advertisement


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

It's obvious that any music system should be able to convey the rhythmic aspect of any music. If you system isn't able to reproduce the note envelope correctly, then it's not a hi-fi; giving it a name or trying to suggest that some company or other invented it changes things not one jot, it's a simple as that.
 
To me it means components or systems with a leading edge/upper bass emphasis... For better or worse.

No it isn't. I've been learning to play guitar & to suggest that timing is some kind of apparition is ridiculous.
 
I don’t know why people get their knickers in a twist over this. There are definitely systems that “time” better than others. The whole PRaT term is something that was used by Naim and it’s UK dealers as part of a lingo to suggest that Naim systems were more “musical” than others. This caught on and began to be applied to other stuff; Spectral and Accuphase for example. Generally stuff that could often be said to have a fast, pacey quality to the sound. It’s a gross generalisation though. Hifi isn’t intelligent and I’ve heard all of the above sound like absolute dogshit in some circumstances. Several dealers will claim a system sounds great, with lots of pace, rhythm etc and it’s sounded like an incoherent mess to me. The room makes the biggest difference to this, no “fast, musical” amp will fix a rubbish acoustic.

All Hifi is a set of compromises, the most impressive kit I’ve ever heard in respect of pace and timing is a pair of Rehdeko speakers. I’ve never heard anything get even close in terms of a sensation of “liveness” and realism from drums, especially. The problem was the rest of it as the tonal aberrations were impossible to live with. As ever, the only relevant question when listening is “Am I having fun yet?” Every Hifi manufacturer uses marketing to some degree and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it.
 
No it isn't. I've been learning to play guitar & to suggest that timing is some kind of apparition is ridiculous.

One can argue that some types of distortion may "enhance" our perception of rythm and timing (as well as our sense of spaciousness, envelopment, etc.).
Others, like room resonances, may deteriorate those sound qualities.
 
@pocketkitchen I'll be the first to agree that both Linn & Naim are responsible for the most appalling & misguided publicity drives, but that still doesn't change what aspects of music reproduction are important. Personally, I hate the PRaT terminology, timing is a good enough description for me.

One can argue that some types of distortion may "enhance" our perception of rhythm and timing (as well as our sense of spaciousness, envelopment, etc.).
Others, like room resonances, may deteriorate those sound qualities.

Our hi-fis are nowhere near as good as we think & all will suffer from one kind of distortion or other; as you say some will enhance our musical enjoyment and others will detract from it. I just try to select components that work well together & sound good to my ears. Certainly, from my point of view, the timing aspect is important & other aspects that others my rank higher, are less important to me personally.
 
I've been reading the British hi-fi press for 30 years.
I think the whole British hi-fi world knows. Mission accomplished then.

They know who invented the term? Or have heard of the term and it's association with particular brands?
 
It's a bit of a marketing ploy to me. The purpose of HiFi is to reproduce what is fed into it. It's up to the recording engineers to sort out the sound. I used to have equipment sold on the virtues of PRAT. What it meant in practice was that they had somehow how engineered out all sense of acoustic space and timbre so that the rhythmic nature could come to the fore. Being cynical, I'm sure this 'Front row" sense of presentation was more impressive in a dealers demo room. But you get to the point, for example, that every organ in every cathedral sounds the same. in fact sounds as though it's not in a cathedral. That was my experience.
 
Or maybe , to make it sound impressive in a demo, the sound they have created has a character that they turn into a virtue.
 
One can argue that some types of distortion may "enhance" our perception of rythm and timing (as well as our sense of spaciousness, envelopment, etc.).
Others, like room resonances, may deteriorate those sound qualities.
Yes, typically valve equipment, or solid state with low feedback. Not accurate, but nice with the right sort of speaker.
What is desirable is low odd harmonic distorsion, which gives a sweet, natural sound. Some would say ‘mellow’ perhaps.
 
IIRC at one time the 'PRAT' line also included asserting that there was no such thing as a stereo image. Fortunately, no-one convinced my ESLs of that so they've all given me superb images when fed decent recordings.
 
@pocketkitchen I'll be the first to agree that both Linn & Naim are responsible for the most appalling & misguided publicity drives, but that still doesn't change what aspects of music reproduction are important. Personally, I hate the PRaT terminology, timing is a good enough description for me.



Our hi-fis are nowhere near as good as we think & all will suffer from one kind of distortion or other; as you say some will enhance our musical enjoyment and others will detract from it. I just try to select components that work well together & sound good to my ears. Certainly, from my point of view, the timing aspect is important & other aspects that others my rank higher, are less important to me personally.

I agree, I think it's over-cooked, although to my knowledge it's never been used in an actual piece of marketing, just parrotted ad infinitum by dealers and fan boys online. It's quite possible that Naim never even coined the exact term - they certainly didn't when I sold their kit. I don't think Linn have ever used it. The tune-dem is their thing and in their defence, there's a methodology, which is published, and has some substance, whether or not you agree with it. However, the marketing term that drives me up the wall the most is the lazy, "For the love of music". Every time I see it it makes me shudder. Complete, meaningless, unimaginative codswallop. However, examples of egregious marketing are many and no-one ever harmed themselves by buying an amplifier.
 
I used to have equipment sold on the virtues of PRAT. What it meant in practice was that they had somehow how engineered out all sense of acoustic space and timbre so that the rhythmic nature could come to the fore.
I don't think it's deliberate though. Naim (and Linn) started out with one individual and grew from there. Julian would have developed the first pre (NAC 12) and first power amp (NAP 160) to sound good to him. People with similar preferences would have bought those products. That's about all there is to it. I suspect it's often more about what they "don't get wrong" to the developer's ear than what they do right.

For me, HiFi is now about finding components that don't trigger my sensitivities, rather than trying to find something that sounds perfect. Many imperfections don't bother me, but some are a complete deal-breaker.
 
…Naim doesn't care that much about having deep 3D soundstage or other hifi qualities and this has been audible in pretty much all Naim setups I've ever heard…
Yes, in all seriousness I always took the prat game to mean you could sacrifice a lot of audio qualities but this was the essence. Trouble is, sit in front of an orchestra at a concert hall where instruments are definitely placed in their various groups then listen to good recordings at home and you want that, a sense of prat isn’t enough. For me, Joe’s post above already quoted is the one we should all follow and there’s nowt wrong with it leading us all down different paths.
 


advertisement


Back
Top