2. analog
  3. 1205104320

Raven v Walker. Colored v Accurate?

This post has been generated following Jonathan Valin’s recent review of the Raven AC-3/Phantom combination in TAS. What intrigues me is not that JV has been lucky enough to review and buy or have on permanent loan yet another world’s best product. A truly astounding strike rate for any reviewer it must be said. Rather, it is what JV readily describes as the colored sound of the Raven/Phantom combination and the apparent appeal of this sound compared with what JV described as the more accurate sound of the Walker that piques my curiosity. This is not, I hasten to add about the relative merits of either table or their arms. The intention is not to have a slug-fest between Walker and Raven owners.

What really interests me is how it is that a product that in the reviewer’s opinion more accurately conveys what is on the source material is perceived as somehow less emotionally satisfying than one which presumably exaggerates, enhances or even obscures some aspect of the recorded information, if one can accept that this is what colored sound or the product’s character is. It appears counter intuitive and the deliberation of the phenomenon is making me question my own goals in audio reproduction. These have been pretty much on the side of more accurate is better and more emotionally compelling with due consideration to financial constraints in my choice of equipment in achieving this goal.

On face value and if you can accept the hyperbole it appears that the colored is better route is a little like going to a concert and putting on a device that allows you to alter the sound you hear. You twiddle a couple of knobs, sit back with a smile on your face and say “Ah! That’s better, that’s what I want it to sound like” You like it but it’s not necessarily what the musicians intended you to hear.

It seems logical that the closer one can get to accurately reproducing every piece of information recorded onto the medium then the closer you should be able to get to the actual performance, together with all the acoustic cues existing at that performance. I am making an assumption here that the recording medium is actually capable of capturing these things in the first instance.

We have our 12 inch pieces of vinyl on the platters of two systems under evaluation. We are not in the recording booth. The musicians are not on hand to play the piece over and over so that we can compare the live sound to the master tape and even if we did every performance is unique so we can never compare a second or third live performance with the one we just recorded. How then can the accuracy of a turntable/arm/cartridge combination and its ability to convey the emotion of the recorded event truly be evaluated? Ideally we should at least have the master tapes at hand to play on the same system in which we are evaluating the TT’s. The comparison will of necessity still be subjective but the determination would seem to be more believable than if the master tape were not part of the evaluation. If the master tape gave the listener no emotional connection with the musicians then I would contend that there would be something fundamentally flawed in another part of the playback system.

So in evaluating the two combinations would the more accurate combination be the more emotionally appealing? I cannot see how it would be otherwise unless we just don’t like what has been recorded or the way it has been recorded, the musicians have not made an emotional connection with us and the slightly flawed copy is preferred to the original. Is this why God made tone controls?

I have used the words seems, appears and presume quite deliberately, not to have a bet each way but because I am cognizant of the fact that we are, in audio reproduction dealing with the creation of an illusion and creating that illusion with people who have varying levels of perception, different experiences and tastes, different playback media and different physical replay environments so the task at hand for audio designers, humble reviewers and even we poor consumers could not be more complex.
phaser
plato
1,543 posts
 
In the final analysis your own ears become the ultimate arbiters in the decision of which piece sounds the most like live music to you ( to your particular brain).

The trouble is that our rooms and every single component in the electronics chain to the final acoustic output from the speakers affect the final sonic result.

Way back in the day, I wrote a "letter to the editor" of TAS, which was published under the title "The Glamor and the Deception." My basic premise was that it seemed to me that all the amplifiers and preamplifiers that H. Pearson & Co. were rating as "The Best" were tube units (mostly from ARC at that time) that measured poorly compared to other competing products that were somehow "inferior." From this TAS concluded basically that "technical measurements are irrelevant" in the quest for The Absoulte Sound.

They cocked an eyebrow and pointed a dissenting finger at Stereo Review's Julian D. Hirsch for being so foolish as to believe that lab measurements had any significance or bearing on actual perceived audio quality or musicality. Thus, Julian (the staunch objectivist) Hirsch became the butt of many cartoons and jokes in the underground audio press. And this was all very good for business...

My contention was that the ARC equipment was preferred not because it performed better, but because it glamorized the sound in euphonic ways that rendered it ultimately more pleasing to the ear. In effect, this means that even the most educated and experienced listeners (and TAS reviewers) prefered glamorization and euphony over "accuracy" when given the choice. And that result is what the "deception" in this hobby is all about -- paying the big bucks for highly touted gear that glamorizes the sound in ways that appeal to many individuals. Consequently, there are two schools of design in audio: The School of Accuracy and The School of Glamorization. Then, of course there are the hybrid offshoots that try to combine the best traits of each school. This scenario makes a very interesting puzzle for purists and objectivists, or really anyone trying to figure out which end is up.

Just wondering... hey, if you swapped the tonearm wiring and connectors between the Raven and the Walker would the sonic results be reversed? What about their arm-dampening properties?

Also, I'm sure their respective tonearms have different physical characteristics and mass. This would skew the results to the arm in which the particular test cartridge had the better synergy...meaning that using the same cartridge for the listening test would provide one of the contenders with an unfair advantage... So to get unbiased results, you'd need to use a bevy of top cartridges with each turntable/arm combo and then pick the best combination from each camp to face off against the other (with all other variable being equal).

But honestly, what sane human being would go to that much trouble???

When evaluating turntable systems, you are evaluating one complex set of variables against another. Two different people setting up the exact same turntable system can achieve very disparate sonic results... as can the same person setting up the exact same turntable system at a different time or place.

