• 04-15-2009, 06:24 AM
    Ed_in_Tx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by emaidel
    The stylus for the XUV-4500Q should work just fine in the 881-S body, as the two bodies are very, very similar.

    The "MK II" model has a nude (as opposed to bonded) Stereohedron stylus, and most "MK II" models were packaged in grey/silver jewelry boxes, instead of the clear plastic ones for the original 881-S models. There is no way you can tell the difference in any of these stylus tips without a microscope.

    The XUV/4500Q is, in my opinion, the finest cartridge made by anyone for the playback of CD-4 quadraphonic records.

    MUCH Thanks for the reply! I will try the 4500 stylus in the 881 body now. Just needed a little reassurance that I wouldn't damage something internally in the cartridge body.

    CD-4 and the low tracking force are originally why I bought the XUV/4500Q, and why it didn't see much use too. I kept it preserved and unused all these years just in case I wanted to hook up the CD-4 demodulator and spin some of the 30 or so CD-4 records I have. Plus, my old hi-fi guru, Dean Henson who sold audio gear here in Dallas in the '60s and '70s (at Crabtree's as well as his store Dean's Audio) was a big Pickering proponent, brush and all!

    I have included a picture I took with my "Eyeclops" magnifier of my original 1979 vintage 881S stylus. It looks like a solid diamond to me, not tipped or bonded. Comments?

    http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...nclopava-2.jpg
  • 04-15-2009, 09:08 AM
    Ed_in_Tx
    OK now playing the 4500Q stylus in the 881S body. Highs sound smoother, less harsh and bright. Only problem, the actual fit of the 4500Q stylus into the 881S body is very loose when it's pressed up against the cartridge body. Reasonably snug all the way up to that point where it needs to be secure, then it has maybe a half-mm of loose play in-out. Any suggestions to snug up the fit?
  • 04-15-2009, 01:24 PM
    emaidel
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ed_in_Tx
    OK now playing the 4500Q stylus in the 881S body. Highs sound smoother, less harsh and bright. Only problem, the actual fit of the 4500Q stylus into the 881S body is very loose when it's pressed up against the cartridge body. Reasonably snug all the way up to that point where it needs to be secure, then it has maybe a half-mm of loose play in-out. Any suggestions to snug up the fit?

    'Fraid not, my friend. Every once in a while, the stylus tube didn't line up with the innards of the cartridge body, resulting in what you're experiencing. I'm using the Stanton W.O.S. Collector's Series 100 cartridge in my system, and have a spare just in case I damage the stylus assembly and need to replace it. It's a good thing the cartridge body doesn't wear out, as the stylus assembly fits just as poorly in my replacement cartridge as yours does, though it fits fine in the cartridge body of the unit I'm using. As long as it doesn't fall out, or wobble though, I wouldn't worry much about it. Glad you like what you hear.

    Insofar as your photo, it sure does look like a nude stylus tip, but far greater magnification would be necessary to show the cuts on the very tip that designate it as a "Stereohedron."

    And, your dealer/friend is right about the brush: use it! Just remember to balance the tonearm, and then add an additional gram of tracking force to the tonearm setting, as well as to the anti-skate setting to offset the added weight of the brush. You'll be amazed at how much better the cartridge will play warped records with the brush in place.
  • 04-15-2009, 01:51 PM
    Ed_in_Tx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by emaidel
    'Fraid not, my friend. Every once in a while, the stylus tube didn't line up with the innards of the cartridge body, resulting in what you're experiencing.

    Insofar as your photo, it sure does look like a nude stylus tip, but far greater magnification would be necessary to show the cuts on the very tip that designate it as a "Stereohedron."

    Thanks again for your information! I have an idea to secure it better and will post it, if it works.

    Here are 3 other images I managed to get from the same 881S. They appear to show the stereohedron shape and cuts. I was trying to see if there was any wear. This is the most used stylus I have, the original D81 from '79. Probably has 1,000 hrs use at least. Looks good to me. But then again I might not have enough magnification to see the wear spots. I will try to get some pics of the 4500Q and the 881S-II I have. I have to take many attempts to get a decent picture with the toy "Eyeclops" I have.


    http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...tonclops-2.jpg

    http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...tonclops-3.jpg

    http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...tonclops-4.jpg
  • 04-16-2009, 01:15 PM
    daveobieone
    "Do you have first hand experience successfully getting a D71EE tip on an old 500 body? Is it a thin cantilever like the E?"

