Pickering TL series

[willbewill]

I have a couple of the Pickering TLs - TL-2S and TL-3, the stylus dimensions are quoted the same. What is the difference in the cartridges as TL3 gives better HF response and are the Styli interchangeable?

Model                tip               Stylus number     VTF      Fr. range   output              load       weight

TL4-S   Stereohedron 2x(8x71)    DTL4-S    0.75 - 1.5    10 - 25k    4.4mV    275pf  47k ohm    5.9gr
TL3-S   Stereohedron 2x(8x71)    DTL3-S    0.75 - 1.5    10 - 25k    4.4mV    275pf  47k ohm    5.9gr
TL2-S   Stereohedron 2x(8x71)    DTL2-S    0.75 - 1.5    10 - 22k    4.4mV    275pf  47k ohm    5.9gr
TLE/2   Eliptical 7.6 x 17.8           D2E        0.75 - 1.5    10 - 20k    3.0mV    275pf  47k ohm    5.9gr
TLE      Eliptical 7.6 x 17.8           DLE        0.75 - 1.5    10 - 20k    4.4mV    275pf  47k ohm    6.0gr
TE       Eliptical 10 x 17.8             DE         0.75 - 1.5    20 - 20k    4.4mV    275pf  47k ohm    5.5gr

[Wout]

Yes Malcolm, interesting cartridge which I've tried to reasearch in the past because I happen to to have a TL3 body, 1 DTL3-S and 1 DTL2-S needle. Unfortunately there's not much to find.
All I can tell you is I think (guessing here) these are the Pickering equivalents of the Stanton "Universal Mount" moving irons (not MM as stated at vinylengine):

Model   VTF     Tip                           FR      Output   Ch.sep      DC      Ind.
L747S  .75-1.5  Stereohedron .3x2.8 (8x71)    10-25k  1.2        35        1300    900
L737S  .75-1.5  Stereohedron .3x2.8 (8x71)    10-22k  1.2        35        1300    900
L737E  .75-1.5  Elliptical   .3x.7 (7.6x17.8) 10-22k  1.2        35        1300    900
L727E  .75-1.5  Elliptical   .4x.7 (10x17.8)  10-20k  1.2        32        1300    900

My best guess is the compliance is different for each stylus hence different FR. So body should be the same. On the other hand: all VTF's are the same. It beats me.
Problem is we don't know the compliances for all of them. I just know for the DTL2-S from the pickering UK site: 17cu.

You have to be careful though. As far as I know, there are 3 stereohedrons and 2 ellipticals which all interchange.

TL4     Stereohedron 2x(8x71)        DTL4-S    0.75 - 1.5    10 - 25k    4.4mV    275pf  47k ohm    5.9gr
TL3     Stereohedron 2x(8x71)        DTL3-S    0.75 - 1.5    10 - 25k    4.4mV    275pf  47k ohm    5.9gr
TL2     Stereohedron 2x(8x71)        DTL2-S    0.75 - 1.5    10 - 22k    4.4mV    275pf  47k ohm    5.9gr
TL2     Eliptical .3x.7 (7.6 x 17.8) DTL2      0.75 - 1.5    10 - 22k    ?        ?      ?          ?    
TL1     Eliptical .4x.7 (10 x 17.8)  DTL1      0.75 - 1.5    10 - 20k    ?        ?      ?          ?

I'm not sure if there's a "E" suffix on the ellipticals.

I believe the others are not compatible, these are MM equivalent to the V15 series:
bodies: TLE, TLE Type II and TLC
styli: DLE, DL-2E and DLC

A lot of this stuff is based on conjecture so don't take my word for it. All bits and pieces from around the interwebs, often contradicting.

I've used the DTL2-S in a TL3 body and it works fine. Aren't these marvellous cartridges?



*edit spelling*

[willbewill]

Aren't these are marvellous cartridges?

SSSHHHH

[Wout]

Yeah I know, I'm not glad either. 

[richard]

OK, guys: you conjured me.

First, let's state the obvious: these are all P-Mount cartridges. They're also politely called "universal" because they're provided with adaptor bracket that allow them to be used in standard arms.

They were made in three different technologies, so the needles do not freely interchange between the models. And Stanton usually did not reveal which was which. It took me a number of hours to pull the data together for my book, and if memory serves me correctly, there were still one or two of them about which I wasn't 100% certain (noted in the book). Because the factory information was slightly "iffy" as you've discovered, I made up my own tables about these cartridges for the book.

Now, there are ground rules for P-mount cartridges, which these cartridges all meet. The first of these rules is that they must all be able to track at 1.25 grams. Therefore, every one of them has a practical range of 1.25-1.5g, and in a super arm, you may be able to get by with a bit less from the best of them.

