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
Dear Halcro: IMHO I think that you point out ( other than the Raven high quality TT ) some very interesting subjects.

One of them is the high tonearm importance in the analog audio chain and I agree with you about.
For some time and due to my self several experiences I'm supporting the critical link tonearm/cartridge over the TT link, my words were something like this: " with any decent TT the differences ( quality performance ) were made by the right tonearm/cartridge combination ".
Reading between " lines " in your review you really like the " colored " Davinci tonearm over the Cooperhead ( at least is " addictive " ) that for what you posted is an almost non-colored ( non-distortion ) tonearm and this fact is what make the whole differences and that's why you prefer the Cooperhead on piano.

I respect that you prefer the Davinci in other kind of recordings but IMHO if a tonearm/cartridge combination do things in good way ( like the cooperhead ) with piano recordings then it must ( I can't understand why it did not ) do things well too with any kind of music, of course that maybe the Davinci colorations likes more to you that the almost non-colored Cooperhead.

This Cooperhead fact ( low distortion/coloration ) brings to my mind what I'm just experienced ( right now )with my first ( own design: Guillermo and I ) tonearm prototype that let me heard/hear recordings ( that I think were very bad ones ) for the first time and this is possible only because the very low distortion/coloration tonearm design!!!!!, I have to add that this happen too with my Phonolinepreamp: as a fact any of you could have this quality performance experience when you change a link in your audio chain for a better ( lower distortion/coloration/noises ) link quality performance design.

Halcro, IMHO I think that not only the low output MC cartridges could make the " job ". Now, that you already have the right " tools " maybe you could compare those LO MC cartridges against some MM ones like this one:
http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?anlgcart&1212337930

or a Nagaoka MP-50 or Grace Ruby that you could buy right now for a few low dollars, try it don't miss the opportunity to know a " different " lovely audio/music experience, I'm sure you will be very happy to put some very low money where it counts.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
Halcro,sorry to bother you about this,but I wonder if as of this date(Thursday) you still prefer the Copperhead to the Davinci 12 incher.I find your thoughts fascinating(in the "best" way)and enlightening.When someone like yourself goes to this length,and apparent honesty,I am all ears!!
I have read about quite glowing experiences with the Davinci,but your comments,while not condemning it,makes the Copperhead appear the "breakthrough" you claim it to be!Fascinating to say the least!
Your honesty about the apparent severe ergonomic issues,with regards to antiskate,hopefully will be addressed.The arm seems way too good for this to be the case....Funny,how Fremer did not even allude to this!Makes forums like this one all the more valid!!
BTW,an interesting point/comment that I read from another "long standing hobbyist" who was a thinking person,as well as a very good listener.....His assertion was that we each need more than one cartridge type(as well as arms too)to be able to differentiate the different aspects of LP's that came from different eras,as well as being cut in different parts of the world.This guy seemed passionate about "protecting mankind's heritage of history and music that is preserved on LP".The only way to do so,according to him,was/is to have different stylus tip types for the different Lp/cutter types,as well as mastering techniques used over the years,as well as different arms for specific cartridges.....Funny how dumb I realize I am as I had always wondered why so many folks actually like/need more than one cartridge,or arm!Sure makes sense(something I don't have much of:-).
Best.
Thanks Albert,
Gosh.....I didn't even know that section existed?
I don't think many people will be aware of it?
Oh well.
Raul,
I think you have misunderstood the review slightly.
I preferred the Davinci only above the OLD Copperhead (which was faulty).
Once the NEW Copperhead was installed, it was simply a different universe.
Thanks Albert,
Gosh.....I didn't even know that section existed?
I don't think many people will be aware of it?
Oh well.

Halcro, until the last few days, it did not exist.

This is obviously a new Audiogon format. I discovered this by clicking around the site. I had no advance warning about this change and just as surprised as you are.

I've been here several years and the old format was both familiar and simple.