Mono cartridge

[mansson66]

Time to get new cartridge for the record player and I've decided that I must get both a mono and a stereo. I'm not rich but I'm willing to spend some upwards $1000ish. Would be stoked if there's good quality for less than that though. What are people in here using? I have an old Technics 1200

 

[eleelandc]

I like my Grados but I have heard that they are no good for a 1200 (shielding issues)

 

[MopTopMike]

I've tried several of the cartridges in the under $500 range. This won wins, hands down, for me at least:

http://www.goldring.co.uk/record-cartridges-and-styli/1006.htm

Excellent sound stage for mono 45rpm playback as well as stereo. Crisp highs that are not shrill or sibilant; warm midrange that isn't boomy like I hear from the Shure M-44 or whatever it is called. and the bottom end rides smooth.
My pal and I had a listening session, as he purchased several cartridges, including a mono cartridge, for his Technics 1200. Since i also spin on a Technics 1200, I figured what I heard at his place (Marantz '70s receiver, good speakers, top notch headphones) would sound nearly the same on my set-up.
The Goldring G-1006 beat the mono cartridge, as well as the other 4 or 5 we auditioned. The mono cartridge ($750, can't recall the brand) sounded okay, but the highs sounded muted and the midrange was far too boomy. We had to eq out the midrange to get the sound balanced.
The Goldring required no eq via a parametric equalizer. I really judge my sound stage by playback through headphones, and again the Goldring passed with flying colors for mono and stereo playback.
I've used the G-1006 and the G-1012X, the 1012X is more $$$ but I really don't hear that much of a difference for the kinds of records I play.

I'm sure some of the high end audio folks will chime in with their preferences, but unless you have a $5000 or higher turntable, spending big bucks on a cartridge is a waste of money. $350-500 is the sweet spot.
i also would not bother spending money for a mono cartridge. You're better off wiring your pins from the cartridge to play mono, if that's what you desire. Since I use an Onkyo TX8500 receiver (1978 vintage) it has a mono / stereo button - good enough for me!

 

[jeffs11375]

I've tried several of the cartridges in the under $500 range. This won wins, hands down, for me at least:

http://www.goldring.co.uk/record-cartridges-and-styli/1006.htm

According to their website there is nobody in the US that sells them. I find that kinda hard to believe. I know that I can get it on Amazon but for big purchases I prefer buying from an actual physical store.

 

[eleelandc]

Physical store can be tricky when you are wanting to shop for carts.
Needle Doctor has em though
http://www.needledoctor.com/Goldring-1006-Cartridge?sc=2&category=373

 

[bosshoss]

It's worth noting that a stereo cartridge wired for mono will be noisier and therefore less transparent than a true mono cartridge (all else being equal). That's because a mono cartridge only amplifies lateral movement, whereas a stereo cartridge amplifies lateral and vertical movement (because a stereo record contains lateral and vertical information). The only vertical "information" stored on a mono record is vinyl rumble, noise and dirt. A mono cartridge will not pick up any of that.

 

[MopTopMike]

I don't think one would be able to hear a significant difference comparing a wired for mono stereo cartridge and a mono one on a sound set up that most of us have. I gather most everyone on the forum spends far more on 45s than their playback rig! As I mentioned, having a stereo receiver with a mono input feature masks the lateral noise.

The Ortofon 2M mono cartridge seems to be a new entry in the market, at a price nearly matching my Goldring G1006 preference. Reading the review, there is one aspect that jumps out at me - tracking force. Tracking at less than 2.5 grams, or even 2 grams, is tracking far too light. The reviewer stated the suggested tracking for the Ortofon is 1.8.
Tracking too light does more groove damage to a record than tracking too heavy. I can understand light tracking for high quality modern and recent vinyl LPs for genres like classical, but for 50 year old mono 45s, no way.

I recall getting a styrene pressed 45 in trade from a friend who had upgraded his collection copy. The record looked VG++, very clean. He told me it plays to match the visual grade. It did not. It had distortion on louder passages, especially in the vocal area. I could hear it thru headphones and through speakers. I had to negate the trade, much to his disappointment. I then asked him if he ever played it on one of those portable players guys use at record shows (can't believe some of them use old, 1960s and 1970s era portables with sapphire conical styli). He said no, it came from a bandmember as unplayed ( according to the bandmember).

Ruling out previous playback, I asked my friend what kind of cartridge he was using, and then, what tracking force he set up for playback. It was 1.5 grams. Bingo.

 

[CollectorScum]

Tracking too light does more groove damage to a record than tracking too heavy. I can understand light tracking for high quality modern and recent vinyl LPs for genres like classical, but for 50 year old mono 45s, no way.

I've never heard more than anecdotal evidence of this, and the story you tell of that record is no different. Maybe it was pressed that way and the shape of your friend's stylus happened to play it well and the shape of your stylus picked up the distortion. You can't prove the issue was damage from his tracking weight.

Has anyone ever taken identical new copies of a record and played them repeatedly -- at least dozens of times, preferably hundreds -- at different tracking forces and then checked them for damage? Until I see a study like that, I'm not believing this. I think as long as you are in the rated range for your cartridge, and the compliance is appropriate for the tonearm used, you're fine.

 

[MopTopMike]

From a logical standpoint, the stylus hydroplanes in the groove, banging around off the sides whenever tracking force is too light. Analog playback is all about vibration and tracing the groove as close as possible to the original motion from the cutting stylus. I'd like to know the oft-used tracking force used on the cutting head during the mid 1960s. I'll bet it was not 1.8 grams, or a lighter weight!

I understand most folks have a misconception that too heavy is far worse than too light, and that most will continue to opt for a tracking force well under two grams.

We all know that a conical stylus has the ability to mask imperfections caused by tracking damage, or even pressing defects (hissy recycled vinyl) but to my ears, a few hundred dollar conical stylus delivers an vastly inferior soundstage.

 

[mansson66]

I bought that Goldring (had Goldring before and I like their cartridges) and also an Ortofon mono. Will review/compare them when I have tested, if anyone is interested.

 

[Sebastian]

I bought that Goldring (had Goldring before and I like their cartridges) and also an Ortofon mono. Will review/compare them when I have tested, if anyone is interested.

Please do, I'm interested.

Did you buy the 2M Mono or 2M Mono SE (special edition)?

 

[mansson66]

After quite lotsa pondering and checking out reviews etc I went for the regular 2M.

 

[mansson66]

Got the cartridges today and have tested'em a bit. The Goldring sounds absolutely great. Punch and detail to the max. The Ortofon mono does exactly what I hoped it would do - I tested a 45 with a scratch that makes a buncha loud pops for a few revolutions and the pops are a lot lower in volume with the mono cartridge. Still there, but not as obnoxious to the ears. It has a lot of clarity and punch as well. Will play more 45s when I'm off work later this week. Anyway I'm very satisfied with both cartridges.