Michael Fremer did an apparently interesting A-B test, Beatles mono vs. stereo LPs at a recent show.  IIRC participants unanimously agreed the mono blew away the stereo demo.

I can't more highly recommend this collection.     

Funny you should mention it . It's the first thing I noticed about the set. McCartney is a much better bass player than I had remembered.

Doc

[James Romeyn]

Musicians (and/or ex-musicians like myself) notice these things probably more than non-musicians.  I programmed synthesizer for Pat Buchanan's last album, and worked with Tower of Power among others, used to play a lot of guitar and electric bass, including one I de-fretted in my teens. 

One of my childhood idols was bassist Joe Osbourne, who got his unique tone playing fretless Fender Jazz bass with with a pick on nylon wound strings he never changed (the strings were lifeless and lacked harmonics, so the pick was necessary for transient snap...but the tone is killer, especially slides without frets).

Still melt hearing Joe's bass work on The Carpenters (vinyl only) and of course the penultimate Bridge Over Troubled Water.  The electric bassist on Paul Simon's live PBS special/National Congress tribute reminds me of Joe's sound quality.  IIRC he also plays fretless, but "plucking" newer strings. 

My brother in law is an awesome mouth harp player.  He's one of those snobs who says anyone using a pick can't play bass.  Maybe tell that to Rick Danko of The Band, well, except Rick's gone of course.  Rick wasn't the world's best bassist, but he played just fine with a pick.

Opening the shipping carton and getting to the vinyl itself is a long process.  I enjoyed the process more than opening anything new I ever bought.  The packaging is better than anything I ever bought new including Levinson No. 23 power amps, etc. 

Treat yourself and buy it.  Still in stock at Acoustic Sounds: http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/98036/The_Beatles-The_Beatles_In_Mono-Vinyl_Box_Sets

[HPDJ]

Hello James, just curious, not sure if you mentioned this already, but are you using a mono cartridge when playing back The Beatles LP's or are you using a stereo cartridge?

[James Romeyn]

Using a stereo "Strain Gauge" cartridge, Panasonic EPC-451C > stock Panasonic SH-405 demodulator.  Also have two other SG demodulators, a stock JVC and modified Panasonic 405.   

I suspect over time the cartridge, demodulator, and hard soldered switch box will burn in, increasing performance.   IIRC one of the songs I heard at Sckolnik's demo was And Your Bird Can Sing.  Looking forward to hearing that tomorrow. 

Sckolnik's system outperformed this.  I feel certain the main difference is his mono cartridge, which was likely in the $2500 range, possibly higher; I should ask him just for general knowledge. 

I talked with Peter Ledermann today of Soundsmith, AFAIK the only person still making new SG cartridges and demodulators.  Peter said the general performance of SG is so high that the stereo cartridge would sound good, but he confirmed my fear that it suffers the same as any stereo cartridge playing mono, and he recommended a mono cartridge, which I intend to buy.  (Peter said he has "10k mono records.") 

The problem is on what to play the mono cartridge?  One option is to setup my second TT (Denon DP-62L servo control arm and servo control direct drive), but I need another rack and at some point it's too much gear.

Current arm on member "Berndt's" modified Empire 509 (70 lb 1.5" solid alloy plinth) is Origin Live/Rega RB300 with integrated head shell, which sounds stellar.  I consider changing to arm with removable head shell, but my budget only allowing the Jelco SD-750 or possibly SME M2-9.  (If 12" fits, I'd get 12" version of either arm).  The SME 312S is ideal but it costs $4k.  I started thinking of stuff laying around I could sell to purchase the 312S, but man, that's real money, even used well over $2k.  I bet it's gorgeous and presume performance is superb.

Of course, the mono cartridge requires a regular RIAA phono preamp.  Accidentally connecting a SG Demodulator to a regular MM/MC cartridge sends DC to the cartridge, causing it to immediately explode.  Yikes, that's one mistake you don't want to make.

My CDP is pretty good.  The vinyl just kills it every which way it can be measured.  My analogy is it's like driving a high performance car around with bias ply tires (CDP) then switching to state of the art radials (phono).

While playing mono LP > stereo cartridge, does performance improve using one channel from the cartridge shorted to both preamp channels?             

[HPDJ]

I have a slightly modified Denon DP 72 it's a great TT! I have a straight arm and the S-curve arm so I COULD one day put a mono cartridge on one and have my stereo cart (Zu DL 103) on the other and switch them in and out very easily. Will have to invest in more mono records to make purchasing a mono cart worth it for me though. But it's seeming like the consensus is that a mono cart with take the Beatles records (and other mono records) to another level....I honestly never even heard of a demodulator until you mentioned it.... Great. Another thing to look into haha!

[neobop]

While playing mono LP > stereo cartridge, does performance improve using one channel from the cartridge shorted to both preamp channels?           

Hi,
No, that's not how it works.  Either is hooking the channels in parallel or using a preamp mono switch.  That will give you equal sound in each channel, but not true mono.  A true mono cart will have no, or almost no output for vertical movements.  This is accomplished by either having no vertical compliance or cancelling vertical output by the orientation of the generator parts.  An AT 33MONO separation spec is 30dB of vertical rejection, not separation. 
Horizontal/vertical output ratio: 30dB (1kHz)

A physicist posted on another site, that hooking the channels in series rather than parallel, will give true mono.  I don't really understand how a series connection will cancel vertical cantilever movement output, and I have yet to try it.  The physical hook-up is a PIA. 
neo

[James Romeyn]

Wow, very interesting, thanks!