    Yes...I now have two turntables running the 500 body / D71ee stylus combination, and I'm quite pleased with it in both cases. Two very different arms too. I don't have an old 500e or 500ee to compare the catilever on them.

    If it fits loose, I've heard putting a tiny piece of "blue tack" inside of the stylus grip will hold it firmly to the cartridge body. I've used something similar...some kind of an art eraser my wife came up with. Just be careful not to get either into the hole in the cartridge body.

    I did some exparamenting with the tracking of the D71ee, and have found that it tracks just about everything I can throw at it at about 1.6g. At 2g, it will track the most stupid-hot stuff I've got quite well. This is hi-fi stuff however, not 12 inch 45's, which (as I recall) could be cut even hotter.

    I did some further tests of it for record wear at 2 grams, and find that it's actually pretty easy on the records up there. I do a test on styrene 45's (which once the wear starts, it goes downhill really fast)...and the D71ee can play the locked groove over 100 times and still I don't hear any wear starting to develope. These tests were run with the two "Hi-Fi" D71ee's I got recently from KAB. They are genuine Stanton. I can't speak for any aftermarket offerings that are out there...which I've generally had less than great luck with.

    Dave O.
  • 04-16-2009, 01:18 PM
    daveobieone
    BTW, those are amazing pictures Ed!
    How did you get that good a look at the stylus?
    Dave O.
  • 04-17-2009, 08:47 PM
    Ed_in_Tx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daveobieone
    BTW, those are amazing pictures Ed!
    How did you get that good a look at the stylus?
    Dave O.

    With GREAT patience and many many trys! I used one of these Eyeclops toy magnifiers. Several problems with it; poor built-in lighting and you have to get so close it's hard to get external illumination where it needs to be, the shutter button is on the unit so it's impossible to hold steady when you press it, poor depth of field, probably took at least 100 shots few good ones.

    I've suceeded securing the Pickering 4500Q stylus to the 881S body with a couple of tiny pieces of double-sided cellophane tape applied to the body of the cartridge. So far so good.This won't work with a Stanton stylus though since it doesn't wrap around the sides.

    http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...00-881-2-f.jpg

    Also checked the output with a Stereo Review test record I have, and this combination has about 1.5 dB more output than with the stock D81 stylus. Freq response peaks about 2dB at 9-10kHz, resonably flat elsewhere.
  • 04-18-2009, 03:53 AM
    emaidel
    Those are truly remarkable photos. I'm glad you found a way to secure the stylus into the cartridge body, and that you're enjoying the benefits of the two designs.

    When I first started to work for Pickering in 1976, the company had a scanning electron beam microscope at the time, and they took quite a few photos of actual styli in record grooves, and used the microscope extensively in their research. You're bringing back many fond memories my friend.
  • 04-18-2009, 08:04 AM
    daveobieone
    Tracking distortion vs VTF for groove damage?
    Whoa...I wish there was some way to see some of those photos!

    I've always been interested in the amout of deformation of the groove walls by the stylus. Especially with different shapes, VTF, etc.

    Does anyone have an opinion about which is more destructive to the groove wall...
    Tracking distortion, or tracking heavier?

    Seems to me that having the stylus bouncing around in the groove (which I guess is what's really happening with tracking distortion) would be more destructive than tracking a little heavier...but that's just a guess on my part.

    I usually tend to error on the side of tracking a little heavier...just heavy enough to keep the tracking distorion under control. I also listen closely to what's going on in the out of phase part of the signal. This would be the unwanted vertical movement of the stylus...when it should just be moving horizontally. Clean, Mono records work nicely for this, with an inverting RCA cable...then pushing the mono button on the pre-amp.

    Also, listening to the dead channel on test tones (or other music) recorded on the other channel. There are some test disks that are required for this. Just turning the balance control to the dead channel only can show some pretty amazing things going on. There will always be some cross-channel crosstalk, but what it sounds like can give away some interesting cues to what's going on in the grooves.
  • 04-18-2009, 12:29 PM
    Reticuli
    Tracking distortion is the most destructive, but any additional downforce will obviously also add more wear if the former is unchanging. If you're stuck choosing between FIM distortion or more downforce that will reduce the distortion, choose the latter. But optimally you should be choosing cart/tips that have low micro tracking distortion AND downforce...but still enough compliance & downforce for your arm swing-mass to macro-track records well that's aren't 100% perfect. The primary cause of FIM distortion (assuming good arm matching, alignment, antiskating, and sufficient downforce) is too much cantilever effect-tip-mass for your record’s loud, fast treble. Nude diamond mounts can help a little, but the big thing is cantilever material, shape, and whether it's hollow or not. Hence the use of tapering, hollow aluminum tubes, even lighter beryllium, and even carbon fiber...though it's hard to make that last one hollow. Bucky-tubes? Heh heh. You want rigidity, low mass, and ability to last over time. I think the 440ML series has uses a nude diamond with a beryllium cantilever coated in gold to prevent corrosion, right? It's important to point out,though, that the lower the downforce you use, the more extended, faster, and potentially more delicate your high frequency transients...assuming most of your records are not distorting. Also, if you overweight the suspension you can wear out the cantilever quicker. It's give and take.
  • 04-19-2009, 06:22 AM
    Ed_in_Tx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daveobieone
    Whoa...I wish there was some way to see some of those photos!

    I've always been interested in the amout of deformation of the groove walls by the stylus. Especially with different shapes, VTF, etc.

    Does anyone have an opinion about which is more destructive to the groove wall...
    Tracking distortion, or tracking heavier?

    .

    I recall back in the early '70s I think it was Audio magazine had an article about groove wear, downward tracking force and it's effects, complete with scanning electron microscope pictures. Don't recall if they did any testing with other than with an elliptical stylus, might have been earlier than the newer shapes like Shibata and Stereohedron, but the value of 1.2 grams stuck with me. 1.2 grams and higher there was some evidence of permanent groove wall distortion, 1.1 grams and lower, anything seen within the groove walls "recovered" for the most part. And yes, not enough tracking force caused damage too, from the stylus bouncing around between groove walls. Wish I could find a reprint of that article.
  • 04-19-2009, 03:00 PM
    daveobieone
    Ed:
    I think I remember that article. Seems like I recall some wild numbers...like the contact point pressure was some crazy number, like 20 tons / sq. inch. And the explosion point for vinyl was below that, 17 tons.?. The only reason the surface of the groove surface didn't explode (permantant damge) was because the contact point was moving very fast.

    I could have those numbers all messed-up however...and it could have been a different article. I've slept a few times since then.
    Dave O.
  • 04-21-2009, 05:39 PM
    nfalbert
    I was the principle development engineer for both Stanton and Pickering from 1973-1978,
    and I would like to point out the following, and I hope that it will not confuse anyone, as
    I see the forum is in good hands with emaidel. He and I were likely ships that pass in the night, my leaving Stanton as he was arriving.

    My point is that the 881-S and XSV/3000 were very similar products, having both been
    based on the use of high energy rare earth colbalt ring magnets and small diameter cantilever rather than being variable reluctance/moving magnet as were the preceeding company's models such as the 681EEE. However, the 881S used a smaller and lighter
    magnet requiring less damping but resulting in upper high end boost which was copensated by increasing the inductance ( more turns of wire on the coils ) from 270mH to 500mH. This change compensated for the loss of output of the smaller magnet 2) flattened out the slight high end boost of the 881S stylus had instead of a smoothly elevated upper midrange of the XSV/3000. As emaidel says, the XSV/3000 stylus works in the 881S body, and may offer an economical solution in these days when LP playback equipment has waned.
  • 04-21-2009, 05:54 PM
    Ed_in_Tx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nfalbert
    I was the principle development engineer for both Stanton and Pickering from 1973-1978...

    Welcome! And I have a question of course. What do you think about using my XUV/4500Q stylus in my 881S body? I can't match the loading requirements of the 4500 body so I think this helps smooth out the response and I can get some use out of the 4500Q stylus, which has seen very little use since I bought it for CD-4 in mid-70s.
  • 04-21-2009, 06:21 PM
    nfalbert
    Ed_In_Tx

    Thanks!

    CD-4.. that's a term I haven't heard in a long, long time.

    Assuming you are using an 881S body with the 4500Q stylus, and not the other way around, you might find that merely by keeping the cable capacitance down the 881S body
    could satisfactorily match the characteristics of that that stylus, especially taking into account the fact that at he time these were in production, the measured frequency response to 20KHz was an important issue for getting favorable reviews. If you are using
    the pair for listening only, I would not be surprised if the fequency response up to your
    audible max, perhaps 12-13kHz would be quite acceptable.

