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
Dear piedpiper: I agree with you and I agree too that it is " a more complex question ".

regards and enjoy the music.
raul.
I think the review is a comparison of Linear Tracking vs. the Phantom more than not. Valin's using a suboptimal match of the PC-1 on the Phantom would change things as well. I use the PC-1 on an arm w. an effectie mass of 18 gms. I have a resonant frequency of 10Hz. Placing it on the Phantom would place the resonant frequency slightly higher and result in a resonant frequency closer to 12 Hz. Which is still very good but not ideal. I really think tonearm matching is critical. This is not to say the Walker is anything else. But, if we are doing system comparisons and Valin's favorite cartridge on the Walker is the PC-1, then he should find his favorite cartridge for the Phantom and do a sytem shootout in totality. Honestly, even the phono stage would come into play in certain situations depending on the gain & impedance ofthe cartridge in play.
Dear Darren: +++++ " Valin's favorite cartridge on the Walker is the PC-1, then he should find his favorite cartridge for the Phantom and do a sytem shootout in totality. Honestly, even the phono stage would come into play in certain situations depending on the gain & impedance ofthe cartridge in play. " +++++

You are totally right, it is unfair to make judgements where you don't even both items ( whole ) during a comparison.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
From my own experience,a "really good" table,especially with an integrated "linear arm" (like the fabulous Walker)will trounce virtually anything you can compare it to!

If you have not heard a "reasonable" comparison....you will be quite surprised when you do!

I've simply had way too much exposure to a "great" linear air bearing arm to be convinced otherwise.You just have to listen(at length)to how music flows from such a combo.

Any cartridge will sound better,in it too!

As far as J.V.'s "Phantom" experience,and subsequent opinions regarding tonal colorations(from the Raven),and related equipment pairings(whether cartridge or table).....

there is just SO much alternative "voicings" that you can get with a Phantom(mainly because the fluid is SO important/impactful on tonal shadings and inner detail...(which is a good thing,IMO)...that you have to take his comments in the context of someone who has NOT got alot of "time in" with the personality of "that" arm!!.....

Not to try to denegrate his comments,but Graham arm's need "alot" of owner experimentation to fully realize how one can "get it" to the optimized performance envelope with a given cartridge/table combo.

From my experience with the superb Graham arms(2.2 and Phantom) I can easily see how J.V.'s comments about some "darkening" from tha Raven table,could "easily" be a "touch" more fluid,in the bearing pivot of the arm instead....

This could "easily" be the case,and I have overdone the business of "voicing" many times,only to go back to other prior settings,but it DID give me great insight as to how the fluid can influence a cartridge....BTW,anyone owning a Phantom for a goodly length of time knows this!

I "assume" J.V. could not have had enough time with the Phantom to learn it's little "fluid quirks"....which I consider an "advantage" in reality(for the additional flexibility it affords it's curious owner)!!You just have to live with the arm,for a long time to get this.

If he claims he is "expert" already(when he has NOT listed the arm previously,in his equip under usage)than I just don't buy that notion....BTW,I enjoy reading J.V.'s thoughts,and am not trying to undermine him,but he has a "tiny bit" of ego....sometimes.
So,although I know the Raven to be superb,and love the Phantom...in all honesty...there is NOT alot of tables out there to "match or exceed" the Walker!!

Even with the great press that TAS gave the latest REFERENCE table from overseas,in the last issue(150,000 dollars...whew)...having a product from a "local" mfgr pays HUGE dividends in the long run......

"THAT" I know from recent experience.....where I had a dealer basically bury his head in the sand,rather than try to get a "little" involved and aid me with my problem(where the grounding scheme of the product he sold me,was the culprit...he should know this...no?)!! "That" episode has taken me months to sort out!!

Just some thoughts
You are all correct regarding the issues of tonearms, linear v/s pivoted tracking, how cartridges perform in those arms, and the effects with regard to the Raven and the Walker. I love my Raven/Tri-Planar set-up, but had I the cash, I would have gone for the Walker. As it is, I have the one motor version of the Raven and in the next year or so, I will attempt to make the decision as to whether I buy 2 more motors. I think that will be a tough one to sort out with regard to increased performance level by virtue of 3 motors instead of one.