• 05-05-2009, 08:48 AM
    emaidel
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GP49
    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?

    .

    'Fraid not. The 681EEE was introduced in 1974, two years before I joined Pickering. It was actually a derivative of the Pickering XV/15-1200E, but with some noticeable improvements, mostly its ability to cope with sibilance which the 1200-E couldn't. Whether this had anything to do with the cantilever shape, is something I have no idea about. I purchased one for myself and liked it quite a bit, but greatly preferred the Pickering XSV/3000 and then the Stanton 881-S. My preference for them had little to do with the shape of the cantilever - I just felt that the two newer models sounded a whole helluva lot better.
  • 05-09-2009, 03:34 PM
    Ed_in_Tx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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

    I just received a NOS D4500Q stylus that's perfect! Took 34 days from New Zealand but I finally got it, and it's playing as I type. Only about 10 bucks more shipped than they cost new in the '70s so I think pretty good these days for a virgin Quadrahedral stylus. Came in the mail less than an hour ago so I am excited that it GOT here and the cantilever and suspension look perfect and it sounds excellent in the 881S body.
  • 05-10-2009, 03:54 PM
    ludwignut
    Hello,

    Rob Here.I'm new.I have a question for the Stanton Pickering guys.Would you sugest using a D 4500 Q for an XLZ cartridge? I noticed that the XLZ had a model and stylus that was a 4500 S.Are these similar?

    Rob
  • 05-15-2009, 10:05 AM
    whell
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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!

    Good choice. I'm not sure who makes the styli for LP Gear. Some suggest that they are made by Jico, but I don't think so.
  • 05-15-2009, 04:50 PM
    emaidel
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ludwignut
    Hello,

    Rob Here.I'm new.I have a question for the Stanton Pickering guys.Would you sugest using a D 4500 Q for an XLZ cartridge? I noticed that the XLZ had a model and stylus that was a 4500 S.Are these similar?

    Rob

    I can't be of much help to you. The XLZ model was, I believe, one of either the "high impedance" or "low impedance" cartrdiges Stanton (and Pickering) introduced in the early 80's as an unsuccessful bid to gain a foothold amongst the moving coil cartridge fans. I know I had one of them (perhaps the XLZ, if it was the one that didn't require a step up transformer) and didn't care much for it at all, feeling it was overly bright and brittle sounding. I just don't know if it was a moving magnet, or moving iron design.
  • 05-16-2009, 02:30 PM
    ludwignut
    Here is some information on the XLZ Cartridge.It is the low impedance variety.

    http://www.pickeringuk.com/XLZ7500.html

    Rob
  • 05-19-2009, 11:47 AM
    tizeta2
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by whell
    Good choice. I'm not sure who makes the styli for LP Gear. Some suggest that they are made by Jico, but I don't think so.

    The Shibata stylus is here!
    Great service and very good manufacture.

    It sounds good, highs are very clear but my Stanton 680EL MK2 seems to produce a more full sound on mid and low range. The 881s with Shibata stylus is quite "cold"... is it possible?
  • 05-19-2009, 05:56 PM
    daveobieone
    People do say the moving iron type cartridges (which would be the 681) sound more "warm".

    It is also possible that yours needs a little break-in time to smooth out a bit. Let a dozen or so LP's play under it, and see if the sound becomes a little more to your liking.

    Dave O.
  • 05-20-2009, 09:03 AM
    tizeta2
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daveobieone
    People do say the moving iron type cartridges (which would be the 681) sound more "warm".

    It is also possible that yours needs a little break-in time to smooth out a bit. Let a dozen or so LP's play under it, and see if the sound becomes a little more to your liking.

    Dave O.

    Hello Dave!

    The shibata is playing for 10 hours and the sound is a bit better now.
    But if I replace it with my "old" 680EL, this one will offer a full sound I can't listen to with the 881s and shibata.

    In addition the 881s with shibata stylus amplifies dust and vinyl defects.

    It's quite frustrating...

    Just another question: what are differences between a 681 cartidge and my 680 MkII with D680EL MkII stylus?

    Thanks!
  • 05-22-2009, 06:30 AM
    whell
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tizeta2
    The Shibata stylus is here!
    Great service and very good manufacture.

    It sounds good, highs are very clear but my Stanton 680EL MK2 seems to produce a more full sound on mid and low range. The 881s with Shibata stylus is quite "cold"... is it possible?

