Following on from some discussion here and given that various interesting discussions on this on other fora have been lost thought worth collecting information and thoughts on the stylus choices for playing mono records. As in with most discussions around vinyl reply there is absolutely no consensus and endless online arguments of course. But hopefully if we start again from first principles we might get somewhere.
If we start from the beginning then mono microgrove LPs were cut with the intention of being played with a 1mil (25um) conical. And for some that is the only tip to use. Many consider 0.65-.7mil to be a good compromise as it reads a lower part of the groove that is likely to be less worn and can also play stereo records. There are also a few who consider 0.5mil conical to 'dig deep' into the groove.
Then there are the sensible souls for whom a 0.4x.7 is good enough as these are readily available. After which we start to enter a twighlight zone where stories abound about the more extreme profiles being good for a format that has no appreciable information above 15kHz.
Gramophone Dreams #24: Hana & Musical Surroundings | Stereophile.com , whilst being an example of the usual journalistic excess suggests that Shibata are the way for mono. Ortofon agrees, but with caveats Ortofon true Mono cartridges range. The main caveat being this
Now what finally persuaded me to put finger to keyboard on this was a post on another thread suggesting that, due to it's different formulation, the vinyl used in the 50s might suffer from damage from fine line stylii. Certainly all my old monos are a lot stiffer and were from a time when a micro-ridge stylus would have probably been treated with howls of laughter so there may be some mileage in that. I am currently of the view that there is no one perfect profile and that having a 1mil and 0.7mil as a minimum if you have a wide collection of records from the early 50s onwards which may have lead a hard life.
Interested in views on this, especially experiences with less than prisitine monos which have been chewed up a little.
If we start from the beginning then mono microgrove LPs were cut with the intention of being played with a 1mil (25um) conical. And for some that is the only tip to use. Many consider 0.65-.7mil to be a good compromise as it reads a lower part of the groove that is likely to be less worn and can also play stereo records. There are also a few who consider 0.5mil conical to 'dig deep' into the groove.
Then there are the sensible souls for whom a 0.4x.7 is good enough as these are readily available. After which we start to enter a twighlight zone where stories abound about the more extreme profiles being good for a format that has no appreciable information above 15kHz.
Gramophone Dreams #24: Hana & Musical Surroundings | Stereophile.com , whilst being an example of the usual journalistic excess suggests that Shibata are the way for mono. Ortofon agrees, but with caveats Ortofon true Mono cartridges range. The main caveat being this
which makes sense although doesn't really then support the range of mono cartridges that they sell.
Now what finally persuaded me to put finger to keyboard on this was a post on another thread suggesting that, due to it's different formulation, the vinyl used in the 50s might suffer from damage from fine line stylii. Certainly all my old monos are a lot stiffer and were from a time when a micro-ridge stylus would have probably been treated with howls of laughter so there may be some mileage in that. I am currently of the view that there is no one perfect profile and that having a 1mil and 0.7mil as a minimum if you have a wide collection of records from the early 50s onwards which may have lead a hard life.
Interested in views on this, especially experiences with less than prisitine monos which have been chewed up a little.
The Shibata tip that Hana use in their SL Mono cartridge has a major radius of 1.57mil which keeps it above the noisy floor of a wider mono groove.
This figure may sound large, but the radius of long contact tips is not their groove width as it would be if it were the bottom radius of a spherical tip.
The Hana is purposed for older wider grooves and its narrow 0.27mil side radius is capable of tracking inner grooves with almost no loss.
The ideal for old mono LPs would then be a 1.0mil conical tip or the Shibata profile used by Hana for vintage mono.
N.B. All information extracted from the October 2018 issue of Hi-Fi World magazine - a recommended read!
This figure may sound large, but the radius of long contact tips is not their groove width as it would be if it were the bottom radius of a spherical tip.
The Hana is purposed for older wider grooves and its narrow 0.27mil side radius is capable of tracking inner grooves with almost no loss.
The ideal for old mono LPs would then be a 1.0mil conical tip or the Shibata profile used by Hana for vintage mono.
N.B. All information extracted from the October 2018 issue of Hi-Fi World magazine - a recommended read!
what is 'the noisy floor of a wider mono groove'? Don't suppose they did a diagram?
I hope you read the ortofon link I put in the first post? They also use shibata for their monos although I don't totally agree with their arguments of its universality.
I gave up on hifi magazines around 1995. I haven't missed them. Based on your quotes I think I was right.
I hope you read the ortofon link I put in the first post? They also use shibata for their monos although I don't totally agree with their arguments of its universality.
I gave up on hifi magazines around 1995. I haven't missed them. Based on your quotes I think I was right.
Please don't shoot the messenger! 
