Stanton 881s stylus replacement or a new cartridge? [Archive]

Porkskins

09-20-2008, 07:17 PM

squeegy200

09-20-2008, 08:34 PM

Welcome to Audioreview. Your father has bestowed upon you a very nice system.
Those items you listed are all very nice components.

About the time your father purchased his system, I too purchased the Stanton 881s. It was a very nice moving magnet cartridge and I think it outperformed many of its contemporaries during its day. Stanton no longer produces that cartridge I am told.

Considering that your cartridge is approaching 25+ years of age, my opinion is that its heyday has long since passed. If you applied a fresh stylus, its internals would likely still sound old and faded.

My recommendation would be to buy a fresh new cartridge for your turntable. There are plenty of good performing cartridges available for the price of that replacement stylus.

emaidel

09-25-2008, 04:57 AM

The Stanton 881-S was a very good cartrdige, and over the years, improved models only got better and better. No original Stanton styli for it are available anywhere anymore, but the LP Gear generic stylus looks to be an OK alternative.

The Stanton stylus shape was a "Stereohedron," which was the company's proprietary version of a Shibata-type design, and like the stylus tip in the LP Gear replacement, was sourced from Japan (as were most styli in American-made phono cartridges). The Shibata stylus was originally designed to play a certain type of 4-channel record (those labeled "CD-4") but, due to its extended groove contact, was beneficial in playing back regular stereo records, and also in reducing record wear. The LP Gear generic stylus is a Shibata, so that, at least, is a good thing.

The other stylus from The Needle Doctor is a 78 rpm stylus that should never be used for playing back stereo LP's.

Over time (even 25 years), there is nothing inside the cartridge body that wears out, or "ages" in any way. All of the moving parts are in the stylus assembly.

You can certainly buy a new cartridge, but you may have to spend a good deal more than the $79.95 pricetag for the LP Gear replacement stylus to get one that sounds better than the 881-S.

LP Gear has three other generic styli that will work in your 881-S: they are all for Pickering cartridges (the XSV-3000, 4000 and 5000). All three are priced the same (which really doesn't make much sense), and are a few dollars higher than the Stanton stylus. The 881-S, or at least the early versions of it, was exactly the same thing as the Pickering XSV-3000, which is why the styli are compatible. I'd be weary though of the generic Pickering stylus from Garage 'a Records (another supplier of replacement styli) as it doesn't have a Shibata-type stylus tip, and at least from the photo, has a rather thick cantilever.

Insofar as my "credentials" for this posting, let me just state that I was a National Sales Manager for Pickering in the late 70's (when both the XSV-3000 and 881-S were introduced), and the VP of Sales and Marketing for Stanton throughout the 90's until the company was sold. I hope you find this information useful.

I also checked stereoneedles.com, and found that the original styli for both the 881-S and Pickering XSV-3000 are no longer available. They do have styli (originals, too) for the XSV-4000 and 5000, but at preposterous prices. You'd be much better off with a new cartridge than paying those prices.

musicoverall

09-25-2008, 08:43 AM

Insofar as my "credentials" for this posting, let me just state that I was a National Sales Manager for Pickering in the late 70's (when both the XSV-3000 and 881-S were introduced), and the VP of Sales and Marketing for Stanton throughout the 90's until the company was sold. I hope you find this information useful.
.

We may not agree on everything (who does?) but facts are facts. Glad you're on board here - your background certainly makes your input on these matters invaluable, let alone "useful".

emaidel

09-25-2008, 09:03 AM

We may not agree on everything (who does?) but facts are facts. Glad you're on board here - your background certainly makes your input on these matters invaluable, let alone "useful".

Thank you. Stanton, and to a far greater degree, Pickering cartridges never achieved "audiophile" status, even though the TOTL models from each company (which were basically identical products, save the cosmetics and packaging) deserved such accolades.

The problem lay in the companies' marketing and advertising. Since both Stanton, and to a far greater degree, PIckering sold to discounters (the nemesis of any high-end dealer), they were each often regarded as "undesirable." The mere mention of the word "discount" to many a high end dealer brought about noticeable convulsions, heart palpitations and outrage. The fact that, should such audiophile dealers have to match a discounter's price on either a Stanton or Pickering cartridge, he'd still more than double his money, didn't seem to make any difference.

The advertising of each didn't help either. Walter Stanton (who owned both companies) and the cadre of "yes-men" he surrounded himself with, firmly believed that by informing anyone of just what makes a Stanton or Pickering cartridge "tick" was tantamount to giving away trade secrets. As a result, Pickering's advertising resorted to such fluff as , "Delivers 100% Music Power!" and "The Source of Perfection in Sound," instead of anything explaining why the cartridges worked as well as they did.

Stanton was the cartridge of choice for FM stations, and as such became known as, "The Choice of the Professionals." Stanton developed a special stylus (shaped like a "W") to play the stamper too! But, since Stanton cartridges were discounted, audiophiles avoided them like the plague.

