Stanton 881 and 680, whats the difference?

steelgtr said:

Will the 881S have about the same output (vol level) as the V 15 III? MM vs MI?

Click to expand...

Because the Stanton and Shure cartridges are measured using different records, you can’t directly compare their output specs, but Hirsch’s tests gave the V15 Type III 3.8mV output and Stanton 881S 4.3mV one channel, 4.7mV the other channel using the same CBS test record, so you should need slightly less volume with the Stanton for the same sound level.

With the 681EEE (MI) cartridge, it produced a lower output than the other two - 3.2mV with the original Stanton stylus.

Thanks again.

I have an SME 3009 Series II tonearm with the V15 III. What compatible head shells will work with my arm so I don't have to disturb the Shure?

bob


ps: I was given an Empire headshell in the 3 cart bundle I bought.

steelgtr with the great equipment you have, table/tonearm/881S I'd go for nothing less than another SME headshell, the 881S doesn't deserve a cheap China made generic headshell and you will never loose a cent investing in the best.

majick47 said:

steelgtr with the great equipment you have, table/tonearm/881S I'd go for nothing less than another SME headshell, the 881S doesn't deserve a cheap China made generic headshell and you will never loose a cent investing in the best.

Click to expand...

Great point, just was a little sticker shocked! Is my Empire HS a match?

needlestein said:

Don't forget: The very late 881-IIS reverted back to a .3 x .7 elliptical design, yet still retained the Stereohedron name for the tip. Once the cartridge is out of the package, though, I don't know how you tell a true extended line contact D81-IIS stylus from an elliptical D81-IIS; you'd just have to scope it, I suppose.

Click to expand...

NS, Would it say IIS? Mine just says 881S, hand engraved, 8-2186.

Pics of the 881S

ETI_5000 said:

The 881S superseded the 681EEE as the top of the line Stanton cartridge in the late-1970’s. There’s quite a difference, because the 680/681 is a moving iron cartridge, while the 881S is a moving magnet. Stanton used a rare earth metal (samarium cobalt) magnet in the 881S to reduce the size of the magnet, which allowed them to have lower equivalent moving tip mass than the moving iron cartridges. So although the magnets were very expensive due to the rarity of the materials used in them, they had a performance advantage – according to Stanton they were 10 times stronger in magnetism than conventional magnets of a similar size. Because of the super strength magnet, they could use lower inductance coils and still retain a good voltage output.

According to a Pickering/Stanton insider and former AK member, Stanton employees were initially rather annoyed that their Pickering counterparts had released the XSV-3000 first (around 1976). However, they managed to improve that basic design slightly, so that the 881S initially had a flatter frequency response than the XSV-3000 when it was released.

The 881S frequency response in one review was the flattest I’ve ever seen from a MM cartridge, so it was very good, rivalling some of the best MC cartridges. In fact, it was flatter even than the Shure V15 Type IV, which was the model Shure released as an answer to the 881S, although the 881S was slightly more expensive here in Australia. Julian Hirsh, the godfather of hi-fi reviewing, also showed the response was very flat – in his review in Popular Electronics he rated it at 40Hz – 20kHz ±1dB, using a different test record.

That former Pickering/Stanton manager said that apparently although the information was never released to the public, Pickering later upgraded the XSV-3000 to 881S-level, so the XSV-3000 and 881S were then very similar in performance.



Yes, it's a good match.



It's better, as it was a newer design, and had a flatter frequency response, and lower equivalent tip mass. It was also rather more expensive! The 881S had an equivalent tip mass of just 0.2milligrams, while that of the Shure V15/III was 0.33mg, so the Stanton should track better.

The 881S also initially had a better extended line contact (Stereohedron) stylus tip shape, which meant lower record and stylus wear, and lower distortion, than the elliptical or conical (V15 III-G) stylus used on the Type III. However, Shure later (post-78) released an equivalent hyperelliptical extended line contact stylus for the V15/III, and later still (mid-80's) an even better microridge stylus for it, although tip mass wasn’t improved (the cantilever stayed the same), so trackability was the same for all three tip shapes.

Reviews of the Shure V15 Type III by engineer Julian Hirsch can be found in Popular Electronics July 1973 http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Poptronics/70s/1973/Poptronics-1973-07.pdf and the Stanton 881S in December 1977 http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Poptronics/70s/1977/Poptronics-1977-12.pdf.

Click to expand...

