No respect? No wonder.

[emaidel]

I think one of the reasons Pickering, and to a lesser extent, Stanton cartridges never got the respect, or credit they deserved was due to the manner in which both companies promoted the products. Those of us in the sales departments for either Pickering or Stanton found ourselves up against a brick wall if we ever suggested a change in the companies' advertising.

Pickering had such silliness as, "100% Music Power," or "The Source of Perfection in Sound," while Stantons continued to be "The Choice of the Professionals," "The Calibration Standard," or, "The NEW Calibration Standard." All of that was little other than advertising hyperbole that meant little, if anything, to a prospective buyer.

That which we salespeople there wanted was a way of the companies informing the buying public of just what went on inside a phono cartridge, and what was different (and, hopefully, "better") than those from the competition.

One year, PIckering invested over $20,000 (a helluva lot of money to be spent in the 70's) on a campaign called, "The Anatomy of a Cartridge." The program had wall posters, change mats and slide shows, all depicting exactly what was inside of a phono cartridge, and all the different manufacturing steps involved. It was one of the most comprehensive, and informative campaigns ever insofar as informing the consumer of what made a cartridge work.

At a massive dinner preceeding the unleashing of this program at the Waldorf Astoria, in New York City, someone asked Walter Stanton, "Aren't we giving away trade secrets in this program?" Walter thought for a minute, and then, after having approved the program, and monitored its development step by step, immediately issued an order to collect ALL of the campaign material, and place it in a wooden crate at the factory, and place it under lock and key for no one to see. EVER.

And that was that. "The Anatomy of a Cartridge" program came to an abrupt and ignominious end, and never made it to the public for the silly belief that some "trade secrets" were being given away. Any and all other cartridge companies had already torn apart Pickering and/or Stanton products, and knew precisely what was inside of them (as Pickering and Stanton had done to theirs), so there truly wasn't anything to hide. Still, the "we can't give away trade secrets" mantra remained, and remained right up until Walter's passing in the early 2000's.

What a shame.

[filecat13]

Ha! Where there is no vision, the people perish. Or in this case Pickering.

Someone should have taken whoever said that outside and thumped his ignorant and short-sighted a$$.

[E-Stat]

I think one of the reasons Pickering, and to a lesser extent, Stanton cartridges never got the respect, or credit they deserved was due to the manner in which both companies promoted the products.
That and the stupid brushes found on virtually all the upper end products. Evidently, Walter was not aware of RCMs. I was among those who likely overlooked their performance and preferred Sonus, Ortofon, and Denon cartridges instead. The cantilever on the 681s was downright stout as compared to the others.

rw

[emaidel]

That and the stupid brushes found on virtually all the upper end products.

I have to take issue with you on this one. When I started at Pickering in '76, I was astounded at the nationwide hatred on the parts of all dealer salespeople regarding the brushes on either Pickering or Stanton cartrdiges. I'd never experienced any difficulties using them myself (add an extra gram to the tracking and anti-skating force settings, and everything worked just fine), but just about everyone everywhere thought they "interfered with tracking," and all sorts of horrible things.

I spoke with the company's engineers and said that, either we get rid of the brush, or, if it actually is beneficial (other than merely being unique), then we have to inform people about that. I was truly astounded aby the preponderance of the engineering evidence as to the benefits of using these brushes. Most significant, was the tonearm damping effect, allowing the cartridges to play warped records they wouldn't play without the brush. Eventually, a pamphlet called, "The Do's and Don't's of the Dustamatic/Longhair Brush" was produced.

The bristles on the brushes were deliberately too wide to go down into the record's groove, and attracted the dust by static electricity caused by the rubbing action on the record's surface. Due to the electrical nature of the cartridges themselves, this static was discharged throghout the tonemarm and to ground. As I said already, the brushes aided enormously in the playing of warped records, and they actually provided measurable low frequency damping. The problem was that neither company ever promoted this in their advertising, and just sat idly by as everyone else ridiculed the brush.

Discwasher briefly manufactured a "stabilizer" to attach to a tonearm/cartridge which, in my conversations with the folks there, readily acknowledged that Pickering/Stanton "were onto something" with the brushes. The ultimate approval actually came in the guise of a knockoff, and that was the "dynamic stablizer" incorporated on the Shure V/15V. Everything the dynamic stablizer claimed to do (which it actually did) was no different than that which the Dustamatic/Longhair brushes did. Shure just (and smartly, I might add) used all sorts of technobabble to explain how it worked. It did, but no better than the Pickering/Stanton brushes.

To this day I use the brush when playing my Stanton Collector's Series CS-100 cartridge. I set the tracking force at 2 1/4 grams, and the anti-skate at the same. The net tracking is 1 1/4 grams as the brush is self-supporting, and I've never experienced any difficulties using it.