    Go by how it sounds, and trust your ears.

    Neil
  • 04-21-2009, 07:11 PM
    nfalbert
    Ed_In_Tx,

    I just tried a D4500Q stylus in an 881 body, and although the cantilever on my stylus seems
    to have settled to the point where the stylus guard grazes the record, it seems to sound pretty decent on a couple of classical LP's I tried it on.

    Neil
  • 04-21-2009, 07:27 PM
    Ed_in_Tx
    The cantilever suspension on mine is still like new best as I can tell. I set the VTF at 2.2 grams total. Still has about a mm between the guard and the record. Playing it now on an old Cat Stevens LP I've owned since new, and the detail is excellent wthout beiing shrill or excessively bright like when I use the 4500Q body.

    http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...stvstanton.jpg
  • 04-21-2009, 07:44 PM
    nfalbert
    Good to hear, Ed,


    Since I just tuned in a little while ago, I haven't had a chance to see if the antiskate
    setting with the brush has been addressed. My belief is that, although the weight of the brush will not factor into the force on the stylus, its skating will, and therefore the antiskate should also be set to 2.2 grams, in this case.

    Neil
  • 04-21-2009, 07:50 PM
    nfalbert
    Ed,

    Is that a linear tracking TT? It appears it might be, and if so,b disregard my last comment.

    Neil
  • 04-21-2009, 08:15 PM
    Ed_in_Tx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nfalbert
    Ed,

    Is that a linear tracking TT? It appears it might be, and if so,b disregard my last comment.

    Neil

    Yes sure is. Haven't had to deal with anti-skate settings since I bought it in early 1980, a Phase Linear 8000, which is a silver Pioneer PL-L1000.

    I have read of some discussion about the anti-skate setting, seems to me the brush riding in the grooves would act as a guide and cancel some of that out.
  • 04-22-2009, 07:01 AM
    daveobieone
    Wow...Neil...SO glad you are here!!!
    All us Stanton / Pickering lovers will come out of the shadows to ask questions. :-)

    Did I hear this right...
    The Stanton 881s body compensated for the elevated high frequencies of the stylus, but the Pickering version did not?

    I have a practically new 881s MkII (I may have never used it), and have been considering putting it back in service...as long as the suspension is still OK.

    Thanks for answering one of my earlier questions (in one of the other threads) about the moving iron actually qualifiing as being a variable reluctance cartridge.

    One more question for ya...
    Can you tell us more about the "fine wire" in the stylus in the Stanton / Pickerings? Emaidel mentioned it once, but I didn't fully understand what it was there for.

    Welcome!
    Dave O.
  • 04-22-2009, 11:17 AM
    nfalbert
    Hi Dave,

    To answer your first question about the stanton compensating for end rise which the Pickering did not-YES and NO.

    The Yes part:
    The 881S was followed the 4500Q & XSV/3000 were brought to market to keep the Stanton line supplied with the later technology. However, typically previous high end Stanton cartidges were individually calibrated on the production line and the customer supplied
    with a declaration of frequency repsponse and individual channel output.

    While the XSV/3000 was a great sounding cartridge, it had a subtle bump of the frequency
    response between 7-14KHz which, while giving the unit a warm sound which customers
    and reviewers responded to very favorably, it also made it difficult to maintain the very strict
    frequency response that many Stanton customers such in the record engineering and production (lacquer masters, matrix mothers,stampers, etc) to verify their quality control.

    Therefore the result was a modifcation to the stylus assembly, using a light magnet and shorter cantilever, which had the effect of pushing the cantilever resonance to a substantially higher frequency, although still below 20kHz. Then this high end rie could be easily compenated by incorporating a cartridge with high inductance which, when loaded
    with the, then nominal, 270pF, would act as a filter to flatten the response o that the product could be jutifiably called a "Calibration Standard."

    The NO part:

    The XSV/3000 should not be looked at as inferior, but just a (slightly) different beast
    which sounded great but didn't fulfill a particalar requirement of a different market.
    Generally, the XSV/3000 had a well damped cantilver resonance which didn't require
    any L/C filering for normal listening purposes.


    The "fine wire":

    I assume emaidel was talking about the short piece of stainless steel wire, a few mils thick, connected between rear of the the cantilver and the top, back of the plated brass tube which which contained the cantilever assembly and which acted something like a torsion beam to provide additional and long-lasting restoring force to the cantiever.