I'm sure Sckolnik suggested, and Art Dudley echoed this in his recent Sphile article, mono cartridge performance improves using only one tone arm output channel and mono switch on the preamp. 

Apparently mono cartridge can have either one or two pair of output terminals.  In the latter case, I don't know what is the potential difference between the two pairs of terminals, and what is the potential source of improved performance using only one pair.  Probably once the former is known, the latter is self-evident.   

My guess is there is potential for phase difference between the output pairs, and using only one pair eliminates that potential difference.       

[neobop]

Wow, very interesting, thanks!

I'm sure Sckolnik suggested, and Art Dudley echoed this in his recent Sphile article, mono cartridge performance improves using only one tone arm output channel and mono switch on the preamp. 

Apparently mono cartridge can have either one or two pair of output terminals.  In the latter case, I don't know what is the potential difference between the two pairs of terminals, and what is the potential source of improved performance using only one pair.  Probably once the former is known, the latter is self-evident.   

My guess is there is potential for phase difference between the output pairs, and using only one pair eliminates that potential difference.     

You're yanking my chain?   
All (that I know of) modern mono carts have two sets of outputs hooked up internally in parallel, except the DL102 which has two long pins to accommodate two cart clips each.   The potential difference between channels isn't a whole lot.  What they're implying is that preamp channel differences and/or cable differences are the culprits and sending the same signal to the amplifier is better than sending the same signal to the amplifier?

Just kidding.  The real implication is, they're using a lousy preamp or phono stage?   With a mono cart you could still use the mono switch with both channels hooked up and send the same signal to the amp.   "True" high end preamps don't have a mono switch. 
There you have it, case closed. 

If you want to know more about mono records/carts:
http://ortofon.com/hifi/products/mono-series
neo

[James Romeyn]

Well, the drama thickens.  I have no so-called "dog in this fight."  This would not be the first or last time if my memory failed.  Later I'll dig up Dudley's comment, only 2-3 issues ago.  Dudley has a large collection of cartridges, more than half of which are mono.   

[neobop]

I'm not making an argument here, just amused.  It could be one of those quirky type things?  Basically what they're saying (if you remember correctly) is that it sounds better taking a single channel input and duplicating that, then using two channel inputs where there could be minute differences, and blending or mixing that together. 

There very well could be system specific aspects to this, and it also brings into question exactly how the hook up is accomplished and whether an external phono stage is used.  Anyone with a mono cartridge can try this stuff on their own.  If you take one channel and split it into two before the phono input there are impedance matching aspects that would be significant. 

Even if you don't have a mono switch, a mono cart makes a big difference especially with older records.  Eliminating the vertical component from the signal also eliminates a lot of noise.  With a mono switch and stereo cart you're just blending that noise.  That Ortofon link gives the history of the microgroove which was invented in 1948 and universally adopted by the late '50s.  Pre microgroove records might be better with a 1mil spherical stylus.  A 78 cart usually has a 3mil, and carts for modern pressings range from .7mil to micro types. 
neo

[James Romeyn]

For mono cartridge, and stereo cartridge playing mono record, no mono switch: is L ch surface noise different and separate from R ch surface noise?  If yes, mono switch of course mixes L/R ch surface noise to be identical and integrates the noise with the music between the speakers (differences in the room and L/R ear sensitivity might still introduce minor noise difference between channels).

What is generally more tolerable, the former (noise separate) or the latter (noise mixed)?  The former seems easier to separate noise from the music centered between the speakers, but it also has "two" noise components while the former has only one noise component.

If you take one channel and split it into two before the phono input there are impedance matching aspects that would be significant. 

That is a great point.  It applies whenever using a splitter or Y connector, such as splitting one preamp channel output to two power amp inputs.  When biamping one must confirm the source has enough current to properly drive both power amps, whose load impedance is summed/lower than either amp alone.  It could "work" (play music) but lack dynamics and bass punch. 

[neobop]

For mono cartridge, and stereo cartridge playing mono record, no mono switch: is L ch surface noise different and separate from R ch surface noise?  If yes, mono switch of course mixes L/R ch surface noise to be identical and integrates the noise with the music between the speakers (differences in the room and L/R ear sensitivity might still introduce minor noise difference between channels).

What is generally more tolerable, the former (noise separate) or the latter (noise mixed)?  The former seems easier to separate noise from the music centered between the speakers, but it also has "two" noise components while the former has only one noise component.

That is a great point.  It applies whenever using a splitter or Y connector, such as splitting one preamp channel output to two power amp inputs.  When biamping one must confirm the source has enough current to properly drive both power amps, whose load impedance is summed/lower than either amp alone.  It could "work" (play music) but lack dynamics and bass punch.

For a mono cart the output (including noise) is virtually identical for each channel.  There's only one channel output and the other is a duplicate.  That's why I said not a whole lot of difference.

The game changes for a stereo cart and there is a difference between channels, including noise.  A stereo cart designed for two channels will have such things as crosstalk (azimuth + design limitations),  phase errors between channels and tracking/tracing issues between channels.  Things like anti-skate and alignment error are not a factor (with regard to output) with mono carts because there's nothing to balance with one channel only.
The elimination of the vertical component also dramatically reduces noise on older records, and even on newer ones will improve focus, imaging, and coherence. 

With regard to splitting and impedance - split or combine the signal coming off a record player and you are likely to affect amplitude response.  Loading is critical.  There are some relatively inexpensive mono carts out there that are well received.  I doubt if it's worth messing with a stereo cart to try to get mono out of it.  People like the AT MONO 3 HOMC for under $100 on Amazon and the DL102 is about $100 more?  The Ortofon Cadenza mono might be nice for modern pressings.
neo