[E-Stat]

...but just about everyone everywhere thought they "interfered with tracking," and all sorts of horrible things.
While I never took that approach, other folks were looking for ways to minimize mass for high compliance cartridges. Since I used an RCM and a genuinely low mass arm, I felt they were superfluous.

There is one on the Shure M97 I use on the SME today, but the arm's tracking does not support settings above 2 grams. Yes, I could drag out my little Transcriptors weight kit (still have since the Vestigal days) and bias the counterweight, but I'm still not enthusiastic about dragging around a little bolus of dust.

rw

[squeegy200]

Back in my college days, I worked parttime in an audio retail store.

One of the advantages of my occupation was the privilege of trying everything before buying and my employee discount on cartridges was somewhere near 50-70% off retail.

I remember spending hours in front of different combinations of equipment before choosing a Stanton 881s for my system at home.

Although I never found need for the brush, the cartridge was one of the best I had heard at the time.

I agree it was never really made known how well these cartridges performed and it was constantly overshadowed by the V15s from Shure.

I sold very few of them during those days. I'm sure that was why it is no longer in the Stanton lineup.

Too bad. It was the only Stanton cartridge I enjoyed auditioning.

[emaidel]

I agree it was never really made known how well these cartridges performed and it was constantly overshadowed by the V15s from Shure.

I sold very few of them during those days. I'm sure that was why it is no longer in the Stanton lineup.

Too bad. It was the only Stanton cartridge I enjoyed auditioning.

Actually, it's plain and simple economics as to why that cartridge is no longer made. While it actually did sell quite well (though it never came close to the staggering number of 681-EEE's that sold), the sale of costlier models within the Stanton lineup came to all but a crawl in the 90's due to the lack of interest on the part of most American consumers, the immense popularity of CD's, and the increasingly large DJ business.

The 881-S, and its upscale brother, the Collector's Series CS-100, had nude Stereohedron styli that the company purchased from a supplier in Japan (most Pickering and Stanton, as well as countless other manufacturer's styli came from Japan). When the consumer market was bustling, the cost of these styli was acceptable, but when the numbers dropped, the price per stylus skyrocketed, and Stanton was forced to cease making these models. I'm quite certain that's the same reason Shure no longer makes its V/15 type Vmxr.

Once the company was sold (in 1999), the new owner had no interest at all in consumer models, and dropped production of several entirely. Though he and I parted company fairly quickly, I can't say that I blamed him - it was simply much too expensive to manufacture an 881-SII, or a Collector's Series CS-100.

[emaidel]

One of the advantages of my occupation was the privilege of trying everything before buying and my employee discount on cartridges was somewhere near 50-70% off retail. .


While it hardly matters now, I have to say that your local Stanton rep didn't do his job: any Stanton (or Pickering) dealer could purchase a cartridge direct from the manufacturer for 50% off dealer cost. I don't recall exactly, but I believe the 881-S had a dealer cost of somewhere around $60, and you could have purchased one for only $30. I think that if more dealer salespeople knew that, they would have purchased more of these for their own use.

The original dealer cost for the PIckering XSV-3000 (whose "list" price was $99.95, and which is the exact same thing as the Stanton 881-S) was $40. The salesman's accomodation price was $20 - probably the best deal ever to anyone for a great sounding cartridge.

[O'Shag]

Shame that Pickering and Stanton are no longer what they were. They could have gone on to make some of the finest cartridges out there. Fortunately we now have cartridges that put turntable reproduction up there with the best digital reproduction, and in some ways, better some aspects of digital. When I got my first TT rig in my system a few years ago, I had a Stanton 881-S, which I liked. Then I was encouraged to try moving coil cartridges, and got a Dynavector Karat 17D2 moving coil with my new 'table. It cost me around $850.00 fro the 17D2, which is a lot compared to the Stanton. But it destroyed the Stanton 881-s in terms of performance - Night and day difference. But I still would have liked to have kept my first table, arm and Stanton just for the sake of it.

[emaidel]

a Dynavector Karat 17D2 moving coil. It cost me around $850.00, which is a lot compared to the Stanton. But it destroyed the Stanton 881-s in terms of performance - Night and day difference.

I would certainly hope so! The 881-S cost only a fraction of the Dynavector's price, plus it doesn't need a step-up transformer.

While Walter Stanton and his "yes-men" cronies always maintained that NO moving coil cartridge could ever be any good (this is for real, folks!), I never ascribed to that belief. What I did believe however, was that many of the Stanton and/or Pickering models were a lot better than a lot of people had any idea they actually were.

The Collector's Series CS-100 which I'm still using sounds absolutely marvelous, and in a recent A/B I did between it and the Shure V/15Vmxr, the CS-100 ran rings all around the Shure, in every way imaginable. A fun comparison for sure (or, more accurately, for "certain"), but I suspect an A/B between it and the Dynavector would provide precisely the opposite results. But the Stanton/Shure comp was an apples-to-apples comp, pricewise. A Stanton/Dynavector would be a mushroom/truffle comparison instead.