And then there's the matter of the Pickering "Dustamatic" and Stanton "Longhair" brushes. Neither company ever recovered from the ridicule they received throughout the industry (mostly from competitors who, by virtue of the patents on the brushes didn't have them) regarding these brushes. As it turns out, the brushes did an excellent job of dynamically stabilizing the tonearm and reducing low frequency resonance - just as the DIscwasher "Disctracker" did, and Shure's "Dynamic Stabilizer" did. Many thought the brushes were supposed to clean dirty records, but they were never designed for that: the bristles are too large to penetrate a groove, and as such, rub along the record's surface creating a small static electricity charge which "vacuums" up the dust into the brush. By riding on the record's surface ahead of the stylus and lifting the dust up into the bristles of the brushes, the stylus then didn't grind this very same dirt into the record itself. By the time a booklet was produced to explain what the brushes did, and didn't do, it was too late.

Strangely, today, many audiophiles boast of still using a Pickering XSV-3000, and with the brush in place too. And many of these have secretly told me that, while they always loved the cartridge, they never admitted to it, so as to avoid ridicule from other audio fans.

BRANDONH

09-25-2008, 03:25 PM

Greetings all,

This is my first post so please be gentle! I spent some time searching for answers to my query and didnt find anything specific to my situation.

My father recently gave me the system he put together aound 1980. This includes a McIntosh 4100 reciever, McIntosh XR-5 speakers (had the drivers and woofs reconed), and a McIntosh MQ-104. He also threw in a Denon DCD-1500 and Thorens TD 320 from the mid-eighties. Yes, ancient I know. This will make a great system for the garage where I spend a lot of time.

The Thorens turntable has a Stanton 881s cartridge, but no stylus.
I figure my options are:
1) NOS D81s, havent had much luck finding one besides $250 at stereoneedles.com
2) Stanton D827, Im not sure if this will work but needledoctor has them in stock
3) LP Gear generic replacement
4) a new cartridge and stylus

Thanks, any help would be appreciated
Emerson
OMG those macs are classics don't you dare put them in the garage.

Like emaidel stated they have them at LP Gear a good company too.
here is the link

http://www.lpgear.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=LG&Product_Code=STNS881S

http://www.lpgear.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/D81S.jpg

Also every thing you wanted to know about Thorens
http://www.theanalogdept.com/thorens_gallery.htm

You can down load a free manual for that unit here

http://www.theanalogdept.com/manuals.htm

whell

11-03-2008, 08:50 AM

emaidel

11-16-2008, 04:24 AM

This has got to be the most informative post I've ready on any forum anywhere in quite a while. Thanks for sharing some info and history on one of my favorite cartridge brands: Stanton/Pickering. Sorry I've encountered this post a month or so late.

One check question - with the Pickering brush, what increased tracking force amount is correct to use with the brush down. Stanton calls for 1gram. Is it the same for Pickering?

Thanks!

The answer to your question is, "yes." After the tonearm's balanced, dial in the desired tracking force, PLUS an additional gram to offset the weight of the brush (for either a Pickering or Stanton cartridge), and set the anti-skating for the additional gram as well. The cartridge will track at the proper force (not one gram heavier) as the brush offsets the added weight.

whell

11-16-2008, 09:50 PM

Thank you very much!

beton

12-21-2008, 03:08 PM

Boy am I glad I found this thread--I'm in the same boat. I just dug out my turntable that hasn't been touched in 20 years, put a new belt on (the old one disintegrated) and discovered that the needle is completely gone from my Stanton 881S. I have no idea who broke it off or when.

Since this thread was started, that replacement stylus has gone up and now costs a hundred bucks at LP Gear.

Would that still be better than buying a replacement cartridge entirely?

Man, it's been so long since I even thought about albums that I can't remember enough to even comparison shop. If it was like other technology items, the smart move would always be to buy the new equipment which would cost less and perform better. But I wonder if that's the case with analog audio gear like this? And if I were to buy a cartridge, I have no idea what I'd get.

emaidel

12-22-2008, 04:35 AM

fabian558

12-25-2008, 07:10 PM

Does anyone know if stylus made by SOUNDRING are good, because they offer them for about US$90 or can someone point me in the direction of a high quality stylus maker? I would prefer to buy a new stylus over a cartridge replacement.

Here's the link:
http://www.soundring.com.au/StyliInfo.cfm?StyliID=1773

emaidel

12-26-2008, 04:09 AM

hifitommy

12-26-2008, 11:19 AM

is a FINE good sounding cartridge; it stands up even today. the fact that the stereohedrons arent available any more is too bad but the replacement one at LPgear should be ok.

that said, at the same LPgear is the audiotechnica AT440MLa for $99. it is also a fine sounding cart. some have said its bright but most deny that. the original 440 was a bit bright but not offensively so (i have had two) and the MLa has addressed that. it is a great value.

the tracking is superb, vg bass and slightlylaid back mids. i have one as backup to my numerous other carts including an oc9II, fr1 mk III, grace f9e, 881s, v15Vxmr, orig blue point, and an ortofon mc200.

fabian558

12-28-2008, 12:52 AM

Though it's hard to tell for sure, the photo of that replacement stylus makes the cantilever look rather thick and clunky, as compared to that of the original. As a result, I suspect the non-original won't track as lightly, nor as clearly as the original.

