Date:         Thu, 24 Aug 2006 19:08:37 -0400
Reply-To:     Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Early stereo LPs: subject to mononuclearosis?
Comments: To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252";
              reply-type=response

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" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
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? =