What would you set the VTF at for the 881 and the V15 III on my SME 3009 tone arm? Is it a matter of preference or is there a correct level based on your tone arm?

thx

bob

I changed to 881 when the Ortofons got totally out of reach for their better MC cartridges and the high ends became over emphasized. I didn't like V-15's for the same reason. We sold a lot of Stanton Disco cartridges and I could get a real deal on Stantons. The 881 could track as well as a V15 but was a little on the cold side on some recordings. It sounded great with Telarcs, Sheffields, and other direct to disc LP's. When I trashed the last stylus a few years ago, I switched to High output Dynavectors and oh what an improvement in reproduction. I started with the 10X4 and moved up to the 20 X 2 II High output. I know we are now talking big money, ut they are still a fraction of what the Better Ortofons, Lyra and Clear Audio cost.

steelgtr said:

What would you set the VTF at for the 681 and the V15 III on my SME 3009 tone arm? Is it a matter of preference or is there a correct level based on your tone arm?

Click to expand...

They handled most tracking tests at 1g in the reviews I've read, and that's what the makers recommend as being best, so that's what I'd use them at.

From what Denon have said in some of their cartridge user guides, it depends on temperature - they recommended using their cartridges at the recommended tracking force at 20° Celsius (68°F), with a slightly higher tracking force at lower temperatures (within the recommendations), and slightly lower tracking force at higher temperatures.

Regarding product specifications and designations after Stanton moved the company's HQ to Florida, I submit that we cannot be certain about things in the audiophile realm. I found conflicts on their web site. The company tended to try to reduce the variety of their offerings to a sensible (for them) minimum. Thus, for example, all 500s and Pickering V15s/NP, 400, were built upon the 500 Mk. II system. It's possible that the Pickering 3000 was morphed into an 881 (but I wouldn't use the term "upgraded."). I'm not aware of this.

About the 4000 equivalence with the 881, the styli are not identical.

When I wrote my Stanton/Pickering Handbook, it was essential to end the book at the year 1990 because the company's offerings after that became "squishy:" inconsistent, changeable, often discontinued and reintroduced under new, fanciful designations, with specification errors. I feel that, unfortunately, we simply cannot make any declarative statements of any kind about these products. But we can about the company's offerings before, roughly, 1991.

Richard Steinfeld

idlerwheel said:

Regarding product specifications and designations after Stanton moved the company's HQ to Florida, I submit that we cannot be certain about things in the audiophile realm. I found conflicts on their web site. The company tended to try to reduce the variety of their offerings to a sensible (for them) minimum. Thus, for example, all 500s and Pickering V15s/NP, 400, were built upon the 500 Mk. II system. It's possible that the Pickering 3000 was morphed into an 881 (but I wouldn't use the term "upgraded."). I'm not aware of this.

About the 4000 equivalence with the 881, the styli are not identical.

When I wrote my Stanton/Pickering Handbook, it was essential to end the book at the year 1990 because the company's offerings after that became "squishy:" inconsistent, changeable, often discontinued and reintroduced under new, fanciful designations, with specification errors. I feel that, unfortunately, we simply cannot make any declarative statements of any kind about these products. But we can about the company's offerings before, roughly, 1991.

Richard Steinfeld

Click to expand...

The info came from a chap who worked as a manager for Pickering in the 1970's, and later for Stanton in the 1990's. I'm aware that there were differences between the original XSV-3000 (or XSV/3000, as Pickering called it) and the 881S, most notably in the inductance and resistance. However, this former manager has said that at some stage the XSV-3000 was changed to a similar specification as the 881S. Whether or not he was mistakenly thinking of the XSV-4000, which does definitely have the same resistance and inductance specs as the 881S, I don't know. As an engineer, that's the kind of thing I look at, but not everyone knows what those specs mean!

He's also said that because Stanton obtained their Stereohedron tips from a Japanese manufacturer for use in their styli, and they became too expensive, they changed in the 1990's to using elliptical styli, but still calling them Stereohedron, which he wasn't happy about. In fact, in one later (2000's) 881S brochure which I've seen, Stanton called the stylus a Stereohedron, but then described it lower down the page as a 0.3 x 0.7mil elliptical. Well, earlier brochures or user guides on the Stanton cartridges described the dimensions of the Stereohedron and Sterehedron II as being 0.3 x 2.8mil, a true extended line contact stylus, so obviously the later description of it as a Stereohedron was rubbish. The cartrige was actually more an 881E!

I've also noticed that in the specs for the 681EEE Mk3 from a 2000's online seller that it also used a 0.3 x 0.7mil elliptical (like the 680EE), whereas the original had a 0.2 x 0.7mil stylus. One thing I've seen though, is that in earlier pre-90's Stanton and Pickering sales brochures, there were often fairly obvious errors, including specifications and even spelling, so obviously getting things proof-read wasn't something the company was very good at!

Obviously quality standards declined later, although some 2000's reviews I've seen of the 681EEE were still very complimentary about its performance, and it was a good performer in measurements and performance including tracking, in comparison to many similarly-priced competitors. So they were still doing something right, even if the stylus specifications had declined.