    Its very possible, as mine was this way as well. I say "was this way" because it the stylus does seem to benefit immensely from a prolonged break in period. The sonic differences between new and about 20 - 30 hours of playing time were significant in my experience.
  • 05-22-2009, 11:49 AM
    daveobieone
    As nearly as I can tell, the 681 and 680 cartridge bodies are the same. The styli that come with the 680 series seem better suited to DJ use, and the 681 was clearly more for Hi-Fi. It is possible that the 681 bodies had tighter specs however...as they were usually higher priced.

    Do not confuse the 680/681 with the 881 however. The 680/681 being moving iron, and the 881 is moving magnet. They may look the same, but they are not interchangeable.

    I am surprised that the new stylus picks up a lot more noise however. Line-contact type styli should generally be more quiet...depending on the record of couse. Perhaps it's just because it's brighter (has a stronger high-end) than the 681?

    In my experience, most original factory Stanton styli didn't benifit much from break-in time. Aftermarket may be a MUCH different story however. My Grado products needed considerable break-in time.
  • 05-28-2009, 04:03 AM
    tizeta2
    ... just got an original D81S!!!
    I'll let you know something as soon as possible...
  • 05-29-2009, 11:17 AM
    whell
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daveobieone
    As nearly as I can tell, the 681 and 680 cartridge bodies are the same. The styli that come with the 680 series seem better suited to DJ use, and the 681 was clearly more for Hi-Fi. It is possible that the 681 bodies had tighter specs however...as they were usually higher priced.

    They bodies are the same. The only difference is that the 681 cartridges were "calibrated", and performance specifications were included with each new cartridge sold, given that the 681 series was targeted at the professional market. The extra effort to provide the performance specs for each cartridge sold was the prime differentiator for pricing, along with, I believe, the more limited production runs for some of the professional styli versus the "consumer - grade" styli available for the 680 series.
  • 05-29-2009, 11:18 AM
    whell
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tizeta2
    ... just got an original D81S!!!
    I'll let you know something as soon as possible...

    Ah, you're killin' me! :)
  • 05-29-2009, 02:43 PM
    smersh
    Hello,

    I'm wondering if I could ask you the best way to proceed with an old XSV-3000 cartridge that has no stylus...

    It got broken somehow around 1980 and I've had the cart stored in its orig box since then. I've seen some forum posts suggesting a Stanton 881s stylus might work but also some recommending the D-3000 for the Stanton...

    I'd be very grateful if somone could suggest a reasonably affordable option so I can use this great cartridge I've kept for so many years.

    After scrolling through these posts I'm also wondering if I need to have only an orig D-3000 stylus with that fine wire attached...(?)

    Thanks from New Zealand.

    Cheers Sam
  • 05-30-2009, 04:04 AM
    ludwignut
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nfalbert
    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 -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.


    Here is the patent

    http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT4140321

    Rob
  • 05-30-2009, 07:50 AM
    Ed_in_Tx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by smersh
    Hello,

    I'm wondering if I could ask you the best way to proceed with an old XSV-3000 cartridge that has no stylus...


    Thanks from New Zealand.

    Cheers Sam

    Since you are in NZ have you tried styli.co.nz ? I recently bought a D4500Q NOS stylus from them and since you are there would probaby go a whole lot faster! (34 days for me to get it) I see they have an original D2000Q they say works with a XSV-3000 in the description, but is expensive. A D4500Q at half the price would work with your 3000 body, I am using the D4500Q in a Stanton 881S body which is very similar to the 3000 body, and it sounds very nice. No affiliation with styli.co.nz btw.
  • 05-30-2009, 12:14 PM
    smersh
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ed_in_Tx
    Since you are in NZ have you tried styli.co.nz ? I recently bought a D4500Q NOS stylus from them and since you are there would probaby go a whole lot faster! (34 days for me to get it) I see they have an original D2000Q they say works with a XSV-3000 in the description, but is expensive. A D4500Q at half the price would work with your 3000 body, I am using the D4500Q in a Stanton 881S body which is very similar to the 3000 body, and it sounds very nice. No affiliation with styli.co.nz btw.


    Hi, thanks for the reply. I looked at their site but they seem really expensive and they don't seem to have an exact match; perhaps one of the ex-Pickering guys could tell me if a D2000 should replace a D3000...?

