What are people talking about when they talk about PRaT?

[Cbdb2]

If it's British in origin, why did they use that word? I mean, was there also equipment with Gravity, Insight, and Timbre?

They should be using it to describe themselves.
From the Cambridge dictionary.
Prat: someone who behaves stupidly or has little ability:

 

[fpitas]

They should be using it to describe themselves.
From the Cambridge dictionary.
Prat: someone who behaves stupidly or has little ability:

Uhm...Martin Colloms? Amirite?

 

[kemmler3D]

As for "analyzing PRaT to the ultimate", the basic question is whether PRaT really exists or does not exist. In-depth analysis is the only way to discuss that question.

I still think DSJR's provided an adequate explanation. PRaT doesn't "really exist" in the way that today's subjectivist would have you believe.

However, by his description it had its origin in what he describes as a pretty distinct (and measurable) style of voicing that made drums and bass attack more noticeable on playback. Even just from his descriptions I feel like I could EQ a speaker to have "PRaT" in the 1970s sense.


Given that, does PRaT really mean anything as it's used today? Probably less so. At this point I just think it means:

A) An uneven FR that emphasizes key frequencies in snare, rock kick, and guitar attacks
B) The reviewer convinced themselves the gear was doing something to those frequencies, regardless of reality.

Does it have anything to do with ACTUAL timing or rhythm? Obviously not.

 

[mhardy6647]

Has anyone shown an example of PRaT in tests and measurements of either an amplifier or a loudspeaker?

Jim

Sadly, the aliens didn't share advanced PRaTometer technology with us at Roswell.

 

[MattHooper]

But it won't change the pace rhythm or tempo. My foot keeps tapping at exact,y the same speed.

Of course the tempo doesn't *actually* change.

The *feel* can change. That's the point. That includes the *feel* of the rhythm as well.

Take someone playing a basic backbeat on drums. You could play it extremely lightly, almost whisper level, sleepily in a way that almost suggests the drummer is barely awake. Now have the same beat, exact tempo, played by John Bonham! One is going to get head bangers banging...the other will not.

So it's not *just* about the rhythm/tempo: it's about how the feel can change perception of the performance, how the player is playing. And that can also affect how some people relate to the rhythm.

Like I mentioned before, you can take the same recording of Paco De Lucia and with EQ mimic a more mellow approach to his playing by subduing the plucking transients, or play them normally (or even exaggerate them) and the sense of excitement, energy and aggressiveness will change. Same rhythm exactly, but a different feel which can give a different feel to the rhythm.

I...and many others...notice a similar type of perceptual effect can happen in terms of how different sounding speakers, placing different emphasis tonally and dynamically etc, can alter the feel of the rhythm.

Even not long ago when I was dialing in subwoofers, when I had them overlapping the main speakers too much and dialed too high, it thickened out the bass so much it added a "plodding" type sensation to bass notes and it really *felt* like the musical pace had slowed a bit. Like the drums/bass had chains on. Switching out the subs was like allowing the musicians to step out of a pair of lead boots and the rhythm seemed more sprite and lively and slightly "faster."

This is of course a subjective effect. The mistake is to think literally and ascribe any perception of "feel" or rhythmic change to the loudspeaker. The loudspeakers/room combos can be doing objectively different things to the sound, but how an individual perceives the differences is subjective.

You could say something objective like "A loudspeaker can not actually change the timing of the playing" and be correct. You can say something subjective like "I haven't noticed the phenomenon you are mentioning - I've never experienced a subjective alteration of the pace/feel of a performance due to changes in speaker performance." I'd think that a bit strange, given how continuous it is with the examples I've been giving in how musicians change the feel of music, even when it's the same tempo/rythm. Still...that would be fine as a personal report of your experience. But it would be a big lift to try to say "Nobody experiences such perceptual changes as you describe in terms of rythmic feel between different loudspeaker scenarios." Plenty of people subjectively report that they do. In which case those people can communicate among themselves and just shrug if you don't have the same experience ;-)

 

[Mart68]

The frequency response of the Linn Tukan will be much more flat in the bass and lower midrange If its used placed very near a wall (as its made to be.)
In that way the response will gain about 5 dB below 800 Hz making it rather flat. What you see in stereophile are anechoic response measurements, very misleading.