    Neil
  • 04-22-2009, 12:25 PM
    tizeta2
    Hi all!

    This is my first post here... I've found this thread looking for informations about my 881s. Nice to see I'm not alone and many other people still loves this cartidge!

    The one I own was bought new by my father in late '70s and, unfortunately, the stylus is broken. Some times ago I contacted the Stanton support and they said me to look for a N 890 E stylus. Is it a correct replacement?

    I'm not a DJ and I'm not interested in scratching... just to listen to vinyl discs as better as I can mantaining the original sound of my cartidge!

    Thank you in advance!
    Alex

    (... from Italy!)
  • 04-22-2009, 02:28 PM
    emaidel
    I've been away for a few days. nfalbert: I remember you well, Neil Albert. I joined Pickering in 1976, and you gave me many a fine, technically-oriented point on the design of the XSV/3000 cartridge which the "inner circle" found to be a heretical activity. Giving any such information to anyone was tantamount to treason at the time.

    I think you were still there when I left in 1978 to pursue a career as a manufacturer's rep, which turned out to be a disaster. I rejoined the company (i,e. - Stanton) in 1992, but at that time, the sales effort was all but exclusively for the DJ market. the "old school" thoughts still lingered, however.

    Good to hear from you, and your posts have been very informative.
  • 04-22-2009, 03:58 PM
    nfalbert
    You do have a good memory...and good to have you as a friend. I never intended
    to be a subversive, and always thought my communication judgement was reasoable
    despite my being young and idealitic at the time.

    I would be interested to know, for purposes of this forum, what changes were
    introduced with the 881 S MkII which was released after I left. That knowledge
    could potentially be helpful to this readers of this forum.

    Do you know if enhancements were made to the Stereohedron tip, perhaps, or did the changes extend to other aspect of the cartridge? I've alway wondered.


    --Another aging smartass.
  • 04-22-2009, 04:39 PM
    nfalbert
    tizeta2

    Using 890 replacement stylus for 881...

    Being one of the 2 former Stanton employees, I feel I should offer some opinion on this,
    but I don't really have enough info other than what I just read on the web.

    The tracking force of 2-5 grams is not a good sign, although you likely could get away with
    an eliptical tip instead of the original line contact type, if that were the only issue.

    I really don't know. It would be wise to wait and see if anyone has actually tried it
    before spending any money.
  • 04-22-2009, 05:49 PM
    nfalbert
    tizeta2

    Alex,

    The correct replace for an 881S cartridge is the D81, which costs about $100
    I saw them advertised on some US websites.

    The stylus for the 890 is only $40, but might not work very well or at all.


    Neil
  • 04-23-2009, 03:50 AM
    emaidel
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nfalbert
    You do have a good memory...and good to have you as a friend. I never intended
    to be a subversive, and always thought my communication judgement was reasoable
    despite my being young and idealitic at the time.

    I would be interested to know, for purposes of this forum, what changes were
    introduced with the 881 S MkII which was released after I left. That knowledge
    could potentially be helpful to this readers of this forum.

    Do you know if enhancements were made to the Stereohedron tip, perhaps, or did the changes extend to other aspect of the cartridge? I've alway wondered.


    --Another aging smartass.

    When I rejoined Stanton in 1992, the sales of "hi-fi" cartridges were diminishing almost daily. The 881-S MKII had been in production for a while, and from what I could tell, the primary difference was a nude Stereohedron stylus, and a different package. Whether there were any other differences, I simply don't know. I believe something was different about the diminsions of the Stereohedron tip too, but can't be sure.

    Ultimately, the 881-S MKII evolved into the W.O.S. Collector's Series 100, which is the cartridge I'm presently using. Few were manufactured, but it included a super-thin, sapphire-coated cantilever with a nude Stereohedron tip, as well as individually run frequency response curves. The European audio magazines loved the cartridge, but The Absolute Sound thoroughly trashed it in one of the most unfair, and horribly biased reviews they ever published (that's a long, long story I happen to know all the gory details about).

    I seldom listen to records anymore, but when I do, I appreciate the efforts that went into the Collector's Series cartridge, and feel that it absolutely wipes the floor with the Shure V/15 Type V Mxr, which happens to be a fine cartridge in and of itself.
  • 04-23-2009, 06:07 PM
    Reticuli
    What do the two of you who worked for Stanton think of cartridge loading by changing the capacitance and/or resistance on the phono inputs? On the former, you can shorten the cables, change the caps, or use jumpers on multi-cap models. And on the latter, a stereo 100kohm adjustable pot instead of the 47kohm resistors has been recommended. Thoughts?

