Axel, here again is the link:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1140840022&openmine&Nsgarch&4&5&st0
The idea of properly setting the SRA (again, only an important issue with line contact styli) is to have the ridges on each side of the stylus 'lean' forward at the same rake angle as the cutterhead (or did you think cutterheads were positioned straight up and down? Ever try using a chisel that way ;-)
Ah the fingerlift again. Well, I don't care if you amplifiy it a million times, you won't hear it ;-)
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1140840022&openmine&Nsgarch&4&5&st0
And in any case *SRA* is wrong also, since it should be then called *SCLRA* Stylus-Contact-Line-Rake-Angle, since the 'stylus' is only doing that picking-up via its 'contact-line' touching the groove, yes?Technically you have a point, however, the usual fabrication of line-contact styli (except the Shibata) produces a shape that is symmetrical when seen from the front or the side. Thats why it's so relatively easy (as my photographs show) to determine when the "line of contact" is perpendicular to the record surface. Getting from there to a useful rake angle is a fairly simple calculation, and with some tonearms, a fairly simple procedure (NOT the SME unfortunately ;-(
And as it so happens, the angle of the contact-line maybe just as unrelated to that 'clump' of stylus also!
The idea of properly setting the SRA (again, only an important issue with line contact styli) is to have the ridges on each side of the stylus 'lean' forward at the same rake angle as the cutterhead (or did you think cutterheads were positioned straight up and down? Ever try using a chisel that way ;-)
Ah the fingerlift again. Well, I don't care if you amplifiy it a million times, you won't hear it ;-)