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
sirspeedy
738 posts
 
Halcro,I, myself, never thought you were denegrating the employment of vacuum in any turntable...You have demonstrated your entitlement to your own opinions,and I have no problems with any of your thoughts.I have my own,as do many others.
Firstly I have "definitely" had good success in further improving my Sota Cosmos.I intend to introduce these modifications to my new series IV,as soon as it arrives.I have done so through years of trial and error,AND have run these mods through the mfgr who has no problems with them whatsoever(I believe Loyd Walker has employed mods,from learning experiences,on numerous occassions).I have also recently received multiple personal E-mails from a major foreign importer of the table(he loves the design,and carries three other expensive/high priced designs as well,but "now knows how good a maxxed out Cosmos can be"...his words)who wanted to thank me for turning him on to these minor mods,which just happen to add a "significant" degree of performance enhancements to an already superb sounding design.He went through each mod(I think there are about four)and was quite happy with the results,which will be employeed into many tables sold by him.
Sota's owner/chief designer(I know him very well)does not employee these(actually one,of the four has been employeed) as there are ergonomic issues,where some less experienced folks might not be as meticulous as others in committing to utilizing the mods,to best advantage.In other words,most folks are not like the audiogon crowd.They just want to play their music,and not worry about the last iota of fanaticism!
It would also increase the price,and there are mfgrs,like SOTA who really care about keeping money in their customers pockets.I know this from dealing with them for over twenty years!Hence,my absolute loyalty to SOTA's corporate "good character".
BTW,I used to like to NOT take the "five seconds" to "shut down" and change out my LP's,for each side too.It was when I had a Linn table,which did not accept a clamping system,so I kept it running and switched on the fly,like you apparently do.
These are all decisions we make to satisfy each of our ergonomic preferrences.Some folks like multiple arms/cartridges/tube topologies,and have no problem taking "whatever time" it takes to gain some enhancement.
In the long run,the LP "side change thing" is mighty inconsequential when one factors in the significant improvement I personally hear from a good vacuum set-up."One" I even improved on,a bit!...I'm quite happy,as I am sure you are -:)
Best.
downunder
1,329 posts
 
Myself and Phaser will have the pleasure of having a listen to Halcro's system this coming Sunday.

Should be a bit of fun and very interesting.
halcro's avatar
halcro
2,664 posts
 
Raul,
If only life were as easy as Hi-Fi?
You (and many others), believe that you can improve all the individually designed components of a high-end analogue system.
And you in fact may have the electronic and technical understanding and ability to in fact do so.
But even YOU reach a limit of ability and practicality in the modification process whereby you are happy to accept the designers' products?
Why for instance, do you not change the boron cantilever of someone's cartridge to ruby to see how THAT might sound?
Why don't you remove some coils from your favourite MM cartridge to see how THAT might sound?
Why don't you change the line-contact stylus of your favourite cartridge to eliptical and see how THAT might sound?
Instead, you have dozens of cartridges which you use and accept for what they are, and how they are designed.
I'm afraid you cannot have it BOTH ways.
Either EVERYTHING can be improved by the user.... and SHOULD be.........or we insert and/or eliminate those components we can readily access which give our systems.....' proportion'.....as Stilskin likes to say.
Another problem I have with your readiness to change the designs of commercially available components, is that we.....the committed audiophiles out there....... no longer KNOW what you're talking about?
We must accept your word alone, that the changes have wrought sonic improvements.
Now I'm willing to believe that even minute changes can deliver large sonic differences.
What I'm never willing to blindly accept, is that those ' differences' ........are in fact IMPROVEMENTS.
It's hard enough to reach any sort of agreement amongst audiophiles with KNOWN components?............if we enter the land of ' trust me it's better....I wish you could hear it?', there will be no discourse available, simply a collection of individual stances of superiority.
rauliruegas
13,125 posts
 
Dear Halcro: First than all I don't think that I'm changing the designer products ( as a fact I accept it. Who am I for not do it?. No I have a lot of respect to any audio designer. ) because adding a platter mat IMHO is a simple add-on that if I don't like it well I take out: the same for a clamp or TT footers, etc.

You are right I don't change any mods on cartridges, as a fact when I send any of my cartridges to repair I always " work/ask hard " for that repair leave the cartridge in original state.

No, I don't make any mods to tonearms I accept it. But many people makes: internal rewiring, IC cable, etc, etc and if we take electronics everyone change the power cord ( at least ) and put its amps over dedicated platforms, etc, etc.. IMHO I don't think that all this people are not accepting the product as it is.

The subject with TTs is that permit/allow to any one to make some very simple tweaks that does not change in anyway its main design with the hope that those mods/tweaks could improve the quality performance.

+++++ " What I'm never willing to blindly accept, is that those ' differences' ........are in fact IMPROVEMENTS. " +++++

I totally agree with you, I always support that when we make a change ( any one ) in the audio system chain the differences that makes that change are ( in some cases ) that: only a different performance but not always an improvement. Usually I only report/share audio experiences mods when IMHO appear an improvement not only a difference.

I think that we have a little different s point of view but at the end we agree on the main subjects that it is where it counts.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
sirspeedy
738 posts
 
Halcro,with respect.....you are taking things a little too seriously.Is it OK to try NOS tubes in a mfgr product having standard ones?Or adding a platter mat(as J.Valin did)to your table?Or adding a good A/C cord to product?Or in my case finding that a superb umbillical cord improves my table's power supply(and I improved the damping on my clamp).I had my pre/phonostage totally rebuilt,to amazing effect by Great Norther Sound(mod specialists extroadinaire)I am even thinking about adding teflon capacitors in the future,because these were not available some years ago,and I don't simply sell great stuff to get something new,if I know there are ways to improve it....etc,etc.
These are the types of "tweaks" that have greatly improved some folks' set-ups.
My friend Sid has ultra modded Infinity speakers,because he know SO many qualified folks that they persuaded him to do so.Result...Huge improvement!
What's your beef?Just be happy you have a nice stereo,and go from there.
BTW,years ago,I hated to touch my stuff,and virtually NEVER swayed from my dealer's set-up.I now hear my music a bit more clearly.
Lighten up,it's not your fault Patrick Rafter retired(my favorite tennis player of all time,btw)and Leyton hewitt is not going to win another "Major" title.Either is Roddick,but I'm still a happy guy-:)
Meant in the best of spirits..
More to discover