Different version of Stanton 681EEE

681EEE had a 0.2x0.7mil elliptical tip
MkIIS had the Stereohedron II tip (0.3x2.8mil)
The MkIII had a 0.3x0.7mil elliptical tip
The MkIII was basically a backward step in quality as the company was already getting out of the hifi cartridge business. I have several MkIII styli and they have all hardened. Even at the time the azimuth errors were extremely poor and the tracking ability was very variable. You will see some marketing brochures claiming nude tips. They were all bonded. Towards the end of the production, they even managed to bond the tips 90� off axis so that the tracing radius was on the MAJOR axis!

The styli have the markings on them to identify version. If they don't, they are 3rd party.

Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

Noted. nt, posted on June 24, 2017 at 01:26:57
jusbe Audiophile Posts: 5950 Location: North Island Joined: April 4, 2000	Big J "... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal* salvation is a contradiction in terms."*

RE: Different version of Stanton 681EEE, posted on June 24, 2017 at 06:32:03
Tube747 Audiophile Posts: 419 Joined: May 11, 2004	Between mk1 and mk2, which one is better?

RE: Different version of Stanton 681EEE, posted on June 24, 2017 at 09:59:46
jusbe Audiophile Posts: 5950 Location: North Island Joined: April 4, 2000	Stereohedrons are often considered to be better than their elliptical counterparts. Big J "... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal* salvation is a contradiction in terms."*

RE: Different version of Stanton 681EEE, posted on June 24, 2017 at 10:04:20
SgreenP@MSN.com Audiophile Posts: 3537 Joined: April 23, 2007	Flood2 ..very interesting. I had a 681EEE in the old days, and thought at the time the sound was very good. I really don't remember the sound or my means of evaluation, but just my general sense.

RE: Different version of Stanton 681EEE, posted on June 24, 2017 at 15:03:47
Tube747 Audiophile Posts: 419 Joined: May 11, 2004	Hello! Should we conclude all three versions behave differently? All of them have its own strength.

RE: Different version of Stanton 681EEE, posted on June 24, 2017 at 16:15:53

flood2
Audiophile

Posts: 2558
Joined: January 11, 2011

The 0.2x0.7mil nude tip was/is very good. My father had the 681EE which precedes the EEE and had slightly lower tracking ability. The EEE had improved suspension.
I have the D3500E and D78E styli for my low impedance bodies and they are superb performers. I believe that these bodies with a Stereohedron tip represent the pinnacle of Stanton's achievements and (to me) handily beat moderately priced LOMCs such as the Denon DL301/II. I wouldn't go so far as to say they could compete against a DL304, but certainly they were "underpriced" and very definitely underappreciated for the performance.
The MkIIS was released at the peak of Stanton's reputation IMO and everything went downhill in the late 80s/early 90s through poor quality control.
Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

RE: Different version of Stanton 681EEE, posted on June 24, 2017 at 16:22:59

flood2
Audiophile

Posts: 2558
Joined: January 11, 2011

If your question is simply to rank them, then the MkIIS is the winner having a line contact stylus combined with an improved low mass cantilever/suspension. The MkIII is simply junk IMO!!! It was released because the Stereohedron was no longer being made and Stanton simply moved over to a single elliptical profile (0.3x0.7mil) for all styli. It was released during the decline of the company when quality was shockingly bad and so performance was variable.
If your question is so that you can track down NOS styli? Then forget about it. If you have an original stylus assembly you are happy with, get that retipped.
Most NOS styli are being sold because they are now past their "best by" date and you are taking a huge risk. Basically, they are overpriced for the risk you are taking.
Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

RE: Different version of Stanton 681EEE, posted on June 24, 2017 at 16:58:26
SgreenP@MSN.com Audiophile Posts: 3537 Joined: April 23, 2007	Don't you wonder why they allowed the downhill slide?? If they worked so hard to make it right, why would they nullify that effort??

RE: Different version of Stanton 681EEE, posted on June 24, 2017 at 18:24:41

flood2
Audiophile

Posts: 2558
Joined: January 11, 2011

Disappointing wasn't it? Plus short sighted too.
The samples I have from their heyday are brilliant examples of engineering. I had never seen anything but PERFECT alignment in their products up until the mid 80s. So the moment I got styli that had azimuth errors of even 1� I thought something was wrong. All the styli I bought for the 681 in the 90s (all mk3) had errors of 3 to 4� as a MINIMIUM. I even had batches that were 9� in error!!!! I had taken to buying styli in batches to cherry pick the good ones. In the end it simply didn't make economic sense given the effective cost of finding a "good one" and I turned to AT and other brands.
My guess is that when it "appeared" that the writing was on the wall for vinyl, they started to widen the acceptable process limits in order to maximise earnings and minimise waste.
From what I can gather from different knowledgeable sources getting good staff who had the necessary skill and quality focus were very hard to come by.

Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

Speaking of which..., posted on June 25, 2017 at 02:20:45
jusbe Audiophile Posts: 5950 Location: North Island Joined: April 4, 2000	... did you get to try any of the OEM XL33-U Pickerings that came on the market recently? The equivalent of the TL2-S and with Stereohedron styli. Big J "... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal* salvation is a contradiction in terms."*

RE: Speaking of which..., posted on June 25, 2017 at 06:05:17
Tube747 Audiophile Posts: 419 Joined: May 11, 2004	How you compare the XL33-U Pickerings with Stanton 681EEE MK2S?