Thank you for the help, I'm now thinking that changing the cartridge maybe the best solution. What would be a good new cartridge and stylus for a Luxman Direct Drive Turtable PD131?

emaidel

12-28-2008, 05:23 AM

I'm not familiar enough with newer moving magnet cartridges to recommend one. Perhaps a call to the folks at The Needle Doctor is in order. They're usually quite helpful and knowledgeable.

An important note on non-original, or "knock-off" replacement styli for either Stanton or Pickering cartridges: knock-off styli were a major headache for major cartridge manufacturers, as most looked like the real thing, but few ever lived up to the quality of the real thing. In the replacement stylus for the 881-S, or the Pickering XSV-3000 from whence the 881-S came, there is an important element missing in all of the knock-offs, and that is an internal tie wire. The tie wire is affixed to the end of the cantilever, and is connected to the extreme end of the metal tube that fits into the cartridge body. Its purpose is to stabilize the movment of the cantilever, and to prolong the flexibility of the entire assembly, among other things. It is also a patented feature, that's time consuming to install during manufacturing, and has never been used in a knock off stylus.

In order to connect the tie wire to the end of the metal tube, a special clamp was used during assembly which did a few things: it held the assembly in place for accurate connection of the tie wire and did so by crimping the tube and leaving a characteristic "dimple." Since heat was applied to the tube, it also usually discolored slightly.. NO replacement was ever made in this manner, and the shiny appearance of the tube on the knockoffs is a dead giveaway it's not an original.

I knew the young engineer who designed the XSV-3000, and he was quite proud of the fact that the stylus assembly alone had a whopping total of 12 patents. The tie wire is a key element of the assembly, and without it, performance suffers.

whell

02-03-2009, 01:43 PM

$100 is a lot for a replacement stylus for an 881-S, and it's a tough call as to whether it's worth it or not. While I'm a great fan of the 881, I think for that price I'd opt out for a new one. Check out The Needle Doctor's website and you'll find a lot to choose from.

This is kind of a late add to this post, but its worth noting that LP Gear also sells a more moderately priced replacement stylus for the 881 with a "Hyperelliptical" stylus. While it may not deliver all the performance of the original stereohedron, it might be worth a try as an alternative for those on a budget.

I'd agree, by the way, that with costs going up on most imported product, $100 for a stylus on a high quality cartridge is no longer an unusually high price.

JayTea

03-13-2009, 03:53 AM

Hi all,

This is a fascinating thread, and I am really really curious about how these cartridges sound. If anyone here have an extra 881 or even just a body that they are willing to part with, I'd be extremely interested in. Please, emaidel, could you help me out ?

Thank you so much in advance.

emaidel

03-13-2009, 04:27 AM

Please, emaidel, could you help me out ?

Thank you so much in advance.

Sorry, but I can't. While I once had quite a collection of cartridges, after accidentally destroying several on my own, and giving so many away, all that's left is what I need to keep myself going, but no one else. Good luck in your search.

whell

03-14-2009, 01:03 PM

You might keep an eye out for a Pickering XSV-3000 on eBay. Its the same cart as the Stanton 881, and it sometimes "flies under the radar" because folks are looking for the 881 specifically, so you can get it sometimes for a fraction of what the 881 goes for.

emaidel

03-15-2009, 04:23 AM

The Stanton 881-S and the PIckering XSV-3000 were the same thing until the "Mark II" version of the 881 came out, which is an improvement over both (there was no PIckering counterpart). Still, a NOS PIckering XSV-3000, will not disappoint.

JayTea

03-18-2009, 07:16 PM

emaidel

03-19-2009, 03:44 AM

Thanks very much for answering my question. Another one: There are different models for the stylus replacement for the 681, 881. What do these mean on the stylus: EE, EEE, EEE MKIII, S? (ie: D6800, D6800 EE , D6800 EEE-S)?
Thanks again in advance.

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."

Just bear in mind also that styli from the 681 and 881 series are NOT interchangeable: the 681 is an older moving iron design, and the 881 is moving magnet, using a tiny, but very powerful, samarium cobalt magnet. The company had an inordinate fear of providing any technical information whatsoever about the inner workings of their cartridges, for fear of "giving away trade secrets," and often referred to the samarium cobalt magnets as "rare earth" magnets.

Reticuli

03-19-2009, 04:12 PM

I know a lot of the Stanton Mk2 and on versions have lower mass cantilevers, which drastically reduces FIM distortion. The Mk1's often have identical suspension & diamond, theoretically being capable of high performance at lower downforce but that high effective tip mass often requires significantly more downforce to tame. A few companies, like Ortofon, have done the exact same thing in reverse with their DJing tips...making them thicker cantilevered for the marketability of "increased durability", even though I've never heard of their earlier tips snapping.

