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
This was not actually a cartridge review. Rather, it was an opinion on two arms each using a highly regarded cartridge. Both, for this listener in an unfamiliar system. It would be unfortunate if what was clearly observable - the high level of performance of the Copperhead arm was lost in a debate on the relative merits of the Universe and the XV1s. We did not have the opportunity to exchange cartridges but if we had I have a feeling that the differences between the cartridges would not have been as great as they were when in different arms.

One conclusion I feel I could make was that I would not like to have the 12" Grandezza with the Universe as my reference. From what others have said on this forum the Universe is capable of top notch performance and I have no reason to doubt this but I feel this is not the arm for it. Similarly the Grandezza may truly shine with another cartridge.

I will repeat, however that what I heard with the Copperhead leads me to believe it is capable of superlative performance and I have a feeling that its performance in Halcro's system was not as yet optimized (counterweight positioning and anti skate settings). I will await with interest his views once the designer has had the opportunity to tweak the arm.
It was great to meet Phaser and Downunder and much listening was done.
I must agree with their opinions on the 2 arm/cartridge combinations but like you Dgad, I can't attribute the bloated sound to the ZYX Universe.
I've lived with the Universe for 18 months and with the Rega 3/Hadcock, it was simply the best cartridge i have ever heard.
I know that Peter Brem likes the Davinci/Universe combination and many have used it happily.
I prefer to think that the Copperhead is such a leap forward ( a watershed if you like), in tonearm design, that other arms (including top contenders like the Davinci), are simply out of their league.
I know this is hard to fathom in high-end audio where incremental improvements are hailed with fan-fare and gigantic improvements are viewed with suspicion, but Downunder's statement that the Copperhead/DV1s was "in a different universe" .....to the Davinci/Universe is true.....and frightening.
Unless there is something seriously wrong with the Davinci or the Universe or the set-up?........it is hard to accept such an advancement at the pointy end of Hi-Fi?
Halcro, in this instance I do not think the difference in sound between the two combinations is due to the Copperhead's pre-eminence in its field as the sound of the Copperhead/XV1s combination was very close to what I listen to every day as I mentioned in my post. Unfortunately you have not been able to listen to my system which while it has a quite different balance has that same ease/clarity you get with the Copperhead in the chain. I think it is just that the other combination for whatever reason - possibly an impedance mismatch with the phono stage(just grasping at straws here) just did not sound right.

It is always very difficult to compare across systems as we clearly have different priorities in our in our listening expectations but if a voice sounds natural it sounds natural. This was not the case with the Grandezza which leads me to think that there is something fundamentally wrong somewhere in the set up. I hope you find out what it is.
"I prefer to think the Copperhead is such a leap forward,in tonearm design,that other arms are simply out of their league"......

Maybe so,but I have heard the Dynavector,and Universe,with vinyl I own and though there are differences,they are really not nearly as great as some would have you believe!
The XV-1s has a bit more meat on the bones,and the Uni is open,airy and filled with inner detailing(so is the XV-1s).
In NO way is the UNI bloated!...To me,both get a nine out of ten in overall performance.Both in similar classes,IMO....I've yet to hear a TEN! There is one experienced poster,who "I think" owns both cartridges.He also has the Davinci,and the Phantom/Triplanar/not to mention the Kuzma Airline.A fine and non confrontational fellow,but having a ton of analog experience.I believe him when he posts his thoughts.
If my memory serves me(I try to remember audio related stuff,which interests me)I believe he LOVES the Davinci,and stated that he felt it worked best with cartridges having more mass.I "think" the UNI is on the lighter side of the weight issue,so this could be one reason why it might not have stacked up to the Dynavector/ Copperhead so well.
Of course I am assuming,but I would bet the Davinci has "some" particular parameter a bit off.I have had loads of misfires in my own set up(some took months to "figure out"),and if I had this kind of money invested in "this" particular arm/cartridge combo,I think it might serve me best to play around alot.

A "surprise" might happen,and the Davinci might wake up.

Best.
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.