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
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.
Sirspeedy,
Raul has continually proclaimed the arm/cartridge compatibility issue and I'm willing to accept it for existing arms.
What I'm claiming for the Copperhead is that we simply can no longer view this as an arm which has a 'sound' which matches well with some equipment and some cartridges.
The Copperhead (and probably Cobra), is an 'absolute'.
If you want to hear the Master Tape you MUST have the Copperhead.
This Forum is about the Raven vs the Walker prompted by Jon Valin's review in TAS which was trying to determine his analogue REFERENCE deck.
We're all quite happy to find the best absolute turntable (without qualification).....but we think an arm cannot be the absolute BEST.
I'm claiming it CAN be.......and then the quality of all cartridges is judged simply by their performance in the BEST arm.
Halcro, you have compared two arms on your table in your system with a limited number of cartridges. You have a preference for the new Copperhead over the Grandezza. This new, correctly aligned and constructed Copperhead is in a "different universe" vis a vis the Grandezza. Irrespective of what you have heard in other systems, to proclaim "absolute" status for the Copperhead based on your two arm comparison is drawing a little too long a bow don't you think? I'm happy you feel so pleased with the sound of your system with the Copperhead installed but it is just possible that you could be equally enamored of another combination you have not as yet heard. There are a lot out there!
Phaser,
Well of course there are many tables, arms and cartridges out there.
If we follow your argument, there can be NO declaration of SOTA in High End Audio because no-one will ever hear every combination of deck, arm and cartridge.
We must rely on others to provide experience and knowledge (just as we do with car reviews) and narrow down the ' contenders' .
Mikey Fremer has heard many more tables, arms and cartridges than I ever will. So has Jon Valin.
There is enough anecdotal evidence on Forums such as this one to make an assessment that the top arms include the Phantom, the Triplanar, the Davinci Grfandezza 12" Ref, and the Cobra.
There is general agreement among posters here and Fremer and Valin that the top turntables include the Walker, the Rockport, the Raven AC and the Continuum Caliburn.
There is some anecdotal evidence from these Forums that the Davinci is better than (or at least equal to).....the Phantom and Triplanar.
I've heard the Caliburn with the Cobra and the Raven AC-3 with both the Davinci and Copperhead.
If I can't make an educated assessment based on the above, we should all stop reading and writing about the High End.