Al, but doesn’t that just mean those digital source products which exhibited inaccurate timing or inconsistent timing simply were defective, or inadequate to the task?
PRaT: "Pace Rhythm and Timing" or "PRetentious audiophile Trash"?
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
-
- Tags
- prat
They were not defective. You had the same phenomenon across different units of the same model. They were inadequate to the task, certainly. Digital processing has made such progress in the meantime that the best digital sources are fully up to the task of accurately portraying rhythm, with an infectious 'foot tapping' quality where demanded by the music.
I find very interesting, and correct, what Martin Colloms said in his article that I linked to about early digital replay (that was 1992):
"For all its quantifiable technical faults, easily identified in the laboratory when compared with the measured near-perfection of CD, the vinyl LP disc possesses a powerful and effortlessly musical content, with an easy, fundamental rhythmic stability and solidity. Interestingly, this innate character seems to be quite robust, more so than digital. Subjectively rewarding results may be obtained from analog sources without much trouble. Many well-established but not necessarily high-priced components may be assembled to produce musically satisfying results. With analog, one can listen through the blemishes and be aware of a strong musical message, one in which the music's flow, pace, and tempo are well conveyed, and into which the listener is drawn.
"By contrast, digital audio is a fragile medium. Sonic greatness remains elusive, digital replay often seeming to get bogged down at an earlier stage, one in which the listener's lack of involvement leads to a substitute activity. The mind remains busy, but is now cataloguing perceptual features and comparing them with previous experiences. This is an interesting abstraction, comparable in the realm of visual art with the analysis of the brush techniques of old masters. But, as Robert Harley points out in this month's "As We See It," an obsession with technical minutiae can blind one to an appreciation of the whole. That easy, rhythmic grace inherent in competent analog replay points to one of the greatest paradoxes of digital replay.
"Digital's technical advantages at low frequencies include low group delay due to a highly extended bass response, in theory even continuing down to DC. Technical appearances can be misleading, however. From my experience of more than 250 digital products, coherent, expressive, naturally explosive dynamics and the ability to present good musical pace and a confident, upbeat rhythm are areas in which digital is surprisingly weak. If digital bass is agreed to be tighter-sounding, less colored and less "phasey," then how on Earth can analog still be in the running when it comes down to subjectively satisfying bass rhythm? Nevertheless, digital bass generally sounds laid-back and downbeat, even if it is highly neutral when viewed purely in technical terms.
"A listener well-trained in the analysis of sound quality may understandably be fooled into thinking that good bass automatically implies good rhythm. It does not."
"For all its quantifiable technical faults, easily identified in the laboratory when compared with the measured near-perfection of CD, the vinyl LP disc possesses a powerful and effortlessly musical content, with an easy, fundamental rhythmic stability and solidity. Interestingly, this innate character seems to be quite robust, more so than digital. Subjectively rewarding results may be obtained from analog sources without much trouble. Many well-established but not necessarily high-priced components may be assembled to produce musically satisfying results. With analog, one can listen through the blemishes and be aware of a strong musical message, one in which the music's flow, pace, and tempo are well conveyed, and into which the listener is drawn.
"By contrast, digital audio is a fragile medium. Sonic greatness remains elusive, digital replay often seeming to get bogged down at an earlier stage, one in which the listener's lack of involvement leads to a substitute activity. The mind remains busy, but is now cataloguing perceptual features and comparing them with previous experiences. This is an interesting abstraction, comparable in the realm of visual art with the analysis of the brush techniques of old masters. But, as Robert Harley points out in this month's "As We See It," an obsession with technical minutiae can blind one to an appreciation of the whole. That easy, rhythmic grace inherent in competent analog replay points to one of the greatest paradoxes of digital replay.
"Digital's technical advantages at low frequencies include low group delay due to a highly extended bass response, in theory even continuing down to DC. Technical appearances can be misleading, however. From my experience of more than 250 digital products, coherent, expressive, naturally explosive dynamics and the ability to present good musical pace and a confident, upbeat rhythm are areas in which digital is surprisingly weak. If digital bass is agreed to be tighter-sounding, less colored and less "phasey," then how on Earth can analog still be in the running when it comes down to subjectively satisfying bass rhythm? Nevertheless, digital bass generally sounds laid-back and downbeat, even if it is highly neutral when viewed purely in technical terms.
"A listener well-trained in the analysis of sound quality may understandably be fooled into thinking that good bass automatically implies good rhythm. It does not."
Saying something is "defective" could be misleading. AFAIK, PRAT was never shown in any measurements so there's no objective ideal - the only way this is judged is through listening.
