Does Tonal Balance Affect Perceived Pace and Perceived Resolution?

[tima]

...

I think it is intersting that American audiophiles seem to be obsessed with tone or tonal balance while British audiophiles are obsessed with PRAT. Both are essential to music. The below is just my take on the subject. I tried to read most of the posts but didn't get to everything so maybe some of this is repeated. Standard disclaimers apply -- YMMV etc.

As is indicated in the name PRAT, timing is essential. Actually, I think timing should be listed first in the acronym but TRAP just doesn't sound that great. One thing for sure, you can't have rhythm and pace without timing. ...

You knew ahead of time you'd take grief for the somewhat tacky British/American comment.

The audiophile term PRAT is an acronym coined by a Hi-Fi News reader to cover British reviewer Martin Collums' discussion of "pace, rhythm and timing". Since that time pages of posts are written attempting to explain it as a thing.

Given the option between an audiophile term and a music term, I'll usually take the music term*. Music supplies all that is required with its terms 'tempo' and 'rhythm'. No acronym is needed.

Tempo is the Italian word for "time" and is used in a way that refers to speed. How fast or slow a piece of music proceeds is a fundamental aspect of its character. There are at least 50 different tempo markings (instructions) used to describe the speed at which music is performed. And there is a time signature that tells us beats per minute.

Rhythm is a generic term that refers to any measured pattern in either sound or movement. In music it is the structuring of notes according to sounds and silences of different durations and the forming of sounds and silences into patterns. Patterns fit into a framework of beats. Rhythm is the essential element that makes music move.

Changing the tempo of music does not change its rhythm, it just speeds it up or slows it down.

* suggested reading: The NPR Classical Music Companion, ISBN 978-0544310933

 

[Al M.]

The audiophile term PRAT is an acronym coined by a Hi-Fi News reader to cover British reviewer Martin Collums' discussion of "pace, rhythm and timing". Since that time pages of posts are written attempting to explain it as a thing.

PRAT is definitely a real thing in musical reproduction. Here is the accompanying article to Martin Colloms' piece by Peter van Willenswaard that explains it in terms of perception of the music:

Pace, Rhythm, & Dynamics One listener's lament

Pace & Rhythm: one listener's lament Some years ago it struck me that British writers were increasingly discussing the "rhythmic" properties of the components they reviewed. (I now see the issue coming up slowly in Stereophile and The Abso!ute Sound as well.) Although I understood all the words...

www.stereophile.com

Please note that since that time in the Nineties digital has made great progress in that regard (and my own current digital can compete with any great turntable in this particular area), but it really was a major problem back then as Peter van Willenswaard describes. I have heard it myself many times, it was painful.

You can currently still get a, sometimes shocking, taste of it when you compare the rhythm of some jazz or rock on YouTube music videos (not system videos), featuring the lossy AAC algorithm, with the same track on competent CD playback.

 

[Lagonda]

This might be the most ridiculous generalisation I have read on the forum.

Aside from that, wilson type speakers and krell blessed amplifier styles are more popular in the US and are the biggest culprits of bad tone . If one were to generalize, I would say American audiophiles are obsessed with big, loud, expensive objects.

And god bless them for it, it keeps the audio business alive ! And don't forget, soon we will have the 2 million dollar Magico speaker for sale !

 

[bonzo75]

And god bless them for it, it keeps the audio business alive ! And don't forget, soon we will have the 2 million dollar Magico speaker for sale !

if not for them, we would have some quality products priced competitively to target those who actually understand sound and music

 

[sbnx]

You knew ahead of time you'd take grief for the somewhat tacky British/American comment.

Yes, I figured Ked would chime in. It was not intended to be a dig. Maybe it is too large a generalization, but anytime I read a review or whatever and it mentions timing or pace or PRAT is is inevitably from a European soucre and usually British. I can't recall the last time I read anything about timing or pace etc in TAS or Stereophile. These terms seem to be absent in the American reviewers vocabulary. (Yes, of course you can find the one off review where it is mentioned.)

 

[sbnx]

Aside from that, wilson type speakers and krell blessed amplifier styles are more popular in the US and are the biggest culprits of bad tone . If one were to generalize, I would say American audiophiles are obsessed with big, loud, expensive objects.

You get no argument from me on that.

RG recently wrote a opinion piece called "The shape of things to come". In it he discussed the merits of high efficiency speakers and mid-power amplifiers. The idea he discusses is the musical merits of taking a speaker with an efficiency of 93 or 95 dB and bi-amp them with a pair of 60-80 Watt amps. This is much more cost effective than getting a pair of 85 dB efficient, low impedance speakers and having to pair them with a 300+ watt behemoth amplifier.

People seem to equate big with expensive and expensive with good. It is hard to convince someone that spending more money on a small to mid-sized speaker is better from a musical perspective. To me the fundamental problem is that speaker companies are trying to get their speakers to play down to 20Hz. We would be much better off if they would forget that as a goal. Design the speaker to only play down to 40 to 50Hz and then use subwoofers to cover the range below that. Use the extra design margin that you gained from not making the speaker play so low and raise the efficiency and/or impedance so the speaker is much, much easier to drive.

 

[Lagonda]

if not for them, we would have some quality products priced competitively to target those who actually understand sound and music

Yes high-end audio has become only for the extremely wealthy or financially irresponsible !

 

[sbnx]

if not for them, we would have some quality products priced competitively to target those who actually understand sound and music

I believe America is a distant third in the ranking of HiFi sales. Asia and Europe are much larger markets.

 

[bonzo75]

You get no argument from me on that.

RG recently wrote a opinion piece called "The shape of things to come". In it he discussed the merits of high efficiency speakers and mid-power amplifiers. The idea he discusses is the musical merits of taking a speaker with an efficiency of 93 or 95 dB and bi-amp them with a pair of 60-80 Watt amps. This is much more cost effective than getting a pair of 85 dB efficient, low impedance speakers and having to pair them with a 300+ watt behemoth amplifier.

People seem to equate big with expensive and expensive with good. It is hard to convince someone that spending more money on a small to mid-sized speaker is better from a musical perspective. To me the fundamental problem is that speaker companies are trying to get their speakers to play down to 20Hz. We would be much better off if they would forget that as a goal. Design the speaker to only play down to 40 to 50Hz and then use subwoofers to cover the range below that. Use the extra design margin that you gained from not making the speaker play so low and raise the efficiency and/or impedance so the speaker is much, much easier to drive.

93 - 95db is still mediocre, as compared to 100+db with flat 8 ohm impedance, for example. And 60 - 80w is high powered enough compared to 2w, or even 14w. These were the shape of things that came, decades ago. Maybe they will come again and RG will be hailed as the guy who predicted the past.

 

[Ron Resnick]

if not for them, we would have some quality products priced competitively to target those who actually understand sound and music

Sorry, but this is another example of your arrogant projection of your personal subjective sonic preferences.

Why do you have trouble accepting that other people have subjective preferences different than your subjective preferences? It's okay to like what you like without feeling like you have to make other people like what you like too.

 

[morricab]

PRAT is definitely a real thing in musical reproduction. Here is the accompanying article to Martin Colloms' piece by Peter van Willenswaard that explains it in terms of perception of the music:

Pace, Rhythm, & Dynamics One listener's lament

Pace & Rhythm: one listener's lament Some years ago it struck me that British writers were increasingly discussing the "rhythmic" properties of the components they reviewed. (I now see the issue coming up slowly in Stereophile and The Abso!ute Sound as well.) Although I understood all the words...

www.stereophile.com

Please note that since that time in the Nineties digital has made great progress in that regard (and my own current digital can compete with any great turntable in this particular area), but it really was a major problem back then as Peter van Willenswaard describes. I have heard it myself many times, it was painful.

You can currently still get a, sometimes shocking, taste of it when you compare the rhythm of some jazz or rock on YouTube music videos (not system videos), featuring the lossy AAC algorithm, with the same track on competent CD playback.

A good reason why ONLY classical music is not the end all be all reference. You need some well recorded rhythmic music as well.

 

[sbnx]

93 - 95db is still mediocre, as compared to 100+db with flat 8 ohm impedance, for example. And 60 - 80w is high powered enough compared to 2w, or even 14w. These were the shape of things that came, decades ago. Maybe they will come again and RG will be hailed as the guy who predicted the past.

Of course I agree that 95 dB is not the top of the mountain. But it is efficient enough that a simple amplifier (either tube or SS) with a pair of output devices can push it to believable sonic peaks without clipping.

 

[morricab]

93 - 95db is still mediocre, as compared to 100+db with flat 8 ohm impedance, for example. And 60 - 80w is high powered enough compared to 2w, or even 14w. These were the shape of things that came, decades ago. Maybe they will come again and RG will be hailed as the guy who predicted the past.

It's around 7dB higher than the average Stereophile speaker (87dB) according to JA. Every 3dB more sensitivity is half the power. So, a 7dB sensitivity increase is less than 1/4 the power needed...

 

[mtemur]

People seem to equate big with expensive and expensive with good. It is hard to convince someone that spending more money on a small to mid-sized speaker is better from a musical perspective. To me the fundamental problem is that speaker companies are trying to get their speakers to play down to 20Hz. We would be much better off if they would forget that as a goal. Design the speaker to only play down to 40 to 50Hz and then use subwoofers to cover the range below that. Use the extra design margin that you gained from not making the speaker play so low and raise the efficiency and/or impedance so the speaker is much, much easier to drive.

Completely agree except the need for subwoofers.

 

[Ron Resnick]

People seem to equate big with expensive and expensive with good.

Hmmm. This seems like an over-generalization.

It is hard to convince someone that spending more money on a small to mid-sized speaker is better from a musical perspective.

You, for example, seem not to have followed this path. Across a bell curve of subjective preferences why do you think a large swath of audiophiles would, as their experience in the hobby grows, spend more money on smaller speakers (rather than less money on larger speakers or more money on larger speakers)?

We have a lot of members on WBF with a lot of experience with a lot of different sizes of speakers. I have not been able to detect a significant pattern or evolution of beginner audiophiles moving to small speakers as their time and experience in the hobby grows.

 

[sbnx]

It's around 7dB higher than the average Stereophile speaker (87dB) according to JA. Every 3dB more sensitivity is half the power. So, a 7dB sensitivity increase is less than 1/4 the power needed...

Agree. 300W/4 = 75W.

The reported sensitivities are a deception. "They" report them at 2.83V and not 1 Watt. So as long as the speaker is 8 ohms then the sensitivity is as they report. But very few speakers are 8 ohms these days. Drop the impedance to 4 ohms and loose 3 dB of efficiency. So that 87 dB is really more like 84 dB. So now our 95 dB, 8 ohm speaker only needs 1/8th the power.

 

[sbnx]

Hmmm. This seems like an over-generalization.



You, for example, seem not to have followed this path. Across a bell curve of subjective preferences why do you think a large swath of audiophiles would, as their experience in the hobby grows, spend more money on smaller speakers (rather than less money on larger speakers or more money on larger speakers)?

We have a lot of members on WBF with a lot of experience with a lot of different sizes of speakers. I have not been able to detect a significant pattern or evolution of beginner audiophiles moving to small speakers as their time and experience in the hobby grows.

Which part do you think is the over generalization? big = expensive or expensive = good. (Speaking in terms of stereo not a diamond ring)

I was thinking along the lines of -- A person walks into a stereo store and starts looking around. They have money to spend. The sales guy shows him/her two systems. One is a large speaker with a brute amplifier. The other is a small speaker with a modest powered amplifier. The two systems cost the same. Assuming space is not a problem it seems most are going for the bigger thing. If this is not true then why are speakers and amplifiers escalating in size and price?

Not that this has anything to do with PRAT.

 

[Lagonda]

Sorry, but this is another example of your arrogant projection of your personal subjective sonic preferences.

Why do you have trouble accepting that other people have subjective preferences different than your subjective preferences? It's okay to like what you like without feeling like you have to make other people like what you like too.

Ron as a fellow want to be "influencer " you know making other people like what you like is the game !

 

[Lagonda]

A good reason why ONLY classical music is not the end all be all reference. You need some well recorded rhythmic music as well.

Yes you need it to wake up after the classical music has put you to sleep

 

[mtemur]

The reported sensitivities are a deception. "They" report them at 2.83V and not 1 Watt. So as long as the speaker is 8 ohms then the sensitivity is as they report. But very few speakers are 8 ohms these days. Drop the impedance to 4 ohms and loose 3 dB of efficiency. So that 87 dB is really more like 84 dB. So now our 95 dB, 8 ohm speaker only needs 1/8th the power.

One is efficiency other is sensitivity. I don’t remember which is which right now but you’re right it’s deceiving or at least confusing.

Normally it doesn’t pose a threat for a true voltage source transistor amplifier. Output doubles as impedance halves. It will lift up a 4 ohm speaker measured 87dB with 2.83V to 87dB again when connected to 4 ohm taps by providing 2 watts. But it’s a big problem for tube amplifiers because they keep the output unchanged for all taps. It’s dropping to 84dB.