Stanton/Pickering

[brian]

Posted by ludwignut on Feb 13, 2009, 10:53pm

Ok, a few Stanton Pickering questions.Is the XUV , XSV and UV series the same as the 881 , 880 , 981? Can the styli from the V-15 Micro series be used for anything other than the V-15 micro and the 600 series? The stylus D1800S that is for the XV-15 series,I often see it as a replacement for XUV series and The XSV series.Is this just misinformation? Is anyone familar with the D757S stylus? Lastly , does anyone have any extra Stanton Pickering stylus cubes and stylus guards that they care to part with?

Thanks

Rob

Posted by carl on Feb 13, 2009, 11:42pm

i looked into this in much detail a while ago.

If I remember the stanton 880/881 and pickering xev, xsv, xuv are intimately related and their styli are interchangeable in general. You can't interchange between the major series though, only within the series. Pickering XV/stanton 600 are related and Pickering v/stanton 500 series are related.

I gathered all my info from listings of stylus suppliers but to be honest I think there are mistakes and some broad assumptions. Some may 'work' but its a moot point if you have a cart performing to its spec or not.

Richard is you man however, he knows more about Stanton and Pickering than anyone else on the internet.

Posted by carl on Feb 13, 2009, 11:44pm

by the way, which cart do you have?

Posted by carl on Feb 13, 2009, 11:56pm

theres a wealth on LL info still in the google cache so long as you search yields a hit.

try:
i googled 'Pickering Stanton Lenco' and 'Pickering XEV Lenco' and got some relevant thread hits from LL, the second contains my own post. Just be sure to click on the link that says 'cache' just under the main link.

While its still their anyway..........

Posted by ludwignut on Feb 13, 2009, 11:58pm

I have an 881 and I wanted to see if a D4500-Q would be ok for it.I also just acquired a D757S and wanted to know if anyone could give me some info for it.I am going to use it on an XV-15.The other thing is there was a cartridge called the 600 that was like the V-15 micro and I guess had nothing to do with the 680-681 or did it?Lots of questions.........

Posted by richard on Yesterday at 2:59am

Hey, Rob,
I believe that I sent you lists of cartridges in both brands that grouped them by technology. Please read through this a few times until the groupings click in your brain. This is important because in some cases, needles of different technology can be seated in the wrong bodies, and magnetism will be transfered where it shouldn't be.

I explained this once, too, on the old board. If that list can be found, it'll be essentially a short form of what you've got. After Walter Stanton died, the new people screwed up the old designations by re-grouping their cartridges into recommended applications rather than grouping them logically by technologies. Then they introduced new model numbers for the old products, messing things up even more. As far as I know, the current Stanton company is making only three bodies--plus one variant of the 500 for P-mount arms.

Within any one group, needles can be interchanged.
The D757S is not in my database, so I don't know what it's for; probably a new something or other. Don't just stick it into your 881 unless you know that it's a moving magnet stylus because the 881 is a moving magnet body. It may pay for you to phone Stanton. "S" means "Stereohedron" tip shape, which is a first generation parabolic: very nice indeed. It'll require precise alignment and don't forget the vertical tracking angle/tip rake angle.

The 881, 981, XSV, and all quadraphonic ("Q") products are samarium-cobalt moving magnet models. They do interchange, but despite what some dealers say, when the substitution isn't right, the tonal balance is off. That's why I don't recommend fooling around, and I just don't have the time to describe the fine points again now. And I mistrust any dealer who glibly says that you can use one to substitute for another unless he really knows his stuff about them (which he probably doesn't). Some cartridge makers made up barrages of wild redundant numberings for their products, and with the right guides and a great amount of time, they can be figured out. Stanton almost never played this game.

If you substitute needles/bodies within this general group (what I call "the samarium-cobalt grou), you won't damage anything. Stanton's "Quadrahedral" stylus was their own substitute for the Shibata. I have one or two, plus a good aftermarket sub, and I haven't yet fooled with them.

The 600/Micro IV is an unusual group that used a different mounting method than all the other Stantons. Like the 68n models, the body is induced magnet with 4 coils. I believe that it's a good cartridge and I've listened to it just enough to confirm that. Although needles can be interchanged with the 68n/XV15 bodies, I don't recommend it due to subtle differences in execution.


Quote:
The stylus D1800S that is for the XV-15 series,I often see it as a replacement for XUV series and The XSV series.Is this just misinformation?


Yes!
Don't do it. The two technologies are the opposite of each other! Again, check the listings that I sent you; you'll see the conflict there.

Finally, about those nice little storage cubes: their hinges break.
Now, here's the good part. You can buy nice little clear plastic boxes. I got them at a nearby plastic supply shop; part of a chain on the West Coast called TAP Plastics. You may find similar or the same items in bead shops, jewelry suppliers, etc.