    However I think I could get one cheaper overseas than buy from this local crowd. Delivery time is no problem as this cart has been waiting 29 years for a replacement... ;)
    I'd hate to splash out top dollar and then find this cart doesn't work any more.

    Thanks again though; I'll keep looking for now.

    Cheers Sam
  • 05-31-2009, 06:08 AM
    Ed_in_Tx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by smersh
    perhaps one of the ex-Pickering guys could tell me if a D2000 should replace a D3000...?

    I did not try the D4500Q stylus in the 881S body until I got the "blessing" first from the ex-Pickering-Stanton guys, if you go back a few pages in this thread. Didn't want to screw anything up. Glad I asked! I have a little-used XUV-4500Q since the quad-CD-4 days, and had thought about trying its stylus in the Stanton body, but never knew whether it was compatible. Tried it after getting the "OK" and it works great, super detailed sound, then I bought a NOS stylus from NZ so I would have two. Finding a genuine Pickering D4500Q quadrahedral stylus for about what they cost new in 1975 was great. Good luck in your quest!
  • 05-31-2009, 03:25 PM
    emaidel
    As both an ex Pickering and ex Stanton "guy," I'd strongly recommend against the D-2000. It is a replacement for a decidedly inferior cartridge than the XSV-3000. I'd suggest instead looking for a D-81S replacement (for the Stanton 881-S), which several sites offer, though most are not factory originals, but knock-offs. Still, at least according to the comments from a few that have used them, they seem to be OK. The XSV-3000 and 881-S cartridges are so similar, as to be considered almost identical.
  • 06-01-2009, 01:50 PM
    smersh
    Hi emaidel, thanks very much, I'll look for a D-81S stylus or replacement. Do you think there's any chance an original/NOS D-3000 stylus will turn up somewhere...?

    cheers Sam
  • 06-14-2009, 01:01 PM
    daveobieone
    Great news (for me at least)...
    I checked and had two 881s cartridges, and one slightly bent 881s stylus.

    The new in box 881s is actually a mkII...as is the slightly bent 881s stylus. I still have not mounted-up the 881s mkII however...but I probably will this week.

    So, I was also in a thread at Vinyl Engine today, and one of the posters there said that his 881s mkII stylus was not a nude mount.?.

    If nfalbert or emaidel are still hanging around (I hope!), I'd love to know if they think the 881s mkII was ever made with a bonded (as opposed to a nude) stylus?

    Just trying to get some info from "the horses mouth" so to speak. :-)

    Thanks guys!
    Dave O.
  • 06-16-2009, 12:24 PM
    daveobieone
    You've simply gotta see this...

    www.regonaudio.com/Stanton881AudioTechnicaATML70.html

    It's an interview with Doug Sax and other mastering engineers about their favorite phono cartridges.

    All this 881s talk now has me inspired...I'm mouting up my NOS 881s mkII now.

    Dave O.
  • 06-16-2009, 03:11 PM
    fantao
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by whell
    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!

    You got me interested in the 890, but are you sure about it being the same as an 881S? There seem to be different electrical specs for various types of 980's, here all taken from Stanton published data:

    890FS (current model), 890SA (previous model): 1300 Ohms, 970mH
    890AL (older model?): 900 Ohms, 510mH (same as 881S, 881 MkII S)

    If this data is correct, I don't think the current 890 is the same as an 881 - did they downgrade it when the 881 when out of production? That would be too bad.
  • 06-19-2009, 08:47 AM
    daveobieone
    I don't know if this helps any or not...
    My 881s mkII cartridges are from 1981 and 1983.

    The factory test calibration data says they are about 900 ohms and about 530 mH.

    It would seem that the 890AL early version would be the closest...but I have no experience with the 890 series (just to be clear). The readings from the 890SA would seem to produce a fairly muddy sound with an 881s stylus...that's a lot more inductance.

    Dave O.
  • 06-23-2009, 12:08 PM
    tizeta2
    Hi again... after getting the original D81S I've decided to sell my nearly new (less than 20 hours played) Jico D81 SHIBATA styus. Anyone interested?
  • 06-23-2009, 10:48 PM
    tizeta2
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fantao
    Tried to send you a private message but it's been disabled. I have an 881S coming in a few days, no idea if the stylus is any good, so I may be interested in the Jico. Please try to pmsg me or contact me via regular e-mail, how much you're asking - my email addr is my user name@att.net. Thanks!