Compliance will be more-or-less similar for all of them, and this in keeping with their tracking force range and their interchangeablility within the P-mount concept. Similarly, the overhang of the diamond tip has to meet a rigid standard.

What's the concept?
Simple. It's that the salesman in the stereo store can plug in a cartridge in five minutes and it will be in perfect alignment. And get on to the next sale: time is money. (Hmm: Steinfeld, consider your writing time and stop doing this. But you've gotta help our your Lenco buddies, right?)  In Stereo Heaven, all this assumes that the cartridges will be perfectly aligned because the turntables are perfectly aligned, which they aren't.

They are good cartriedges (hussssssh).
Stanton blew it because they made almost all the needles look the same, a sort of reduced-size Stantonesque appearance, so most of the needles look almost the same: you can't just eyeball a stylus and instantly tell which cartridge it goes with.

You can interchange styi between these bodies and standard models. But it helps to know which is which. (Here: I said it.)

You may also notice that none of them show brushes in the pictures. There's a reason for this, which has to do with the manufacturing practices of certain P-mount turntables, especially the linear-trackers. Brushes will mess up the practicality, and they'll also throw off the P-mount standard for cartridge weight.

I installed a couple of these for customers a long time ago. In general, I didn't use P-mount cartridges because I was very unimpressed with how most of the matching turntables were made, which was off-spec. And this meant permanently and uncorrectably out-of-alignment. P-mount turntables have rigid geometry. I decided that most P-mount turntables make good, but oversized, door stops. However, I think that we should assume that the better ones were actually made properly and can be trusted.

Despite this reservation, these cartridges were, for the most part, good performers. And I'd say the same about P-mount cartridges from other manufacturers, too. In other words, all the P-mount cartridges were simliar to their standard-mount brethren. The big question is which performance range is delivered by any individual "universal" cartridge that we happen to be looking at?

One of these models is in current production right now. It is one of the lower models, but a couple of our Lencohaulics have said that they''ve been pleased with it. I forgot the model number. It's almost identical to the former Stanton V15 Mk. II E.
-------------
Pssst: Wanna buy a book?

(c) 2011 Richard Steinfeld

[willbewill]

Hi Richard thanks for the 'taster' but I'm not sure I want to spend 60 bucks just to find out about the TL series.

[richard]

Yeah. That's a point, Malcolm.
I've tried to give enough information to let people know how they can swap needles in and out of product groups successfully. This is a good investment for people who are serious about wanting to seriously consider, use, and explore these products. I intend for it to be s a how-to book. It's not a good investment for casual perusal, and there was no practical way for me to price it for that. But for the right people, I've hoped for The Handbook to be solid gold.

[Paul]

I have deleted the content of this post because it contained information that erroneously suggested that the Pickering D-11-S stylus was the replacement stylus for one of the Pickering P-Mount cartridges. There's enough bad info out there on the net without me adding to it.

[Wout]

Hi Paul,
Be careful: the TLC is a MM and not compatible with the TL-2S or its siblings. See post #2.

[Paul]

Aah yes, that is the danger I referred to of posting info when one is not sure of the source. Shall I delete the TLC text?

Deleted, see above.

[richard]

Paul, what text are you talking about? Who provided these specs? 

I'm not familiar with any cartridge named the "681." It's a 681-something (unless its some strange designation from the Florida people; they really messed up Stanton's mostly-sensible designations, and sometimes made mistakes in their own specifications!).

The VTF specification for all P-mount cartridges was 1.25 grams. and the turntables were all set to this pressure when fitted with the standardized-weight cartridges. It's reasonable to assume that all of these cartridges will track 1/4 gram higher. However, much later, turntable makers began to offer disco turntables made for P-mount cartridges, and these disco P-mounts track heavier.

The compliance of the 681EEE (in all versions that I've ever known) has been 25. It's good to keep this in mind because Pickering actually offered more choices that were a bit more forgiving. To me, when a needle's compliance goes higher than about 17, we have to get pretty serious about the arm.

I recall that you have my book? (Maybe I'm wrong). I worked to ensure that the specs therein (or with it) were correct. I only covered two of the Florida-made products, however, because their products kept changing almost every time that I blinked.

The classic tip size of the 681EEE was .2 x .7 mils. It appears that the Florida people changed this to .3 x .7 (as their "Mk. III" version, which was a downgrade from the "II"). In their specs, compliance was still 25. The .3 x .7 tip size is actually nice to live with. I usually prefer it to the .2 mil tracing radius.

Also note that Stanton/Pickering used three different magnetic technologies in their P-mount products, so it's easy to get them mixed-up incorrectly when looking at what the dealers are offering.