I think they meant that the extra width allows the stylus to track higher up the groove wall, thus clearing the bottom radius (where dirt may lurk?). There was a diagram showing how a 1.0mil and a 0.5mil stylus sat in the groove of height 1.25mil and width 2.5mil. No diagram for the Shibata tip though!
And yes, I'm getting pretty fed up with my hi-fi mags now, but they're on gift subscription and I don't look a gift horse in the mouth!
Anyway, I thought I'd try to kick start your thread and will now read the Ortofon link carefully. I have a fair selection of mono LPs which I bought in the sixties and have cared for lovingly. I use a 0.6mil conical stylus to play them which may not be optimal, but I have encountered no problems to spoil my mono listening pleasure!
I think they meant that the extra width allows the stylus to track higher up the groove wall, thus clearing the bottom radius (where dirt may lurk?). There was a diagram showing how a 1.0mil and a 0.5mil stylus sat in the groove of height 1.25mil and width 2.5mil. No diagram for the Shibata tip though!
And yes, I'm getting pretty fed up with my hi-fi mags now, but they're on gift subscription and I don't look a gift horse in the mouth!
Anyway, I thought I'd try to kick start your thread and will now read the Ortofon link carefully. I have a fair selection of mono LPs which I bought in the sixties and have cared for lovingly. I use a 0.6mil conical stylus to play them which may not be optimal, but I have encountered no problems to spoil my mono listening pleasure!
I wasn't. Just noting that journalists these days tend to just repeat what they are told in the marketing blurb.
But the whole question of where the stylus sits on the groove wall and how that matters for mono is worth considering as the problem is simpler than the stereo case. In mono the stylus is held between the 2 walls and shouldn't get pushed upwards by the modulation. Friction still matters so the better the polish on the diamond the lower the noise should be.
At this point worth attaching the std diagram of contact areas courtesy of Namiki who make a good percentage of the worlds stylii. This indicates (if correct) that the line contact types (of which Shibata is one) reads both higher and lower on the groove wall. What we need to explore is whether this helps or hinders records pressed in the 50s and early 60s.
But the whole question of where the stylus sits on the groove wall and how that matters for mono is worth considering as the problem is simpler than the stereo case. In mono the stylus is held between the 2 walls and shouldn't get pushed upwards by the modulation. Friction still matters so the better the polish on the diamond the lower the noise should be.
At this point worth attaching the std diagram of contact areas courtesy of Namiki who make a good percentage of the worlds stylii. This indicates (if correct) that the line contact types (of which Shibata is one) reads both higher and lower on the groove wall. What we need to explore is whether this helps or hinders records pressed in the 50s and early 60s.
Attachments
For learners like me, here's another good source of stylus profile and contact area information. This time it's from Audio Technica. Scroll down to the fourth page.
https://eu.audio-technica.com/resources/Cartridges_Glossary_EN.pdf
https://eu.audio-technica.com/resources/Cartridges_Glossary_EN.pdf
Hope to contribute to this thread if I can retrieve the numerical stuff from my archive.
Meantime here's approx. 2p worth of opinion:
(a) a 'contact patch' doesn't mean that area is in contact with the groove surface all the time: rather, the contact location falls within that area. My opinion is that instantaneous contact location moves about within the contact region and at any instant is quite small even by small standards.
(b) Yes, stylus-groove base clearance is much neglected and a big difference in assumption between mono and stereo pressings from back in the day. So styli optimised for stereo groove shape doesn't necessarily do it for mono pressings.
(c) another major difference between mono and stereo grooves is the guaranteed minimum depth for mono is much bigger than for stereo. This is mostly why larger sphericals don't fit into stereo grooves: they might ride along the top of the V at high programme levels, and that's not good if they shave the groove tops.
As ever, just my 2p worth.
LD
Meantime here's approx. 2p worth of opinion:
(a) a 'contact patch' doesn't mean that area is in contact with the groove surface all the time: rather, the contact location falls within that area. My opinion is that instantaneous contact location moves about within the contact region and at any instant is quite small even by small standards.
(b) Yes, stylus-groove base clearance is much neglected and a big difference in assumption between mono and stereo pressings from back in the day. So styli optimised for stereo groove shape doesn't necessarily do it for mono pressings.
(c) another major difference between mono and stereo grooves is the guaranteed minimum depth for mono is much bigger than for stereo. This is mostly why larger sphericals don't fit into stereo grooves: they might ride along the top of the V at high programme levels, and that's not good if they shave the groove tops.
As ever, just my 2p worth.
LD
I tried to work out base clearance for a 0.5mil/13um conical with 8um base radius. My geometry has gone rusty so need to CAD it, but not installed any suitable SW on latest laptop. But I worked out there was about 4um spare. Not much but enough to make it worth a test. I now understand why ESCO offer truncated sphericals for shellac tho!
Aside a nude conical replacement onto a MM cantilever is £60. tempting...
Aside a nude conical replacement onto a MM cantilever is £60. tempting...
I have some thousands of mono lps from all over the world and I have tried various styli from The Expert Stylus company over more than 20 years. However, my conclusion is that the standard stylus on the Shure SC35C (which I wouldn't dream of using on a stereo) plays the vast majority of monos very well. The only exceptions are the earliest Russian records (before about 1955) which absolutely need a 1 mil conical or elliptical tip. Some early American Columbia records are also better with 1 mil tip although the Shure will usually play them cleanly. A Denon DL103 plays the later monos stunningly well!
Smee again!
I've been trying to find out in what respect the formulation of vinyl in the 50s was different from today, but with no success.
I have discovered that the vinyl polymer makes up between 75 to 96% of the record weight, while the remainder comprises of additives such as heat stabilisers, lubricants, colourants and plasticisers.
When you say that your old monos are 'stiffer' and may be more likely to be damaged by fine line stylii, can you explain that in terms of their vinyl formulation?
I've been trying to find out in what respect the formulation of vinyl in the 50s was different from today, but with no success.
I have discovered that the vinyl polymer makes up between 75 to 96% of the record weight, while the remainder comprises of additives such as heat stabilisers, lubricants, colourants and plasticisers.
When you say that your old monos are 'stiffer' and may be more likely to be damaged by fine line stylii, can you explain that in terms of their vinyl formulation?
Thanks - I looked up 'GEON' and found it was a trade name of vinylite. I then looked up 'vinylite' to find this:
So, unfortunately, I'm no further forward in the difference in formulation stakes!
@piano3: The original SC35C which were ordered by the BBC to go with the MP1/18 arm on a technics SP10 were nude. These had 'shure' written in white on the stylus assembly. At some point this changed and I cannot find a reference to this. Later mexico production had 'shure' in black. What this means in terms of sound I don't know.
From what I can tell the SP10 was not considered good enough for radio 3 and was used in pop and local radio!
From what I can tell the SP10 was not considered good enough for radio 3 and was used in pop and local radio!
Apparently, some of Decca's late 50's LPs were made of 'styrene' (polystyrene), not vinyl. Decca claimed to have made them out of 'Deccalite'.
The link below says that styrene LPs should not be played with line contact stylii.
Ryan's Vinyl Emporium: Styrene: a risky purchase for vinyl record collectors?
The link below says that styrene LPs should not be played with line contact stylii.
Ryan's Vinyl Emporium: Styrene: a risky purchase for vinyl record collectors?
RCA 7" 45s were polystyrene, and not pure at that. A little more resistant to scuffing in party-playing.
There's videos on YouTube of pressing plants in the 1950s. The voice-over says the formula is carefully controlled, but the worker is shoveling stuff out of a barrel with a shovel and the whole process looks not-neat. Pressure was to produce many-many records at low-low cost, not "sound quality".
I came across this today: Mike Oldfield - Tubular.net - Tubular Bells
"It was usual around the time of Tubular Bells' release {1973} for rock records to be pressed on records made from recycled vinyl (partly the melted down sweepings from the floor of the record plant). The use of this recycled vinyl resulted in lower quality records - Mike (and presumably Tom Newman and Simon Heyworth as well) was not at all happy with the test pressings made on recycled vinyl, mainly because the sound of the Tubular bells themselves didn't sound right. Branson eventually persuaded the cutting plant to press Tubular Bells on the unrecycled vinyl usually reserved for classical records."
Stupid, stupid--- when we printed "samples" (for advertiser review) at the weekly shopper, we used the good paper, but used the cheap stuff for the bulk of the run.
There's videos on YouTube of pressing plants in the 1950s. The voice-over says the formula is carefully controlled, but the worker is shoveling stuff out of a barrel with a shovel and the whole process looks not-neat. Pressure was to produce many-many records at low-low cost, not "sound quality".
I came across this today: Mike Oldfield - Tubular.net - Tubular Bells
"It was usual around the time of Tubular Bells' release {1973} for rock records to be pressed on records made from recycled vinyl (partly the melted down sweepings from the floor of the record plant). The use of this recycled vinyl resulted in lower quality records - Mike (and presumably Tom Newman and Simon Heyworth as well) was not at all happy with the test pressings made on recycled vinyl, mainly because the sound of the Tubular bells themselves didn't sound right. Branson eventually persuaded the cutting plant to press Tubular Bells on the unrecycled vinyl usually reserved for classical records."
Stupid, stupid--- when we printed "samples" (for advertiser review) at the weekly shopper, we used the good paper, but used the cheap stuff for the bulk of the run.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.