This item is square 1 & 3/16ths inches (30 mm); height including lid is 1 7/8ths (49mm). Cut up plastic sheets to fit diagonally inside these boxes; cut a little hole in the sheet a bit smaller than the needle's mounting tube. Hold the stylus on the sheet; it'll stay there. Cut the hole high enough so that the needle isn't pressed into the box wall, and low enough to acommodate the brush (if it's a stylus model that has one). Then cut folded cards the same way as the originals and write relevant information on the cards; just put these in the boxes too.

Elegant! Absurdly overpriced, but at least, their hinges won't break because there aren't any. I think that I've addressed all your questions. Yes?.


Posted by richard on Yesterday at 3:14am

Quote:
If I remember the stanton 880/881 and pickering xev, xsv, xuv are intimately related and their styli are interchangeable in general.


Yes, although I'm not clear about the XEV. See my post just above regarding substitutions within this group.

Quote:
You can't interchange between the major series though, only within the series. Pickering XV/stanton 600 are related and Pickering v/stanton 500 series are related.

Yes. The essential technology of the 600/Phase IV/Micro IV and the 680/681/XV15 are similar, but they probly won't sound quite right if you swap between the groups. The technology is the same, but the fine points aren't. I haven't actually attempted this, so I can't talk from experience. I know just enough about the products to have a good hunch.

Quote:
I gathered all my info from listings of stylus suppliers but to be honest I think there are mistakes and some broad assumptions. Some may 'work' but its a moot point if you have a cart performing to its spec or not.

You have done good work, Carl, but unfortunately, you're right about the dealers. And the current Stanton company has muddied the waters by putting new numbers on essentially old models. I'm virtually 100% sure that the 400 is what I know as the 500.

In fact, I've seen two instances where Stanton themselves have recommended an inappropriate substitution after they'd discontinued the proper stylus.

Both manufacturers and dealers have been playing cartridge and needle games ever since the magnetic cartridges became a "profit center." It's really easy to put one over on the unsuspecting customer. If I ever finish my book, there'll be a major section all about the classic scams.

Posted by richard on Yesterday at 3:26am

Quote:
Richard is you man however, he knows more about Stanton and Pickering than anyone else on the internet.

A Stanton engineer once told me, "Your knowledge of our products is extraordinary." I felt that this was unfortunate because I think that anyone who sells these products should have my knowledge. Of course, they'd have to charge handsomely--above list prices--in order to fund the amount of time required to study these products: maybe that's the central issue.

To me, phono records are very important. I'm essentially a musician, so to me, recordings are vital documents that freeze the art of a performer in time. And recordings give us tools with which to track changes in performing styles over the decades. So far, the LP is the recording technology that spans the greatest amount of time during which performance styles have changed. So, that's at the core of my interest. I may not be the only one: Norman Pickering was a well-regarded violinist. Joe Grado was a choral singer. Avery Fisher loved live classical music. Paul Aczel is deeply into chamber music. I could hear this in their products. There are more, too, who I just don't know about.

[brian]

Posted by ludwignut on Today at 1:36am

I did some searching and was able to pull this post from a cache @ Lenco Lovers.........

Carl

Membre
Membre

Joined: 30 Sep 2007
Posts: 31
Location: Northwest England

PostPosted: Wed 23 Jan, 2008 4:49 pm Post subject: Pickering XEV/XUV/XSV/XSP/XLZ/UV & Stanton 88x/98x Reply with quote
When I bought my second turntable back in 1990, a Pink Triangle Little Pink Thing/RB250 package, from Vickers in York, it was supplied with a Pickering XEV3001e MM cartridge. Very good it was too and that shop swore by Pickering. They were the UK Pickering importers, still are. These series of cartridges use very light tracking force (~1g) and have very low mass armatures. I believe they are high compliance (~30cu) too so useful for those with light arms. As I went on to learn, they are apparently legendary.

Sadly that needle didn’t last long and when it came to premature replacement (needed urgently) I ended up switching to a Roksan Corus Blue and the Pickering sat in its box for the next 18 years.

It seemed like an ideal candidate for my rear arm set up on my Lenco so I set about trying to find a replacement stylus.

Firstly I remembered a conversation with Vickers years ago, which went along the lines ‘upgrade to this better stylus it’s a massive improvement’. Of course it was costly and I was happy with the Roksan. Remembering this though I looked on their website to see if a replacement needle could be had. They don’t specifically list the XEV series of cartridges (can’t find hardly any reference at all to these on t’internet).

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

The required stylus is a D3001e elliptical, they list under the XSV/XLZ section, the D3000, D3001 and D3500 can be upgraded by any of D4000, D4500, D5000 and D7500 line contact styli. All of which are rather expensive.

I gathered from this that the XEV is related to the XSV and that a D3001 should be able to use any of the above styli. This was my starting assumption in the search for a cheaper source.

Searching the net showed that D3001e styli are virtually no longer available so an alternative is needed. This place did actually list the 3001e for the XEV3001 but the price is way too high.

http://www.mjv.dds.nl/websites/needles/picker.htm

This place probably got the last of the D3001e styli some time ago. Also D22E which is said was identical.

http://www.kabusa.com/whats.htm

D22E is the stylus for the Stanton 881. So Stanton 881 is related to XEV and therefore to XSV. There are several other references around of Stanton 881 being a remake of the fabled XSV.

Kabusa list the D22e as suitable for XSV3000/4000/5000. Ergo D22E and D3001E are the same and this also suggests 3001/3000/4000/5000 styli are interchangeable

http://www.kabusa.com/frameset.htm?/pickering.htm

http://www.kabusa.com/stantonx.htm

Their D22E is reasonably priced but still more than I wanted to pay for an experiment. They list the 4608-DEX generic as a replacement though for D3000/4000/5000. which was in the right ball park for me. I assumed this would work fine with my cartridge so I ordered one from an ebay seller. It’s a Pfanstiehl. The front body of the Pf stylus just says ”E” whereas my old one says “3001E”. The long shank on the original stylus is dull and its shiny on the new one. Otherwise they look identical. The seller said 4608-DEX is for XSV/XUV/UV 3000/4000/5000.

Kabusa says the 22E/3001E was a 0.2x0.7ml eliptical while the Pf needle is 0.4x0.7ml. So there is a difference between original and generic. I believe Stanton 890 and 881 are related too and note a reference to the 881mkII as having a 0.3x0.7ml stylus.

So from all of this I am making the assumptions that Stanton 881/890 and Pickering XEV/XUV/XSV/UV are closely related and any of their styli are interchangeable.

I have references that all of these cartridges use rare earth magnets too. Certainly my XEV3001e instructions booklet list it so too. Reference to Stanton 881 says Samarium Cobalt. They are moving magnet designs (as opposed to the moving iron XV15 and Stanton 500 series)

This reference also backs up some of this too:

http://www0.epinions.com/content_4351959172

And this was very interesting indeed:

http://www.lymanfamily.org/lyman/randy/audio/stanton/stanton_981hzs.html

The list of related cartridges that I can find cross references too

Pickering
XEV series
XEV3001e

XSV series
XSV3000, XSV4000, XSV5000, XSV5000U, XSV7500S

XUV series
XUV4500Q

UV/XV series (not sure the cartridges here are the same but their styli pop up alongside many of these others)
UV15/2000Q, UV15/2400Q, XV15/1800S

XSP series
XSP3000, XSP3003, XSP4004

XLZ series
XLZ7500 (low impedance, low output variant for MC stages), XLZ7500S mkII, XLZ4500 line contact

Stanton
88x series
880E, 880S, 881S, 881mkIIS

89x series
890AL, 890SA, 890RM, 890LE

98x series
981HZS, 980HZS
981LZS (low impedance for MC inputs), 980LZS

Kabusa also list Stanton Epoch II, WOS100, L837S and L847S as haveing interchangeable styli
with Stanton carts, xx1 is a calibrated variant while xx0 is uncalibrated – example 981 vs 980
Stanton did sell the BA-26 pre amplifier to step up the signal for the LZS line of carts which I guess is related to the Pickering PLZ that Vickers sell.

This is the list of Styli I have managed to find listed for these cartridges

Pickering
D3001e - 0.2x0.7ml elliptical
D3000 - elliptical
D4000 - line contact
D4500 - line contact
D5000 - line contact
D7500 - line contact
D4000SP
4500Q – quadrahedral
D2000Q – quadrahedral
D2400Q - quadrahedral
D1800S
D4541 - mono LP (from my XEV3001E instruction leaflet)
D4543 - 78's (from my XEV3001E instruction leaflet)

Stanton
D22E - 0.2x0.7ml elliptical
D78E
D80E, D80S
D81E, D81S
D81-IIS – 0.3x0.7ml elliptical
D810 – mono LP
D827 – 2.7ml conical for 78’s
D83S
D84S
D89AL (DJ), D89SA (DJ)
D98S – 0.3x2.8 ml stereohedral
CS100

‘E’ probably designates elliptical and ‘S’ stereohedral

Generic
Pfanstiehl 4608-DEX – 0.4x0.7ml elliptical

So some remaining questions to follow up:

· What’s the difference between D4000/4500/5000 and 7500 line contact styli as per Vickers website. There must be differences as they are priced progressively more expensively.

· Stanton LZS and Pickering XLZ are apparently low output and low impedance variants of this line requiring step-up or MC stage. Anybody know anymore? I see these are still available from Vickers and are on special offer via ebay at the moment. Are these the ultimate cart from this line?

· Vickers state XSV/XSP can be converted to ‘XLZ technology’. I wonder how?

· I imagine the different cartridges in each series also have slightly different specs. I wonder what the differences are here too.

· This line (especially XSV3000 and 881mkIIS) are said to be superb trackers, appear to be very highly thought of and are said to easily outperform the Pickering XV15/Stanton 500 moving iron series. Anyone got any prior experience of this comparison. I note Stanton 500’s are highly thought of.

· Am I barking up the wrong tree?

