What are people talking about when they talk about PRaT?

[DonR]

Play two different pieces to two different audio engineers and you will get at least 4 different answers.

 

[ahofer]

Curious: what is your point?

Same as ever: This is a sloppy and inefficient way to communicate something meaningful about sound reproduction, even if some (humourous) soul attempted to provide a roadmap for non-engineers ("for musicians", in the link) that can't even stretch to include the terms we've been discussing lo these many paragraphs and posts without self-referencing.

 

[ahofer]

Somehow you missed Pace, Rhythem and Timing

what frequency range was that?

 

[DonR]

what frequency range was that?

yes

 

[mhardy6647]

space is the place.

or, if you dare...

(here's the trailer -- you have been warned)

 

[MattHooper]

Same as ever: This is a sloppy and inefficient way to communicate something meaningful about sound reproduction,

Have you ever worked in producing sonic content - e.g. in a mixing theater for music (or film/tv)? If so, I can't imagine you managed to communicate only in
terms of measurements, without any subjective content at all. Remember, part of being reasonable is being practical. Short-hand terms can be more practical to communicate than constant reference to quantified information. All the more practical when artists are involved. In many real world scenarios, it would actually be silly to think that it is "more efficient" to communicate in quantification terms rather than subjective description (e.g. when people who are not technically trained are working together to create specific sounds, be it music or in my job). For instance in a show I was working on there was a scene with a giant onion rolling along the floor in to a wall. The producer just said he wanted it to sound "bigger" with a "stronger impact" when it hit the wall. That is actually a much more efficient way to communicate the end subjective effect he wanted, rather than attempting to put every little bit in to numbers! I knew immediately what he wanted and quickly achieved it.

There really is a reason that you see all sorts of subjective terms used by mixers in real life work, as well as in lessons on mixing. You can talk all you want about "raising the frequencies around 8K" on an acoustic guitar recording. But...why? Well...because you want some subjective effect, that's why. Unless someone already has a lot of experience knowing precisely the effects of peaks and dips in all the frequency ranges, saying "we need to bump up around 8K" tells them nothing about why you are doing it, and how it will alter the sound. That's why mixing (and mixing tutorials) is so often conjoined with subjective descriptive terms.

This is typical, note how he first give the rational for each frequency alteration - which is an appeal to a subjective effect (hence subjective description) that he is trying to mitigate or enhance to begin with:

So when you keep calling sonic terms - even the ones already cited used in mixing! - "sloppy and inefficient" in communicating "something meaningful"....it's all about context. In many cases subjective terms are efficient, even more efficient, and certainly meaningful. The whole point of what we are doing, either in sound production or reproduction, is the subjective effect!

even if some (humourous) soul attempted to provide a roadmap for non-engineers ("for musicians", in the link)

You seem to be referencing that one link, and ignoring the mixing frequency chart cheats. Those are to help people with actually....mixing.

Do you seriously think that the sound mixing world doesn't actually use all sorts of subjective references, including the ones cited in the charts I posted? If you've never been in a mixing theater, googling the subjective descriptions used by mixers and in teaching about mixing will educate on that really fast.

that can't even stretch to include the terms we've been discussing lo these many paragraphs and posts without self-referencing.

I responded specifically to the terms raised by DonR, in which I took him to imply they are as much nonsense as PRAT. Which is farily typical around here: it's not just that PRAT is (reasonably) being challenged but around here there is a general allergy to subjective terms and descriptions, especially lest any dreaded subjective reviewer use them. I took DonR's post to be an instance of expanding the range of terms held to be nonsense. That was the point of my reply.

As for PRAT itself, I've already addressed it. I think it's used too sloppily to be of much use, and the term itself seems a bit too bloated, to much shoved in to one acronym, to be a distinct reference. However, as I've said, it's worth asking whether there is a certain kernel of reasonableness hiding in there: whether differences in sound systems can affect the perception of rhythmic feel in the same piece of music. This hardly seems like a silly question. We all accept that our perception is highly labile and can be influenced in all sorts of ways via audible changes. I mean, we are continually admonished that even in doing blind tests we must be super precise in matching volume levels. Why? Because even a slightly louder volume has various perceptual consequences, where people will start hearing "more dynamic/punchier/more detail/more air/better soundstaging" or whatever else people can attribute to mere differences in volume. It doesn't seem that in principle we can just rule out that other colorations might affect other perceptions, which might alter our sense of how the musicians are performing the piece.

