What are people talking about when they talk about PRaT?

[Galliardist]

You are absolutely right, but it seems many people are not even aware of that the notes appear at certain frequencies and everything inbetween those frequencies dont disturb the soundquality as much as a room resonanse that hits a given tone in the tempered scale.

Frequencies of Musical Notes, A4 = 440 Hz

A bad room or bad installation of the speakers can seriously impact the perceived enjoyment of music ( which contains pace, pitch, rythm and timing ).

The point is exactly the opposite. Instruments do not just produce pure tones. There are box tones, additional resonances. Some instruments will necessarily have notes not “in tune” due to different tempraments (think frets, for a start). There are sound differences due to the manipulation of the instrument, from vibrato on violins, glissandi, to the sounds made by pedals and keys. Players make sounds that may or may not be recorded, of course. And then there is the set of sounds that we are concerned with here: the starting and stopping of notes.

When a note is played on an instrument, there is often a broadband sound, from the sound of a piano key and the hammer hitting the note, to the pluck or strike on a guitar string, to the acceleration ar the start of a bowed note. These sounds are much more likely to incite resonances than pure notes.

The stopping of strings and such is usually quieter, but for example the harpsichord can have a clear stop to a sound or an audible return of keys to place.

Percussion, similarly, has sounds that aren’t pure tones.

The point is that you can still tap your feet when those sounds aren’t reproduced with certainty but there can be a blurring that may be the thing described as prat.

Prat is a bad term because it ascribes a positive musical attribute to systems, a claim that some systems can improve music or be “musical”. At best, those systems don’t do harm and the implication would be that others do.

As an aside, pitch also can be different among orchestras, in early music: there’s microtonal music: you can’t just assume standard pitch and say that resonances elsewhere are OK.

 

[ahofer]

Pace, rythm and timing are common knowlegde by musicians so it exists. This is what every band playing together is all about. Bad musicians dont gel together, so both pace, rythm and timing suffers.

Bad musicians get together all the time, unfortunately.

 

[ahofer]

A fictional dialogue some years ago at the offices of famous audiophile publication The Essence of Sound:

Junior Reviewer: It seems to have some emphasis at the high end and a low bump,

Editor: That's way too specific, you sound like a parametric equalizer. We're selling an amplifier here, could you sex it up a bit?

JR: OK, the kick drum and cymbals are more present.

E: No, no no, no, you're not getting it! Make it sound vaguer, more like something that only someone with refined tastes would appreciate

JR: The music had oomph and got me moving

E: vaguer!

JR: I was more attuned to the rhythm and pace of the music

E: Now we're getting somewhere. Remember how we attributed "coherence" to the flow of electrons through more expensive cable?

JR: Pace, Rhythm and Timing!

E: Perfect. That means nothing at all, but sounds like something that those geeks with instruments can't possibly measure as well as vaguely impossible. We'll call it PRaT, for short. My boy, you have a fine future ahead of you here at the Essence of Sound!

 

[ahofer]

This reminds me of what a lecturer taught us in a history lesson - do not judge the standards or ethics of another era or another culture by the standards of your own.

This is called "presentism", and it's the bane of art and historical analysis these days. But "Audio Presentism" has a nice ring to it.

 

[fpitas]

This is called "presentism", and it's the bane of art and historical analysis these days. But "Audio Presentism" has a nice ring to it.

So we can only surmise it may have been a dumb term back in the day. But now, we are absolutely certain.

 

[antcollinet]

Another spiralling thread disappearing up it's own fundament. Unwatched

 

[thecheapseats]

...What in a reproduction chain can affect bad musicians not 'gelling'...

nothing...

 

[thecheapseats]

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

quiet down? - you authored multiple paragraphs of nonsense regarding a nonsense concept...

 

[mhardy6647]

Pace, rythm and timing are common knowlegde by musicians so it exists. This is what every band playing together is all about. Bad musicians dont gel together, so both pace, rythm and timing suffers.

yeah, but it's that ol' dichotomy between production of music vs. reproduction of music. E.g., distortion & fidelity considerations for a musical instrument amplifier are entirely different than those for a "hifi" amplifier.

 

[MattHooper]

quiet down? - you authored multiple paragraphs of nonsense regarding a nonsense concept...

No, your post is nonsense!

Gee. That was easy.

Throwing out disparaging assertions from the "cheapseats" is an easy way to get that squirt of self-congratulatory dopamine. But some of us prefer not to be that lazy, and we care to engage in intellectually honest conversation, which includes providing arguments/reasons for our position, and where we actually try to understand one another.

But, hey, if that's not for you, at least you were honest with the screen name. ;-)

 

[MattHooper]

My two-cents in this long-winded and mostly silly discussion ...

The term, "PRaT", I think originated with British audiophile critics, (is there agreement?): "Pace, Rhythm, and Timing", is usually applied to amplification. However fundamentally these are qualities of music, NOT of sound of reproduction -- so the term is basically ridiculous as applied to amplifiers.