Be all that as it may, the bottom line will always be: buy the gear that sounds the most realistic to your own two ears! Don't be afraid to make mistakes (it simply cannot be avoided). Try to learn from your successes and your failures.
drubin
3,277 posts
 
On face value and if you can accept the hyperbole it appears that the colored is better route is a little like going to a concert and putting on a device that allows you to alter the sound you hear. You twiddle a couple of knobs, sit back with a smile on your face and say “Ah! That’s better, that’s what I want it to sound like” You like it but it’s not necessarily what the musicians intended you to hear.
One might also think of this: What if you move your seat location in order get sound that is more to your liking? Or choose a seat with no one in front of you? Or with a head of big hair in front, because you like the sound better that way? Where is the line between adhering to accuracy and adjusting for more enjoyment?
rauliruegas
13,125 posts
 
Dear Phaser: You, Albert an Plato almost give almost every answer about, there is/are almost nothing to add and all of you already open very wide and interesting/critical " windows " on the home reproduction sound.

There is one subject that IMHO we have to take seriously when we read a professional review like this JV one and that subject is/are how JV is biased to the music sound reproduction and biased to one single audio item ( in this case the TT. ):
JV owns the Walker one for many years and he is extremely happy with it ( like Albert and all Walker's owners. ), if we can remember when TAS made the shoot-out Walker/Kuzma Mr. Valin almost all over the review likes Kuzma the most but at the very end he changes and goes for the Walker, in this Raven/Walker he preffers too the Walker, well he has a tattoo's Walker on his body ( and nothing wrong with that it is a subjective point of view with a great audio item. ) and make me feel that JV is totally Walker's equalized ( well he heard/hear Walker almost every single day, like any one of us hear what we have: we in some ways are equalized for what we own. ) and it is almost impossible to him to made/make fair reviews for other TT's: the Walker always be ( for him ) the best one some way or the other.

Now, I almost always support the tonearm/cartridge importance over the TT's one ( with almost any decent TT ). Here we have two top TT's designs that are totally different between each other not only the TT design it self but more important the tonearm/cartridge/cable stage where through it JV made the review.
Like you already posted and know things can/could be different if you change the tonearm in the Walker ( that you can't do it ) for the Phantom and the same for the Raven.

What I wonder is what means for JV: accuracy/accurate, because IMHO here it is his biased subjective review conclusion.

Till today I always support accuracy over colored/coloration ( any kind ), I'm for the " truer to the recording " and IMHO to be near/nearest " truer to the recording " we need " accuracy ", total accuracy ( and please don't confuse accuracy with analytical, both terms are totally different. ), like it or not. Of course that to some of us we preffer a more colored/euphony sound and for other of us we preffer " what is on the recording ".

+++++ " So in evaluating the two combinations would the more accurate combination be the more emotionally appealing? I cannot see how it would be otherwise unless we just don’t like what has been recorded " +++++

I think in the same way, what JV think about? what every one of us think about?

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
dgad
782 posts
 
I would rewrite your thread title a few different ways. Linear Tracking vs. Unipivot could be one title. A 2nd would be tonality vs. accuracy. Colored vs. Accurate is in and of itself biased.

As a Raven owner, I would suggest that the table takes on the character of any mat, any tonearm, tonearm cable & of course cartrdige that you use. This of course is system dependant. I would look at Albert Porter using a Jade & now a PC-1 on a very accurate turntable such as a Walker. Both "colored" cartridges. I used 3-5 cartridges & play around. I prefer neutral when the recording is right. On some recordings a bit of color helps. On others, accurate is the way to go. The Titan I is probably one of the most accurate cartridge. Yet, it misses the magic of a Miyabi or Koetsu.

The thrust of the Raven, which was not addressed 100% in the review is that you can change mats, arms etc. & you will hear it all.

One more thing, with 2 different phono stages, you can often match 2 different tonearms to 2 different cartridges on 2 different phono stages to get almost an equivalent sound out of both arms. It truly is a search for system synergy. In the Ravens case, it allows you to have a few different systems ready to go for different recordings.
elinor's avatar
elinor
275 posts
 
Let us not forget that the choice of microphone at the recording session will color the recording not to mention the placement of the mics and the room in which the recording was made. More directly to the point, I think Valin's review was incomplete since the Walker is an integrated turntable with the Walker arm. The Raven is not integrated and it should have been reviewed with at least one other arm and the same cartridge for a wider and more accurate review of what this table can do. I heard the table at High Water Sound in NYC and I can attest to the fact that it sounds surprisingly different with the Phaentom, the Tri-Planar, and the Dynavector arms. The results were all excellent, but pick your flavor. It's all an illusion from the mics forward. In order to know what live accoustical instruments sound like, you must hear them played in a variety of locations like Carnegie Hall, Lincoln Center, the Kimmel, Davies Hall, Severence Hall, Covent Garden, La Scala, the Blue Note, Eddie Condon's etc. If you attend live concerts enough and better yet, if you play an instrument, you eventually have a composite mental picture of how instruments sound in life. I cannot think of a better way than through attendance of the real event in many places over a long period of time to gain this knowledge. I have purchased the Raven and it will be delivered shortly. I chose it because it comes close to what I perceive as a natural instrumental timbre in its reproduction of music and I cannot afford the Walker which I think is the closest over a wide and inconsistent collection of recordings. But, make no mistake about it. It is not live music. For that you must eliminate the electronic chain.
More to discover