I'm thinking of trying one of these as a first mono cartridge. Anyone here used one? Are these safe with stereo records too?

Good question. With all the mono reissues going on, should we play them with the 1-mil stylus or the smaller, 'normal' stylus tips?

Meaning, are they stereo grooves with mono conent, or the standard wide-groove monos?

:scratch2:

I have a Tan body MC+ I use it with the 1 mil as well as a 0.07 FTR stylus and to my ears it sounds good on the MONO stuff Ii own which is mostly Beatles UK pressings. As to the one mil stylus It suppose to be an elliptical but i remember reading something over at Steve Hoffman about not using it for Stereo records. I guess an e-mail to Grado would clear things up.

Good question. With all the mono reissues going on, should we play them with the 1-mil stylus or the smaller, 'normal' stylus tips?

Meaning, are they stereo grooves with mono conent, or the standard wide-groove monos?

:scratch2:

One of my biggest concerns is whether, let's say the Grado MC+, can be safely used on modern mono pressings/reissues. I've never gotten a definitive answer to this.

The MC+ is the one I'm likely to get due to the low price, and I also want a conical stylus for a change. I have a lot of really neat mono LPs that I can't really stand to listen to because of all the noise. My most recent acquisition is Miles David Birth of the Cool.

See, I have an At-3482, their $29 .7-mil conical tip unit, folded down to mono and it sounds fab. Actually, surprisingly good for the $29 I paid. I may want to upgrade to a 1-mil true mono cartridge down the road, but quite a bit of what I have is mono reissues and I don't want to run a large stylus over what may be stereo grooves with a mono recording.

So, any idea if these mono reissues are pressed with the thinner stereo grooves, or the wider mono grooves?

BTW- check out Sundazed issue of the mono Blonde on Blonde by Bob Dylan. Wow.

See, I have an At-3482, their $29 .7-mil conical tip unit, folded down to mono and it sounds fab. Actually, surprisingly good for the $29 I paid. I may want to upgrade to a 1-mil true mono cartridge down the road, but quite a bit of what I have is mono reissues and I don't want to run a large stylus over what may be stereo grooves with a mono recording.

So, any idea if these mono reissues are pressed with the thinner stereo grooves, or the wider mono grooves?

BTW- check out Sundazed issue of the mono Blonde on Blonde by Bob Dylan. Wow.

This is what I'm still wondering.

By the way, despite the title of this thread I ended up ordering the Ortofon mono cartridge yesterday. So I'd really like to know if it's safe to play those expensive mono records I have. I think I'm going to e-mail Ortofon now.

This may be slightly off the subject . . . but the mono cartridges Grado uses to play 78rpm records track fairly lightly, and this very light tracking force makes them somewhat unstable on 78rpm secords.

For example, on a Dual 1218, say, if you put a stack of 78 records on the multiple-play spindle, and play the records through all the topsides, then flip over the entire stack -- as was intended by the record maker -- you will have an unpleasant surprise. When the light-tracking Grado lands on the record, it will consistently not hold the groove. You can spend many hours of your life (I have) trying to find the ideal stylus force and anti-skate, and the right compliance damping, to make the tonearm stable. You will only be able to improve it a little.

On the other hand, you can take a more primitive arm, with a ceramic or crystal cartridge from about 1958 and play that same stack of records at about 7 grams tracking force, and the arm will consistently "hold the groove." I find myself advising my customers to cue manually.

Best,

Fred

Hi Mr. Linn,
If you have a removeable headshell, you might consider covering both groove bases (33 rpm) with one .7 mil stylus dedicated mono cart to "microgroove" mono (generally, 1958 onwards - if the cover or label identifies it as mono, it's "usually" the narrower groove) and a 1. mil dedicated cart to pre-1958 monos (usually identified as "LP").
- Mario

Hi Mr. Linn,
If you have a removeable headshell, you might consider covering both groove bases (33 rpm) with one .7 mil stylus dedicated mono cart to "microgroove" mono (generally, 1958 onwards - if the cover or label identifies it as mono, it's "usually" the narrower groove) and a 1. mil dedicated cart to pre-1958 monos (usually identified as "LP").
- Mario

Are you saying that any of the "microgroove" mono records cannot be used with the 1 mil stylus? It seems strange to me that Ortofon (and Grado) would make a mono cartridge that can't be used on the majority of mono records, especially considering they don't mention anything about that in the description of the cartridge.

I did send Ortofon an e-mail about this yesterday, so hopefully I'll hear back from them soon.

