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
Speedy

We don't mix with guys that no nothing about tennis, let alone hifi!! just kidding

Is federer past his best?? God I hate Novak Jokovic!!

luv Anna Ivanovic :-)

YOu can come ova my place anytime mate
Wow. A ZYX Universe souding bloated? Something sounds wrong. That would be the last thing I would say about the Universe. OTOH, the XV-1s should sound bloated but extremely natural. Suffice it to say, I am all confused. The DaVinci should be a great combination w. the ZYX provided the ZYX has a low enough compliance. If not then all is lost. The ZYX often has variable compliance.

Halcro, did you try the ZYX in the Copperhead? I know you said you tried a Graham. In your system?

Can anyone tell me if they did a resonance test on thier cartridges to determine if in the optimal range. Until then I only remain interested. Not persuaded.
Darren

In Halcro's system the davinci/universe did indeed sound bloated and ill controlled.
Having heard both the Universe and the Dynavector I'm not surprised at the results of this listening test. The Dynavector is one of the three or four best cartridges ever made and the Air Tight PC-1 is another.

When I had the Universe here on a friends Basis with Graham, I was totally under whelmed. Not my cup of tea. On the other hand, I plan on buying a Dynavector XV1s soon, to compliment my Air Tight.

Each to their own and so forth.
Fully agree on the big Dyna. I thought my digital source reached a new high in terms of detail retrieval, but the Dyna surpassed it and had this liquid smoothness while placing all the instruments in correct proportion to each other on a big soundstage. Air Tight is one special cart which had the attack/immediacy that has not been matched elsewhere. The other one which I felt was special is the Lyra Titan.