 

[ahofer]

PRaT isn’t in the mixing chart sheets either.

Stop. We are boring the others arguing past each other.

 

[MattHooper]

PRaT isn’t in the mixing chart sheets either.

You are avoiding the points.

When you say "either" presumably you are referring to the terms that were, in fact, in the charts (and subsequent links) I gave. You didn't look closely enough, apparently.

And of course my argument wasn't that PRAT was in the mixing chart sheets. I was responding to words put forth by DonR, which also helped get at a general principle that mixers use a variety of subjective terms...so let's be cautious about expanding what we wave away as nonsense or unreasonable or 'inefficient.'

Stop. We are boring the others arguing past each other.

Actually, that happens more readily if one party strawmans or ignores an argument, rather than addresses it. That's actually what causes conversations to enter death spirals, rather than possibly being fruitful.

You can make a conversation boring; but you don't have to, and why would you?

(Or...why enter a conversation about something you find to be "boring" in the first place, if this will just lead you to breezily dismiss what someone else is writing who is interested?)

 

[Tangband]

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.

I have done plenty of experimenting with active dsp crossovers to. Yes , some more energy at 1,7 kHz ( +1,5 dB, Q=2 ) and 8 kHz ( +1,5 dB, Q= 2 ) will probably have a slightly higher PRaT score in a stereo setup If the speakers have good directivity and frequency response in the beginning.

I did a thread about this :

Preferred frequency response with classical music vs rock/pop music ?

With my Genelec 8340 monitors , theres is a possibility to use GLM to get the preferred sound you want, using eq and peq. With most classical music, I only prefer some slight GLM correction below 200 Hz . I dont prefer any deviations from flat from 200-20000 Hz. Every instrument sounds more...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Also, lack of really deep bass might be beneficial for PRaT. Because you dont trigger the deepest fundamental roomresonanse in that way.

 

[thecheapseats]

still nonsense...

 

[benanders]

This thread has PRaT - Persistence, Resistance, and [some / selective] Truth.

I think it’s important to recall absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Rote dismissal can be as unscientific as swearing by unquantifiable principles.
The issue in this case - PRaT - is anyone aiming to tease apart effects analytically must identify such a compound characteristic to be a “trash-bin category” : grouping stuff together that does not necessarily go together, other than sharing a lack of place(s) elsewhere.

To understand variance within a system, let alone among others, means simplifying. It’s rare that would be accomplished by piling relatively unquantifiable terms together.

So better, empirically, to say PRoT (or) ?

Edit: say, not sat.
Autocorrect has no PRaT.
OR PRoT.

 

[solderdude]

I have done plenty of experimenting with active dsp crossovers to. Yes , some more energy at 1,7 kHz ( +1,5 dB, Q=2 ) and 8 kHz ( +1,5 dB, Q= 2 ) will probably have a slightly higher PRaT score in a stereo setup If the speakers have good directivity and frequency response in the beginning.

Also, lack of really deep bass might be beneficial for PRaT. Because you dont trigger the deepest fundamental roomresonanse in that way.

Is there a 'PRaT score' list somewhere ?
And why would any electronics device (outside of parametric EQ) have such lifts in the FR. I mean if electronics and even cables etc can have more or less PRaT these should be measurable IF it is FR related.
Preferred Rationalized alternative Tonality ?

 

[Newman]

It's a term that the English audiophile press started using in the 70s and 80s, when Japanese turntables and amps were significantly better engineered than anything coming out of England, or, ahem, Scotland.

By sheer coincidence, all the Japanese gear of that era were completely deficient in all three attributes, and the British gear was astonishingly proficient.

The Japanese superiority, with the wave of a pen-shaped wand, disappeared!

If one had bothered to graph every piece of expensive gear from that era on a plot of performance vs PRaT, odds are that an almost perfect inverse correlation would have been observed.

cheers

 

[DSJR]

That M&K speaker just tested would have pr@t in spades (I heard them once back in the mists of time). Usually no deep bass to 'slow it all down.' lack of smear in the mids also helps...