    Thank you for your interest. I've just sent you an email.
    Anyway here is my email address: tizeta2ATgmailDOTcom
  • 06-24-2009, 02:22 PM
    fantao
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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 modification 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 rise could be easily compensated 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 justifiably 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 particuar requirement of a different market.
    Generally, the XSV/3000 had a well damped cantilever resonance which didn't require
    any L/C filering for normal listening purposes.

    Neil

    Here are reviews on the web, from Gramophone magazine archive, of the XSV/3000 and 881S with frequency response graphs showing what Neil's referring to. To view the articles in Acrobat form, you'll need to register on Gramophone.net.

    http://www.gramophone.net/Issue/Page...ber%201976/187
    http://www.gramophone.net/Issue/Page/August%201978/112

    The Pickering shows more of a bump in the upper frequencies, which was mostly damped out by the higher inductance of the Stanton design. If the bump bothers you, you can try a higher load capacitance which might reduce it.
  • 06-26-2009, 09:39 AM
    whell
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fantao
    You got me interested in the 890, but are you sure about it being the same as an 881S? There seem to be different electrical specs for various types of 980's, here all taken from Stanton published data:

    890FS (current model), 890SA (previous model): 1300 Ohms, 970mH
    890AL (older model?): 900 Ohms, 510mH (same as 881S, 881 MkII S)

    If this data is correct, I don't think the current 890 is the same as an 881 - did they downgrade it when the 881 when out of production? That would be too bad.

    The 890 is a "hot-rodded" 881. By "hot-rodded", I mean that the 890 has a higher output than the 881. Otherwise, they are the same. I'm using an 890 today with a D81S stylus, and it sounds great.
  • 06-30-2009, 10:16 PM
    Reticuli
    Actually, I think the D71EE tip is 13Um/mN, while the Emk2 was 14Um/mN, and the EEmk2 was 16Um/mN. The old 500EL is 12Um/mN and had an output of 1.0mV/cm/sec. The output of the 71EE is .9mV/cm/sec, and the Emk2 & EEmk2 are both .8mV/cm/sec.

    I think the 71EE might be a sweet spot. 14-20Um/mN is getting really close to being too compliant on Technics, Stanton, Numark, Vestax, and the super OEM tables' arms when the extra counter weight is off.

    9Um/mN is actually not compliant enough, as can be found on the Ortofon Nightclubs (original) and the Stanton 680HP. You can see breakup in the low-end on those even at the recommended downweight, even with the extra counter weight on these arms. You have to also keep the OM weight in and maybe also add the headshell weight, too. Moving the counterweight back to compensate will increase the swing inertia to just barely enough.

    Halfway between 14 and 20 is 17. The difference between 17 and 9 is 8. 9 plus 4 is 13. That's right smack dab in the optimum range of the aforementioned arms. The 680ELII/eV3 is 12Um/mV, and I've never heard of a single person complain it didn't match well with their arm for mixing purposes.

    If only Ortofon would release an OM tip at around 12-15Um/mV. You've got the djing tips at 9Um/mV or less (!!!) and the hifi OM tips are all twice that or more. Their only carts in the sweetspot range for most medium mass arms are their expensive ones. The OM5E is borderline useable with the OM brass weight & extra counterweights both off, assuming you're using a lighter headshell.
  • 07-06-2009, 03:37 AM
    HI, this is a reply to Jay Tea - or everyone interested in buying a Stanton 881S II cartridge. I have such cartridge to sell, very good condition, the stylus is original and has had a fair use. I don'r have the original box, only the mounting screws.
    I can send photos to anyone interested. No reasonable offers refused. I am based in the UK.
    giuliano.gasparini@wspgroup.com
  • 07-06-2009, 07:36 AM
    atomicAdam
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ettoregg
    HI, this is a reply to Jay Tea [/email]

    Hi ettoregg,

    Welcome to audioREVIEW forums. Thanks for joining the community. One thing about our forums though, we don't encourage or allow users to post for sale items as forum post. You can have links to for sale items in your sig, or use the audioreview classifieds found here: http://classifieds.audioreview.com/index.php

    Thanks a lot. Could you edit your post for me. Thanks,
    -adam
  • 10-10-2009, 08:01 PM
    Reticuli
    Anyone got any ideas why the 500Emk2 distorts so much in the highs, even though it tests fine on the Hifi News Test record frequency IMD tests? Even the following reviewer has similar experiences:

    http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/daveyw/cartridges/

    I really like the mids on the Emk2 and the bass is deep and harmonically rich. But those tizzy sibilants and hi hats are problematic. I run it 1.75-2 grams with enough antiskate (max at 2g) to straiten out the cantilever.