I see the PRAT acronym being applied everywhere - to speakers, amps, even cables! I agree that is silly. But it's predictable that subjective reviewers/audiophiles apply it everywhere, because they think "everything makes a difference."

But I believe, as I take you to indicate in your following comments, the fact that someone may imagine or misapply "PRAT" doesn't mean it isn't worth talking about perceptual effects and if something like the sense of "PRAT" can occur. It's like an audiophile claiming his new AC cable increased dynamics, bass depth and impact. That may be his imagination as applied to the cable, but it doesn't therefore mean differences in "dynamics/bass depth/impact" don't really ever occur in other context.

Someone may well conclude no such phenomenon as altering the sensation of pace or whatever can happen via variations in how the music is played back. But if someone thinks that threads like this, where we can discuss what perceptual effects are plausible, are "silly" that strikes me as strangely incurious for a site like this. Or too dogmatic to ever give subjective audiophile language any benefit of the doubt.

I'm glad to see that you think it's at least worth questioning:

OTOH, I believe it has an implicit meaning as used in amplifier reviews. I believe that it refers to specific dynamic quality which are probably related to small-scale and instantaneous volume changes such as associated with, e.g., drums and cymbals, hence the "crispness" of the sound. Other that PRaT, I heard the term, "microdynamics" associated with this quality. As between these two made-up terms, I prefer "microdynamics" as being slightly more meaningful and less silly.

Personally I'm convinced that amplifiers that measure extremely well in terms of distortion and stability under relevant loads inherently produce great "PRaT" or "microdynamics".

If people can experience changing perception of the rythmic feel of music through changes in it's reproduction, it seems to me you've brought up elements that could contribute to that. I think there are other candidates too, but I've already gone through them (e.g. frequency response differences, deviations, room nodes that can cause ringing/bloat and thicken bass response, etc).

Cheers.

 

[audiofooled]

Someone may well conclude no such phenomenon as altering the sensation of pace or whatever can happen via variations in how the music is played back. But if someone thinks that threads like this, where we can discuss what perceptual effects are plausible, are "silly" that strikes me as strangely incurious for a site like this. Or too dogmatic to ever give subjective audiophile language any benefit of the doubt.

I'm pretty sure most of us here had a chance to listen to their favorite music on really bad setups and were able to perceive the audible differences. I don't recall anyone claiming perceptual effects as not being plausible. It's just that many terms in audiophile language are, more often than not, used as marketing gimmicks and then adopted by the consumers as a means to describe their subjective experience.

The question is how many of those expressions can be objectively measured and described in terms of frequency response, distortion and noise? Could it be that some of those terms are simply inconclusive and indescribable in any meaningful way, therefore being "silly"? Would a group of audiophiles in a blind listening test all come to the same conclusion of the term?

On the other hand, should objectivists be offended when some of the well defined terms are described as plain "boring"? I think not.

 

[ahofer]

Would a group of audiophiles in a blind listening test all come to the same conclusion of the term?

Another interesting test. Run the same music with different EQ and ask listeners to rank each track for Pace, Rhythm, Timing, Slam, Coherence, and Bloom.

 

[DonR]

Another interesting test. Run the same music with different EQ and ask listeners to rank each track for Pace, Rhythm, Timing, Slam, Coherence, and Bloom.

bloat, warmth, air, space, detail, ...

 

[audiofooled]

Another interesting test. Run the same music with different EQ and ask listeners to rank each track for Pace, Rhythm, Timing, Slam, Coherence, and Bloom.

 

[Tim Link]

Another interesting test. Run the same music with different EQ and ask listeners to rank each track for Pace, Rhythm, Timing, Slam, Coherence, and Bloom.

My experience with playing with EQ and active crossover settings is that perceptual differences can occur that can make me think of all those terms, and a bunch of other audiophile terms, which caused me to suspect that most of it all came down to frequency response.

 

[MattHooper]

bloat, warmth, air, space, detail, ...

Yep. Those crazy audio engineers known as "mixers" often use those and many other subjective terms to describe the effect of boosting or reducing various frequency ranges:

Words To Describe Music For Super-Speedy Mix Revisions | Sara Carter: Online Mixing And Mastering

Lost for the best words to describe music and sound? Download my audio glossary to give clear mix feedback notes to your mixing engineer.

musicmixpro.co.uk

 

[ahofer]

"Warmth" seems to be the only overlap. Did I miss one?

 

[solderdude]

"Warmth" seems to be the only overlap. Did I miss one?

Somehow you missed Pace, Rhythem and Timing

 

[MattHooper]

"Warmth" seems to be the only overlap. Did I miss one?

Apparently. "Air" "space" and "detail" are all mentioned either in the graphics or in the other link I gave.

Or here too:

Sound Frequency: How to Use the Frequency Spectrum For Better EQ

Learn how knowing sound frequency can improve your EQ skills. From deep sub bass frequencies to top end air, here's the frequency spectrum explained.

blog.landr.com

"Mastering EQ can be used to enhance the sense of depth and space in a mix."

If you wonder if mixers ever refer to "bloat" a quick google will tell you the answer.

Curious: what is your point?