Never had a 681EEE. But,, posted on June 25, 2017 at 06:11:49

jusbe
Audiophile

Posts: 5950
Location: North Island
Joined: April 4, 2000

I have the Pickering equivalent, the XV15-625E and the XL33-U. I understand they are the same body, and seemingly the same stylus (Stereohedron) on the XL33-U version. The 681EEE mk2S may have a better finished/cut version of the stylus though. The 625E stylus is a Pickering elliptical.

Big J

"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."

RE: Speaking of which..., posted on June 25, 2017 at 18:05:03

flood2
Audiophile

Posts: 2558
Joined: January 11, 2011

Hi

Are these in addition to the ones you scored a while back? No I haven't really been paying too much attention to the NOS market as I have more bodies and styli than I can use in my lifetime!!
Incidentally, with respect to suspension hardening issues... I have found that they are "period"/batch dependent. Oddly, I have original D4500Q styli with the ultra thin cantilever and low VTA (first batch was <20 degrees) and they still work beautifully! The problematic ones seem to be from the mid to late 80s and early 90s. It is possible that the elastomer grade was not the same. This is why I don't bother looking at NOS styli now - I have so many and I decided to retip the ones that are optimally matched to bodies.
For MI, I have a 737S which I use with a Pickering D-11S. The D73S had hardened suspension unfortunately. Interestingly the frequency response hasn't been affected and tracking ability wasn't bad at 1.25g (60um - which is what I expect for this grade) although the compliance shift put the LF resonance around 11Hz. This could be detected on silent grooves where you could hear a sort of rattling/chattering sound! Also bass drum kicks were distorted. Initially I thought it was an issue with using the P-mount adapter in a normal headshell - the assembly is not exactly "tight" in the sense that the adapter does flex under load. However, the D11S didn't have the issue and my Epoch 98S cartridges (bascially the L847S with D84S styli) were also free of these nasties. So that's what to listen for apart from the obvious limited tracking ability.

How were these new ones for alignment and performance?

Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

RE: Speaking of which..., posted on June 25, 2017 at 18:30:33

flood2
Audiophile

Posts: 2558
Joined: January 11, 2011

The XL-33U is a P-mount cartridge but it is supplied with a standard mount adapter.
Although it is a MI cartidge like the 680/XV15 body, electrically it is very slightly different with the nominal inductance specified at 900mH instead of 930mH. In practice you won't actually find any difference with manufacturing variances.
The P-mount specification is for a nominal VTF of 1.25g so the compliance of the P-mount cartridges is tuned to meet this requirement.
The bodies also put the cantilever at slightly different angles, so the SRA is adjusted on the P-mount styli to correct the difference. P-mount styli on a normal 1/2 inch mount body like the 680 will end up with a higher SRA.
Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

RE: Never had a 681EEE. But,, posted on June 25, 2017 at 18:37:20

flood2
Audiophile

Posts: 2558
Joined: January 11, 2011

Hi Justin

The P-mount bodies have slightly different electrical specifications with the nominal inductance specifies at 900mH rather than 930mH. Also, the angle of the tip is adjusted to reflect the different angle that the body sits at. So putting a P-mount tip on a normal 1/2 inch body results in a slightly higher SRA. I have found the SRA on the normal 1/2 inch styli to be somewhat below optimum and sit between 0 and 1 degree. Some are negative!! So the P-mount styli actually work better in a 1/2 inch body.
Interesting that you mention about the cut quality - I have found that the Stereohedron tips on the low end models to be rather poor! These cheaper ones are bonded. Under the microscope, the cuts are not straight or symmetric. In some cases, they are not bonded in the correct orientation. My D6800EEEIIS styli were nude whereas my D-11S and D73S are bonded.
Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

RE: Speaking of which..., posted on June 26, 2017 at 02:13:16

jusbe
Audiophile

Posts: 5950
Location: North Island
Joined: April 4, 2000

Same ones. I still have to align a couple of them. And not mounted these and played extensively since I got them just before we moved back to the northern hemisphere! So a proper experiment is still on hold for the moment.

When we got back, we discovered the shippers had destroyed our Garrard plinth (luckily not the 401 which is bomb-proof). Had to do the whole insurance, claim, re-purchase and restore thing. Sent the 401 to Loricraft for a service, etc, which turned out very nicely.

Big J

"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."

Also good to know., posted on June 26, 2017 at 02:14:59
jusbe Audiophile Posts: 5950 Location: North Island Joined: April 4, 2000	Yes, I suspected that the higher quality production attracted commensurate pricing. Big J "... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal* salvation is a contradiction in terms."*

RE: Never had a 681EEE. But,, posted on June 26, 2017 at 07:09:58
Tube747 Audiophile Posts: 419 Joined: May 11, 2004	Now I confused. The Pickering XV-15 625E is not A, but eclipses. Therefore, looks like this isn't 681EEE MK2S.

Sorry typo, posted on June 26, 2017 at 09:55:41
Tube747 Audiophile Posts: 419 Joined: May 11, 2004	Sorry typo! I supposed to write: "Pickering XV-15 625E is not Stereohedron but eclipses."

Vinyl Asylum

Different version of Stanton 681EEE

58.152.26.217