What's a Stanton 980 ...

[BrocLuno]

Just bought a used headshell and it came with a Stanton 980 cartridge. Never heard much about this one. What is it?

Sounds pretty good on Country (Hank Williams)

Seems to work just fine with the little ART DJ Pre

 

[boreas]

I think the 980LZS was a low output moving magnet cartridge fitted with a stereohedron stylus (or was that the 981?). Its output was .3mV and Stanton offered a SUT with it so that it could be connected to a conventional MM Phono input. I think there was a Pickering equivalent as well.

John

 

[fiddlefye]

Just bought a used headshell and it came with a Stanton 980 cartridge. Never heard much about this one. What is it?

Sounds pretty good on Country (Hank Williams)

Seems to work just fine with the little ART DJ Pre

I knew they existed, but that is about it. Your listening impressions will be appreciated. Sounds like an interesting cart.

 

[ETI_5000]

That's a really great find.:thmbsp:

The Stanton 980 was the non-calibrated version of the Stanton 981, which was one of Stanton’s best ever cartridges. (Similar to the Stanton 680 and 681, of which the 681 was measured and calibrated, but the 680 wasn’t.) The 980/981 was basically their attempt to counter some of the advantages which moving coil cartridges have in providing better audio quality. They released two versions of the 980/981, the LZS and the HZS. The LZS was a low output MM with stereohedron line contact stylus, which had the same very low inductance that MC’s have, and so had the same relatively immunity to changes in load capacitance, but had the MM advantage of user replaceable stylus. The HZS was a higher output version of the LZS, that was compatible with a standard MM preamp. The 980/981 HZS and LZS cost the same, and were the top Stantons for some time in the 1980’s, above the 880S/881S.

The 980/981 LZS of course needed a MC preamp or step up transformer, but apparently had at least some of the extraordinary audio quality of top MC cartridges, and can probably be regarded as the best cartridge Stanton ever made. Anyway, whichever version you have, it was a really great cartridge. Stanton and Pickering also supplied preamps for the low output models.

As John said, there was a Pickering version as well – the Pickering XLZ 7500 (1/2 inch mount) and the TLZ 7500 (T4P) were their low output versions.

 

[ETI_5000]

There is a 1982 review available for download here http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=25557 (for registered vinylengine users), in which the reviewer gives the ultimate compliment for a MM cartridge, that it sounded like a MC.

 

[BrocLuno]

Wow - well this has to be the HO version as it's just going through the ART Pre and doing fine.

Been listening all evening. Have no idea how many hours are on it ... Stylus felt sort of sharp so I thought why not (thrift store vinyl) ...

Will clean it up a bit and play some of my better LPs and see what I hear

 

[thedelihaus]

As nice as it is, I was never jazzed by the 681. Really like the 881. The 980/981 is supposed to be a real sweet cart.

Congrats, and enjoy!

 

[Sam Cogley]

As good as the 881 is, if the 98x is even better, I'd love to hear one.

 

[ETI_5000]

Just to make things clear, when I mentioned ‘similar to the 680 and 681’ I didn’t mean it was a similar cartridge – just that it had calibrated and non-calibrated versions, the same as the 680 and 681. The 980/981 were in essence based on the 880/881 (but improved), and were MM cartridges, not MI like the 680/681.

 

[empirelvr]

*sigh* The 981HZS is my all time favorite cartridge, hands down. I still own the body. I keep dreaming one day I'll trip over some NOS styli for it.

Take very good care of that stylus BrocLuno. It is much less rugged than what is the usual norm for Stanton/Pickering. It also is pure unobtanium, and you will want to get it retipped when the time comes.

 

[jrtrent]

I last used my 981LZS in the early to mid-1990's, because that's when Stanton stopped producing styli for it. My next cartridge was a 681 EEE Mk III, and I found no loss in musical enjoyment using it. I didn't keep either cartridge once Stanton stopped making styli for them.

 

[KentTeffeteller]

The Stanton 980 and 981 were Stanton's finest cartridges ever made. Basically a Moving Coil in reverse with a replaceable stylus. Practical and superb sounding, and above all unappreciated in it's heyday. The 681 is still my mainstay even now. I like the midrange better on the 680/681, but the 980/981 is more accurate of a cartridge.

 

[fiddlefye]

Broc, sounds like you have a winna, creme de la creme of the flower of Empire production in your hands. Enjoy and let us know how it goes. Nice that high grade re-tipping and re-builds of just about anything is available these days.

 

[wualta]

I wonder if a D8#S stylus-- rare enough but more common than the D9#S-- would work properly (ie, give flat response) in the 98# bodies.

 

[empirelvr]

I wonder if a D8#S stylus-- rare enough but more common than the D9#S-- would work properly (ie, give flat response) in the 98# bodies.

I don't think it would. The DC resistance and inductance specs differ between the 881 and 981.

DC Resistance:

881: 900 Ohms
981: 800 Ohms

Inductance:

881:510mH
981 450mH

That doesn't look TOO far off, but it might be enough to mess around with the frequency response.

 

[wualta]

Thank you for that info. It's a very small inductance difference, and the small frequency response error would be mainly confined to the top octave.

So no, not an exact replacement, but far better than nothing.

