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
This post "will" eventually go somewhere.....towards the Copperhead arm eventually,but I need to bloviate first(I'm good at that-:) So....

There is a middle aged group of guys at my gym,that I am somewhat friendly with.I and my wife call them the "kidders club".They love to work out(not too hard)and mostly tell cute jokes to entertain themselves.Yet,their real passion is to point out to eachother how gorgeous some of the girls are!Not a single girl escapes them,and they will go out of their way to point out the subtle aspects of each lovely lady's attributes....Not unlike some things audio!
My personal association here(other than the fact that my wife is usually within a two machine distance from me, as I sweat, alot)is that I "DO" get a kick out of them!Very humorous!Very unrealistic too, in how they think they are viewed by the "far younger girls" about.I know this because I have a beautiful daughter in her early twenties,AND any guy over thirty is absolutely "ancient" to her(she views me as utterly finished).Of course some women need to see a high seven figure bank accountant,which probably takes twenty years off an older guy's age!

SO,although I view the posters here as far more realistic then the "kidders",the allegiance to the "almost unattainable" is similar. -:)

Final thought about vacuum platters,which is NOT the "world's end" for good sound,BUT...sorry,it is absolutely a superior clamping solution,and can easily be heard...Period!...The same holds(probably) for a 100 lb platter,air suspension and bearing,but I will never own one,and think the 100 lb platter would be better than my 16 lb one,unless the bearing wore out too fast.A definite possibility.
OK,next up(just my usual bloviating)....I love many of the wonderful products we talk about,especially many here,like the fabulous Raven,and I had "previously" thought the Davinci arm was probably great( I heard it twice,but did not know the set-up well)until Halcro's assessment,which leaves me thinking "what if it IS colored".Maybe,and maybe not,because some well heeled hobbyists LOVE it,and have multiple arms on multiple tables.
I am thinking of a particular experienced hobbyist,popular on these threads,who has the Davinci,Phantom,and Kuzma Airline.Not to mention the Triplanar,which he likes to.He LOVES the Davinci,and not once mentioned any coloration!....BTW,I am not negating Halcro's findings....Just hobbyspeak,for "thread fuel",which has been quite polite(rightly so).Fun reads!!

Ok,next,and here is where I really envy Halcro(btw,we forgot Roy Emerson).....I have just downloaded the Copperhead owners manual....BOY this is a very interesting "read".At least to me!....I now have NO doubts as to this arm being a fantastic design!!!Sometimes the more info we get,the more we appreciate something.Knowledge is power!

Some interesting points mentioned by the designers,like the "clamping yolk" making 360 degree contact with the arm pillar.Similar to the Graham philosophy,but unlike the single knurled nob of the Triplanar.The all around clamp of the collar really makes the most sense,BUT Continuum uses TWO locking screws(my Graham Phantom only uses one).Continuum also uses two locking screws for the cue lifter assembly.Overkill?Doesn't seem that way to me!Really well designed touches,and I haven't got the time to say how impressed I am with the "apparent" effort that went into this design.Fremer apparently did not touch on many design aspects,in his somewhat "left wanting for more arm info" review.I view this arm more-so than the Cobra(which is probably amazing)because it represents a real world design.AND it is lightweight!MY Sota suspension would love it!
One thing I never gave much thought to,which is discussed in the manual,is the apparent increase in "pivot response time" due to a very low "weight/mass above the pivot assembly".This makes TOTAL sense to me!

I DO notice that my Phantom has significantly more mass,above it's pivot point,than my beloved 2.2 had.The Phantom definitely is a better sounding arm,but the added mass/weight somewhat changes the tonal character.Not bad,or good.Yet,different.Really different in presentation.I'm being honest!

I assume(if I understand some of the design principles of the Copperhead)that "this" arm will be BULLET fast!Also,the business of aerospace bearing design is way cool.Not to mention the "wand" material and overall product research,which believe me(or not) is appreciated by looking at the on-line manual.GOTTA be great!A usually silly assumption,but I guess I am correct!

BTW,Halcro....your problem with the antiskate looks to be rather benign,as according to what I see(pics)in the manual,you ONLY tie the thread to the bottom of the tower,and use the moveable, adjustment nob,and different registration holes for correct antiskate adjustments(above the arm tower,which does not need to be taken off again,from the diagrams).THESE TOO seem in a class of their own,as the percentage of antiskate shifts slightly,as the arm moves across the LP.A wonderful product!

BTW,Halcro,it is YOU who know this arm from practice,so my comments are simply from enthusiastic review of the manual.I could very well be wrong about ease of antiskate implementation,and other things,as I remember you claiming you had to take arm(or wand)off to access the antiskate ability.It seems less difficult from my review of the diagrams,BUT "you" definitely know better.....YOU lucky dog!!!

If I did not get my Phantom,THIS would be VERY high on my list.US dollar strength,or not!!
Best.
An entertaining and insightful read Sirspeedy (not to mention Pat Cash).
The problem with the Copperhead anti-skate mechanism that I'm struggling with......is that the NEW one is different to the OLD one (which is the one still explained in the otherwise excellent Instruction Manual).
The NEW one does not have the 2 holes in the weighted arm mechanism for the thread to double-back and be secured to the clamping screw.
It now only has the 1 hole and I can't figure out how to correctly relate it now to the clamping screw.
Mark Doehmann is hopefully coming to my place to show me the 'tricks' but it would have helped if the instruction manual had been updated?......incidentally, the reason I've been told that the design has been changed is that feedback in-the-field is that the OLD design was causing difficulties for 'users'?
Despite all of this, the design of this arm has unearthed some staggering revelations.
Halcro,have you had sucess in getting the antiskate bar "parallel" at LP end groove?This is according to manual,and should be in new arm as well.The antiskate design on this arm seems extraordinary,and I am a believer in correct antiskate.
To me,the manual alone is worth the price of the arm.A superbly well written booklet,that makes those I have seen look meager!.....I mean... a diagram showing cartridge weights and how to mate the best counterweight balancing,to the extent shown here,is amazingly interesting.
Btw,I LOVE the comment made,in the manual....."don't listen to many posters on many web-sites"!
Gotta love it.
I would have to concur that the extraordinarily detailed manual reveals a very well thought out arm which should allow very precise and repeatable adjustments. I love the counterweight mechanism and ability to make very fine adjustments. Unlike Sirspeedy, as good as the manual is I would like to arm to come with it!!
Phaser,forgive my enthusiasm for a voluminous manual,but I own a printing/graphic center,and "this" manual cost a few bucks to design.
Best.