 

[DSJR]

Well, we just had the local annual carnival procession and the highlight for us over recent years has been the 'Suffolk School of Samba!'

You wanna here pr@t at its purest, then go hear a well rehearsed samba group, the pounding bass drum could be heard a few hundred metres away and bit by bit and over the hoots and whistles of the other carnival floats, I felt myself moving to the beat and this vibe just got stronger and stronger as they approached, the other percussion playing over the beat and despite a depleted troupe over previuous years, the sheer JOY in their playing was palpable! Seeing them is a highlight of our year (weather was severely overcast and starting to spot with rain as well unlike previous years).

So yeah, I've just had undeniable proof that Pace, Rhythm and Timing does exist in some forms of music - the MUSIC not 'The Gear...'

P.S. There was also a well presented pipe band, but it's not the same.

 

[Galliardist]

Well, we just had the local annual carnival procession and the highlight for us over recent years has been the 'Suffolk School of Samba!'

You wanna here pr@t at its purest, then go hear a well rehearsed samba group, the pounding bass drum could be heard a few hundred metres away and bit by bit and over the hoots and whistles of the other carnival floats, I felt myself moving to the beat and this vibe just got stronger and stronger as they approached, the other percussion playing over the beat and despite a depleted troupe over previuous years, the sheer JOY in their playing was palpable! Seeing them is a highlight of our year (weather was severely overcast and starting to spot with rain as well unlike previous years).

So yeah, I've just had undeniable proof that Pace, Rhythm and Timing does exist in some forms of music - the MUSIC not 'The Gear...'

P.S. There was also a well presented pipe band, but it's not the same.

You need to acquaint yourself with the Breton Bagads, for an experience if not equivalent to Samba, one with that pace and timing with pipes.

 

[DSJR]

You need to acquaint yourself with the Breton Bagads, for an experience if not equivalent to Samba, one with that pace and timing with pipes.

NOOOOO - not pipes

ANY happy, decent percussion ensemble with properly defined/disciplined rhythms and playing should do it. The thing with this samba band is that the rhythm just gets into you (well played reggae does this too) and you just can't help swinging along (at least).. Youtube have various compilations but yesterday they slowed it down a bit into something more purposeful - I even get the vibe with a little recording my wife did on her phone.

 

[Galliardist]

NOOOOO - not pipes

ANY happy, decent percussion ensemble with properly defined/disciplined rhythms and playing should do it. The thing with this samba band is that the rhythm just gets into you (well played reggae does this too) and you just can't help swinging along (at least).. Youtube have various compilations but yesterday they slowed it down a bit into something more purposeful - I even get the vibe with a little recording my wife did on her phone.

The better of the Breton bands have large and well schooled percussion sections, and other instruments than the big pipes. Not just military style drumming, at least if you don't go back to the old 1950s recordings. Anyway, I won't post an example here out of respect to NOOOO.

Your loss.

 

[CapMan]

NOOOOO - not pipes

ANY happy, decent percussion ensemble with properly defined/disciplined rhythms and playing should do it. The thing with this samba band is that the rhythm just gets into you (well played reggae does this too) and you just can't help swinging along (at least).. Youtube have various compilations but yesterday they slowed it down a bit into something more purposeful - I even get the vibe with a little recording my wife did on her phone.

As a drummer I might call this ‘groove’ or ‘being in the pocket’ - have a listen to this you tube clip - three of the greatest drummers in the world with the Buddy Rich Big Band - Dave Weckl, Vinnie Colaiuta, Steve Gadd. Arguably Dave Weckl and Vinnie have more chops, but Steve Gadd just nail the feel and makes you feel good!!

 

[DSJR]

As a drummer I might call this ‘groove’ or ‘being in the pocket’ - have a listen to this you tube clip - three of the greatest drummers in the world with the Buddy Rich Big Band - Dave Weckl, Vinnie Colaiuta, Steve Gadd. Arguably Dave Weckl and Vinnie have more chops, but Steve Gadd just nail the feel and makes you feel good!!

Yeah, this is undoubted top notch drumming skill, but I'm talking something more tribal, a steady beating rhythm that gets into your very heart and soul and makes you sway to it at the very least.

One that might bridge this gap is Ginger Baker playing his solo's in 'Toad,' where he does his pyrotechnics but with a solid back beat behind them.