pindacThe
Terminology is not off importance, the need to investigate and carry
out the additional alignments are the practices that have importance.
Actually the terminology matters very much, as it does in any pursuit. Only by mutual agreement of what terms mean are we able to then discuss the topic.
It
seems from my research that in multiple cases when a Conventional
Tonearm Design is set up with a Wand at 180 Degrees the Cartridge
Manufacturer has been allowed to get away with their failings, and have
been able to repeatedly offer a product that will not offer a almost
ideal configuration for a Alignment of a Stylus Set on a Cantilever.
Your wand is at 180 degrees to what? It isn't clear what you're talking about, what research you've done, or what "failings" you've found.
It does not feel correct that such expensive products that typically cost $500 - $4000 are to be subject to the requiring expensive ancillary support to overcoming what are basic assembly defects.
Precise tools tend to be expensive and they're what's often needed if you want precise results. If you're willing to settle for less than that you can use less expensive tools. Many people do just that with their phono cartridge setups and they're perfectly happy.
The
use of such additional ancillary measures would be best justified if
used to ensure a already near optimised set up through a conventional
set up ...
Are you saying that a phono cartridge should be aligned twice - first with cheap tools, then with more precise tools?As said before I feel most
Cartridge Users like myself have a user enjoyment satisfaction with a
Cartridge set up in the conventional manner.
But you just claimed that phono carrtidges "repeatedly offer a product that will not offer a almost
ideal configuration." So which is it? 