JayTea

03-20-2009, 01:59 AM

emaidel

03-20-2009, 04:34 AM

emaildel:

About the use of these Stanton cartridges with the brush, I have heard many people say that one (1) additional gram must be added to the desired tracking weight when use with the brush (ie. if the desired tracking force is 1.5gr, then install the brush, balance the tonearm and then dial in 2.5gr.) Is this correct?

The reason I asked is that I have a new 681 EEE MKIII, and its user manual says nothing about this. Also by observation, the brush is pivoted and it looks like the bristle support the whole brush itself.

What's your take on this?

Thank you very much, again.
BTW, I bought the Shibata stylus for the 681 and it sounds very smooth!

I've posted this many, many times before. If you want to track at 1 1/2 grams, and are using the brush, set the tracking force to 2 1/2 grams, and the anti-skating also at 2 1/2 grams after first balancing the tonearm. The brush is self supporting, but needs the additional force applied to offset its weight (whch happens to be 1 gram).

The Stanton "Longhair" and Pickering "Dustamatic" brushes were probably the most misunderstood, and therefore, maligned features of Stanton and Pickering cartridges ever. Instructions initially called for the application of an additional gram to offset the weight of the brush, but rarely said anything about the anti-skating setting. Competitors, since the brushes were patented, ridiculed them, and to the everlasting fault of both companies, neither PIckering nor Stanton did anything to combat the ridicule until many, many years later, long after substantial damage was done.

You won't hear any difference whether using the brush or not, but the brush does a terrific job of "dynamically stabilizing" the tonearm, which aids tremendously in the playing of warped records.

JayTea

03-20-2009, 05:39 AM

emaidel

03-20-2009, 07:21 AM

I just saw this on Ebay:
"
Here's a rare unused n.o.s. Stanton D74S Stereohedron stylus! It will fit the Stanton 680/681 and Universal (P mount) cartridges but also the Pickering XV 15 and DTL series.
Specs are:

* Tracking force 0,75 gr to 1,5 gr.
* Stereohedron .3X2.8(8X71)
* Frequency range 10-25K

It has the exactly the same specs as the Stanton 681EEE MkII-S! (but the fingergrip is clear and it has no brush)"

I thought the replacement for the 681 series were the D6800 only?
Is this worth considered???

That's for one of the several "P"-mount cartridges Stanton (and others) made during the 80's. P-mount tonearms were all standardized so that P-mount cartridges simply plugged in, were secured with a single screw, and no other adjustments had to be made. As one couldn't adjust tracking force or anti-skating (it was all pre-set according to the universal P-mount standards), the Longhair brush couldn't be used. Stay away from it.

daveobieone

03-31-2009, 11:28 AM

emaidel

03-31-2009, 01:58 PM

I found this thread today by accident, and about fell-over.

I can't believe I'm in contact with some so close to the "horses mouth" (Walter Stanton)!

As someone who has purchased hundreds of Stanton cartridges for broadcast use (and for my home stereo's), I'm SO glad emaidel is here! I have so much respect for those great products.

I could probably ask you questions for hours...till your ears fell off (or eyes fell out). I joined this group just so I could ask you questions.

This is so amazing!

I guess I should consider myself blessed to have a new, in the box 881s.

Dave O.

My, that's quite some praise! And so, I thank you. You are but one of a few who feel that way about me (I seem to rattle members' cages more than I intend to with my posts).

While I have over 30 years experience in the industry with two of those years with PIckering in the late 70's, and 7 of them in the 90's with Stanton, other than that making me somewhat of an "authority" on products from those comopanies, I am by no means any more a voice of authority on these pages than anyone else. I post my opinions for others to read, and hopefully benefit from, and enjoy reading posts from other members who do likewise.

And I too have a new, in the box 881-S MKII. I'm hanging onto it in the event the W.O.S. 100 Collector's Series cartridge I'm using somehow fails me in the future.

daveobieone

04-01-2009, 06:00 PM

Unfortunately (I guess) Mine isn't the series II.

What was the improvement there? Anything really noticeable?

BTW, I just bought another new/old Pickering...an NOS 345-03d for my Seeburg jukebox.

I had asked in one of the other threads about the differences between moving magnet, and moving iron. (some folks had a good time answering me)

It amazes me that the 881, and the 681 look so similar, but really were so different.

Does anyone know what every happened to Empire? I used to use some of their cartridges as well...for home audio only. The suspension always gave out on them pretty quickly as I recall.

Dave O.

emaidel

04-02-2009, 03:56 AM

As I recall, the 881-S used a bonded Stereohedron tip, and the MKII used a nude diamond on a narrower cantilever.

Empire was one of the first cartridge companies to go belly-up with the introduction of the CD. They were never noted for anything particularly special, and their sales focus was almost exclusively on "private-label" cartridges, and not on top quality models.

