So what is everyone using for a vinyl rig?

[tmazz]

I've been cleaning and listening to a bunch of older mono Columbia 6 eyes that a friend dropped off from his fathers collection. All classical in nature, so far and many are not totally ruined.

But they really have very little life and no real big dynamic that I hear on more modern recordings. I thought the old 6 eyes were supposed to be cream? Is it the stereo cartridge? Would a mono cartridge make these come to life better?

I have never been a big fan of Columbia classical recordings period for the very reasons that you stated. I find similar characteristics in the stereo versions as well. Just not in the same league as RCA and Mercury.

Being a new Yorker, my father was a Leonard Bernstein fan and had quit a few of his Columbia albums in the house. So this was my standard of what Classical music was all about and I never warmed up to or really appreciated it. As I got older and had the urge to explore Classical a bit more the first place I went to was the records my father had in the house. And it still did nothing for me. It wasn't until I got introduced to some other orchestras recorded by other labels (Reiner or Munch on RCA, Ansermet on London/Decca etc.) that I began to enjoy classical as an art form.

Now six eye jazz albums (Brubeck, Miles etc.) are a totally different story. But IMO those were head and shoulders better recordings right back to the original tapes.

IMO what you are hearing is shortcomings in the recordings themselves and no cartridge choice will fix that.

[jsaliga]

I wouldn't paint any label's pressings with a wide brush where the quality of recording or vinyl pressing are concerned.  I have many Columbia 6 Eye mono pressings that could easily stand up to and even better anything being cut and pressed today.  I also have some that are pretty disappointing.

I don't have time right now but later I will post a few that are well worth hunting down.

--Jerome

[jsaliga]

Being a new Yorker, my father was a Leonard Bernstein fan and had quit a few of his Columbia albums in the house. So this was my standard of what Classical music was all about and I never warmed up to or really appreciated it.

I should probably get this out of the way and just say it.  Columbia did not make many recordings of Bernstein and the NPO that were sonically flattering to the conductor and the orchestra.  The Bernstein recordings that I prize the most were recorded by Columbia, unfortunately.  You will find no better performance of Tchaikovsky Symphony No. 4 than the one originally recorded by Bernstein and the NPO for Columbia in the 1950s.  Sadly, the quality of the recording does not do the performance justice.  And so it went with many Bernstein recordings for Columbia.  Compare those recordings to the sonics of the works he did for Deutsche Grammophon and oh what a difference.  But the performances for DG were not the equal of those legendary Columbia dates in the 1950s.

The story is quite a bit different when you look at the recorded work done by Columbia of Eugene Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra, or Bruno Walter and the Columbia Orchestra.  The sonics on most of those recordings simply smokes the Bernstein LPs.  I won't speculate why that is the case.

As a rule, I really try to avoid getting into SQ debates because, honestly, I find them to be a colossal waste of my time.  As with anything in audio, YMMV, and for any given LP that I think sounds fantastic someone else will think sounds like shit.  I will say emphatically that having a moving coil mono cart with a spherical stylus with the correct tip radius has really elevated my enjoyment of the many mono LPs from the 1950s that I own.  It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that someone else had a different experience under similar circumstances, but that doesn't have anything to do with me and it wouldn't change my opinion.  C'est la vie.

--Jerome

[tmazz]

I was going to start the post by saying "I'm sure Jerome has more experience in this area and may chime in with some further information but..." and then the phone rang and when I got back to the post I forgot to put it in. But I'm glad you jumped in to keep me honest anyhow. 

I agree that debating sonics is a waste of time and that a great performance with mediocre SQ beats the other way around any day of the week. I was responding to Bob's inquiry as to whether a mono cart would make some of the old Columbia classical LPs sound more lively and dynamic and the point that I was trying to make was that the SQ he was getting was in line with the previous experience I had with albums of that series and IMO the culprit was most likely the recording itself and not the cart used to play it. I was not trying to make a judgement call as to the merit of the content (and I guess I should have made that more clear), but rather the SQ he was getting as a matter of mechanical reproduction system.

The point I was making about my fathers records was that as an uneducated listener the lack of sonic quality did nothing to make me want to listen to unfamiliar music. Once I had access to better equipment and better recordings the SQ drew me into the music and I became interested to the point where I learned more about the music and became interested in it on a musical basis alone. But without that SQ and goosebump factor I might never have given it a chance.

Now I am going to have to seek out a copy of the Bernstein Tchaikovsky 4th. 

[jsaliga]

Tom, we are both saying the same thing...just going about it a little differently.

In response to this comment from Bob:

But they really have very little life and no real big dynamic that I hear on more modern recordings. I thought the old 6 eyes were supposed to be cream? Is it the stereo cartridge? Would a mono cartridge make these come to life better?

The answer is I don't know why you are hearing what you are hearing.  It would help to know the specific LPs to which you are referring.  As I indicated above, not all Columbia 6 Eye mono pressings are sonic gold.  I will be posting some Columbia 6 Eye LPs in the music thread later today and a few of them push the dynamic range capabilities of vinyl.  The noise floor of your analogue front end will be a factor.