Mr Lin, as far as I've been able to figure out - it takes at least two carts to do this right. .7 and 1 mil (and fatter yet for 78's). If both are Grado and on the same style shell, it's an easy swap (see, you should have kept that Technics table :) ). Otherwise, just swap stylus in a hard mounted cartridge. But it comes down to playability, old wear patterns, etc. Try both and play the best sounding combo :)

Are you saying that any of the "microgroove" mono records cannot be used with the 1 mil stylus? It seems strange to me that Ortofon (and Grado) would make a mono cartridge that can't be used on the majority of mono records, especially considering they don't mention anything about that in the description of the cartridge.

I did send Ortofon an e-mail about this yesterday, so hopefully I'll hear back from them soon.

Mr. Linn,
Far be it from me to suggest that you “cannot do” anything. Are a few plays of narrow groove mono with a 1 mil stylus going to irretrievably ruin them? Probably not. Are extended plays going to eventually wear down the wall shoulders and promote skip-back or wandering room noise on .7 mil stylus? Probably yes. Will a 1 mil stylus get deep enough in a microgroove for optimal retrieval? Maybe, maybe not.
As far as why a cartridge manufacturer doesn’t tell you that mono retrieval may be more involved than stereo, to paraphrase what VW’s top tech once told me: “If we tell the prospective buyer that this car (cart) is more complicated and demanding, then that would be the end of the sales agreement.”
- Mario

I'm using a Grado ME+ for all mono LP and 45 playback. Although it's got a 1.0 mil stylus, I seriously doubt I've damaged any 70s/80s mono reissues that I've played using this cartridge. As Fred notes in an earlier post, it's relatively light-tracking.

I don't use it for stereo playback so I can't tell you whether or not it would damage stereo records.

Thanks for all your opinions, this does help a bit. Ultimately I think I'm just going to experiment a little and hope for the best. Some of my mono LPs are not particularly valuable so it wouldn't be the end of the world if I damaged them, but that's not the case with all of them. In fact, the one I was most looking forward to hearing with the mono cartridge is Miles Davis "The Birth of the Cool," but I just read the back and it is a microgroove record. Should I risk it? :)

Anyway, Ortofon replied to my inquiry first thing today, which I was impressed with. Here's what he said:

Dear Sir,



The OM D 25 M has a 25µm stylus – this size is only appropriate for playing mono records with a groove size of 25µm to 28µm.



Modern stereo recordings have a groove size of 18µm, and that’s where questions arise. A modern mono vinyl may theoretically be just a mono recording cut onto a stereo disc at 18µm. It has to be questioned whether the lathe used to create the mother disc (from which the vinyl stamper is made) has a cutting stylus to create a 25µm master.



So basically, not to lead you around in circles here, but there’s no concise answer to this question. Since mono recordings are presumably issued by specialty record labels, chances are they might have more clues on the mastering process used, and therefore what size stylus must be used.



Sorry for the lack of a solid answer!





Louis

So he doesn't know for sure, but at least he took the time to tell me everything he does know.

Some of my mono LPs are not particularly valuable so it wouldn't be the end of the world if I damaged them, but that's not the case with all of them. In fact, the one I was most looking forward to hearing with the mono cartridge is Miles Davis "The Birth of the Cool," but I just read the back and it is a microgroove record. Should I risk it? :)


"Microgroove" was a description commonly used from the late '40s into the '60s for 33/45 rpm records, to differentiate them from 'normal' or wide groove 78s. If you've got an older mono pressing with "Microgroove" printed on the label or LP cover, it most likely has 1.0 mil grooves, making the Grado MC+ or ME+ cartridge ideal for playback. I don't see any risk at all to your Miles Davis record.

I don't know if you're familiar with 78s or not. Most require a stylus in the 2.5 to 3.0 mil range. You will definitely damage any microgroove record if you attempt playback with a wide stylus designed for 78s.

"Microgroove" was a description commonly used from the late '40s into the '60s for 33/45 rpm records, to differentiate them from 'normal' or wide groove 78s. If you've got an older mono pressing with "Microgroove" printed on the label or LP cover, it most likely has 1.0 mil grooves, making the Grado MC+ or ME+ cartridge ideal for playback. I don't see any risk at all to your Miles Davis record.

I don't know if you're familiar with 78s or not. Most require a stylus in the 2.5 to 3.0 mil range. You will definitely damage any microgroove record if you attempt playback with a wide stylus designed for 78s.

Yep, I understand that. Thanks for the info on the microgroove issue, now I won't think twice about playing it with the Ortofon. I also ordered some old mono jazz LPs on ebay tonight in anticipation of the cartridges arrival.