I do like the 0.2mg effective tip mass (ETM) spec on the D98S stylus. I don't think I've ever seen a corresponding figure for the D81S.

 

[dlaloum]

I have the very near relative the low output Pickering XLZ7500S.

I have measured the resonant frequency of the cantilever at 25kHz - which implies an effective tip mass of 0.35g

Very good - but not the same as 0.2g (which would show up as a res freq of 33kHz)

It is possible that the pickering was a different spec - but unlikely.
It is also possible that my stylus is not the original top spec item...

Still it is often interesting to actually measure the claimed specs - they don't always pan out, especially with the ones that are more difficult to measure - such as ETM / Resonant frequency!

bye for now

David

P.S. it is indeed a great cartridge!

 

[empirelvr]

I have the very near relative the low output Pickering XLZ7500S.

I have measured the resonant frequency of the cantilever at 25kHz - which implies an effective tip mass of 0.35g

Very good - but not the same as 0.2g (which would show up as a res freq of 33kHz)

It is possible that the pickering was a different spec - but unlikely.
It is also possible that my stylus is not the original top spec item...

Still it is often interesting to actually measure the claimed specs - they don't always pan out, especially with the ones that are more difficult to measure - such as ETM / Resonant frequency!

bye for now

David

P.S. it is indeed a great cartridge!

David, as my favorite cartridge spec guru, could you hazard a guess how much of a deviation one would get using a D81 family stylus in a 980 series body, given the DC resistance and inductance differences between the 880 and 980 series I noted earlier in the thread?

 

[dlaloum]

David, as my favorite cartridge spec guru, could you hazard a guess how much of a deviation one would get using a D81 family stylus in a 980 series body, given the DC resistance and inductance differences between the 880 and 980 series I noted earlier in the thread?

Well my first comment is that you are clearly talking about the high output HZS as opposed to the low outputs LZS version...

The interesting thing about a low output cartridge, is that it is usually a low inductance design (in this case 1mH)

This means that there is very little scope for adjustment of the cantilever response electrically - what you get is largely the raw response of the cantilever - as is the case with MC's

The HZS shares the stylus - yet has an inductance in the range where that will definitely have an impact on the voicing....
My gut feel is the HZS may well be the superior version as a result (in theoretical perfectionist objectivist manner...).

The 880 inductance is not hugely different...

Also looking at the equivalent Pickering range:

the low output cartridges were
XLZ7500
XLZ4500
XLZ3500

and the high output cartridges:
XSV4004/4000
XSV3003/3000

According to pickering uk, the styli for each of these were different (even though all the XLZ's appear to have the same body, as do the XSV's)

increased inductance implies an earlier start to the HF drop off and a steeper slope to the dropoff - but a small reduction in cable capacitance could balance that out - I am not sure it is of import.

In my most recent mulling - I am starting to think that the key difference between the very best bodies and the next rung down may be to do with impedance rather than resistance.

ie: how reactive the magnetic system is to the signal, rather than simple resistance.
The resistance really is a bit neither here nor there.
The better bodies used laminations, torroidal coils/poles, HotPressedFerrite, or slit poles (depending on manufacturer/design) to reduce unwanted non linearities.
I have been thinking about how one could measure/identify some of these aspects... I do wonder whether the outcome of these engineering solutions would be visible in the impedance of a cartridge...
One of the things I have been noticing is that where the specifications are available (not often!) - the cartridges where the impedance deviates the least from the resistance tend to be the highly regarded audiophile ones...

So it is not necessarily about having a low resistance, but about having a resistance that reacts the least possible amount with frequency... (ie: impedance not resistance)
I think that the magnetic systems can saturate at higher frequencies (may not be the right terminology) - resulting in a drop off in signal at the high end, but only for high level signals - low level signals would pass through normally.
The result would be a type of HF compression.
In measurement it might show up as a HF drop off at 0db (1kHz) - while being perfectly flat at -20db.

I think the 980 bodies may have benefitted from some technology of this kind - What would be interesting would be to measure the impedance of an 880 body and a 980 body at 100Hz, 1kHz, 10kHz.

I currently do not own a variable frequency impedance meter, but am considering one for this very reason... (curiosity!)

Couple more thoughts - the Pickering XSV4000 has an output of 3.8mV where the XSV3000 has 5mV - given the bodies are identical, I have to assume larger magnets in the 3000 - which would provide higher output, but also increase the moving mass....

The 880/881 is also a 5mV output where the 980HZS is 4mV

Increased Moving Mass, reduces resonant frequency, and as it is closer to the main audible zone - the rise (to the Res Freq) is more audible... (and visible in F/R plots) - unless balanced electrically using the LCR loading - a slight increase in inductance as is visible in the 880 specs would help.

to cut my musings short - no way of knowing without measuring...

A stylus designed to provide a flat frequency response in a low inductance design is likely to be the superior one under all circumstances (and the more expensive one!)

bye for now

David

 

[dlaloum]

I have a printout of a Stanton spec sheet .... (from Michael Otto's Archive - a great resource!)

Note that the spec for the 881 and the 980 are the same...

ie: the high output bodies are identical - or at least the ones produced at that time were! (there may have been earlier or later production runs that varied...)

Implication is that the sole difference is the stylus