    Maybe the former stanton engineer has some ideas.
  • 10-11-2009, 04:01 AM
    emaidel
    I'm quite surprised you have such an interest in the 500-E MKII. The original design dates back to the early 60's, and is essentially a cheap, 2-coil design that was remarkable over 40 years ago, but by today's standards, is really a poor performer. It, and the equivalent Pickering V/15 series cartridges were easily eclipsed by the Stanton 681 and PIckering XV/15, 4-coil models, which were introduced around 1967. No matter how the stylus tip was improved over the decades, with the "MK II" designations and the like, it's basically just a super-cheap cartridge and nothing more.

    When Pickering and Stanton were manufacturing thousands of cartridges a month for "hi-fi" use, and not DJ use, careful attention to detail and super-terrific QC standards applied. You can bet your bottom dollar that such an approach isn't done today, as it's just too time consuming and costly. The company rightfully manufactures mostly DJ cartridges, and the handful of consumer, or "hi-fi" models that occasionally roll off an assembly line don't get the tender, loving care their predecessors did. I'd suggest you try something else.
  • 10-11-2009, 05:17 AM
    Ed_in_Tx
    Speaking of old Stanton cartridges, one popped up on ebay I've not seen, only imagined it probably existed since there was a Pickering 4500Q CD-4 cartridge... a Stanton 780/4DQ. How rare are those? I suspect it's placement in the lineup would be similar to the Pickering 3000-Stanton 881? 780 like a "calibrated" 4500Q?
  • 10-11-2009, 11:20 AM
    Reticuli
    O.k. so it's probably just quality control issues on the tips or would hunting down old bodies help? It's really too bad, because at 2g downforce the mids and bass are great and I can even dj with them...yes, a cardinal sin buy one I indulge in regularly. My Denons and 680s don't have anywhere near the issues with spitty, distorted sibilants. You know, the 700 series (p mount versions of the 500) tips are being mounted on 400 bodies and sold by KAB on a lot of tables right now. I'd much rather have an OM5E (or 10E if the arm's lite or the phono stage bassy) just for the better distortion character.
  • 10-12-2009, 03:54 AM
    emaidel
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ed_in_Tx
    Speaking of old Stanton cartridges, one popped up on ebay I've not seen, only imagined it probably existed since there was a Pickering 4500Q CD-4 cartridge... a Stanton 780/4DQ. How rare are those? I suspect it's placement in the lineup would be similar to the Pickering 3000-Stanton 881? 780 like a "calibrated" 4500Q?


    There was never a Stanton equivalent for the XUV/4500Q, which, in my opinion, was the best cartridge ever manufactured for the playback of CD-4 records. The Stanton 780 was more likely the Stanton equivalent of the earlier XUV/2400Q design, which frankly, was pretty horrible. Even Walter Stanton himself, in a rare statement of this type, stated the design was "a bad one." The early CD-4 cartridges from both companies tracked heavily (as did others from Audio Technica) and sounded simply awful.

    The XUV/4500Q was a major departure from them, utilizing (for the first time) samarium cobalt as the magnetic material, and a super-thin cantilever. It was the first - and only - CD-4 cartridge capable of tracking at 1 gram. It had the misfortune to have been introduced almost simultaneously with the collapse of the quadraphonic market, but the XSV-3000 evolved as the stereo deriivative, employing a less drastic stylus deisgn, designated "Stereohedron" instead of "Quadrahedron," and it was an enormous sales success, morphing into the Stanton 881-S.
  • 10-12-2009, 05:27 AM
    Ed_in_Tx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by emaidel
    There was never a Stanton equivalent for the XUV/4500Q....

    Hi Ed, much THANKS for the clarification. I can rest easy now, knowing there's nothing to be missed on this one.
  • 10-12-2009, 07:01 AM
    emaidel
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ed_in_Tx
    Hi Ed, much THANKS for the clarification. I can rest easy now, knowing there's nothing to be missed on this one.

    You're welcome!
  • 11-06-2009, 01:10 PM
    von.ah
    XUV stylus options
    So will the D81s work in the XUV cart? Will it work well? I'm just trying to find out all the reasonable options for stylus replacement. My 4500Q may be getting a bit long in the tooth, so to speak. :D