Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 130
  1. #101
    AR Newbie Registered Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3
    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

  2. #102
    Forum Regular daveobieone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    39
    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.

  3. #103
    Forum Regular daveobieone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    39
    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.

  4. #104
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    10
    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.

  5. #105
    Forum Regular daveobieone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    39
    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.

  6. #106
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    9
    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?
    Last edited by tizeta2; 06-23-2009 at 10:46 PM.

  7. #107
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    9
    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

  8. #108
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    10
    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.

  9. #109
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    24
    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.

  10. #110
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    64
    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.

  11. #111
    ettoregg
    Guest
    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

  12. #112
    Suspended atomicAdam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oaktown!
    Posts
    1,774
    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

  13. #113
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    64
    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.

  14. #114
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003
    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.

  15. #115
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    56
    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?

  16. #116
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    64
    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.

  17. #117
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003
    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.

  18. #118
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    56
    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.

  19. #119
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003
    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!

  20. #120
    AR Newbie Registered Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1

    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.

  21. #121
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by von.ah
    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.
    Yes, the D81S, if you can find one, will work in the XUV series.

  22. #122
    One of Jerry's Kids Jim Eck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    87
    When it comes to information Ed (emaidel) is my hero! Over the years I have come to very much value his advice and opinions, thank you Sir.

    Jim
    Last edited by Jim Eck; 11-11-2009 at 02:53 AM.
    Fairchild 412-1B SME arm Pickering XSV-3000
    Thorens Weight
    GAS Thoebe
    Grant Fidelity B-283
    California Audio Labs Delta Transport
    Paradesea DAC
    DBX-3BX-DS
    Sansui TU-7700
    Adcom 585
    Hafler Pro 500
    Tara Labs Cable
    Legacy Classic's

    Tube system Scott 299B, Thorens TD-160, Klipsch Heresy's

  23. #123
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    56
    Yes a D81S should physically fit and work in the XUV 4500Q body. I have each of those but have not tried that combination. With the 4500Q's lower inductance 290 mH and 600 Ohms DC resistance that's optomized for CD-4 100k Ohm 100pF loading compared to the 510 mH and 900 Ohm DC resistance of the 881S body, I think a D81S in a 4500Q body will have a peak in the high frequency response and sound bright with a conventional 200-300 pF and 47-50K load most phono preamps have. Unless you have adjustable cartridge loading. As I mentioned before I went the opposite way with a 4500Q stylus in a 881S body to smooth the overly bright high end.

  24. #124
    AR Newbie Registered Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1
    First of all a HUGE thanks to all, especially the "old pro's" for the just the info I have been looking for for quite awhile. Yes, i am also needing a replacement stylus for my 30 year old 881.

    THANKS AGAIN !

  25. #125
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Eck
    When it comes to information Ed (emaidel) is my hero! Over the years I have come to very much value his advice and opinions, thank you Sir.

    Jim

    Thanks very much!

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •