Discussion in 'Turntables' started by mccalljd, Dec 25, 2017.
This would be an excellent substitute for the D680
This would work with my 681EEE? I'd love to get a real stanton stylus
Or would this one work? The differences in numbering confuse me. If it works in the 681EEE, which one would you rather have.
Questions, questions. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not the 881S would be a good match for a Pioneer PL-520? My turntable is only designed to track up to 3 grams if you use the VTF front weight to adjust the tracking force.
The DTL-2 is .3 x .7 elliptical, the DTL-1 is .4 x .7 elliptical. I don’t know why the DTL-1 is more expensive, but you can see from the packaging that the original price is lower—which reflects the usual pricing scheme. .3 x .7 is a finer elliptical and usually more desirable. The .4 x .7 is broader and usually less desirable in the marketplace. But the Stanton .4 x .7 is excellent. In this case, they’re cheap enough that Is grab both. Why not? But if choosing one, I’d get the less expensive “better” profile, which is the DTL-2.
I’m not familiar with that arm. The 881 is very compliant and also forgiving. I’ve run mine in an SL-1200–an arm this is arguably too heavy for it. But I use the lightest headshell I can find, aluminum hardware and the brush. Resonance frequency figures work out right, so it’s a good match for the SL-1200 with that configuration.
I saw an 881S for sale but I don't think it's an old stock type needle. I just was contemplating whether to waste time running up the bid for it or just buy one of the two needles you linked to and stick with my 681. When it's on, i'ts wonderful, but with this EVG stylus I am growing increasingly frustrated the more use it gets..
Well, I just nabbed the DTL-2. Still thinking about the 881S what do you suppose this stylus is? https://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Stant...e=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2055359.m1431.l2649
Can’t be exactly sure with those photos. But the cantilever size looks like D81 of some kind, hopefully Stereohedron—possibly a weird one like the D84 for the L847S, which is the same thing anyway. There is also a D80E elliptical that it could be, which was supplied with the 880E. If it’s a late 881S from Florida, then the stylus could be a D81-IIS, which is just a highly polished .3 x .7 bonded elliptical. You’d have to ask the seller.
Well now I will have to see which arrives first, the Jico D1200 or the DTL-2. Surely one of these styli will give me what I am looking for.
They both will, and you’ll have a spare.
Incidentally, I discovered by reading another post of yours that my supposed EVG 822EEE is actually a Pfanstiehl with the hole in the grip and the red paint on top of the cantilever. Can't understand why it's so hit and miss on the sound quality as I thought this was supposed to be a better stylus. Sure tracked like crap on that Demons and Wizards album and the sibilance drove me bonkers.
What tracking force are you using?
This is pretty much why I recommend the Jico (from Jico) D1200 now. I realize that the Pfanstiehl 4822-DEE can behave badly on different arms or maybe they are just inconsistent.
I think my D680 is a dud (or bad NOS which I imagine is very common). The cantilever is bent and it sounds terrible, even aligned to the cantilever.
Didn’t you say it came in Russell packaging, though?
On one end of the package, it says Russell Industries in small print. On the other side it says EVG as a logo.
I tried it with about 1.25 grams and at about 2.25 grams. Seemed not to make much difference other than at the heavier force, the arm didn't jump around as badly.
EVG buys styli. They make nothing. It's possible, therefore, that they bought your stylus from Pfanstiehl's Swiss supplier.
Or just bought the grip and put their own stylus in it. Or, or, or...
I have seen mismatched parts like that. This is why the best advice is still probably to just go with Jico directly from Jico Japan.
Credit to @malden for being persistent on this point. Other vendors say their product is “Jico” left and right but the others are not the same quality.
Separate names with a comma.