Other useful references:

http://www.styli.co.nz/stylus-808.html
http://www.styli.co.nz/stylus-810.html
http://www.lpgear.com/Merchant2/merchant....tegory_Code=PIC
http://www.lpgear.com/Merchant2/merchant....ory_Code=STNSTY
http://www.turntableneedles.com/browseproducts/Needle-608-DEV.html
http://www.garage-a-records.com/cart.html
http://www.analogstereo.com/cartridge_stanton_881MK.htm
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/KAB-sourced+Stanton+681%2FD11S-a0163469860

Disclaimer: This is not exhaustive and there are likely to be mistakes! The above is based on a number of internet resources and a number of assumptions on my part. I’ve not tested any of the combinations; I just put this together for anyone who follows in my footsteps.

Cheers
Carl.
_________________
88/Birch ply/2xRega's/MC25e/AT33Mono/MF XLPV3/Creekphono
PT Anni/SMEIV/Lydian or Ruby2/LFD MC1
Cyrus CDXTSE/DACX, Squeezebox
WAD Kit6550
Proac Response 3 & T50 Sig
...... and Lenco&Thorens in bits......

I think the only thing that puzzles me is the D1800S which is from the XV-15 series. A substitute for this is listed as D2400-Q and D2000-Q. D4500Q and D3000 are also listed as a substitute on more than one website. Those are all UV-15 or XSV which supposed to be the 880 ,881, etc group, no ? On the specifications you sent me Richard,you have made a note allong side D1800S saying Pfansteil shows it as D3000 in samarium cobalt group.This is really a brain twister.

Rob

Posted by richard on Today at 5:22am

I recall Carl's posting of this research, which must have taken him a lot of time to pull together. I replied, but I can't recall what I said. I'd have to pore over this for more time than I've got to check it out. I did spot at least two errors.

One is major: The Stanton 500 series (and the Pickering V15) are moving magnets, not moving iron/induced magnet.

Based on an experiment I once did, I would not interchange the Pickering D4000 and the Stanton D81 with other cartridges in this group. Their needles will fit and work, but there are other subtle differences and detract from the tonal balance of the sub. All of these cartridges are good.

Ironically, what Vickers had proposed to Carl was undoubtedly an upgrade. Note that "E" means elliptical. In this group, Stanton test marketed various versions of each cartridge; most of these variations were soon withdrawn. The ellipcals became history relatively fast. So did the non-calibrated versions. "S" means "Stereohedron:" Stanton's first-generation parabolic. S II (or II S) was the second generation parabolic (what's sometimes called "line contact," a term that's somewhat imprecise). Some of these products came and went so quickly that the were off my radar screen, especially in the Pickering brand. All of the ellipticals that I saw in this range were the .2 x .7 size. There were never any conical styli in this range at the time.

However, I believe that the present Stanton company has been offering a disco cartridge: an 8nn-something, and I believe that this is the same technology that we've been discussing. But it's not an audiophile pickup: no way. Also, the present company has discontinued all Stereohedrons, including replacement styli. Bummer.

If you're going to use a .2 x .7 mil elliptical tip, it's got to be at a low tracking force in order to avoid record gouging.

[ludwignut]

Vinyl Engine had the sheet that comes in the cartridge for the  UV-!5 2000-Q posted on their site.Under accesory stylus ,it lists the 4510 for mono and the 4527 for 78 .This leads me to believe that is the same cartridge and uses the same styli as the XV-15.This would certainly clear up a lot of questions.Anyone?

Rob

[Wout]

Maybe Richard's sticky on Stanton/Pickering from the google cache will help.


Richard wrote:
Stanton went back and forth between the two principles when the technology of one, then the other, was more advantageous. As with most things, each has had its benefits and drawbacks. A general progressive goal has been to reduce the moving mass of the stylus assembly.

My intensive knowledge of the company's products begins with the 500 series. I have not done much "backfilling" of earlier models, probably because during my association with the company, those models were not only out-of-production, but the company no longer supported them with styli, at least through their regular distribution channels. They may, however, have provided those styli to the aftermarket distributors. One way or another, at least one of the aftermarket companies were still providing needles. But I digress.

I prefer the term "induced magnet" for the moving iron principle (also called "variable reluctance," and the elegant proprietary term, "Fluxvalve."

1. Stanton 500/Pickering V15 and NP.
2-coil moving magnet.

2. Stanton 600/Pickering Phase IV (and other names with "IV").
4-coil moving iron

3. Stanton 680, 681, Pickering XV-15
4-coil moving iron

4. Stanton 880, 881, 980, 981 (981 high and low impedance)
Pickering XSV-series, XLZ7500
All true Quadraphonic models in both brands
4-coil moving magnet (space-age magnet materials).

The 500 "Mk. II" series was upgraded with space-age magnets.

The present Stanton company has at least one version of each of these in current production, except for the 600.  They have added additional designations and made cosmetic changes in the finger grips. I'm not aware of any changes from the cartridge bodies that I've mentioned.

The designations I've used above were all standard company models. There were additional designations used for the "private label" trade; an industry scam used by unscrupulous retailers to restrain competition. Mercifully, Stanton was a very minor player in this game, unlike Shure, Empire, and AT.

I have found two distinct differences in VTA within a couple of the above ranges, depending on whether they are early or late implementations. In general, you can interchange styli within any of the first three groups.

Although some needle sellers claim that you can interchange within the final group, my experience has been the opposite. Models within this group are not identical. Interchanges will all work, but they won't work properly (and to my ears, the mismatches are dramatic). You have to know which models are which, and the differences are not self-evident. This group represents the final technology advance of the company.

I believe that it is a good idea to avoid putting the stylus of one principle into the body of another principle. The reason for this is simple: you don't want magnetism to transfer where it's not wanted! More than once, I've seen eBay sellers offering an induced-magnet body with a moving-magnet stylus. The poor buyer would be in for a shock when he first heard what he'd bought -- until the needle fell out of the body all by itself.

Some companies, such as Grado and ADC, have been completely wedded to one firm principle. They have had good reasons for their decisions. This wasn't Stanton's orientation. Stanton was always guided by their concept of providing the best balance between performance and durability, keeping in mind that for broadcast use, ruggedness was always important.

This was no longer the case with the final group of products (and also the Mk. II series of 500s and V15s). These were slanted toward the audiophile and you can see this instantly when you look at the cantilevers. These cartridges, especially the final ones, produce response into the RF range of 40- and 50,000 Hz response. Maybe it was quadraphonic sound that propelled cartridge makers into the use of samarium-cobalt moving magnets in order to be able to resolve the embedded carrier wave of the rear channels. In addition, advanced stuylus shapes were required in order to keep from utterly trashing the quad record grooves. And, in turn, to apply the same technologies retroactively to raise the bar for conventional 2-channel stereo.

And it's like with so much else in record playback: in order to hear the results, you've got to have a record that's good enough in order to hear what you've got. And then, I must say, the improvement from the final technology group can be quite electrifying.

I'm sorry that Stanton's best is no longer being manufactured. But I guess that we can say the same thing about other companies, too.

(c) 2008 Richard Steinfeld

[richard]

Rob wrote:

Vinyl Engine had the sheet that comes in the cartridge for the  UV-!5 2000-Q posted on their site.Under accesory stylus ,it lists the 4510 for mono and the 4527 for 78 .This leads me to believe that is the same cartridge and uses the same styli as the XV-15.This would certainly clear up a lot of questions.Anyone?

Good work, Rob!

I've used this method for sleuthing in other brands, too.
But it doesn't give a true guide to interchange.

I've seen this "one size fits all" application in the past from Stanton, themselves. For example, when the styli for the 600 series was being truncated, the company said that you could also use the specialty styli from the 680/681 range in the 600 body.  And there is more to what you discovered already. The "Q" needles are "Quadrahedrals," used in cartridges intended for demanding quadraphonic application. The styli for 78 and Mono LP that you mentioned are used in all the Stanton and Pickering cartridges that have samarium-cobalt magnets in their cantilevers  So, these needles are correct for all the Quadraphonic cartridges; and the 3000, 4000, 5000, 881, 981, and derivative models.

When I say "samarium cobalt" models, I usually overlook the marvelous Mk. II revised styli for the V15 and 500 bodies, which are simpler, older technology in other respects. These also had samarium-cobalt magnets.

Here's why:
1. Even though both of these needles are designed the same way as the other styli in the range: with stereo suspensions, the users will never use them for stereo playback. Therefore, small deviations from rigid stereo standards will not be a problem. Stereo is vastly more intricate and difficult than mono.

2. Slight deviations of performance when subtle mismatches occur probably won't be noticed, whereas in stereo, my ears have told me that certain substitutions within this group produce a tonal balance that's quite degraded vs. the intended needle. If you don't know what you're doing, I recommend against it. However, at least if you create a mismatch within the group, you will not damage anything.

Never interchange needles and bodies from the abovementioned models with products in the 680/681/XV15 models. Even though they use opposite technology, the needles will fit perfectly. Magnetic damage will probably result.

Now, a strange related fact:

It's almost 100% ridiculous to buy a Mono LP or 78 RPM stylus for any cartridge in this group, and it's the one series for which I don't have these styli nor do I intend to have any. All of the regular stereo styli for this "samarium-cobalt" group were high-compliance, high-performing audiophile-grade products. The two specialty stli were exactly the opposite. Thus, the arm that you select to go with your Pickering XSV-3000 cartridge will be exactly the opposite of what you need for the specialty needles, which are low-compliance, heavier-pressure needles. All the specialty styli for these brands have exactly the same specifications.

There's one possible exception. I believe that the current Stanton company is making one or two models using this technology right now. These are  disco, not audiophile cartridges. They track heavier. Thus, if you are set up with one of these heftier stereo pickups, the 78 needle may be more compatible with your existing tonearm. This shouldn't be an issue for Mono LP, since I can almost guarantee that you won't be able to find this needle.

