Mono records with non-mono cartridges.

Is a mono cartridge essential to getting the best out of mono records?


  • Total voters
    15
Having used some of the best stereo carts on mono records...ie: Koetsu Coralstone, Ortofon A90, ect...playback of mono records with a stereo cart pales in comparison to what you hear with a mono cart. Stereo cart playback of mono records will be thin (not very extended) in the bass and much noisier in terms of picking up record surface noise. If I didn't have a mono cart I wouldn't be listening to my substantial mono record collection. My two cents.

Thank you Christian. That's exactly what I hear. Plus they sound wooden and the top end is rolled off.
 
N.B. This is an extended version of a post I did in another thread - about good sounding CD's. I thought it was more appropriate here, with some more detail.

Regarding mono versions of records, I found some very interesting information during my research for my Decca book (Decca: Supreme Stereophonic Legacy). Decca began recording stereo versions of their recordings in 1954, four years before they began releasing stereo LP's. They knew stereo was coming, but they were still working on the cutting techniques for stereo and these stereo recordings were considered tests. During that time they had two separate teams (producer and engineer each) assigned to each recording session, one for mono and one for stereo. (There were also many sessions where there was only a mono team). The "A" team was the mono team, since that was the recording that would be released immediately and make money for Decca. For example, one of the most famous recordings of that era is "Espana" with the London Symphony conducted by Argenta. It has long been a TAS Super Disc. However, when it was recorded in 1956, the mono team was Jimmy Walker producing and the great Kenneth "Wilkie" Wilkinson engineering. The stereo version team was the much less experienced "B" team of Erik Smith producing and Gordon Parry engineering. What I found out was that the mono and stereo versions were separately edited, with different choices of edit points and even which take was used. So if you want the "Wilkie" version of the record, you would buy the mono. I have the stereo original which today costs mucho bucks, but also the mono version, which I found at our local Amoeba or Rasputin's in Berkeley for a buck. The mono is spectacular sonically. Those of you who have been drooling after some of these great early Deccas, but don't want to do a second mortgage on your house, look for old mono Deccas (London's in the US are the same) of that period. Even if you have the stereo version, the mono is worth looking for in those dollar bargain bins.

Larry

PS. Decca CEO Edward Lewis did not want his staff to get publicity about their roles in making the recordings. It was many, many years later before the album covers finally started listing the
producer and engineer for each album.

That is fascinating info Larry. Never got the impression that was true for other classical labels but perhaps they were newer and smaller.
 
steve do you have one of these? i been eyeing the mono cadenza for some time but just dont have that many mono records to justify the $1200 yet, so i thought id start with either the 2m se or this quintet mono which lists for $500
quintet_mono.png

wondering which would be better for my first swim in the mono waters.
 
Steve... I don't have another arm for a mono cart. If I did, I'd give the SE a go.
 
Latest Observation:
After listening to the reissue of Beatles Rubber Soul side A repeat ably (back and forth) with my Olympus mono and Koetsu Tiger Eye stereo.... sure the music is more fleshed out with the mono cart and it plays quieter, but I will say it is more than acceptable sounding through the stereo cart and sounded very good. ymmv
 
Back
Top