Shure continued to manufacture "hi-fi" cartridges for a while after the CD, and then, after realizing Stanton's enormous success in the DJ business, made several DJ models which captured the attention and admiration of a group of "scratching" DJ's and sold very well. Shure still makes a few "hi-fi" cartridges, but its TOTL unit, the V/15 Type V mxr is history, just like many others.

daveobieone

04-02-2009, 04:52 PM

I bought one of the last V15s. The first one I got was defective...wouldn't track at all. The second one was really very good. I also bought 3 spare styli...some of the last ones that were available there too. I think it's a very good cartridge...just slightly boring. I get more enjoyment out of my Stantons, or my Denon 301 (which is VERY bright!) on dull sounding records.

Dave O.

Reticuli

04-04-2009, 12:39 PM

The 500 low-effective-mass cantilever tips were great. I wish the thin needled EL, AL (broadcast), and Emk2 would be brought back. The ALII is just too high massed and for scratch people. Such a neutral sounding cartridge, though. Emk2 is bright, but I've got my modded TCCs back with 100pF capacitance to try and see if they become tamed. The OM5E is soooo rolled off at 100pF on the TCC. Yikes. Have to crank the treble up.

On the Shure V15, I've heard if you lower the capacitance and/or increase the input resistance you can really improve the sound from its dull standard. The 97 also suffers from that.

daveobieone

04-08-2009, 10:58 AM

I have new versions of both (last version of the V15), and the M97 sounds much more rolled-off at the high frequencies than the V15 does. I still wouldn't call the V15 bright however. Especially not compared to the Stantons, Grados and Denon MC I have.

The M97 does track pretty well however...pretty close to the V15 in that respect, and a little better than the Grado Gold I have. When I need to track something cut at stupid-hot levels, I go for the Shure...especially if I can EQ the high end afterwards.

Most of the time, I prefer the sound of the Stantons (even the lowly 500 series) to just about all the others I have (and I like the the 681s even more). I know that might make no sense to some folks...even to me sometimes, and especially not to the high-end audio press, but it's just what I like. I also have a very nice Denon moving coil, and the Denon trasnsformer to match, but on most of my records, the Denon is just too bright. The Stantons are a very good balance...at least with my systems. I'd call them neutral, and well balanced.

Someone with very bright sounding speakers might easilly prefer the M97 over all these I've mentioned. It all depends on how the system all sounds together.

Dave O.

Reticuli

04-10-2009, 04:30 PM

The 500Emk2 has too much bass on the TCC too at 100pF. I'm thinking the RIAA equalization got screwed up changing the caps out, since it's a discrete design. The treble is about right to maybe a bit dull at times, but sounds oddly crunchy when it is at all bright. Not delicate. Possibly a sonic result of the mids being recessed, now...well, they're always a bit recessed on the Emk2 compared to the ALII, but not by too much. I'm thinking maybe 150pF might be nice to try next. Or just get my tech to put the 220pF's back in and use shorter cables. Maybe that's smarter. I'd hate to spend money a third time having him put them in finally again if the 150pF is also no good.

Are the 15 and 97 tips interchangeable? I'm wondering if the 97 tips can also fit on the Whitelabels, which are the last version of the 15 internally. Anyone have a 97 and a Whitelabel dj cart? Or if anyone has a really old 97 tip that still works (can't be busted) they could send me, I could give it a go. Seems like a waste of those high grade insides with a mid-tip-mass cantilever and spherical diamond. The tubes look identical.

Ed_in_Tx

04-12-2009, 06:13 AM

Hi folks! My First post here. Found this site and thread looking for info about two Stanton cartridges I have, more specifically the "NOS" 881S-II with a spare stylus I picked up several years ago. I bought a new 881S in 1979 and it became my primary cartridge. Then while looking for a spare stylus 7 or 8 years ago, I found the 881S-II. Have read that some later 881S-IIs do not have the Stereohedron stylus. So without a microscope to look, is there a way to tell? The box the "II" came in is identical to the old 881S box from 1979. Also it has a folded sheet in the box extolling the benefits of the Stereohedron stylus. So maybe it's a first generation "II"?

Also I wonder if the stylus from a Pickering XUV/4500-Q would work properly in an 881S body. Reason is, I have an XUV/4500-Q but I can't load it properly any more since I retired the amplifier (Pioneer SA-9800) that has cartridge load settings. It sounds bright and harsh with the standard loading of my Creek phono preamp. So.. thinking the 881S body would be more appropriately matched to the standard 47k-250pF or so load, I could use the near-new Quadrahedral stylus in the 881S body and get away from the exaggerated treble the 4500Q produces. Comments? Warnings? THANKS!

daveobieone

04-12-2009, 04:31 PM

The V15 and M97 styli are interchangeable.

However, putting a V15 stylus in an M97 will not make the M97 sound like a V15. The tracking ability will be that of a V15, but the sound of the V15 cartridge and stylus is still clearly better.

I'm not sure exactly what's different inside of the two cartridge bodies...they look very similar from the outside, but there is clearly something different going on inside.

