Pace, rhythm and timing. What do these terms mean to you with respect to hifi?

[h.g.]

Look at this thread. It's clearly not a troll thread like some cable ones are (the OP's reputation clearly makes that a non-starter). The question is 'what do you understand by the term PRaT'. For which, any answer where the respondent sets out their understanding is a perfectly proper and reasonable response to the thread. And we could have a civil discussion about how valid or relevant those understandings are. But we never do, do we? Why is that, would you say?

As far as I can see most of the posts in this thread are civil. The driver behind incivility most of the time appears to be people's frustration at being unable to satisfactorily defend the beliefs they have adopted. For those choosing to adopt beliefs that don't stand up under examination the pressure towards internet warrior behaviour and incivility can never go away. Only education leading to improved understanding and a change of beliefs will do that but rejecting education about science is very much at the heart of what it means to belong to the subjective audiophile tribe making this rather unlikely to happen.

If it helps, the chief measurist on ASR is likely worse than you are in his indifference to scientific knowledge and reasoning. It's not just a subjective audiophile thing but subjective audiophiles tend to be under more pressure to go internet warrior because they have generally lost the plot on a larger scale as demonstrated nicely by this thread.

There is a tendency among a small proportion of objective audiophiles to become missionaries and set subjective audiophiles on the path to truth and light whether they want to or not. The type of person drawn to doing this rarely has a good understanding of the science except possibly in a narrow area and instead tends to have learnt more by rote and recipes. They are by far the most fun to tease with conflicting scientific knowledge because they know science is on their side whereas subjective audiophiles tend to ignore pretty much all conflicting information of whatever kind because it is all unknowable without listening. Of course should anyone ask why due to genuinely wanting to know it kills all the fun in teasing. People genuinely wanting to know why on forums like this is pretty rare these days. What certainly but not why.

 

[Tony L]

Surely it only applies to low frequencies? How could something be considered to have good prat if the bass is bloated?

Or to put it another way, could anyone suggest a speaker with tight bass that has bad prat?

It is more than simple tonality IME, but yes, ‘tight’ bass can have a seriously negative impact on perception of rhythm to my mind, especially given how many typically tiny speakers are asked to drive large rooms at volumes they simply can’t achieve. One of my pet hates is dry, bright, spotlit and forward systems that effectively re-balance a whole groove to be all about the hi-hat and snare and next to nothing to do with the kick drum and bass which are reduced to little more than a dry click and upper harmonics. A sound that has nothing to do with music or what is actually on the recording. To me it sounds like music being artificially dragged forward by the hi-hats, it is just totally wrong. Some dealers actually push this as ‘musical’, but it is anything but to my ears. Bass is neither dry nor thin, and I say this as someone who has played the thing (admittedly quite badly) for about 45 years now!

This is far from the whole story IMO, cabinet design, porting, phase, driver location etc all screw things up too on even nicely tonally balanced speakers, but yes, ‘tight’ bass can be totally wrong.

 

[mansr]

That might make an interesting AB test: ask participants to listen to two CD players which differ only in clock speed and ask which one sounds "livelier" or, dare I suggest, "has more PRaT".

It would be easy to speed up a test file, allowing it to be compared to the original on the same system.

The hypothesis here being that it's not perceptible as a definite change in speed and pitch, but rather still exerts a subliminal effect on perception of pace or timing.

I get that. I just don't think it's particularly likely. For starters, you typically have no reference, so you wouldn't know what a particular recording is supposed to sound like. Moreover, the actual timing of the musicians will vary by much more throughout the track, even from one bar to the next. Nobody is that accurate.

 

[marshanp]

How fast compared to the correct rate are we talking about here? A fast or slow clock in a CD player will cause a slight pitch shift of whatever is being played. A 1% change is audible if you're looking for it. 0.5% is difficult to discern even with fast switching, but it can be done, at least by some people. For reference, a semitone is about 6%. Digital playback devices (CD players and DACs) typically have much better accuracy. The worst I've seen is the AQ Dragonfly (all models) which is about 0.04% fast for some sample rates. Now even if the pitch is off, the relative timing of notes will remain correct, so I doubt this is the explanation for anything.