[GP49]

As I was researching information for another post in the thread, "Are there cartridges more inclined to work well with Lenco's? Hum problem ...", I found the following on the Edward W. Saunders website:

> In order to best explain the versatility of the Stanton and Pickering
> lines of Stereo Cartridges and the distinctive interchangeability of
> styli; a brief history lesson is in order:
>
> Norman Pickering, an acoustical/ electrical engineer and classically
> trained (Julliard) violinist, arguably invented the high fidelity,
> magnetic cartridge. I say arguably as many individuals were
> simultaneously working on similar products but Pickering’s was the
> first to reach the consumer market.  In 1945 he founded Pickering &
> Company in Oceanside, LI, New York.  The Pickering cartridge was
> fitted with a heavy tracking, sapphire stylus with a relatively short
> life. Changing the stylus required returning the cartridge to the
> factory. This would have been nothing more than an inconvenience to
> most customers but Pickering’s soon to be, single largest customer
> needed something different.
>
> In 1947, the Seeburg Corporation of Chicago, renowned manufacturer of
> coin phonographs, put out a request for quote to the audio industry.
> Seeburg wanted a two sided magnetic cartridge with user changeable
> styli for use in their new 100 selection jukebox.  Pickering rose to
> the challenge and developed a clunky, problematic yet functional
> device commonly known as the “Seeburg Blackhead”. In the days when
> all contemporary recorded music was on 78’s, the idea of a 100
> selection jukebox seemed rather silly. What no one knew, however, was
> that Seeburg was working privately with RCA to develop a new format:
> the 45.  With the joint introduction in 1949 of the Seeburg
> Select-O-Matic M100B and the RCA 45 RPM record; the recorded music
> industry changed forever.
>
> The Pickering cartridge was the weak link in the chain. At this time,
> the Seeburg Model B was the only thing in the world that would play a
> 45 and jukebox route men were unable to change the needles, or even
> get them to stay in during normal operation.  Seeburg and RCA were
> not happy. Walter O. Stanton had developed a consumer, turntable
> cartridge with a unique and easy to change, slide in/ out stylus.
> Pickering already had the license to sell Stanton’s product but had
> not given it much credence here-to-fore. Could the Stanton design be
> the answer?  History tells us yes. In fact, Walter Stanton purchased
> Pickering & Company in 1950 and owned and operated it, as well as
> Stanton Magnetics until shortly before his death in 2001.
>
> This unlikely union of amusement and music formed the cornerstone of
> the Stanton / Pickering versatility. One cartridge can serve a
> multitude of needs merely by sliding in an easy to change stylus.
> Functionality is rarely the casualty of obsolescence and these two
> great marques will continue to provide years of enjoyment to
> audiophiles.
>
>
> © 2007 Edward Saunders

http://www.ewsaunders.com/Stanton_Pickering.htm

[richard]

Hey, Gene,

Thanks for posting this.
Ed Saunders ought to know something about this: he got into his present needle/cartridge business from his jukebox supply business. I didn't know the Pickering-Stanton-Jukebox link was so strong; Pickering supplied special cartridges and needles to Seeburg and perhaps one other jukebox company. I think of Norman Pickering as an inventor; after he left the Stanton company, he continued inventing in the medical instrument trade. I've just been reading about Paul Weathers, who was obviously an inventor, too; and somebody has just posted something here about British inventors working on the recording process for Decca. I've got inventors on my mind.

[flavio81]

When I say "samarium cobalt" models, I usually overlook the marvelous Mk. II revised styli for the V15 and 500 bodies, which are simpler, older technology in other respects. These also had samarium-cobalt magnets.

Hi Richard, when you say MkII of the V15, do you mean carts such as the Pickering V15-AT2 or V15-AM2?

I just installed a Pickering V15-AT2 yesterday, on my lenco, and the insanely high output level makes me suspect that the magnet is either big or powerful or both...

[GP49]

Hi Richard, when you say MkII of the V15, do you mean carts such as the Pickering V15-AT2 or V15-AM2?

I just installed a Pickering V15-AT2 yesterday, on my lenco, and the insanely high output level makes me suspect that the magnet is either big or powerful or both...

He means the new, upgraded styli that were introduced in the early 1980s or so.  The samarium-cobalt magnet permitted the magnet size to be decreased substantially from that of the originals, while maintaining the same magnetic "power" to the coils.

They were marketed as the "Mk II" in the Stanton line, i.e., Stanton 500E Mk II.  The Stanton 500 and Pickering V-15 have the same cartridge body, so anything for one body will fit the other (minor exceptions apply for special models such as those Pickering V-15 built for the later KLH phonographs).

I'm a bit puzzled about the output level being so high, however.  V15/AT-2 should have an average output level for a moving magnet cartridge.  Does yours have a stock Pickering stylus, or an aftermarket?

[flavio81]

I'm a bit puzzled about the output level being so high, however.  V15/AT-2 should have an average output level for a moving magnet cartridge.  Does yours have a stock Pickering stylus, or an aftermarket?

