1. Home
  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
emailists
607 posts
 
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.
rauliruegas
9,123 posts
 
Dear Emailist: Two days ago I posted on Halcro's review and ( between other things ) give to him my advice to add the AT 666 to his Raven.

Like you say I'm ( till today ) convince that a vacuum hold down record is a must to have in any decent analog chain.

Yes, the improvement on the bass ( low bass/mid bass: tight, clean, pitch, no overhang, less coloration, etc, etc ) is really shocked and to believe we have to hear it, but the improvement is not only on the bass ( but only this fact is worth the effort to find the AT666 ) but at the other frequency extreme where we have more precise/definition on the high frequencies with a pristine presentation and ovbiously that in the midrange we find a quality improvement too. When the whole audio frequency spectrum " suffer " a quality improvement we have many other benefits in other reproduction areas: soundstage, focus, inner detail, less distortion, less coloration, etc, etc.

I know that many people are against these kind of Vacuum systems ( Walker, Halcro, Alvin/Monaco, etc, etc ) but I know too that many other audio/music lovers are in favor of it, if not ask to a Sota or Basis TT owners ( for name some ) that are very satisfied with the Vacuum hold down system.

I put in this way: ones you hear/heard it you can't live with out it!!!.
Of course that this is only an opinion and like every opinion a subjective one.

Trade offs??, of course there is nothing perfect ( yet ) out there: we have to be ( a must ) very carefully to clean perfectly the AT vacuum mat and the records side ( time consuming )that goes directly on the AT mat every time we play any record/LP, if not the dust ( small and invisible ones ) pass to form part of the recording ( stick ) and ( over the time ) your records could convert a little noisy.

If any one can live with it then the AT 666 add-on is worth the effort, you will enjoy it for ever.

Btw, Emailist IMHO you have to leave the underside of the AT666 like it is ( I already try something like you posted and does not works in good way ):

+++++ " The AT666 exhibits no kind of ringing when tapping it once it is placed on the platter. " +++++

this means its working right on target!.

recondition??, I own at least four of these AT666 ( old ones ) and what I do to " recondition " the rubber seals is only to clean/wash with water ( tap water ) and soft soap, then dry with a cotton clothe and finally I use a stick tape ( scotch ) over the out and inside rubber rings to take out any small dust, it works.

Emailist very good " move " with your AT666!, enjoy .

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
sirspeedy
738 posts
 
My felings as of late is to give almost anyone the benefit of the doubt,if he/she is passionate and seems to know a bit about "things" audio/music.Even if I am really sceptical about something,I no longer think I can gain anything by being a contrarian,other than receive contempt from some posters,SO I just stay quiet.Mostly!!
The business of vacuum,I know very well,as I have lived with vacuum units(about four tables)over some twenty years.If anyone thinks it is hard to keep a platter clean,while owning/using a good vacuum table they are greatly mistaken!

I have NOT had a single pop or tick,that I can say with certainty happened from a vacuum seal,in my 2500 LP collection.However I DO have a dedicated(locked) audio room.My friend has a dusty environment,and has had vacuum for about fifteen years,and has almost no noise issues as well.

The solution to keeping the platter clean,from my expperience,is to simply brush the platter surface with a "facial make-up brush"!You know,the type of brush women use to put rouge type make-up on their face.Very inexpensive,at around five bucks(though there is a typical rip-off audio company selling one,made of horse hair for 80 dollars)....That's it!!..No noise problems,unless you are careless.

As to the sonic impact of vacuum,to me it is a common sense attitude,coupled with "not even having to be a careful listener",it is just "that obvious"!Inner details stand out in bold relief,and if you have one of the elite arms and cartridges,you will notice something special,and in less than a few platter rotations.This is one feature I can unquestionably state is just "fabulous to have"!You want to take advantage of that fabulous platter composition you have?Well,it makes good sense to "almost" bond the LP to that platter,which eliminates any air pockets under the disc from vibration during play.No standard clamping system will give this result.AND some are pretty good,but the brass ring belongs to the finest vacuum systems.With these you truly have a disc that "truly" weighs as much as your fancy platter.Not a bad thing.

That is definitely "not" to say it is a "must",but if you have lived with it for as long as me,you don't want to be without vacuum....Personally I believe (though the subject is still open to debate,to anyone,"except me")that the non vacuum mfgrs have an easy dismissal of vacuum,as more of a marketing tool,than actual confirmation of it not working well.It certainly would not be easy or cheap to add to existing products,but had the CD not come around,I think there would have been a bigger push towards vacuum tables.....Just some thoughts-:)

Best.
sirspeedy
738 posts
 
One other point regards to some claiming vacuum has a negative affect on sound...."That is total rationalization"!....I have heard two different Rockport models,the Basis Debut Gold Standard Vacuum(fantastic table)another early design(big bucks,but I forgot the name...it was at Michael Gindi's home,in the mid 1990's)and have owned a few SOTA vacuum tables.I am awaiting the newest Sota Cosmos series IV,but had the series I and III,and an earlier series IV.My friend has had the series I and series III Cosmos tables too,back ended by the Magico Minis.My new Phantom is sitting,mounted on my armboard,and awaiting the new vacuum table....I have heard my own vinyl on ALL these tables,and any stating there is some kind of negative effect of vinyl replay on a vacuum table is either not implementing it very well,or just mistaken!..."That" is an "absolute"!...
I don't mean to go on about this,but the subject was brought up.
best to all.
halcro's avatar
halcro
2,289 posts
 
I never meant to denigrate vacuum hold-down.
I merely stated that the Raven doesn't employ it and for me, I like it that way.
All the other turntable manufacturers who DO employ it make it an integral element of their system and it obviously works.
Just as some manufacturers make suspended decks work whilst others utilise the unsuspended principle.
Some make belt-drive their movement of choice whilst others use idler-wheel/rim drive or direct drive.
I honestly don't know which one is the best or even IF one of them is potentially THE best.
The fact that they are ALL made to work well, demonstrates that whatever choices the designer makes, his execution is the critical factor.
I simply like the ease of not having to shut-down after every side to every record is played.
The only caveat I would have to this is..........once you accept the designer's choices, I find it hard to understand the fact that you think you can improve upon his design?
Don't you imagine that before putting into production his ' masterpiece', he has tried everything to see if any improvements can be wrought in the prototype?
If it were as simple as a clamp or he realised he had ' misjudged' by not utilising vacuum hold-down?.....why would his design be even making it to the ' short list' of top turntables?
More to discover