Having gone to some lengths to correct the pitch of those remasterings of old recordings which misguidedly assume that everything has always been played at A=440 I would never consider buying any player with a designed-in pitch discrepancy!

 

[marshanp]

... and the bottom end!!

With Naim wouldn't the bottom line matter most?

 

[mansr]

Sorry, I should add that one player being a bit fast is easily chalked up to engineering oversight, but for it to be consistent across generations of CD players starts to raise the question of whether it's intentional. Think what you will of Naim, it's uncharitable to label them sloppy.

Maybe JA's reference is a little slow.

 

[narabdela]

Having gone to some lengths to correct the pitch of those remasterings of old recordings which misguidedly assume that everything has always been played at A=440

Not strictly on-topic, but I've always found the 'concert pitch switch' topic fascinating. It's very easy to disappear down a rabbit hole with it.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

As far as I can see most of the posts in this thread are civil. The driver behind incivility most of the time appears to be people's frustration at being unable to satisfactorily defend the beliefs they have adopted. For those choosing to adopt beliefs that don't stand up under examination the pressure towards internet warrior behaviour and incivility can never go away. Only education leading to improved understanding and a change of beliefs will do that but rejecting education about science is very much at the heart of what it means to belong to the subjective audiophile tribe making this rather unlikely to happen.

If it helps, the chief measurist on ASR is likely worse than you are in his indifference to scientific knowledge and reasoning. It's not just a subjective audiophile thing but subjective audiophiles tend to be under more pressure to go internet warrior because they have generally lost the plot on a larger scale as demonstrated nicely by this thread.

There is a tendency among a small proportion of objective audiophiles to become missionaries and set subjective audiophiles on the path to truth and light whether they want to or not. The type of person drawn to doing this rarely has a good understanding of the science except possibly in a narrow area and instead tends to have learnt more by rote and recipes. They are by far the most fun to tease with conflicting scientific knowledge because they know science is on their side whereas subjective audiophiles tend to ignore pretty much all conflicting information of whatever kind because it is all unknowable without listening. Of course should anyone ask why due to genuinely wanting to know it kills all the fun in teasing. People genuinely wanting to know why on forums like this is pretty rare these days. What certainly but not why.

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on the drivers of the incivility, for me it started at post #7, and there are some distinctly uncivil one-word ('no') slap-downs from one poster in particular, but interesting to note our differing perceptions of the same information nonetheless. The internet warrior thing is invariably initiated by the objective side, as it was here. And I do find your implication that I am somewhat indifferent to scientific knowledge and reasoning insulting, to be frank. So no, it doesn’t really help.

I would agree, though, that those who get most hot under the collar tend to be the ones with the shallower understanding.

 

[Tigerjones]

I don't want to measure anything, but ISTM that if PR&T is just 'how I want stuff to sound', then the term is a) meaningless and thus b) useless.

Cone on, Joe, it’s too early in the thread to be coming to such considered conclusions.

 

[S-Man]

I don't want to measure anything, but ISTM that if PR&T is just 'how I want stuff to sound', then the term is a) meaningless and thus b) useless.

I guess it's as useful/useless as any other subjective term.

Peeps don't seem to get so agitated about a phrase like "it's a bit bright".

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Welcome back to another day of discussing PRaT without, cleverly, ever discussing what it actually is.

I think there's been a fair bit of discussion of that, albeit no real meeting of minds.

That was their marketing spin. No evidence of the method's effectiveness exists. It's popularity stems from the flattering idea that you have chosen your kit on musical grounds. For this they employed the two most superficial elements of music: melody and rhythm.

I missed this the first time around and only found it when reprising the thread. I am, to be honest, utterly astonished that you would describe melody and rhythm as 'the two most superficial elements of music'. If you genuinely meant to say that, then it is pretty clear to me why we rarely find ourselves on the same side of an argument. For me, I would replace the word 'superficial' with 'fundamental', it's that stark a difference in outlook.

I don't want to measure anything, but ISTM that if PR&T is just 'how I want stuff to sound', then the term is a) meaningless and thus b) useless.