Whether or not a mono cartridge will improve what you are hearing on the LPs you have I cannot say.  I can only speak for myself and only with respect to the LPs that I own and listen to.  I know that sounds like a cop out...but that's a fact.

You have a few options.  You can haul some of your LPs to a friend's house who has a good quality moving coil mono cart and try them on his deck, or you can buy your own mono cartridge if you believe the potential reward is greater than the risk of buying a cartridge that doesn't float your boat.  Since I did not have a buddy nearby with a mono rig I went the other route and invested in my own setup.   After doing some research I was convinced that the rewards were real and far outweighed the risk.  I had more than enough 1950s mono pressings to make it all worthwhile.  So it worked out very well for me.  You could make the same choice I did and be very disappointed.  Don't know and can't say.

--Jerome

[tmazz]

Tom, we are both saying the same thing...just going about it a little differently.

We do that a lot, don't we?   

In my case it wasn't a big risk at all.Because of some system rearanging I ended up with an extra TT (Thorens TD-147), which while not a bad table, just didn't really have much of a resale value, so I wasn't tying up a large amount of cash in the experiment. All I had to do was pick up a mono cart, which I was able to do for $81 (Ortofon D25M). It's not the greatest cart, but it will let me see what the mono world is all about and I can then decide if I want to upgrade to better Mono cart. (Thanks for putting up that post about the Grados not being true mono carts but rather stereo carts wired to put out bridged channels. I was almost ready to buy the Grado until I read your comments.)
I have only played two records on it so far, but what I notice is not so much an improvement in SQ, but rather a reduction in distractions. Part of this is due to the fact that my stereo cart is much higher quality than the mono, but I find that mono records played on the stereo TT have more noise and the noise that is there is more up front and in your face. On the mono cart the noise is less and what is there is less aggressive than when the LP is played on the stereo TT.
So far I would say the experiment is a success. Whether the mono TT gets enough use in the long run to make is worth the hassle of keeping up a second rig (and the real estate in my rack) is yet to be seen. But it's fun for now.   

[BobM]

I listened to this one tonight and it sounded GREAT
Sheherazade - Philadelphia - Eugene Ormandy - CL 850

I think I found that the red label Columbia 6 eyes are dynamic and extended and the grey labels sound flat. Yes, the performances are classic, but I find I can't get involved because dynamically they are lifeless. I might just search through this stash for red labels and start there.

[jsaliga]

I think I found that the red label Columbia 6 eyes are dynamic and extended and the grey labels sound flat.

Your finding isn't consistent with my experience.  But to each his own.  This is one of the reasons I usually don't indulge in SQ discussions.  There isn't much of a point in in debating it when people have varying degrees of experience, different expectations, different environments, etc.  It certainly isn't a productive use of my time.

Grey labels were used on all Columbia Masterworks (ML catalog series) and Columbia Soundtrack (OL and KOL catalog series) albums between 1955 and 1962.  All other 6 Eye pressings used red labels during the same period.

I will gladly take any and all near mint mono Columbia Masterworks LPs off of your hands that you feel have poor sound.

Moving on...

--Jerome

Note: Made some edits to clarify my meaning.

[jsaliga]

Doug, I'd like to say there is some sort of strategy in play with the tonearms, but there really isn't.  I only put a 12" arm on the Garrard because...well, because I could...and to satisfy my curiosity.  I did some research on 12" arms before deciding and the jury really seems to be out about the perceived benefits of a longer arm.  Sure, a 12" arm has less tracking error than a 9" arm.  But honestly I don't know that it matters where the business end of the sound is concerned.

One of the great things about running Ortofon SPU cartridges on both arms is that swapping them is simple enough.  Both have the same VTA, and both are exactly the same dimensions.  The only difference is that one tracks at 3g and the other at 3.5g.  So swapping them around is pretty easy, and at some point I will probably do that.  But I am not expecting the heavens to open up and rain down great sonic revelations by running the Ortofon SPU Gold Reference cartridge on the 12" tonearm.  Things really sound fine just the way they are.

--Jerome

[tmazz]

...... I am not expecting the heavens to open up and rain down great sonic revelations by running the Ortofon SPU Gold Reference cartridge on the 12" tonearm.  Things really sound fine just the way they are.

If it ain't broke..........

[jsaliga]

If it ain't broke..........

Then break it! 

--Jerome

[rollo]

If it ain't broke..........

Then break it! 

--Jerome

jerome, that sounds an awful lot one of my fave expressions - if it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is!   

   Yup, the ol common mistake. " If I just change the blah, blah, blah yeah thats the ticket " Now it is broke. 


charles

[Audiosme]

My Technics SP25 on a custom Baltic Birch Plinth with Sumiko tonearm and cartridge, total weight with plinth 52lbs.
Male custom Plinths using exotic woods[/img][/img]