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
Thanks everyone for your encouragement. I've been compelled to be quite thoughtful about all this because I am a professional musician, recording artist, sound engineer, audiophile, audio dealer and even sometimes audio designer/modifier. Aside from keeping me extremely busy, (I enjoy them all too much to let any of them go) I have had to work hard at coming to terms with integrating all those perspectives to my advantage.

Nil,

finding technology that at least approaches doing it all, is tricky but a worthy goal. Isn't that why were all here?
Dgad, re the Adjust +, a 180 gm pressing is included. I agree it looks very interesting. I think I'll be getting one.
Dear Nilthepill: IMHO the best ( perfect ) that we can/could have at home is to hear what is on the recording that is way far away from the live event from where comes that recording.

So, today trying to have in our room ( any ) the life-like presence or true realistic live performance is only our best " illusion/target ".

We can/could have only what is in the recording and that's why we have to take care to preserve with very high zealous that the cartridge signal pass for every single link ( in the whole audio/analog chain ) with loosing the less and adding the less where " loosing " means: the integrity of the cartridge signal and "adding " means: distortions/colorations/noises/inaccuracies at every single stage level.

For me this is the name of the game: " try to preserve intact the integrity on the cartridge signal: free of degradations. ".

Of course that this could be our target that it is almost impossible to achieve but we have to try!!!

IMHO as we have success in each stage/link audio system level preserving the integrity of the original sound signal then as we can/could have high/low quality level performance in our audio system.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
Agreed Piedpiper.
But I think instead of same old same old, you would think we would have something definitive explaining causes and effect and answers by now to highlight why current SOA system still don't sound like a real thing (It sure comes close but still not there yet). I wish there were more clear expalnations available and research being done to overcome limitations, that's all.
Meanwhile, Enjoy our beloved systems and the music.
Many modern reviews today borrow vocabulary from adjacent technologies to describe the greater resloution and bandwidth of todays equipment. You will read terms like density, color, vividness; these are terms borrowed from home theatre that really have no definition in audio but are used because the old adjectives of detail, soundstage, depth are now almost obsolete. In video or digital applications, you can measure the color density, contrast ratio or resolution by defined parameters. For analog systems, these are not so clear. As such these descriptive adjectives could have different meanings to different readers. It would make sense to build some sort of glossary or dictionary to encompass these things. I for one would like to know for sure what the reviewer meant.