Is Wally tool preffered for Graham 2.2?

In glancing at this latest thread with my name on it, I just looked at a rew responses and immmediately noted a serious mis-understanding of the use and design of my alignment tools. In particular, Albertporter (4-15) is wrong on at least two points: first, he states that "...Graham estimates that distance and is frequently off by several thousandth's of an inch".... This is wrong, as the cross-hair intersection is exactly to the right specificaiton, and engraved with a laser to prevent any possiblity is template misalignment.
After that, it is up to the user to be accurate in placing the cantilver along the alignment guide and next to the proper overhang distance. No different than any other setup tool in that the final accuracy will be up to the user.
Our instruction book also points out another fact that the writer missed: the flip-over target plate of the alignment gauge DOES place about 1.25 grams of load force on the stylus, thereby placing the cartridge in it's dynamic operating position. That feature is part of our patent on this device, by the way.
The next correspondent, Dougdeacon, is similarly misinformed about this and concludes that alignment can only be made reliable when VTF, VTA and azimuth are all set together. The stylus tip doesn't really know or care about azimuth as far as overhang is concrened. And, as previously noted, our gauge does load the stylus tip so that typical VTF/VTA forces are applied.
Then I would add that one of the features that make this design so attractive, I believe, is that all this can be done with the removable armwand of our 2.2 (and also with the higher-performance Phantom)safely and conveniently off the turntable.
None of this is to reflect (no pun intended, but it's there, if you are familiar with the Wally protractor) on the excellent Wally tools; they certainly are among the best I can think of. But I did want to stop any misconcptions about the design or use of our own product in this regard.
While these sites are a lot of fun, and often provide a useful dialogue, I would suggest that one might also keep a wary eye on some of the threads, as sometimes a misunderstanding, once initiated and continued, can become "fact" in the eyes of other readers. It's like telling the jury to disregard an inappropriate statement made by a witness; how can they really forget it?
By the way, we are updating our alignment gauge to have an adjustable height feature, the better to accommodate really tall cartridges as well as the more typical short ones.
Happy spring to all!... Bob Graham

Just a quick note to Dougdeacon: yes, to be very specific, the target plate will exert the 1.25-1.5 gram downward force when it's level, and slightly less when it's not level. But the difference is really quite slight and even this "error" is less, I maintain, than the usual eye-ball results from typical paper protractors. This is especially true of those which depend on the sides of the cartridge body or tonearm wand for horizontal positioning (a very hit-and-miss chance of getting it really right).. The Wally is the best I've seen in on-turntable alignment systems. We maintain that the off-turntable system has it's own advantages - not to mention the safety - in cartridge installation/setup.

But, being a perfectionist, even this one detail of downward force exerted by the target plate will be addressed by our upcoming alignment fixture which will have an adjustable-height setting.

As Sirspeedy points out, it's necessary to get it right, but it's also good to know when not to be overly concrened and just enjoy the results of your (and our!) best efforts.

And speaking of Best Effort, thanks to all of you, by the way, who have bought the Phantom, even having previously owned the 2.2. Your notes to me have agreed with our own findings in the improvements noted in this latest design. OK, end of commercial and thanks again - tell your friends, too!

Just putting in a little computer time on Saturday, and saw the latest notes from Dougdeacon and Sirspeedily (!)... Thanks to all for your notes and for your approval of our work; like any other endeavor, there's always room for improvement, and I take constructive feedback very seriously. I hope customers and listeners see that the products we come out with show this result, and I believe they do.

The cable-biz is something that can be very personal and system-dependent; however, I do believe that neutrality and freedom from inticing artificats are the way to go, not to add warmth or boom that's not really there. Same for my tonearm designs; no artificial thrills, please - only the smoothest, most natural sound we can evoke. In any case, I'm glad the IC-70 acquited itself as it did in your tests!

There are many fine turntables now on the market, and I've owned and enjoyed quite a few in my development of the various tonearms through the years. But it also seems apparent that there is a tendency to go for "same-brand" systems sometimes, and even though I think this is not necessary from an absolute standpoint (again, having enjoyed the Phantom -- and the earlier arms - on various turntables of different brands) I can see the handwriting on the wall. Time will tell what we come up with for a finished product(s), but some of the concepts are exciting, anyway... As they say, stay tuned - later on - for futher details......

Hello Albert - yes, it's been quite a while, indeed. Nice to hear from you and allow me to answer your newest questions a bit: On your first point, which suggests that a typical unipivot can have play accumulating to perhaps several thousanths of an inch, I would first state I cannot speak for other unipivot designs; however, on ours, the pivot point is firmly, and I mean FIRMLY, anchored by gravity and the very fine, matched pivot and cup surfaces of our Swiss-made bearing set (made to our own specifications and not available elsewhere). Any such variation in setup would also be present during play, and that's completley unacceptable.

Of course, one can yank on the arm during alignment and move it, but on a proper turntable installation, with the armbase cutout at the right angle, there will be no internal interference and, thus, no fore-aft movement of the pivot during alignment. This bearing (and especially in the new Phantom which has an even improved bearing design over the 2.2) it will just stay as centered as a fixed-bearing arm. No, don't worry about that one.

On the second point, the downward force of the stylus gauge is automataic; you do not need to push down during use, nor should one try to. Admittedly, this downward force is "average" and some cartridges may benefit from a little more or less force; still, I believe this method results in more EASILY obtainable accuracy than typical protractors due to the fact that you're aligning the cantilever directly, rather than the cartridge body. Of course, Wally's gauge also works with the cantilever, and very well, too, but we like to think our "off turntable" system allows for a bit more safety and freedom from eyestrain than the on-turntable protractor approach
.
And I agree the forum is a fun place, as I said. But as I also said, one must watch our for well-intentioned, but neverthless inaccurate theories to be started about things, lest others take it as gospel...

I also agree that audio is such a personal thing, and perhaps analogue is the most personal of all, what with the various combinatins of products, each proporting to have solved everyone else's design problems...! I believe strongly in what I have designed and explained on my website. In the end, it's all about enjoyment and music; and so in that we're all heading in the same direction ...!