The Tukan was a much better speaker than the original Kan, in my opinion this series was one of the best ever made by Linn ( Tukan, Kaber, Nexus, Sara9 and Keltik ) but some may have a different opinion. Converting those speakers to active made them sound even better.

Tukan was the first speaker by Linn that the audiophile journalist Ken Kessler ( who didnt like Linn ) really loved.

Due to hearing curves the speaker needs to be flat in the bass when measured anechoically, it will then compensate for the hearing curve when placed in a room due to low frequency gain.

So the Linn speaker will still sound bass light even in a room and against a wall. This is pretty obvious when music with some bass is played on them and they are compared to a speaker with flat anechoic measurement. One plus is that they won't boom in a small room and that suited the use case of the young, upwardly mobile 1980's purchaser with his tiny-roomed starter house or flat.

It was all about making a bug into a feature - 'tight fast bass' - that's what the salesman would tell you. In reality just a midrange hump. it will fatigue over time unless the music choice is very restricted.

Agree Tukan was better than the Kan but that isn't saying anything. IMO the Wharfedale Diamonds were a lot better than either at about a quarter of the price. As was pretty much anything from Wharfedale, Celestion. B&W or KEF going back to about 1977. Especially KEF.

Have to say I always thought all the Linn speakers were very poor value with regard to price/performance. I don't think I have ever had a listen to the Sara though.

 

[MattHooper]

I still think DSJR's provided an adequate explanation. PRaT doesn't "really exist" in the way that today's subjectivist would have you believe.

However, by his description it had its origin in what he describes as a pretty distinct (and measurable) style of voicing that made drums and bass attack more noticeable on playback. Even just from his descriptions I feel like I could EQ a speaker to have "PRaT" in the 1970s sense.


Given that, does PRaT really mean anything as it's used today? Probably less so. At this point I just think it means:

A) An uneven FR that emphasizes key frequencies in snare, rock kick, and guitar attacks
B) The reviewer convinced themselves the gear was doing something to those frequencies, regardless of reality.

That seems to conform fairly well to how many subjectivists mean the term. (I think many use the term sloppily, but at it's essence, you are talking about the same basic concept: how the rythmic feel of music can be affected via alterations in frequency response, colorations, reproduction of dynamics, etc)

Does it have anything to do with ACTUAL timing or rhythm? Obviously not.

I'm not aware of any subjectivist claiming that.

The idea is that music can sound different through different speakers, and that has certain perceptual consequences, some of which include the feel of the rythm.
It's presumed that there are objective characteristics about a speaker that is contributing to the perception of "prat." But ultimately it's a claim about subjective perception of those characteristics. And in that sense can't be dismissed merely by pointing out that speakers "don't really change the rythm, objectively." We don't listen objectively.

ETA: Actually I can recall some subjectivist reviewers describing things in ways that suggest absurdities, e.g. "The X speaker put the notes in all the right orders and rythms..." It really does get moronic. But even in the extreme cases I would bet the reviewer agrees he's trying to describe a perceptual effect vs speakers "really" being able to misplace the timing of notes etc. Could be wrong, there are extremes out there.

 

[ahofer]

..but this very dialogue is evidence that the term doesn't convey something consistent that is useful between listeners or equipment designers.

 

[fpitas]

..but this very dialogue is evidence that the term that it doesn't convey something consistent that is useful between listeners or equipment designers.

Great for BSing each other about their "high end" system, though. Which is really the end game.

 

[ahofer]

 

[kemmler3D]

..but this very dialogue is evidence that the term that it doesn't convey something consistent that is useful between listeners or equipment designers.

Well, no, I was mostly curious as to what subjectivists or whoever were trying to talk about when they used the term.

 

[Thomas_A]

Due to hearing curves the speaker needs to be flat in the bass when measured anechoically, it will then compensate for the hearing curve when placed in a room due to low frequency gain.