    I know Stanton says to use 275pF/47kohms and Shure says to use 250pF, but in the case of the 680ELII/eV3 I've found it needs at least 450pF to sound smooth. Yet it's still rolled off up top as predicted by the math. The 500Emk2, on the other hand, seems to do very well at 200-225pF: smooth and extended. Is the 275pF spec just for the “factory calibrated” tips and worthless the rest of the time?

    And how do you feel about companies like Ortofon who have such vague recommended loading for their non-MC carts of like 200-500pF...as if it makes no difference when in fact it totally changes the response. Is this just for marketing reasons? So they don't scare off people into thinking their phono stage won't work? I find most people who bash them have never heard them properly loaded or only heard the over-massed DJing cantilevers' FIM distortion that almost universally gets erroneously attributed to the phono preamp overloading.

    There's also a long thread on this subject on vinyl engine I'd be interested in your opinions on:

    http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/vi...=asc&start=300
  • 04-23-2009, 11:58 PM
    tizeta2
    nfalbert:

    First of all thank you for your kind reply.
    So... are you suggesting me to take a replacement like this?
    http://www.lpgear.com/Merchant2/merc..._Code=STNS881S

    Is that stylus the best choice?

    Do you have any feedback about this one?
    http://cgi.ebay.com/Ersatznadel-STAN...1%7C240%3A1318

    Thank you again!
    A.
  • 04-24-2009, 08:12 AM
    daveobieone
    Neil / emaidel:

    I'm still trying to figure out my love for the 500 series cartridge...which has been pretty much constant from the mid 70's through now. I've wondered if the lower reactance might have something to do with it.

    But now that the subject has turned to capacative loading, I'm wondering if the 500 is more tollerant of different loading than the other Stanton / Pickering models? What loading (capacitive and resistive) do you think works best for the 500?

    I've probably installed hundreds of 500s in radio stations over the years. Most of the broadcast arms run about 125-150pf, and most pro pre-amps seem to load at about another 100pf...at least the fixed ones.

    I'd love to start some discussion about the Stanton 210/310 pro phono pre-amps as well (I still have some). Perhaps that's better for a different thread however.

    Dave O.
  • 04-24-2009, 08:28 AM
    nfalbert
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tizeta2
    nfalbert:

    First of all thank you for your kind reply.
    So... are you suggesting me to take a replacement like this?
    http://www.lpgear.com/Merchant2/merc..._Code=STNS881S

    Is that stylus the best choice?

    Do you have any feedback about this one?
    http://cgi.ebay.com/Ersatznadel-STAN...1%7C240%3A1318

    Thank you again!
    A.


    Yes, my previous comment had the the LP gear stylus in mind as poosibly being better
    than the Stanton stylus for their DJ model

    However, I personally have had no experience with these, which are probably
    made made a 3rd party manufacturer, since, to my knowledge, Stanton is no longer making
    replacements. It appears to have a cantilever closer to the original ad than one in the eBay ad.


    Recommendations as such are very difficult task. I had suggested something like the LP gear D81 because, the Stanton stylus for the 890 DJ cartridge appeared to have a tracking
    range up to 5 grams, a force which would unquestionably bottom out an original 881
    which tracked between ż-1-1/2 grams

    What the manufacturers of these replacements may have done is to create a product
    that will cause the cartridge to resume functioning if purchased, which may be adaquate
    for some buyers. Unscrewing the original cartridge body from the tone arm would be avoided. The crimp on the LP Gear stylus tube appears to be different than the original 881S which used a suspension for which I am named as the inventor with Stanton
    being the owner. Perhaps the LP Gear D81 is slightly different construction than that of the original, such as the cantilever assembly being self contained and merely having to be inserted into the originally size stylus housing. This type of construction would make
    it easier for a replacement stylus manufacturer to use a few standard cantilever, magnet and suspension assemblies and then fit them into a housing having the original manufactures dimensions. The result could still be good, depending how critical
    your were going to be. Depending on your budget, and how often you planned to use
    the stylus, there seems to be an elliptical version at half the price. Elliptical
    stylus tips are inexpensive to make, so it would not be unreasonable to believe that
    this were the only difference, and since there are a number of unknowns, the risk factor is reduced.

