Adjusting SRA using macro lens vs microscope


I have ordered a USB microscope to adjust SRA after reading Fremer's article. Meanwhile, I took some pics of the stylus with non macro Canon L lens (handheld) and can visualize the sharp triangular shape of the stylus and the record surface. It is only reasonable to assume that with a tripod and macro lens, the image would be much better.

Since many audiogoners are expert photoghraphers as well, anyone tried this?
128x128glai
Read this article for setting SRA!

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/messages/1240.html
Thanks for the good read. With a 10x lupe and backlighting, still quite difficult. I will see when the scope gets here
Here we go again. You'd think people who advocate pre-setting SRA to some arbitrary number would explain why we should bother.

Before asking HOW to do something, ask WHY to do it. What is the goal? Does a recommended method meet that goal? In this case the answer is an unequivocal "no". Setting SRA by eye is a waste of time, so asking which tools to use is pointless.

1. The only correct SRA is the one that conforms the playback stylus to the grooves of the LP you're about to play. This is the only SRA that matters.

2. Each LP's groove SRA is different. Everyone knows groove SRA varies with record thickness. What the set-by-eye crowd forgets, if they ever knew it, is that groove SRA varies MUCH MORE by record label, cutting plant and the era in which the LP was made. The SRA of a 180g Decca is nowhere near the SRA of a 180g Mercury, or RCA, or Erato, or...

3. Since each LP's groove SRA is different, any pre-set SRA is arbitrary. It won't bear any relation to the SRA of the next LP we spin.

4. Spending time or money pre-setting some arbitrary number that we have to change anyway is pseudo-science for the naive.

So, make the cartridge roughly level by eyeballing. That's as good as any other arbitrary number, it's where most manufacturers design cartridges to play, it doesn't cost any money and it takes all of 10 seconds. Adjust by ear from there.

Example:

Last Saturday I joined some other audiophiles to play with some gear, including an Ortofon A90. The A90 has the hardest-to-see stylus I've ever met. We wasted an hour trying to set SRA by eye per the manufacturer's inadequate instructions. After giving up in frustration we came to our senses, levelled the damn cartridge and began spinning LP's.

As I do with any good cartridge I adjusted arm height for each LP by ear. Even though I was in a strange system using tonearms I don't own, it took no more than 30 seconds per LP and cost zero playing time, since the tonearms were adjustable on the fly. The A90 is extremely sensitive to SRA, yet I dialed it in easily. Presetting it to ninety-something degrees, even if we'd been able, would not have helped a bit and trying to do it was a waste of time. You'd think I'd have learned by now... ;-)
Doug,

Thank you once again for being an informed voice of reason. This thread is a nice counterpoint to a thread in another forum entitled "Why Some Audiophiles Fear Measurements". It's not that some measurements aren't useful (they are), but it is human nature to attach a false sense of security to a measurement. An interesting take on this subject is "The Tyranny of Numbers" by David Boyle.

As Doug points out, does anyone think fixing SRA at 92.1 degrees really be any different than 92.0 degrees if you own a large record collection?