So the Linn speaker will still sound bass light even in a room and against a wall. This is pretty obvious when music with some bass is played on them and they are compared to a speaker with flat anechoic measurement. One plus is that they won't boom in a small room and that suited the use case of the young, upwardly mobile 1980's purchaser with his tiny-roomed starter house or flat.

It was all about making a bug into a feature - 'tight fast bass' - that's what the salesman would tell you. In reality just a midrange hump. it will fatigue over time unless the music choice is very restricted.

Agree Tukan was better than the Kan but that isn't saying anything. IMO the Wharfedale Diamonds were a lot better than either at about a quarter of the price. As was pretty much anything from Wharfedale, Celestion. B&W or KEF going back to about 1977. Especially KEF.

Have to say I always thought all the Linn speakers were very poor value with regard to price/performance. I don't think I have ever had a listen to the Sara though.

Does the studio also have bass boost due to room or aiming for flat? Genelec mentions to compensate bass level depending on how the speaker is placed or mounted relative to front wall.

 

[Chrispy]

I guess I came across the prat thing too late to see an association with speakers. I've seen cables/wire, amps, pre-amps, network gear, and disc players described using that term.

 

[ahofer]

I guess I came across the prat thing too late to see an association with speakers. I've seen cables/wire, amps, pre-amps, network gear, and disc players described using that term.

Don't forget treated Micronta clocks, electric outlets, green magic marker, and little bits of wood or stone.

 

[MattHooper]

..but this very dialogue is evidence that the term that it doesn't convey something consistent that is useful between listeners or equipment designers.

If you are addressing only the use of "PRAT" by subjective reviewers, I would generally agree: It's used too loosely to be broadly useful in the way you suggest above.
Honestly, I tend to want to throw up a little in my mouth when I see the term in most reviews.

But that could be an 'in practice' problem for a word application, not an 'in principle' problem.

If you are dismissing the very principle on which "PRAT" tends to be based: that audible differences in speaker behavior can influence the perception of the feel of the music, rythm included, then I'd disagree and I would await a strong case made against it. (Which I haven't seen).

 

[thecheapseats]

... and the nonsense continues...

 

[Tangband]

Due to hearing curves the speaker needs to be flat in the bass when measured anechoically, it will then compensate for the hearing curve when placed in a room due to low frequency gain.

So the Linn speaker will still sound bass light even in a room and against a wall. This is pretty obvious when music with some bass is played on them and they are compared to a speaker with flat anechoic measurement. One plus is that they won't boom in a small room and that suited the use case of the young, upwardly mobile 1980's purchaser with his tiny-roomed starter house or flat.

It was all about making a bug into a feature - 'tight fast bass' - that's what the salesman would tell you. In reality just a midrange hump. it will fatigue over time unless the music choice is very restricted.

Agree Tukan was better than the Kan but that isn't saying anything. IMO the Wharfedale Diamonds were a lot better than either at about a quarter of the price. As was pretty much anything from Wharfedale, Celestion. B&W or KEF going back to about 1977. Especially KEF.

Have to say I always thought all the Linn speakers were very poor value with regard to price/performance. I don't think I have ever had a listen to the Sara though.

Its true that some more energy and eq around the midrange at 1,7 KHz ( +2 dB Q = 2 ) and also at 8 KHz ( + 2 dB Q=2 ) in an otherwise frequency linear speaker with good directivity can make the sound more exiting with certain music because you are compensating for the stereo system faults when using 2 speakers.

This is an easy thing to verify with GLM if anyone like to try it with their Genelecs.

 

[mhardy6647]

Don't forget treated Micronta clocks, electric outlets, green magic marker, and little bits of wood or stone.

Dude... Micronta clocks?!?!
They keep the best time...

source: https://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/flipbook/1979_radioshack_catalog.html?fb3d-page=89

 

[MattHooper]

... and the nonsense continues...

Hey, quiet down up there, don't you got no manners?!!

 

[thecheapseats]

...and continues...