Hi Ralph: No, I missed that post of yours, but it is a good one. Much of my knowledge of the LP cutting process comes from Takawa-san and his boys who were responsible for all of the King Super Analog series, and also Joe Harley, who has produced many a LP, but it is nice to be able to check my information against yours.
Guys, Ralph owns and operates an LP cutting lathe, and when he writes something about LPs and the LP mastering and cutting process, his words are based on first-hand experience!
BTW, I have absolutely no desire to dissuade anyone from using a USB microscope. As a firm believer in the importance of correlating objective measurements with subjective listening impressions (or at least seriously trying), I strongly encourage the use of azimuth checkers, digital scales, USB microscopes and anything else which can attach numbers to what we hear.
My prime suggestion in this case is that the ear be used as the principle guide, and the microscope used to translate the optimal setting into numbers that can be replicated or independently confirmed.
I'd love to see a database containing the SRA findings of hundreds of audiophiles. The greater the number of SRA reports, the more the outlier cases will be down-prioritized, leading to more meaningful results for us cartridge manufacturers. It would also be nice to have cantilever rake angles (which the microscope software should be able to supply) as well as the SRA, since the cantilever rake angle must also affect how the cartridge responds to the LP groove (as I wrote in my previous post).
kind regards to all, jonathan
Guys, Ralph owns and operates an LP cutting lathe, and when he writes something about LPs and the LP mastering and cutting process, his words are based on first-hand experience!
BTW, I have absolutely no desire to dissuade anyone from using a USB microscope. As a firm believer in the importance of correlating objective measurements with subjective listening impressions (or at least seriously trying), I strongly encourage the use of azimuth checkers, digital scales, USB microscopes and anything else which can attach numbers to what we hear.
My prime suggestion in this case is that the ear be used as the principle guide, and the microscope used to translate the optimal setting into numbers that can be replicated or independently confirmed.
I'd love to see a database containing the SRA findings of hundreds of audiophiles. The greater the number of SRA reports, the more the outlier cases will be down-prioritized, leading to more meaningful results for us cartridge manufacturers. It would also be nice to have cantilever rake angles (which the microscope software should be able to supply) as well as the SRA, since the cantilever rake angle must also affect how the cartridge responds to the LP groove (as I wrote in my previous post).
kind regards to all, jonathan