Stanton 881s stylus replacement or a new cartridge?

[Ed_in_Tx]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Ed_in_Tx]

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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[nfalbert]

Ed,

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

Neil

[Ed_in_Tx]

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.

[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.

[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

[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!)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[emaidel]

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[nfalbert]

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 ¾-1-1/2 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.

[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.

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.

[Ed_in_Tx]

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.

[hifitommy]

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.