FWIW, I mounted all the cartridges on Cello's Graham 2.2 last December when he compared the Airy 2, Airy 3 and UNIverse. I didn't experiment with different degrees of mounting screw tightness, though I did try to torque the mounting screws the same (by feel) for each cartridge.
It's possible I trusted too much to the Graham mounting jig, which I've since realized compromises accuracy for convenience. If I mount any cartridges on Cello's 2.2 again I'll use my protractor. It would be interesting to see and hear how much difference that makes.
Frank was there on a later occasion, when we used two UNIverses to compare the Schroeder Ref, DPS, Model Two, TriPlanar VII and Graham 2.2. Frank mounted cartridges on his arms while I watched. I mounted cartridges on the TriPlanar while he watched. (I'm pretty sure I learned more than he did!) We made Cello mount cartridges on his Graham.
My take on the Reference vs. the TriPlanar VII (with a UNIverse) differs from Cello's. I've posted my detailed impressions before and a search will turn them up. In summary, the TriPlanar came remarkably close to the Ref in overall performance. The differences are much more a matter of taste than a matter of better or worse. Cello's tastes lean distinctly toward the warm and timbral. The Ref does that better. My tastes lean toward the dynamic and present. The TriPlanar does that better.
However, I do agree with Cello about the Graham. While we may have been able to improve its performance to some degree, the gap between it and all the other arms was so large that I doubt any amount of adjusting could bridge it. With all due respect to Mr. Graham, in Cello's system with all the cartridges we've tried, the 2.2 has substantially underperformed all the other arms mentioned above. Its sound was murky, slow, undynamic and distant by comparison. Whether this is due to its unipivot design, multiple armwire breaks, choice of materials and design or some combination thereof I don't know. But its deficiencies were neither small nor subtle.
It's possible I trusted too much to the Graham mounting jig, which I've since realized compromises accuracy for convenience. If I mount any cartridges on Cello's 2.2 again I'll use my protractor. It would be interesting to see and hear how much difference that makes.
Frank was there on a later occasion, when we used two UNIverses to compare the Schroeder Ref, DPS, Model Two, TriPlanar VII and Graham 2.2. Frank mounted cartridges on his arms while I watched. I mounted cartridges on the TriPlanar while he watched. (I'm pretty sure I learned more than he did!) We made Cello mount cartridges on his Graham.
My take on the Reference vs. the TriPlanar VII (with a UNIverse) differs from Cello's. I've posted my detailed impressions before and a search will turn them up. In summary, the TriPlanar came remarkably close to the Ref in overall performance. The differences are much more a matter of taste than a matter of better or worse. Cello's tastes lean distinctly toward the warm and timbral. The Ref does that better. My tastes lean toward the dynamic and present. The TriPlanar does that better.
However, I do agree with Cello about the Graham. While we may have been able to improve its performance to some degree, the gap between it and all the other arms was so large that I doubt any amount of adjusting could bridge it. With all due respect to Mr. Graham, in Cello's system with all the cartridges we've tried, the 2.2 has substantially underperformed all the other arms mentioned above. Its sound was murky, slow, undynamic and distant by comparison. Whether this is due to its unipivot design, multiple armwire breaks, choice of materials and design or some combination thereof I don't know. But its deficiencies were neither small nor subtle.