Is Wally tool preffered for Graham 2.2?


I have a pal who asked me to post this question.I mentioned to him that I had heard that the Wally tools are superb,and that some have stated it was better than the supplied Graham stuff,for setting up the arm.I know some of you guys to be real "mavens" when it comes to the finer points of things analog(that's a compliment),so told him I'd go to the "source",and report back.

Also,I have heard it's tough to get in touch with Wally,and some dealers I know have had no success.How does one get the necessary Wally stuff?Also,do you feel there is a "real benefit" to using that stuff,over the supplied Graham set-up stuff?Thanks fellas!!

Best!
sirspeedy70680e509
Raul,thanks for the info.All other contributors,as well.Though I do have some additional tools,I've decided against using them as I feel confident in my Graham stuff.I have heard quite a few other set-ups,and am confident in my set-up skills(with my own stuff),as well as being much more than simply satisfied with the sound I'm able to get from my rig.I guess that's what it's all about,at least to me!My cartridge sits perfectly in the Graham jig,so will leave well enough alone.I really don't want to get too nuts,and I will recommend the same to my friend,who wanted me to initiate this thread.I'm happy that Bob has brought some of the questions "down to earth",and he clearly has the clout to extinguish the "fires" that some have inadvertantly set,over the last year!---Hooray!!

Thanks to all!
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!
Bob,

Thanks for confirming that. While I doubt it applies to anyone on this thread, clearly anyone who would otherwise "align" by using the body of their cartridge (or their arm wand) would do better with the tool you provide.

Good to hear there's an improved version coming soon.
BTW Bob,You were right when I called you two months ago,regarding the IC-70 vs some high priced spreads.
I had asked you if you felt the IC-70 could be improved upon.Obviously you defended,emphatically,the IC-70,and stated that the other choices would be different,but not necessarily better.
Well,I have to give you some credit!My pal,who has the 2.2/Temper-v/Sota Cosmos/IC-70 decided it was time to spend money,which he does alot.He went for a competing,very expensive cable(more than twice the list of the IC-70),that is very well known and extremely highly regarded.There were three very experienced audiophile/MUSIC LOVERS at the installation.We have followed up the "comparison" enough times now,and the IC-70 is the clear winner.More open,dynamic,and better tonal textures.It is the tonality which appeals most,to me,as some well reviewed stuff really skews this.This business of pure silver being a weakness,in arm cables,now leaves me scratching my head.It is a misconception,and the overall system balance surely has to impact such choices.No?

BTW,I got the hint!!The Phantom surely must be superb.Though I'm going into LP playing/listening to my wonderful music collection mode,for the forseeable future.Thank God!But I'll keep an eye out for your upcoming table.Should be interesting.

Best!
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......