    The item on EBay you pointed out appears to have a thicker cantilever than the LP Gear
    Unit, and might be just be a 681 type cantilever with a rod magnet inserted in the back.

    I hope that helps, at least a little. Recommendations for styli in the 21st century is
    as much an archeological project as it is scientific.
  • 04-25-2009, 12:02 AM
    hifitommy
    "Phase Linear 8000, which is a silver Pioneer PL-L1000."
    i have a PLL1000a that i have enjoyed imensely and had to defeat the internal spring tower boot/grommet because the platter was allowed to contact the inside of the plinth. once done with toysRus arm floaties (4) i had no prob with the plinth OR noise picked up from the rack the tt sat on. D.E.D. silence from the rack even when rapped vigorously.

    i am using my sota sapphire/MMT now which is leagues better sounding. the BAS speaker review of the phase linear was too kind. still, its nice to have auto shutoff/return.

    i too have a 881s but with a new stylus, probably NOT of the shibata shape. i foolishly let my previous one go to facilitate geting my kd500/707 back for free. a good tradeoff i say.
  • 04-25-2009, 05:09 AM
    Ed_in_Tx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hifitommy
    i have a PLL1000a that i have enjoyed imensely and had to defeat the internal spring tower boot/grommet because the platter was allowed to contact the inside of the plinth. once done with toysRus arm floaties (4) i had no prob with the plinth OR noise picked up from the rack the tt sat on. D.E.D. silence from the rack even when rapped vigorously.

    Thanks for the tip on what you did to fix the suspension. Eventually I need to take mine apart and replace the arm lift belt, been intermittently squeaking for years but still works. I figure when I do, the rubber suspension spring tower boots will probably disintegrate. As it is now, the suspension is still up there like it should be. Not bad for almost 30 years old. I can use a fairly heavy Audio-Technica record weight when I need to, with no scraping. Have read of several other 1000-8000 ttables all with suspension problems so I know it's only a matter of time.
  • 04-25-2009, 08:10 AM
    hifitommy
    toysRus
    its worth trying the arm floaties because the sound of the cabinet under the tt can be heard with the stock suspension. just rap on it next to the table and you will hear in while a record plays.

    the floaties are availble in a water toy pak at toysRus. i first thought of using the ring but it allowed the table to list over as the tonearm truck traversed the grooves. amusing to see. thats when i thoght of using four floaties (two paks of the cheeeeep toys). the four floaties result in a rock steady support for the TT.

    leveling is achieved by varying the quantity of air in each of the floaties. a regular bullet level arranged in the left and right plane and then in the front to back plane simplifies that process.

    the floaties are placed directly under the bottom of the tt allowing the feet to float in mid air and completely defeats the feet. or would that be de-FEETs the suspension? ;^) its not the prettiest to look at but it WORKS.

    i often thought that one could build an inverted box to go under the tt, over the floaties, with enough clearance to allow the floaties to do their job, as a cosmetic fix. a veneer could be applied or nicely finished wood which would look purty.
  • 04-27-2009, 12:09 PM
    Reticuli
    There are single-piece inflatable deals shaped like cartoon starfish, or something, that were designed for us DJs. They're orange. You might want to try that, too. I use tuna fish cans (ashtrays will also work) and rubber bands, with big-celled bubble wrap under that. I also physically block sound with a barrier between the speakers and the decks.
  • 04-30-2009, 11:57 AM
    whell
    There's good news and bad news here:

    The N 890 E is an elliptical stylus, so while still meant for the DJ industry, it would be a small step up from the stock spherical stylus that comes with the 980 cartridge. I'd suggest looking at the Stanton 881 replacement styli available from Jico or LP gear. Jico offers a replacement stylus with a Shibata tip stylus for the 881 for $87 USD plus shipping. LP Gear also offers a Shibata for $99.95, or a Hyper-Elliptical stylus for $59.99. Any of these options would likely be better performers than the N 890 E.

    Now, for those that would love to own an 881S but don't want to pay the inflated eBay prices: The Stanton 890 DJ cartridge is simply a 881S without the Stereohedron stylus. You can find them used, as I did, for relatively cheap. I got mine for $20, and use the Jico Shibata with it, and it sounds fantastic for the price!

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tizeta2
    Hi all!

    This is my first post here... I've found this thread looking for informations about my 881s. Nice to see I'm not alone and many other people still loves this cartidge!

