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
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.
BTW,and I only mean to be helpful with limited knowledge....From what I see,re: antiskate setting,one would set the thread so that the antiskate "bar/platform" is parallel at end of LP.Once the thread is done,and bar is parallel,"then" use the penny washers supplied, and/or "moveable" set-screw/pennywasher assembly to adjust antiskate.Of course "this" is ONLY from what I have read,but maybe something here can be of aid,hopefully.Otherwise I will keep quiet,as I have NO physical exposure to this apparently superb design.
I can only imagine how superb this arm can be once totally optimized.
Best.