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

Showing 3 responses by emailists

I have to reread the review, but could one say that "colored" is more an observation of taste, while resolution, detail and ability to discipher individual instruments, etc. is a more objective yardstick?

Also I wonder the scale of the differences. Comparing two speakers, the differences are likely quite large. Is it possible that in JV's quest to discern a difference in the two tables, he is actually describing subtle shadings rather than wholesale shifts in reproduction quality?

I think the thing that I enjoyed most about the review was the fact I am probably getting most of what JV heard (on my lowley Raven One/Phantom) for pennies on the dollar compared to the super table Walker.

Here's to Thomas at TW Acustic for creating a product that brings such a high level of performance to the homes of we less fortunate music lovers.

Just the idea that we can get something that even holds a candle to the likes of the Walker for the price of an standard mail order catalog table is pretty amazing.
This is a great thread and I enjoyed the AC-3 Review.

I was thinking of getting the Copperhead when it was just released, but ended up just keeping the Phantom I had. Now I'm obviously glad I didn't get an early production run Copperhead, but is something I will now consider (though the setup issue scares me a bit)

This is a bit off topic, but concerns something Halcro mentioned about TW not liking vacuum hold down, or a clamp.

Indeed with my lowly little Raven One, I found I didn't like the Millenium Clamp or mat. I felt they both subdued the music, however with the mat, the clamp seemed better than no clamp, (though I don't use either.)

Last week I got a nice vintage AT666-EX vacuum hold down add on platter.

I am shocked at how much more information and bass I am getting. The realism of instruments had risen quite a bit with the add on platter.

The clamp now is beneficial sonically, and helps keep more of the vacuum
till the end of the LP side (though a small bit of air does leak in by the end of the LP- any tips to help this (I already clean the rubber on each listen - I am thinking maybe recondition the rubber seals with a fluid? Maybe Raul can comment since I know he loves the AT666.

The instrument height is better as well - I so wish someone would make a modern version of this device out of a material other than Aluminum. (TW's secret Delrin mix, or Copper would be nice)

My next step will be to have the underside of the the 666's alum platter coated in AVM paint to help with vibration. I am thinking aluminum is not the ideal material for a plater mat, though it feels very solid once on the Raven One's platter. The AT666 exhibits no kind of ringing when tapping it once it is placed on the platter.

Also of course the AC has copper as its upper layer while the One has no metal, so perhaps I am getting some benefit just from adding a metal top layer.
On the topic of resonant frequency - The new Fiekert Adjust + software can display the resonant frequency of the arm/cart. It also lets you set azimuth and displays the amount of distortion the table is producing. I think the product is shipping the end of this month. http://www.adjustplus.de

I plan on ordering this - I have been dreaming of a product of this nature for some time.