Stock (old stock) Pickering D AT 2 stylus, 0.7mil conical, 2-5g tracking force, happily tracking at 3.5g. I bought it to sell it to a friend that has a L70 -this cartridge should suit that massy arm-, but i'm kinda starting to like it.

Yes, the output level is very high, i have two turntables connected to my amp, so one of them is my "reference" level, and i swear you this cartridge has a noticeably loud output. Do you have the specs for this cartridge? The PickeringUK lists the Pickering NP/AC at 10mV output, and that cartridge is the closest i can find to this one.

So far, what i've understood of the Pickering V15 stylus codes are that "D" denotes diamond, "E" denotes elliptical, and "M", "C" or "T" denotes the compliance of the cart and/or the tracking force:

M from 1 to 2g
T from 2 to 5g
C from 3 to 7g

So you can have the D-AT-2, D-AM-2, D-AME-2, etc. There's also D-AT-3, i don't know the difference with the previous version.

For what is worth, my 5 cents. Regards.

[GP49]

Stock (old stock) Pickering D AT 2 stylus, 0.7mil conical, 2-5g tracking force, happily tracking at 3.5g. I bought it to sell it to a friend that has a L70 -this cartridge should suit that massy arm-, but i'm kinda starting to like it.

Yes, the output level is very high, i have two turntables connected to my amp, so one of them is my "reference" level, and i swear you this cartridge has a noticeably loud output. Do you have the specs for this cartridge? The PickeringUK lists the Pickering NP/AC at 10mV output, and that cartridge is the closest i can find to this one.

So far, what i've understood of the Pickering V15 stylus codes are that "D" denotes diamond, "E" denotes elliptical, and "M", "C" or "T" denotes the compliance of the cart and/or the tracking force:

M from 1 to 2g
T from 2 to 5g
C from 3 to 7g

So you can have the D-AT-2, D-AM-2, D-AME-2, etc. There's also D-AT-3, i don't know the difference with the previous version.

For what is worth, my 5 cents. Regards.

Yup.  Sounds like a real Pickering stylus.   ADDENDUM: the presence of "D AT2" makes this a stylus made in the late 1970s or later.  It should also have the "PC" trademark on the front of the finger grip.  The original production V-15/AT-2 from the mid-1960s would have had a plain, dark grey stylus grip, no "PC" logo and no lettering.  The lettering was added to make it easier to identify the models, the "PC" logo was added to identify non-genuine styli from aftermarket stylus makers, since it is illegal for them to reproduce the trademark.

D AT3 is the version with Dustamatic brush, otherwise identical to D AT2.  

In the one spec sheet I have, output on the V15/AT-2 was rated by Pickering as 5.5 mV, but without specifying the groove velocity at which this rating applies. For that matter, neither does the NP/AC spec of 10mV, and I can't see it really being twice as high.  Without specifying the groove velocity, the specification is meaningless.  Even among the same manufacturer, that can vary: Stanton (the "other side" of the factory in the Long Island, NY days) specifies for the 500E Mk II an output of 0.8mV but does specify groove velocity at 1 cm/sec.  *IF*, as some cartridge makers do, the Pickering V-15/AT-2 output is specified at a groove velocity of 5.0 cm/sec, that makes its output 1.1mV if stated using Stanton's method; so its output WOULD BE 10% higher.

My recollection is that the old P/AC-1 does have a higher output than the Pickering V-15 models (it was designed to go into the cheap record changers found in radiograms) and that the V-15/AM and V-15/AME models (that tracked lighter) did have a slightly lower output than the V-15/AT and V-15/ATE models.  The body colors differed, too; the AM models were tan, the AT models light grey and the P body was dark grey; but the coil resistances and inductances were the same; the difference was in color only.  

[richard]

I just had a hard time separating who said what. No blame. Maybe I'm just having a bad hair day or passing a brain stone.

Here are a few thoughts about this.
- In recent years, when they advertised it, Stanton said that the Pickering NP-AC was "The world's loudest cartridge." It's hard for me to relate to the jacked-up language that Stanton's using these days to try to address their disco clientelle, but of course, we cen easily equate "loud" with "high voltage output."

- In addition to Stanton's 500 Mk. II models during the late 80s, there were also Pickering Mk. II cartridges and styli. The   Mk. II styli had samarium cobalt magnets, so were capable of generating substantially higher output levels when used in the older bodies. However, the Mk. II bodies were different than the earlier ones; there's a change in one of the electrical specs. This may "normalize" the output levels somewhat. I have all the Mk. II needles in Stanton, but I haven't tried to mismatch them with the bodies yet, so I can't report anything from personal experience.

- The Mk II needles have smaller cantilevers. Thus, their magnet plugs are probably smaller than the old standard magnets. So they produce less output relative to their size, but more output relative to their magnet material. These needles are not as strong as their older counterparts.

- On the whole, Stanton's cartridges have produced output levels that have been more-or-less uniform in order to be compatible with associated equipment. It's pretty basic stuff: you want to keep your output up in order to deliver a good signal-noise ratio, yet keep it low enough to  avoid overdriving the preamp. And to deliver these results when playing real-world records.