[O'Shag]

Is the CS-100 the top of the line as compared to the 881-S? I did like the 881-S and it introduced me to what vinyl reproduction could offer. When I say the 17D2 is better, I don't in any way be-little the 881-S, which in its time was a very good cartridge and can still provide a very musical experience even by modern standards.

[emaidel]

The CS-100 was the top of the line Stanton, and the best cartridge they ever made. It was based on the 881-SMKII, but "tweaked to the nth degree." The cantilever was a tapered beryllium cantilever that was sapphire coated. Each cartridge, like the 881-S, and numerous other models, had a Calibration Report, but also an individually-run frequency resopnse curve. While similar sounding to the 881-SMKII, the CS-100 was a good deal "sweeter," "cleaner" and with far better soundstaging. As I've posted elsewhere, it may have sold better than it did had some young a**wipe from The Absolute sound (who stated that he "despised" the 881-S) not thoroughly trashed it in his review, and pompously dismissed all of the issues that I (from the sales department) and others (from the engineering department) wrote in our "Manufacturer's Comment."

[O'Shag]

People in this hobby are too impressionable when it comes to the rags. One has to learn to read between the lines for the obvious reasons. Its not fair how a review can demolish a product's reputation. I'll have to check into the CS-100. Given that you were with Stanton, do you have a spare CS-100 I could buy off you? I'd like to check it out.

[Glen B]

I had a Stanton 881-S, which I liked. Then I was encouraged to try moving coil cartridges, and got a Dynavector Karat 17D2 moving coil with my new 'table. It cost me around $850.00 fro the 17D2, which is a lot compared to the Stanton. But it destroyed the Stanton 881-s in terms of performance - Night and day difference.
My experience with Stanton was similar. I used a 881-S followed by 981-S from 1980 thru 1993 when I finally tried an Audio-Technica ATOC9 moving coil cartridge. I much preferred the OC9 and from then it was goodbye Stanton.

[emaidel]

Peo Given that you were with Stanton, do you have a spare CS-100 I could buy off you? I'd like to check it out.


Nope!

[O'Shag]

Very succinct and polite answer emaidel. Masterful communication indeed. Stupid question on my part anyway, your CS-100 would probably sound very second rate compared to the modern moving coil such as the Dynavector Karat. Although the CS-100 would sound 'right' in your vintage system. Very 'musical' I should imagine...

[filecat13]

Wow, how very British of you.

[emaidel]

Very succinct and polite answer emaidel. Masterful communication indeed. Stupid question on my part anyway, your CS-100 would probably sound very second rate compared to the modern moving coil such as the Dynavector Karat. Although the CS-100 would sound 'right' in your vintage system. Very 'musical' I should imagine...

Not quite sure whether you're joking around or insulting me, so I'll assume the former.

Though I worked for Stanton (1992-1999) and Pickering (1976-1978), and liked some of the companies' products a lot (especially the CS-100), I never shared Walter Stanton's viewpoint that no moving coil cartridge could ever perform as well as a well-designed moving magnet. The simple fact that ALL high-end cartridges are moving coil models speaks volumes for the design, but the price tags on some of them defy reason and logic.

While I'm very pleased with the sound of my CS-100, and as I posted previously, it all but blows away the Shure V/15 Type Vmxr (which, I think, says a lot), I know that there's a lot better stuff out there, but all for a hefty price tag I'm just not yet willing to spend. When, and if, I'm about to shell out a couple of grand on new stuff, I'll spend it on a CD player first, and then a turntable/cartridge combo. I just have to convince my wife that I "need" to do this!

[Ajani]

I just have to convince my wife that I "need" to do this!

That age old dilemma..... Unfortunately I'm in the same position... I "need" to rebuild my 2 channel stereo... while my wife thinks a more appropriate term is "want".... she's not opposed to a stereo, but she just doesn't see it as quite the priority that I do.... so I may have to be patient :(

[emaidel]

You may find this amusing, Ajani: while working at Lafayette (back in the dark ages), the customary, "I'm not having that in my living room!" argument was one that often cost us a sale. One day, after such an arguement ensued, and seemed to drag on for an awfully long time, as the husband and wife were about to leave the store (without purchasing anything), the husband had had enough of his wife's arguing, and simply turned around and knocked her out cold! Perhaps a bit drastic, but something I've never forgotten!

[Ajani]

You may find this amusing, Ajani: while working at Lafayette (back in the dark ages), the customary, "I'm not having that in my living room!" argument was one that often cost us a sale. One day, after such an arguement ensued, and seemed to drag on for an awfully long time, as the husband and wife were about to leave the store (without purchasing anything), the husband had had enough of his wife's arguing, and simply turned around and knocked her out cold! Perhaps a bit drastic, but something I've never forgotten!

LOL.... not that I in anyway support violence against women or violence in general to be honest, but I understand the frustration...