[Table of Contents]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ARSCLIST] Early stereo LPs: subject to mononuclearosis?



Yes, early mono was best played with a 1 mil mono stylus. Stereo wants 0.7 mil, with stereo flexibility and a non-linear tip shape. I think the "common wisdom" that mono rigs would hurt stereo LPs centered around:

1. most mono rigs were pretty long in the tooth by 1958 and probably tracked pretty heavy. Stereo sounds terrible with non-linear groove distortion (ie that trumpet in the right channel sounds like fingers on a chalkboard but the bass in the left sounds fine). A too-fat stylus tracking too heavy is a great way to wreck stereo grooves fast.

2. some mono cartridges were pretty stiff and not necessarily flexible enough to properly ride stereo grooves. Diamonds not giving in easily chew up soft vinyl.

3. mono "record players" were POS units usually with a ceramic cartridge and no EQ compensation. The stereo records were supposed to sound all that better. Not on those players! The record makers didn't want a bunch of bitching cheapo consumers with junk rigs. Hmmm, that's kinda like the modern day audiophool who states emphatically that CD's "sound like crap" compared to his $10K LP rig. Then come to find out he's playing these "crappy sounding" CD's on a $50 Wal-Mart universal player that barely rolled out of China in working condition.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- From: "Lou Judson" <loujudson@xxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Early stereo LPs: subject to mononuclearosis?



Someone else will know more details, but early stereo records used a 1 mil stylus, and the new stereo used a smaller one, .5 or .7. It wasn't until the larger mono stlyii went out of fashion that the mono warning was dropped. But yes, you got the essence in your last line.

<L>

Lou Judson • Intuitive Audio
415-883-2689

On Aug 24, 2006, at 1:40 PM, Rob Bamberger wrote:

I seem to recall hearing in the early 1960s (when I was a mere youth
developing an instinct that would, in due course, mistrust a
civilization that could come up with reprocessed stereo) that playing
stereo pressings on a monophonic record player would harm the stereo LP.
Was this a myth? At some point, stereo LP covers indicated that they
were mono-compatible. Was the prior warning meant to discourage people
from playing stereo records with their older, heavily weighted tonearms
and mono cartridges that would chew up the stereo groove? =


[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]