Evan
Junior Member
Posts: 99 
|
Post by Evan on Apr 2, 2015 4:34:09 GMT
Does anybody here own a mono and a stereo press of the same album, and have a mono switch on their amplifier? And if so, have you ever listened to see how the stereo copy played in mono measures up against the mono copy?
I imagine the mono pressing is the choice of most collectors for a reason, and that it can't be matched with a simple switch. But given the usually quite large differences in price between the two, I'd be very interested to hear some opinions on the different listening experiences - specifically whether, in your opinion, the extra money is worth it.
My amp has a mono switch and I usually listen to my stereo records in mono, switching it up now and again to see what it sounds like. Unfortunately I don't have the two copies of the same record to do the test.
I have a feeling this might be a very naive question, so go gently on me!
|
|
|
|
Post by gregorythefish on Apr 2, 2015 15:19:31 GMT
no one here is an asshole, dude. ask away!  is the switch built in, or did you install it yourself? i'm just curious. |
|
Evan
Junior Member
Posts: 99
|
Post by Evan on Apr 3, 2015 0:01:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich on Apr 3, 2015 1:22:21 GMT
I have never done a hardcore A/B comparison using mono and stereo originals of the same album because in my experience (if we're talking about Van Gelder stereo) summing stereo to mono always sounds great. I have later Liberty and United Artist-era stereo Blue Notes that I do this with from time to time. However, I have compared original mono pressings with a digital stereo copy of the same album summed, and I've found the result of summing the digital copy to be quite similar to the mono vinyl (mix-wise, I'd go as far as saying they sound nearly identical--which would make sense since Van Gelder made the mono master by summing the two-track tape that was used to make the stereo master).
I had a lengthy discussion with an LJC visitor named Felix about this. Felix is pretty passionate about the fact that the sonic signature of an original mono pressing will be different than summing stereo for a number of reasons, including different equipment in the mastering chain and different mastering choices between the two versions. But I think it's open to interpretation how audible those differences are, and I agree with your questioning whether or not that difference is worth paying multiple times more for. For me, sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. It usually has to do with how insanely expensive the mono original is and whether or not there's a reissue from the late '60s or early '70s with the original stereo Van Gelder mastering. If there is, I won't hesitate to get one of those.
|
|
moko
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by moko on Apr 3, 2015 12:20:28 GMT
The answer to which version will sound best is probably decided by what cartridge you use to play it.
With original Mono LP's they used a larger groove so to produce the best sound you are going to need a stylus designed to fit that type of grove (0.7mm or 1.0mm) when people often complain about noisey worn mono LP's it's most likely that they are playing it using a modern stereo cartridge. In my own case the difference using an old GE VRII Mono cartridge to play what I thought were knackered old LP's was remarkable.
Modern issue Mono LP's are a different matter as they are most likely to have been cut using modern methods and designed to be played back using modern cartridges
So in overall sound quality terms I would rank in first place original mono LP's with an appropriate mono cartridge, next modern mono Lp with stereo cartridge with amp switch set to mono and third place stereo Lp played with stereo cartridge and amp set to mono (but you might as well just play it as intended in stereo).
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich on Apr 3, 2015 14:28:47 GMT
The answer to which version will sound best is probably decided by what cartridge you use to play it. With original Mono LP's they used a larger groove so to produce the best sound you are going to need a stylus designed to fit that type of grove (0.7mm or 1.0mm) when people often complain about noisey worn mono LP's it's most likely that they are playing it using a modern stereo cartridge. In my own case the difference using an old GE VRII Mono cartridge to play what I thought were knackered old LP's was remarkable. Modern issue Mono LP's are a different matter as they are most likely to have been cut using modern methods and designed to be played back using modern cartridges So in overall sound quality terms I would rank in first place original mono LP's with an appropriate mono cartridge, next modern mono Lp with stereo cartridge with amp switch set to mono and third place stereo Lp played with stereo cartridge and amp set to mono (but you might as well just play it as intended in stereo). As far as I know, most modern styli, stereo and mono, have a 0.7-mil (18-micron) diameter, though there are exceptions like Ortofon's D25, which has a 1-mil stylus and was designed for use with vintage discs, though it is stereo. It's cool that you got better performance with worn records from a vintage mono cart. I'm skeptical to try a vintage mono cart because I understand that I would need a turntable with a swappable tone arm so I could get a high-mass tonearm for it (which would require higher tracking force). I would also need a preamp with the proper impedance, then there's the issue of getting an unworn vintage stylus for it...too much work ha. However, end of the day, I've never tried it or heard vintage LPs played with a vintage mono cart, I'm just explaining why I haven't tried it yet. I've been happy summing my stereo 0.7-mil Shure m97xe to mono for a long time, and I can hear the benefits of summing. I did try one of the Grado mono carts at one point but to me it didn't sound any better than summing. I wouldn't go as far as saying you need a stylus to fit the groove width on a record. I've actually heard that playing vintage LPs with a narrower modern stylus can help with noise because it may slightly avoid the upper part of the groove wall that may have been worn by a wider vintage 1-mil stylus. On the other hand, the theory seems to be that a narrower stylus will then ride lower in the groove so if there's gunk at the bottom of the groove a narrower stylus will be closer to that. It would seem that it would be difficult to devise a universal hierarchy for the best way to experience worn mono LPs. I imagine that depending on the type of wear, different styli and different playback scenarios (mono button, left/right channel button) will produce different results. Play clean records and what stylus you use matters even less. |
|
|
|
Post by gregorythefish on Apr 3, 2015 14:58:10 GMT
oddly, i have never changed my cartridge from the factory-provided one. i need to get a new one, but i do not know the specs at all and yet find it to be a perfect listening experience in both mono and stereo. odd.
|
|
moko
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by moko on Apr 4, 2015 11:27:24 GMT
If you look over one the Lenco Heaven website there's a wealth of information on Mono playback, a lot of people over there are like you using Summed Shure cartridges and then swapping styluses to suit the records as required.
I had great success with the Ortofon D25 stylus as well which is a pretty cheap experiment if you fancy a go,but it is well beaten by the GE VRII for which surprisingly it's still fairly easy to find stylus replacements, but it does need a pretty heavy arm for it to really sing.
Is there not room on your deck to fit another arm? Or alternatively find a good simple turntable like a Lenco L70 or L75 and run it purely as a Mono deck.
|
|
