Hi, D., your comments reflect the factors that I, too, believe (but don't ascribe to) will keep consumers from having an easily measured parameter for cartridge setup. My thoughts (rebuttals really) on the points against using WCA follow:
1) "...cartridges suspension hasn't adapt to ambient conditions and hasn't reach its full velocity yet, the idea of the "WCA" won't give the right result."
This is, in some ways, a mute point. Cartridge break-in, controversial as it may be, should not be a factor in alignment. My opinion is that we should just play records for some time before we seriously attempt to fine tune cartridge alignment.
2) "Next problem is, that the cartridge designers won't supply any such thing."
Probably not, at first. But I believe that cartridge manufacturers might be willing to provide this information for LOMC cartridges above a certain price point, say $750 to $1000 USD for example. It's in their best interest. If their cartridges are so good, why don't they publish the design parameters? Competition can be a good thing.
3) "...fear that this would arise even more questions by the customer."
Not necessarily a bad thing; assuming that WCA is only provided for audiophile cartridges (see #2 above), consumers would begin to ask why manufacturers are unwilling to provide WCA specifications. Audiophile cartridges are intended for a more knowledgable and experienced consumer. Again, competition can be a good thing.
4) "Todays cartridges - especially the Top-flight ones - do not feature any such thing."
And why not? If a manufacturer claims that their "top-flight" cartridges are so good, they should be more than willing to provide the specifications, including WCA, for their best cartridges. Manufacturers provide a range for VTF, why not for WCA? No shame in acknowledging the variability in suspension parameters.
5) "...setting the "right" "WCA" can be performed by looking through a highly illuminated magnifier from the front into the body of the cartridge..."
That's one of the biggest problems: The need to use high magnification and illumination in order to more accurately establish proper cartridge alignment. Many experts espouse the benefits of using these techniques to find the optimal alignment of SRA or VTA (impossible without x-ray vision). Much too complicated and inconvenient. WCA would allow a much more convenient parameter for consistent measurement and alignment.
And lastly...
"But so far we are left in the dark and have to trust our ears...."
That's the conundrum. Why should consumers be "left in the dark" in regards to optimal cartridge settings. If a customer is willing to spend a thousand dollars (USD) or more for a product that has a limited lifespan, the customer should be provided as much information as needed to get the most enjoyment out of the product without needless uncertainty and undue complications. Adjusting "by ear" is a poor reflection on the nature of cartridge installation. Most speaker manufacturers have much more objective parameters in setting up their product for optimal performance. And listening environments are far more variable than the plinth/tone arm/phono stage environment in which cartridges are installed.
Cartridge alignment should not be the mysterious endeavor that seems to be perpetuated by audiophiles and enforced by manufacturers. It needn't be so darned complicated. Using weighted cantilever angle (WCA) to find the (nearly) optimal alignment could make cartridge installation so much more convenient and consistent.
Tom
1) "...cartridges suspension hasn't adapt to ambient conditions and hasn't reach its full velocity yet, the idea of the "WCA" won't give the right result."
This is, in some ways, a mute point. Cartridge break-in, controversial as it may be, should not be a factor in alignment. My opinion is that we should just play records for some time before we seriously attempt to fine tune cartridge alignment.
2) "Next problem is, that the cartridge designers won't supply any such thing."
Probably not, at first. But I believe that cartridge manufacturers might be willing to provide this information for LOMC cartridges above a certain price point, say $750 to $1000 USD for example. It's in their best interest. If their cartridges are so good, why don't they publish the design parameters? Competition can be a good thing.
3) "...fear that this would arise even more questions by the customer."
Not necessarily a bad thing; assuming that WCA is only provided for audiophile cartridges (see #2 above), consumers would begin to ask why manufacturers are unwilling to provide WCA specifications. Audiophile cartridges are intended for a more knowledgable and experienced consumer. Again, competition can be a good thing.
4) "Todays cartridges - especially the Top-flight ones - do not feature any such thing."
And why not? If a manufacturer claims that their "top-flight" cartridges are so good, they should be more than willing to provide the specifications, including WCA, for their best cartridges. Manufacturers provide a range for VTF, why not for WCA? No shame in acknowledging the variability in suspension parameters.
5) "...setting the "right" "WCA" can be performed by looking through a highly illuminated magnifier from the front into the body of the cartridge..."
That's one of the biggest problems: The need to use high magnification and illumination in order to more accurately establish proper cartridge alignment. Many experts espouse the benefits of using these techniques to find the optimal alignment of SRA or VTA (impossible without x-ray vision). Much too complicated and inconvenient. WCA would allow a much more convenient parameter for consistent measurement and alignment.
And lastly...
"But so far we are left in the dark and have to trust our ears...."
That's the conundrum. Why should consumers be "left in the dark" in regards to optimal cartridge settings. If a customer is willing to spend a thousand dollars (USD) or more for a product that has a limited lifespan, the customer should be provided as much information as needed to get the most enjoyment out of the product without needless uncertainty and undue complications. Adjusting "by ear" is a poor reflection on the nature of cartridge installation. Most speaker manufacturers have much more objective parameters in setting up their product for optimal performance. And listening environments are far more variable than the plinth/tone arm/phono stage environment in which cartridges are installed.
Cartridge alignment should not be the mysterious endeavor that seems to be perpetuated by audiophiles and enforced by manufacturers. It needn't be so darned complicated. Using weighted cantilever angle (WCA) to find the (nearly) optimal alignment could make cartridge installation so much more convenient and consistent.
Tom