Good luck.

[Paul]

Hi Richard, perhaps I should have written "Shall I delete the reference to the TLC from the text?" but I was working at the time and was a little distracted.

Paul, what text are you talking about? Who provided these specs?  

In the first paragraph of my post I mentioned that I couldn't remember where the information came from so couldn't swear to its accuracy   I very nearly didn't post about it and maybe shouldn't have. I remember that D-11-S stylus being very good though, and that memory is mainly what made me search out the heavier tracking D6800SL stylus when you mentioned it favourably (along with many others). The D-11-S was the stylus that converted me to Stanton and Pickering.

Yes, I have your book and it's beside me at the moment. Great reference and it's beside me at the moment - not much in it about the P mounts though. It would be nice to help you find more info for your supplement.

[richard]

Paul wrote,

Yes, I have your book and it's beside me at the moment. Great reference and it's beside me at the moment - not much in it about the P mounts though. It would be nice to help you find more info for your supplement.

And, yes: I definitely welcome all information about styli, especially for the private-label needles. The only place where specs were ever printed for private-label needles were on the instruction sheets that were provided with the new cartridges, and with some (not all) of the replacement styli (never any compliance info). It's doubtful that there is any P-mount data that I haven't provided already, but there can always be surprises. The P-mount range consisted of a small group in each of the two brands. My information about them came from consumer flyers covering the entire P-mount line, as well as dealer listings. I installed only a few of them for customers during the 80s, and was never inclined to keep one for myself.

It's doubtful that Stanton thought of these the same way that they did their products that were used by professionals. These were, almost totally, consumer items. There was almost no need for any professional to use one.

I never liked the P-mount concept in practice. Its purpose was to allow a stereo salesman to slap a cartridge into a machine quickly and move on to the next customer. As far as I could tell, the cartridge makers did a decent job adhering to the industry standards and making good cartridges for these turntables. This is probably good to know, because, although I did see a couple of cartridge makers putting out some pretty grotty needles and pickups, these "bottom-feeders" were not especially focused on the P-mount system.

But the turntable makers played fast and loose with workmanship in their "popular-priced" models, sticking buyers with permanently off-alignment arms. Some of the adapter mounts caused problems in practice (Stanton's were good). You can take a good adapter mount from "Brand A" and put a cartridge from "Brand B" into it.

Stanton's practice whenever introducing a new technology, was to introduce a flurry of related models, and within a short time, weed out those that weren't selling. I don't recall how this played out with the P-mounts.

In general, I avoided these cartridges for standard arms. You see, I like the brush. It does its job very well, much better than Shure's, because Stanton's is not grounded. So, I use them myself, unless (like the 500s), the needles don't come with them (needles intended for production environments weren't given brushes  for a couple of practical reasons). The P-mount cartridges and needles didn't come with brushes because some linear-tracking systems used optical arm control based on the position of the cartridge, and the brush would have interfered with these optical systems. But it sounds like your particular needle did accept a brush from a standard cartridge (good!).

One interesting point I can make about P-mount needles is that, because of the rigid standards for this system, you can assume that all the needles fall more-or-less into the same compliance range, regardless of brand, price, or quality of the cartridge. There was another name for the P-mount system (I keep forgetting it, something with the number "4," I think). This system was similar to Compact Cassettes, video cassettes, etc., in that anyone playing in that arena was supposed to adhere to a rigid set of specifications, such as stylus overhang in both cartridge and arm, tracking force, and more. I think that, in practice, cartridge and arm makers considered compliance and arm matching in terms of ranges, so that these styli will hit the mark in their meeting the requirements of the arm spec. even if they're not quite the same.

Again, I've had some (limited) experience with these cartridges in both Stanton an other brands. I've tried here to tell you what my own mental process is when thinking about these products. And if you can find a good one among them for you own listening, that's great!

[GP49]

There was another name for the P-mount system (I keep forgetting it, something with the number "4," I think).

T4P.  But nobody ever calls it by that name.   Photo of an Audio Technica AT312EP shows the T4P logo.

[griffithds]

Hi Richard,

The TP-4 was the industry's other name for the "P" mount.  I would like to add that I have 2 of the TL-4S Stanton's.  One in its "P" mount original housing and the other, I mounted the stylus on a XV-15 Gold body.  Both sound damn near the same to me which BTW is excellent.  Extremely close to my 981 HZS is detail retrieval. I sort of hate to "let the cat out of the bag" in stating this because the styli are getting hard to find.
The other "thought little of" jem is the Epoch II line. Hate the flimsy body assembly but sonically, it will provide the goods, and to me, that's all that matters.

Regards,
Don