I don't know what the Whitelabel cartridge or styli you refer to are.?. Do you mean aftermarket?

I have had good results with my Stanton 500 cartridge bodies with two different styli...the Pickering DJ stylus that KAB has sold (but are now out of), and the Stanton D71ee. They have quite different purposes. The DJ stylus is (was) a nearly exact replacement for the long unavailable 500a (.0007, conical, 2-5grams tracking). The D71ee is a nice sounding eliptical that tracks very well at about 1.6grams. The 500 cartridge body will sound quite different with those two different styli. The D71ee is much brighter sounding. Not harsh, just brighter. The Pickering DJ stylus sounds much heavier at that low end, and softer at the high end. Not muddy, just a little less high end.

The DJ stylus tracks pretty well at about 2.5 grams...unlike the older 500AL stylus, which needs about 3.5 grams to clean up the tracking distortion...which is a little too heavy, especially for styrene 45's. I was really looking for the ideal replacement for the 500A stylus (D5107a). Since KAB is now out of the Pickering DJ stylus, I guess next time I need some, I'll need to keep looking.

I've been told the later 500AL stylus was supposed to replace the 500A...and that it would track 2-5grams like the old 500A, but I have not been able to confirm this. I can tell you that the aftermarket 500AL from Phanstiehl requires more than 3 grams to clean up. The web-based supplier I bought some from recently had them advertized as tracking from 2-5grams, but they sound pretty bad below 3 grams, and the package clearly says 3-7grams.

Dave O.

emaidel

04-14-2009, 01:25 PM

Also I wonder if the stylus from a Pickering XUV/4500-Q would work properly in an 881S body.
THANKS!

The stylus for the XUV-4500Q should work just fine in the 881-S body, as the two bodies are very, very similar. With proper capacitive loading, the XUV/4500Q sounds pretty good, and quite close to the Stanton 881-S. 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. Most such cartridges from either Pickering, Stanton or Audio Technica prior to the 4500 sounded downright lousy, and all tracked rather heavily, though as the stylus pressure was spread across a far larger portion of the groove wall (that which is described as the "scanning radius") it didn't really matter, many people hated the idea of setting their tonearms as high as was necessary for these cartridges.

The 4500Q was the first CD-4 cartrdige that not only tracked well at only 1 gram, but also sounded very, very good as a stereo-only cartridge - something none of its predecessors did. Unfortunately, it was introduced practically at the very moment the quadraphonic industry came to a crashing halt. The XSV-3000 (actually identical to the original Stanton 881-S models) was the result of using the engineering and stylus design that went into the 4500Q, but without the ability to properly playback CD-4 records, as almost no one cared. Instead of the sales flop the 4500 was, the 3000 was a huge success.

Reticuli

04-14-2009, 05:00 PM

Well, I had my sub turned up, which is why the TCCs sounded so bassy. Heheh. Oops. I still don't like the highs on the TCC preamp with ceramic caps (too crunchy when it's not too tame) and the KSA blue poly caps my tech put on the other sound way too phasey. I think the Ortofon OM5E probably works best at 250pF total, the Shure V15/Whitelabel at 225pF (though Shure claims to voice everything at 250pF/47kohm), and the Stanton 500/400 at 200pF total (though Stanton claims to voice at 275pF/47kohm).

An old Numark 100pF phono pre with a very midrangey sound actually mates well with the 500E mk2 and shortened cable. A little bright, but much tighter and deeper low end than the OM5E, not to mention better detail and extension up top clear out to 18khz. Scary synergy that a $35 cartridge mated to a $50 preamp sounds better than $100+ carts with varous mixers and outboard pres, including modded ones.

The Shure Whitelabel is a DJing cartridge in an integrated headshell that uses the V15xMR (whatever) as the innerds of it. The tubes of the 15 and 97 tips have identical shapes, and I don't like the 97's increased inductance over the 15. So was thinking of trying the 97 elliptical on the WL, but don't really want to spend $100 on a pair just to try on my djing carts. If anyone has a used, worn-out 97 stylus then I'll pay the shipping to be able to see if it fits. I don't know why anyone would want to waste a primo V15 stylus on an M97 body; I essentially want to try the reverse.

The D71EE is the same diamond and suspension as the old 500EE mk2, not the 500E mk2. However, I can't tell if the cantilever is the same thickness as the single-E or thicker from the pics. The stylus housing itself is a weird shape that only looks like it'd work with the newer 500 & 400 bodies (without the triangle on top) and the P/universal adapter 720EE (what it comes mounted on). Do you have first hand experience successfully getting a D71EE tip on an old 500 body? Is it a thin cantilever like the E?

The difference between the E and EE is the .4 diamond to the .3 elliptical and only 1.5 units of compliance difference with 14.5 on the E and 16 on the EE...both a pretty good sweetspot, in my opinion. I didn't really need more squishyness, though, as I think the Emk2 is already very compliant at 1.75 grams. The 1.6 gram you cite for the EE sounds like it must be the thinner cantilever. Yes?