    The one I own was bought new by my father in late '70s and, unfortunately, the stylus is broken. Some times ago I contacted the Stanton support and they said me to look for a N 890 E stylus. Is it a correct replacement?

    I'm not a DJ and I'm not interested in scratching... just to listen to vinyl discs as better as I can mantaining the original sound of my cartidge!

    Thank you in advance!
    Alex

    (... from Italy!)

  • 05-03-2009, 02:16 PM
    tizeta2
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by whell

    I'd suggest looking at the Stanton 881 replacement styli available from Jico or LP gear. Jico offers a replacement stylus with a Shibata tip stylus for the 881 for $87 USD plus shipping. LP Gear also offers a Shibata for $99.95, or a Hyper-Elliptical stylus for $59.99. Any of these options would likely be better performers than the N 890 E.

    Thank you for your suggestion!
    Yes... I think I'll go with a Shibata.
    Is there any difference between LP Gear and Jico stylus?
  • 05-04-2009, 11:54 AM
    tizeta2
    ... well, I was watching a new Stanton 881s (with original D81 stylus) on eBay but another bidder won.

    So I've ordered a shibata stylus from Jico.
    I'd get it within a week... I'll let you know!
  • 05-05-2009, 06:44 AM
    GP49
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by emaidel
    (regarding the Stanton 681 cartridges) The "E" originally stood for "elliptical." The use of the double, and then triple E's, only signified newer, and improved models, as does the "MKII". The "S" indicates "Stereohedron."

    Something I have wondered about ever since the 681s were Stanton's top cartridges:

    One of them, at least in its original form when first introduced, was physically different in the construction of its cantilever: the Stanton 681EE.

    All of the rest have the usual tubular aluminum cantilever which is flattened and closed at the stylus end, so there is a double-thickness of the aluminum where the hole is, for mounting the stylus tip or shank. The 681EE had a tubular aluminum cantilever which had, for want of a better term, an open end cut to a taper: the cantilever was tapered down but the tubular shape remained open, not flattened at the stylus end, in fact one could see through the cantilever from the stylus end, right through to the magnet end. The stylus tip mounted into only one thickness of aluminum. Instinctively one would think this a less sturdy design but perhaps it had its own advantages?

    When the 681EEE was introduced I noted that it seemed to have a slightly more forward high frequency response than the 681EE. My memory has faded over the years and the speakers I was using at the time are now gone, but I seem to recall that the 681EEE sounded like it had a peak in the high range where the 681EE sounded like it had a smoother response. I was wondering whether perhaps this was due to a slightly higher mass to the 681EEE cantilever. Over the years I've wound up with several original 681EEE styli but I only ever owned one 681EE; apparently the 681EE was produced for a much shorter time, perhaps being discontinued when the 681EEE was introduced, with subsequent availability possibly being dependent upon existing stock. Regardless, with the turntable/arm, amplification and loudspeakers I had at the time, I preferred the 681EE but when the 881S appeared, I changed over to that cartridge. My lone 681EE stylus has lain ignored, then forgotten ever since. For a while I thought I had lost it.

    Then I found my Stanton 681EE stylus, of course while looking for something else. Over many years I forgot that it was in a box for a 681EEE stylus. Taking the time to look at the item instead of the box, I spotted the tell-tale silver ellipse on the plastic grip, rather than the letters "EEE." Yes, the cantilever is open on the stylus end, and Yes, you can see right through it from one end to the other! Its construction does look quite fragile and the nude-mounted diamond is very tiny. I might just mount it up and see what I think of its sound now. It has probably been twenty years since I last listened to it.

    ANYWAY, does either of our two resident ex-Stanton engineers know about this particular cantilever construction in the 681EE, and why it was changed later?

    BACKGROUND: I've used Stantons ever since the 500E and kept up with their top-line products up to the 981 series. When I was in audio service and repair, I worked for in stores which were Stanton dealers. Currently my main cartridge is a Decca London...but as Ken Kessler once recommended, I keep a more conventional cartridge around, too: a Stanton 881S. For LP-to-CD conversions I use a 680SL (actually a D6800SL stylus in a 681EEE body). It tracks heavier than the 881S which can be desirable when dubbing less-than-pristine LPs; but, all by itself among the heavier-tracking Stanton 681/680 styli and their Pickering brethren, it has the Stereohedron tip.