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: +++++ " But if you really wanted a vacuum hold-down table?.....why not simply buy one in the first place? " +++++

there are many reasons why we don't do it:

1- Maybe the ones out there does not like me or are out of my budget.
2- Maybe when I buy my TT ( with out it ) I never suppose that the Vacuum hold down exist.
3- Maybe knowing about the vacuum subject the TT that I buy ( with out it ) had a bargain/offer that I can't refuse and latter I add the vacuum tweak
4- Maybe knowing about the vacuum subject I decide to buy a TT ( with out it ) because that one ( like the Raven ) was the one that meets my TT's dream, latter I add the vacuum plattermat.
5- etc, etc, etc

+++++ " I don't consider these changes to be 'tweeks'.........they are fundamental revisions to the designer's philosophy .... " +++++

IMHO what for you are fundamental revisions for other people are not. This is the kind of world where we live: diversity!.

You can accept it or not but such is life.

Halcro, there are many people that buy a Ferrari or a Porche and change the original tyres for a different model: do you think that those people are making a fundamental car design revision?

There are no perfect products ( any kind ) out there and there are some/many people that have a high common sense. Halcro the life is a set of continuos changes and the audio items are not an exception.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
Dear Halcro: Please don't tell me that you can/could choose/deprive not to make a " tweak " where exist real evidence to achieve a high quality performance improvement only because maybe that ( from your point of view ) " tweak " could be a " fundamental revision " ???!!!!!!!

I respect your opinion but it is very hard to agree with it, at least on the subject on this audio thread.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
I get what Halcro keeps repeating to you guys.

Most of Woschnicks design challenges are covered with the man himself in the StereoMojo and TAS reveiws.

Woschnick is satisfied with his designs.
Halcro, do you think it possible that you are overstating the "vision thing"? By this I mean it may be possible that a designer comes up with an product that is less to do with a grand vision and a meticulous attention to every possible performance parameter and more to do with his level of expertise and/or his level of technical and/or financial resources and a desire to compete for sales in a larger rather than smaller segment of the market. I refer here to the inverse relationship between increased cost and potential buyers.

Sure there are some designers whom I would think fit into the grand design group but surely not all and I think they are in the minority. I would think the vast majority build to a price point, swallow hard and at times sacrifice their loftier goals to economic reality. Would you feel less compelled to maintain their design integrity and make some major changes if the rewards were to be had?

In referring this back to Raul's point regarding the use of a vacuum clamping mechanism could it be that the Raven designer did not incorporate this feature for reasons other than design philosophy? I would think that the tooling costs associated with using a bespoke design would be considerable and perhaps out of reach of a relatively small scale manufacturer in the early stages of their existence. Thomas may come back and refute this of course and say that he rejected the mechanism on other grounds but he would not have been the first nor the last designer/manufacturer to reject this technology on purely economic grounds.