The original A and AL 500's were also the thinner cantilevers, I believe, which is why they didn't need so much downforce as the record killing ALII and V3 sphericals with overbuilt shafts. Interestingly, on the 680 front, the original EL was thicker and needed 3 grams while all subsequent DJ models have used thinner aluminum shafts that were great at 2 grams. I really think thick-cantilevered DJing tips and scratch-tards have really screwed up the phono cart scene, though ironically perhaps helped keep it alive.

Ed_in_Tx

04-15-2009, 06:24 AM

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/p72/tblazed/stantonclopava-2.jpg

Ed_in_Tx

04-15-2009, 09:08 AM

emaidel

04-15-2009, 01:24 PM

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.

Ed_in_Tx

04-15-2009, 01:51 PM

'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/p72/tblazed/stantonclops-2.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p72/tblazed/stantonclops-3.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p72/tblazed/stantonclops-4.jpg

daveobieone

04-16-2009, 01:15 PM

"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.

daveobieone

04-16-2009, 01:18 PM

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

Ed_in_Tx

04-17-2009, 08:47 PM

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 (http://www.amazon.com/Eyeclops-61081-EyeClops-BioniCam/dp/B00153C5KY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=toys-and-games&qid=1240028732&sr=1-1) 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/p72/tblazed/4500-881-2-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.

emaidel

04-18-2009, 03:53 AM

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.

daveobieone

04-18-2009, 08:04 AM

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.

Reticuli

04-18-2009, 12:29 PM

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.

Ed_in_Tx

04-19-2009, 06:22 AM

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

04-19-2009, 03:00 PM

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

04-21-2009, 05:39 PM

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

04-21-2009, 05:54 PM

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

04-21-2009, 06:21 PM

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

04-21-2009, 07:11 PM

Ed_in_Tx

04-21-2009, 07:27 PM

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/p72/tblazed/catstvstanton.jpg

nfalbert

04-21-2009, 07:44 PM

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

04-21-2009, 07:50 PM

Ed,

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

Neil

Ed_in_Tx

04-21-2009, 08:15 PM

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

04-22-2009, 07:01 AM

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

04-22-2009, 11:17 AM

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

04-22-2009, 12:25 PM

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

04-22-2009, 02:28 PM

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

04-22-2009, 03:58 PM

nfalbert

04-22-2009, 04:39 PM

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

04-22-2009, 05:49 PM

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

04-23-2009, 03:50 AM

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

04-23-2009, 06:07 PM

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/viewtopic.php?t=6674&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=300

tizeta2

04-23-2009, 11:58 PM

daveobieone

04-24-2009, 08:12 AM

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

04-24-2009, 08:28 AM

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/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=LG&Product_Code=STNS881S

Is that stylus the best choice?

Do you have any feedback about this one?
http://cgi.ebay.com/Ersatznadel-STANTON-D81-D-81-Q-4-DQ-fuer-881-S-780-Q-4_W0QQitemZ220370115699QQcmdZViewItemQQptZPlattens pielerzubehör?hash=item220370115699&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1229%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C 240%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

04-25-2009, 12:02 AM

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

04-25-2009, 05:09 AM

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

04-25-2009, 08:10 AM

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.

Reticuli

04-27-2009, 12:09 PM

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.

whell

04-30-2009, 11:57 AM

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!

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!)

tizeta2

05-03-2009, 02:16 PM

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?

tizeta2

05-04-2009, 11:54 AM

... 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!

GP49

05-05-2009, 06:44 AM

(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.

emaidel

05-05-2009, 08:48 AM

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.

Ed_in_Tx

05-09-2009, 03:34 PM

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.

ludwignut

05-10-2009, 03:54 PM

whell

05-15-2009, 10:05 AM

... 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.

emaidel

05-15-2009, 04:50 PM

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.

ludwignut

05-16-2009, 02:30 PM

Here is some information on the XLZ Cartridge.It is the low impedance variety.

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

Rob

tizeta2

05-19-2009, 11:47 AM

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?

daveobieone

05-19-2009, 05:56 PM

tizeta2

05-20-2009, 09:03 AM

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!

whell

05-22-2009, 06:30 AM

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.

daveobieone

05-22-2009, 11:49 AM

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.

tizeta2

05-28-2009, 04:03 AM

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

whell

05-29-2009, 11:17 AM

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.

whell

05-29-2009, 11:18 AM

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

Ah, you're killin' me! :)

smersh

05-29-2009, 02:43 PM

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

ludwignut

05-30-2009, 04:04 AM

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.

Here is the patent

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

Rob

Ed_in_Tx

05-30-2009, 07:50 AM

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.

smersh

05-30-2009, 12:14 PM

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

Ed_in_Tx

05-31-2009, 06:08 AM

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!

emaidel

05-31-2009, 03:25 PM

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.

smersh

06-01-2009, 01:50 PM

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

daveobieone

06-14-2009, 01:01 PM

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.

daveobieone

06-16-2009, 12:24 PM

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.

fantao

06-16-2009, 03:11 PM

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.

daveobieone

06-19-2009, 08:47 AM

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.

tizeta2

06-23-2009, 12:08 PM

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?

tizeta2

06-23-2009, 10:48 PM

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

fantao

06-24-2009, 02:22 PM

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/November%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.

whell

06-26-2009, 09:39 AM

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.