The reason I used the term upgraded about the XSV-3000 (if they were changed), is that early reviews (in both electronics and hi-fi magazines) definitely showed that the 881S had a flatter frequency response than the XSV-3000. In fact, as a long-time reader (~40 years) of mainly electronics magazines, with a few hi-fi magazines thrown in occasionally (usually only when I was looking to buy something), I haven't seen too many other cartridges with frequency responses as flat (when properly loaded) as the 881S.

However, as I've only seen a few early reviews of the XSV-3000 from the 1970's, I don't know if that improved later. I don't know much about the XSV-4000, and haven't looked into it, although there is an online comparison review from Gramophone of it and 5 other cartridges on vinylengine, without much of a conclusion as to which one was best. It was actually a rather pointless comparison, I thought, given that the most expensive cartridge tested cost 10 times more in England than the cheapest - they were hardly obvious competitors!

I thought this old spec sheet comparison of the Stanton line might be of interest here. Keep in mind that output is per 1 centimeter/sec, so multiply the figure by 5 for standard output rating. Below the specs is a stylus fitment chart and recommended VTF etc.

http://www.33audio.com/enter/data/stanton.pdf

neo

Pardon me, just drooling here in the background. As much as I like my Pickering XV15/Stanton680-81 carts, sometime I'd like to get one of those 881s and hear it. It would probably have to come to me on a dusty cast-off yard sale or thrift shop turntable, rather than sold on 'bay by somebody who knows the worth of it, however. Twill be a very hit-or-miss prospect, if it ever happens. Meanwhile I will keep the dream alive, living vicariously though descriptions like those in this thread...ah--h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h......

I have a Stanton 881S, with a replacement LP Gear stylus, I am very happy with it.

It is mounted on an SME Series IIIS arm, on a Thorens TD160S turntable.

Yes, Don. The conflicting information could really make my head spin. Some of the advertising copy (aimed at professionals) was weird, too, using a lot of words to say, essentially, nothing.

The 881 was introduced as a group of four models: two uncalibrated 880s, one a .2 x .7 elliptical and a Stereohedron. The 881s were the same, calibrated. So, if the 881 was reincarnated as a .2 x .7 elliptical, that was a return to an earlier version (but it would have been more ethical to reuse its proper number).

In the .pdf docs that neo linked to, the addresses are curious, too. Toward the end on Long Island, the addresses are obfuscated. The real front office was on Terminal Drive; the Pickering address around the corner was almost a hole in the wall. I have no idea why Stanton changed their printed addresses to what was essentially a Pickering mail drop in one of their buildings. I recall that they also printed yet another address on a different street in Plainview.

thedelihaus said:

You cannot swap styli from the 681 to the 881 series- they are not interchangeable due to internal body differences.

Click to expand...

what about swapping the styli for 680 to the 881s?

.nilo. said:

what about swapping the styli for 680 to the 881s?

Click to expand...

The 680 body is the same as the 681 - the only difference was that the 681 cartridges had all been tested for frequency response prior to sale. The 680/681 stylus doesn't have a magnet, just a bit of iron attached to the cantilever, as the magnet is part of the 680/681 body. So it won't work in the 881s body. You need both a magnet and coils to generate a voltage, which happens when the magnetic flux through the coils varies. In the 881S, a moving magnet cartridge, the magnet is part of the stylus assembly, and the coils in the body, while in a 680/681 both the coils and the magnet are in the cartridge body.

I had 680's 681's and 881' and the 981 HZL. Though we sold 681 and 680's for discos as well as home stereo I always though they had a slight upper bass color that wasn't true to the performance. 95% of listeners never heard it, but some DJ's could recognize it immediately and wanted Ortofons. The 881 was clear open and free tracked everything you'd ever want to play, but was to forward for me. Sort of like listening to Altec speakers. The bass was there but suppressed a bit. The 981 was by far the best thing Stanton ever made as far as clarity and great high end, but like its cousin the 881 was a little shy and lacked bass authority. I enjoyed my 881 and 981's for over 20 years maybe 25. I had V-15's IV and V but they mostly gathered dust during that period. I preferred the Sound of my SL series Ortofons but they just couldn't track that well. I had a Grace F9E for a while and it was truly special. But I really didn't get back to truly enjoying Analog until I discovered Dynavectors. To keep a lid on things, I started with 10 X4 HO and now use the 20 X 2 II HO. I would love to try an XX-2, but that's a lot of bucks I'd rather spend on increasing my library. I haven't bought a CD in 5 years, and don't due DAC. I'm concentrating on LP's right now . We travel 6 months of the year in the RV and one of my two favorite things is rummaging through off the beaten path record stores. The other chasing and photographing Steam trains. Any one chase 611 this week end?