I don't see it as that, at all. As has been said, it's a subjective term and, as with subjective descriptions in so many disciplines, it's hard to pin down, and respect to the OP for even making the attempt. But it is surely more than just 'systems I like have PRaT, those I don't like, don't'. It seems to me to be, at its heart, a sincere attempt to put a label on an aspect of reproduction which is variable in its presentation depending on the equipment, and thus one of the things 'in the mix' when a user makes their choice.

 

[herb]

OK then, in my experience on how to remove PRaT

1 let speakers float or wobble without spikes

2 use tables for amps or sources without spikes

3 not use Kontak cleaner on any connections

That should be good HiFi and send me to sleep....

 

[Joe P]

Hg,

Only education leading to improved understanding and a change of beliefs will do that but rejecting education about science is very much at the heart of what it means to belong to the subjective audiophile tribe making this rather unlikely to happen.

You’d be hard pressed to find someone more in favour of science as a guiding light and science education as the way toward public enlightenment than me, yet I’m perfectly fine with choosing audio equipment subjectively. It’s just a hobby — one I enjoy, obviously — but as it’s about enjoyment buying kit I like is a perfectly rational thing to do. (Other factors come into play as well — price, repairability, opportunity, owning a bit of audio history, etc. — so subjective evaluation is not the only criterion but it’s a major one for me. )

Being a subjectivist categorically does not mean that I or anyone else who evaluates kit using ears has rejected science. I’m scientific AF about things that actually matter — drug discovery and testing, climate change, loss of biodiversity, responses to a pandemic to name but a few.

Competent technical reviews are rare these days, so what’s a scientific approach to audio mean practically? Should a hobbiest buy an oscilloscope and spectrum analyzer? Seems a tall order and if I had a few thousand to spare I’d rather buy a mountain gorilla than lab kit to validate my choice.

Don’t take my post as an endorsement of foo. I have no use for audio witchcraft. But buying kit you like the sound of is not akin to believing in witchcraft or rejecting science.

Joe

 

[S-Man]

OK then, in my experience on how to remove PRaT

1 let speakers float or wobble without spikes

2 use tables for amps or sources without spikes

3 not use Kontak cleaner on any connections

That should be good HiFi and send me to sleep....

Probably more reliable to buy some ported speakers.

 

[herb]

Probably more reliable to buy some ported speakers.

My previous maximum PRaT system used Monitor Audio R852MD speakers. 20 years with sealed box with 8 inch woofer, they were great. The ported Harbeths are fine with classical music, the midrange is really excellent and bass acceptable with double basses, which is sufficient for me.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

I think that he was talking about a frequency response plot/curve and you are referring to a frequency response measurement.

The link is garbled. However I should add a cavil to the comment about being able to transform back and forth between the spectrum and the impulse response.

The 'linear' assumption also applies in time. i.e. the systems has to be "minimal" if I recall the term correctly.

Many loudspeakers are NOT 'minimal'. e.g. at the crossover points between two drive units the transition may look smooth and imply all is well. But there may be a time offset of, say, two cycles in the time delays of the two units. That pokes an offset into the impulse response and dispersion but may not be obvious from spectra that simply 'fold' phase into one 360deg cycle.

It seems very unlikely to me that ye olde isobarkis come within shouting distance of being minimal and time-aligned. if only because they have tweeters all over the place, firing around the room.

If you really want good time-alignment, choose as Tony said: ESL63 (or later) or a well made single wideband horn. Other speakers can do it, but it isn't trivial to do that *and* be wideband.

 

[mansr]

Should a hobbiest buy an oscilloscope and spectrum analyzer?

Of course not. The great thing about measurements is that it doesn't matter who performs them (provided it's done competently).

 

[Joe P]

Mansr,

This may blow your mind but I have a couple of degrees (undergrad and grad) in science and have worked for the past two decades with scientists. I really do understand what science is and that competent measurements performed by someone else don’t have to be performed by me to be valid.

My point is that who is testing audio these days? Competent technical reviews are rare.

Joe

 

[Joe Hutch]

And there’s a corresponding increase in increasingly expensive foo, with reviewers writing ‘I don’t know what’s inside this thing, and I haven’t done any measurements but man does it make the system sound great!’

 

[mansr]

My point is that who is testing audio these days? Competent technical reviews are rare.

Those are few and far between, though.