2. analog
  3. 150194-1294

Mono Reissues and the Conical Stylus

Hi Folks,

Recently I started buying mono reissues from Speakers Corner, Impex, and have recently ordered a few from Analogphonic. They're all of the 'long haired' variety. In the process, I've come to discovery threads where posters claim that the newer mono reissue grooves are cut in a V (stereo) shape rather than the vintage U (mono) shape.
My AT 33 mono cartridge comes with a conical stylus and from what I can tell, so do the better mono cartridges, i.e. the Miyajima Zero Mono. This of course would then create an issue where it pertains to using a conical stylus in a V shaped groove.

Around November, I plan to purchase a Jelco tonearm for my modified Thorens TD 160 and after that, will be looking to upgrade to a higher end mono cartridge. However, I don't see that they're would be a viable solution to the stylus dilemma given that I will only have one tonearm. I do by the way own a collection of early mono records but would like to find a cartridge that better crosses over between my vintage pressings and my reissues. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
goofyfoot
lewm
12,461 posts
 
Ummm... Despite all your declarative sentences, the grooves in a vintage mono LP are shaped differently from those of a stereo LP. This changes how a stylus will wear out. Conical is well suited to mono.
chakster's avatar
chakster
6,144 posts
 
The topic is MONO REISSUES btw, so we expect stereo cutter head. Anyway stereo and mono grooves are different, but it does not change the fact that Conical/Spherical stylus has the shortest life span even compared to Elliptical, no matter on which records, it's just an oldchool stylus shape. In terms of life span we have Conical/Spherical, Elliptical, Hyper elliptical, Shibata, Microline, MicroRidge, Gyger, Replicant 100, VdH ... etc. No matter how many profiles we can mention the Conical will be the first (simplest) to retip as it wears out quicker than any other profiles.  
goofyfoot OP
1,317 posts
 
Actually chakster, you're reiterating the dilemma. The post is about finding a stylus that works optimally with both 1940's /50's mono and mono reissues. The fact that a conical stylus is suited for early mono records is something that, I believe, we've gotten past. The discussion is about a stylus and cartridge that works for both old and new.
goofyfoot OP
1,317 posts
 
lewm, it would be unfortunate for you to be right concerning the Ortofon Cadenza mono, as this cartridge is at a good price point for what it claims to do. I've always been of the understanding that a true mono build is superior over a strapped stereo cartridge.
intactaudio
293 posts
 
How exactly are mono records cut with a stereo cutterhead any different from those cut with a mono cutterhead?  The only difference I am aware of is the groove width / depth but the cutting stylus and groove profile is a "V" for both.

dave
More to discover