pindac
The 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?