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
dgad
782 posts
 
I have owned both. I still own the Universe. Sirspeedy, your description fits my experience exactly. Still not one person here on this forum wants to answer my comment that the variation in compliance of the Universe will create different "ultimate" tonearm matchups for different owners. So, while in 1 system the Davinci is best in a 2nd system / w a different sample of the Univ the match can be bloated. I also will mention that this applies to many cartridge brands. My Titan I & Air Tight PC-1 are spot on. But Koetsus have been very low, not medium-low as specified. Why does everyone want to waste money on tonearms before they measure the cartridge compliance by dtermining the resonant frequency in an arm of know mass. You can easily reverse calculate it. Does anyone here own test records. All the information I am reading so far is irrelevant.

Albert, I loves the PC-1 but prefer the openness of the ZYX to the Dynavector. Yet both of us love the PC-1. Funny how 2 people have such different conclusions. Mind you I have both owner & heard several XV-1s samples. Very dynamic and natural...but nowhere near as detailed as the ZYX. It does have better bass & dynamics.

Tonearms used for my Comparison include a 10 gm effective mass SME V, Schroder SQ w 18 gms effective mass, and the Ikeda 407 w 35 gms mass. All cartridges moved between all arms. I now used the Universe on the SQ w the optional brass mounting plate which increase the effective mass of the SQ to 23 but 28 would be ideal. But my PC-1 is perfect w the 18 gm mass. Of course the Titan I is a perfect match in the Phantom. My resonant frequency measurements for the latter 2 is spot on 10Hz. The Universe is 12 to 13hz in the SQ at 23 gms mass. If I add Blutak to the headshell area I can get it to 10 perfectly & the treble is less shrill & the bass gets deep.
halcro's avatar
halcro
2,664 posts
 
Sirspeedy I agree with all you have said and I think the poster you are speaking of is Thomasheid?

I have checked the parameters of set-up with the Davinci and whilst the geometry is spot-on, I'm experimenting with VTA and VTF hoping for that 'surprise' to which you allude.
halcro's avatar
halcro
2,664 posts
 
We do hear what you're saying Dgad, but when the actual Davinci arm manufacturer (Peter Brem), tells you that the Universe is a fine match with the Grandezza and is used by many owners of the arm that he knows......and when Thomasheid posts that his Davinci (out of all his tonearms), can take the widest variety of cartridges..........why do you insist on a mismatch issue here?
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas
13,103 posts
 
Dear Darren: If the name of the game was/is effective tonearm mass everything will be very easy/simple, unfortunatelly it is not.

Take a look to the three/four tonearms that you name it, really different between each other: different build material and resonance due to material kind, different bearing design and bearing material, different lenght, different internal wiring, different effective mass, different , different, different, you know the only tonearm coincidence between them is its raw name: tonearm, that's all.

What you hear on those cartridge/tonearm combinations is not the match between the tonearm effective mass and the cartridge compliance but the whole package that it is extremely complex for say the least.

I own/owned/heard all those tonearms and cartridges several times in different combinations so I know of what I'm talking about. I have heavy XV-1 sound performance cartridge experience in my system and in other systems and you are almost the only person that is not totally satisfied with it, maybe because your ears are different, maybe because your music sound priorities are different or maybe because you have a " trouble " else where in your system: who knows.

Any way, all those posts about tell us the critical importance of the tonearm in the quality cartridge performance and IMHO this is learning for all of us.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
dgad
782 posts
 
Raul,

I agree with you about all you said. But, others who have heard the XV-1s in my system agreed with my assesment. Maybe a system parameter was off, but it was checked thoroughly by me & some experts. On a different note, the XV-1s took a lot of time to break in. This is a major part of the problem. But even after break in, it is a more closed in cartridge than the ZYX. I prefer the Koetsu to the XV-1s in musical terms. But not in dynamic terms. I now have both with the PC-1.

I have heard the XV-1s in many systems, and it remains less detailed than the ZYX but more natural tonally. This is my ears and experience so please don't consider it the end all. I would consider it again for the price. It is well priced.

Now, on to tonearms. Yes to all you say but without getting the resonant frequency into the correct range you are not maximizing the performance of the cartridge no matter the tonearm design. The resonance will make the bass bloated and the treble distorted. It is simple physics. I am actually surprised by your assertion otherwise, as you argue as an absolute against all preamps w. a SUT base on specifications and engineering but in terms of tonearm / cartridge matching you are willing to ignore this.

Now if all things are equal or fairly close 8-12 Hz resonant frequeny, then we can have other design parameters which we can consider. Also tonearm/ turntable interface a tonearms ability to handle air born resonance and disipate it through the turntable or any other way is important. Now, these can be more important than what I mention above, but only if these parameters are truly not met at all.

It gets back to the weakest link. If any one item is poor it will affect all others.
More to discover