2. analog
  3. 1205104320

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 9 responses by piedpiper

piedpiper
753 posts
 
All very well written; only to comment that it is certainly no surprise that any table should allow different arms or mats or cartridges to sound different.

... and any attempt at capturing accuracy and/or euphony will be a compromise, only to enjoy the pursuit.
piedpiper
753 posts
 
Asa, you got me right the second time 'round. Nothing can be wholly described in terms of limits, although language (and science is simply a language, frequently devolving into dogma) perenially attempts just that, but one "end" flows into the other, ultimately forming a circle as you have so eloquently expressed from a different "altitude."
piedpiper
753 posts
 
It's worth mentioning that JV's pick for best sound at CES, also my pick, featured perhaps similar sound via Zanden electronics through Cezarro horn speakers, which were startlingly palpable yet naturally warm and sweet with absolutely effortless dynamics. The Raven, like all good components, has charactristics, some of which might be termed colorations, that conspire with the virtues and limitations of the recording process to approximate something we recognize as live.
piedpiper
753 posts
 
Phaser,

the attractiveness (and limitations) of SET are certainly scientifically verifiable. There need never be conflict between the "two" pursuits.
piedpiper
753 posts
 
"a good place to start, but its not the finish"

indeed, but there is a continuum between the two where intuition swims.
piedpiper
753 posts
 
One answer is that most (ultimately all) recordings are not accurate, and it can sometimes take appropriate "colorations" to "restore" them to some semblance of naturalness, or enjoyability. Art is always an "amplification" of impressions of life/beauty; thus, all the flavors of ice cream that we find enjoyable. The recording artist brings their artfulness to the table, as do the engineer and producer, as does the listener, intentionally or not.
piedpiper
753 posts
 
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?
piedpiper
753 posts
 
I agree with you in theory Raul, but in practice, the question becomes, "How does the Walker compare to other TT and arm combinations, IOW, any and all combinations.", a more complex question but, nonetheless, where the rubber hits the road in this case.
piedpiper
753 posts
 
Halcro,

ditto Phaser.

Despite appearances reviews and reviewers are famously limited. I used to try to draw the kind of conclusions you are drawing, based on published reviews, professional or otherwise. It is certainly a very attractive prospect. IMHO the universe will always be just a little bit bigger (infinitely actually) than the desire and ability of our egos to put it in a tidy box.

At the very least, I can easily point out a number of contenders that didn't make it on your list, such as the Walker and Kuzma Airline arms (which will probably never be heard on any other tables than their own stable mates), the Airtangent, the Basis Vector, and the Schroeder to name a few, with others lurking in the wings eager to prove their worthiness in the right set up. And I'm sure that fans of the Monaco and other tables would have you include their favorites in your list of tables.

IME, the more I get around, the less conclusive all of this gets. There are simply WAY too many variables, all of which interact to a shocking degree, not least of which is personal taste, which, try as we might to claim neutrality etc., factors hugely. And the higher the resolution the system, the more shocking it becomes.

And then, just when you think you have it all figured out, along comes Raul! ;-)

Just one more small example of the murky nature of all this. In a recent listening session in a very evolved, very high end system not unfamiliar to some here, we changed out the support "cones" underneath the power supply for the motor controller for the turntable. How much more removed from the signal chain can you get? Well, the difference was between very good and unlistenable! So which is the sound of that component?

You can certainly make an "educated assessment" based on publications and/or direct experience, just not a very conclusive one. And the more we wise up to all this and stop trying to assert the unassertable the more useful those writings and experiences will be. In the end we can be happy with our choices, not because our egos can proudly claim their definitiveness but because the products they represent are wonders of love and ingenuity and they allow us to experience the miracles of nature and the human heart through the magic of music.
More to discover