Reticuli

06-30-2009, 10:16 PM

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.

ettoregg

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

atomicAdam

07-06-2009, 07:36 AM

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

Reticuli

10-10-2009, 08:01 PM

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.

emaidel

10-11-2009, 04:01 AM

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.

Ed_in_Tx

10-11-2009, 05:17 AM

Reticuli

10-11-2009, 11:20 AM

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.

emaidel

10-12-2009, 03:54 AM

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.

Ed_in_Tx

10-12-2009, 05:27 AM

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.

emaidel

10-12-2009, 07:01 AM

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!

von.ah

11-06-2009, 01:10 PM

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

whell

11-10-2009, 01:11 PM

Jim Eck

11-10-2009, 02:20 PM

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

Ed_in_Tx

11-10-2009, 02:43 PM

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.

fanders

11-11-2009, 07:56 PM

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 !

emaidel

11-12-2009, 04:28 AM

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!

xtsili

04-08-2010, 12:47 PM

I am a new member and bacame one just because of the emaidel analysis. I am also an owner of the 881s (early "80s, graduating from High School) and it is only recently I rediscoverd my old LPs and did some lifting to my old Luxman turntable (too sentimental and emotionally attached to it to discard it). So I was looking for some replacemnt to the 881s but after reading to emaidel's postings I changed up my mind. I will stick to 881s and may replace the stylus some day.

Greetings from Athens Greece !

Cheers!

Xenophon

dean man jim

06-13-2010, 07:10 AM

First post for me here, a poster in another forum mentioned this thread...

During the last days of the old days so to speak there was a line of Pickering p-mount cartridges with exceptional specs and outfitted with stereohedron styli. Some current users love them with a p-mount adaptor in a pivoted arm, saying that in their systems the p-mount outdoes the 881s along with some other famous 'super carts' of the era.

The cartridges from this line that I'm aware of are the TL-2S, TL-3S, TL-4S. I enjoy the TL-2S and will likely get a spare stylus for it while they are still available albeit at a nose-holding price. I've used it in four arms, a Micro Seiki MA-505XS, a Magnepan Unitrac, a Jelco, and a modified Thorens TP13A. It is very fine with all of them.

Any comments? Does anyone have knowledge of this cartridge body, specifically--other than its mounting method is it a duplicate of another Pickering or Stanton body of the day?

Jim

centaurus3200

06-28-2012, 01:34 PM

hi all,

i bought a Pickering 1100S from an online acquaintance who previously sold me my ADC XLM MKIII . it's been used, but comes complete with the box and all the toys (magnifying glass, specs, screwdriver, etc.)

the stylus is a D-II-S stereohedron.

anybody every heard of it? seems like a bit of an odd-ball cartridge.

i don't have it yet, but will report back once it's mounted on my spare headshell.

i've been getting into vintage MI and MM cartridges lately. i still have a Spectral MCR Signature LOMC. but it's such a ***** to drive. and the arm on my modded Technics SL-1600MK2 is just not a great match for it.

for reference, i will be using the phono stage in my Classe DR-4.

i'd love to try a shure V15VMR, but they are so expensive these days. hoping the 1100S can maybe compete with it.

see ya,
Robby

hifitommy

06-30-2012, 09:23 AM

although the v15Vs are highly regarded by some, i would only recommend one if the jico SAS stylus is also purchased to use with it. i have had and been privy to listening to numerous shures at length and have never felt musically invigorated by their sound.

however, many users have experienced wonderful and engaging sound using the SAS stylus with the shure carts. this includes the m97xe and v15III and v15V series.

the 881s is one of my favorite sounds, and i still have a NOS stylus to go onto the body that i have. i am looking forward to the day that i actually mount and listen to it. i took an inordinate amount of time to get to remounting and listening to my grace f9e and f9L and for now, i am loving it. the same will happen with my 881s.

blott

08-28-2014, 10:33 PM

New here, and have a question for the former Stanton guys. Thanks for being a fantastic resource!

I have a Stanton 881S (with original stylus) that I bought new in 1981. It has maybe several hundred hours on it, and it's sat mostly idle during the last 23 years. I've taken very good care of it, but it's been mounted on a turntable (under a dust cover) for this time. The ambient environment has been low humidity (30% average), room temperature, non-corrosive clean air (suburban).

What I'm wondering is whether the rubber (or other age-sensitive) components in the stylus will still perform sufficiently well for high fidelity reproduction. I haven't seen this issue addressed in prior posts. My application is transfer of my remaining LPs to CD or electronic format (about 100-150 albums).

The sound quality seems good, but I don't know whether just listening will give a sufficient indication of fidelity, and wanted to get this information from the authoritative source.

Thanks!