I think that there have been exceptions for the disco trade, but I haven't paid much attention to these products. When a company advertises that their cartridge is "loud," I think of it as having the same manners as a dog who pees on the floor. I wasn't involved with the "Pickering side," and that's another reason why I didn't pay much attention to disco-type cartridges such as the N* that were marketed under that brand. Pickering and Stanton products were not always identical, and sometimes, they were made with different intended applications.

In short, you may experience surprises when mismatching certain styli with certain bodies. I hope that this answers your questions.

[flavio81]

Thanks Richard and GP49. This is a V15/AT-2 cartridge, and came with the DAT2 stylus. I'm listening to it right now and so fir i'm liking it very much. Yes, Richard, i agree there is little point in making a very loud cartridge, except for marketing it to DJs.

Richard, since you do have in-depth knowledge of Stanton and Pickering, would you please explain me what was the exact relationship between Stanton and Pickering? Were their carts made in the same factory? If they were the same company, i don't really get the point of marketing competing cartridges that are more or less the same product, but with different brand names. Why did they bother?

You mention that Pickering and Stanton products were not always identical, but from what i've understood, some products were almost the same thing (example: Stanton 500 and Pickering V15; Stanton 681 and Pickering XV15).

[richard]

Richard, since you do have in-depth knowledge of Stanton and Pickering, would you please explain me what was the exact relationship between Stanton and Pickering? Were their carts made in the same factory? If they were the same company, i don't really get the point of marketing competing cartridges that are more or less the same product, but with different brand names. Why did they bother?

In general, during the stereo age, Stanton products were conceived for professional applications, especailly broadcasting. Pickering was aimed at home listening applications. Sales and marketing of the two brands were 100% separated. Stanton had two factories, the major complex in New York State, and a smaller one in Florida. There was a much smaller third division which sold Stanton products to professionals through specialized broadcast supply houses. So, the regular Stanton sales network was almost in competition with Pickering.

You mention that Pickering and Stanton products were not always identical, but from what i've understood, some products were almost the same thing (example: Stanton 500 and Pickering V15; Stanton 681 and Pickering XV15).

Yes. You are correct. As time goes on, I can look back on the needles (the bodies were the same) and see subtle ways that they were different. But when I think about the different types of radio broadcasting environments, the task-orientation goals become distinct. An example is the 500AL cartridge/stylus. The original long-running version of this stylus was intended for the worst, lowest-fidelity AM radio stations in which it was understood that the disk jockeys would damange the records and dump their ashtrays on them. This stylus was rough on the records. Pickering actually had a similar stylus, but as I recall, it wasn't as bad as the Stanton. Since you are a photographer, I'd think that you probably know of similar situations in which you actually need a pretty awful product to do certain types of work.

So, we can say that styli were stonewalled into certain application groupings with the two separate application concepts. In Pickering, styli are often grouped in pairs, each pair being of almost identical compliance, one an elliptical and the other a conical. I tend to think of these pairs as being intended for specific ranges of tone arm types.

In Stanton, there were light-tracking applications and stronger applications. A record producer can listen with a finer-quality stylus than a needle that's intended for use at a classical music FM station, such as the one where I worked. Even here, a classical music station where the announcer is also the operator will benefit from a slightly stronger stylus assembly than a classical music station at which the records are played by a person called an "engineer," and the announcer is in a booth by himself.

The brush designs for the two brands were different, as were the shapes of the finger grips. These differences were essentially cosmetic. The 680 series differed from the 681 models in general in that the 680s tended to be stronger. For rougher, faster-paced cueing, these styli didn't have brushes because the operators needed to be able to see the tips in the grooves. In fact, one of these needles had day-glow colored glue that held the diamond onto the cantilever. Now that Stanton is a 99% disco company, more of their styli have this feature.

As in photography, the word "professional" in audio does not mean what a hobbyist think it means. The hobbyist often confuses "professional" with "better." To the professional, true professional equipment means products that are excellent for the task, and this often means "stronger" and/or "practical."

[flavio81]

The hobbyist often confuses "professional" with "better." To the professional, true professional equipment means products that are excellent for the task, and this often means "stronger" and/or "practical."

Spot on, Richard. Getting back to that "D AT 2" stylus, yesterday i was looking at it using a magnifying glass, and the stylus diamond looked very nice, it was a bushed diamond but a pretty clear, nice one, and i wouldn't be surprised if it was also very well polished. I think i've read Stanton/Pickering used to make their own styli? I think you also mentioned that current Stanton cartridges do not have the same stylus quality than before? This worries me...

The sound of this Pickering cartridge is very satisfying and better than i would have imagined. Very dynamic, with low surface noise, and subjectively "surefooted" (not distorting easily), except maybe on some inner grooves, but i haven't tested it thoroughly yet. On the other hand, the high frequency detail / clearness is not up to par with other cartridges i have, but this does not surprise me at all. If we consider that is a cartridge introduced in 1964 (or so), the sound is impressive.