With auditory perception there are degrees to this PRAT - it's not so black & white as the term "defective" would seem to imply.
if we think about turntables - there are many approaches to driving the platter & attempting to achieve sufficient speed stability. There's no such thing as absolute speed stability so what is sufficient?
With regard to digital audio, the mantra is that PRAT doesn't exist but the reality is different . However, as the underlying cause is not so obvious (I've given my best guess) it's difficult to design devices which are "adequate to the task" - many aren't.
BTW, if you get a chance to listen to my USB ISOlated devices about to go on tour you will hear PRAT with the ISO-DAC or with the ISO-HUB in front of a USB audio DAC which has good timing - I use this banner on my website for good reason
Last edited:
I agree... it is coloration that negatively affects PRaT and can come from several sources...
- Digital artifacts or other artifacts, especially ones that stimulate the nervous system's alert response. Early digital...
- Overly warm presentation that smears detail and transient information. Lots of sources here... thick cheap copper cables, poorly designed tube circuits, bad carbon resistors.
- Excessive low frequency group delay... many back loaded horns are examples.
- Excessive "overhang", acoustic problems or speaker problems that cause resonance, or a sound to continue after the signal has ended.
- Soft or slow sounding transient response... tiny SET amp driving massive, heavy, low-impedance subwoofer driver...
- Lack of "impact" in the midbass frequencies, too small driver surface area.
Overall, I think lack of PRaT is an indication of something wrong in the system.
Some personal thoughts on this:
I think that PRaT is something that cannot be grasped intellectually, only emotionally.
It is something you either hear or don't - some people need it in their replay, others don't notice it.
A system that is capable of PRat does not make everything sound PRaTish, but will allow one to hear the PRaT that exists in the music.
I remember a quotation in a Marcus Sauer article " I don't want to know WHERE they are on the stage, I want to know WHY they are on the stage"
Cheers
David
I think that PRaT is something that cannot be grasped intellectually, only emotionally.
It is something you either hear or don't - some people need it in their replay, others don't notice it.
A system that is capable of PRat does not make everything sound PRaTish, but will allow one to hear the PRaT that exists in the music.
I remember a quotation in a Marcus Sauer article " I don't want to know WHERE they are on the stage, I want to know WHY they are on the stage"
Cheers
David
Yes, good quote & it conveys exactly what is often missing from digital audio - not just all the notes in the right place but the subtle timing aspects which leads to a better understanding that real players are performing the piece & this often better connects one emotionally to the piece.
I was struck by this in the Sterophile link given earlier - talking about a track from Paul Simon's Graceland
It's the reproduction of the subtle timing of the various auditory objects in the playback that gives insight into the performance when this has been recorded
Systems that don't reproduce this are missing out on a significant aspect of what music is about
Last edited:
I've always associated the term PRAT with snap and swing and have heard systems with and without it.The music sounds slower on some systems.
My personal pet theory is that systems with less resolving power truncate the music decay and this leads to a more impactful sound..more prat..??
In my own experience and in practice , I have always improved PRAT by getting the bass right and tight
My personal pet theory is that systems with less resolving power truncate the music decay and this leads to a more impactful sound..more prat..??
In my own experience and in practice , I have always improved PRAT by getting the bass right and tight
PRAT - pace rhythm and timing was a term invented by Linn and Naim in the 70's. Linn was king at getting you to listen to the timing of the music so your feet were tapping when listening to music and this holds true today with Atmosphere mentioning it in his gear.
Naim traditionally put far more emphasis on pace, rhythm, and timing than on audiophile concerns like imaging and soundstaging which gave Naim better drive in the music.
It was a way of giving the British audio brands " a sound " vs the Japanese neutrality of the US with their huge sound stages and big bass. Basically saying their gear had PRAT and drive was musically more satisfying than the Japanese and US counterparts.
What PRAT means now to the audiophile community is as convoluted and confused as much of this thread.
Naim traditionally put far more emphasis on pace, rhythm, and timing than on audiophile concerns like imaging and soundstaging which gave Naim better drive in the music.
It was a way of giving the British audio brands " a sound " vs the Japanese neutrality of the US with their huge sound stages and big bass. Basically saying their gear had PRAT and drive was musically more satisfying than the Japanese and US counterparts.
What PRAT means now to the audiophile community is as convoluted and confused as much of this thread.
Probably PRAT means different things to different people it's a positive thing for me but the way you posed the question is what I find interesting. Looks like you need a physical spinning source material going through a mechanical processor to acquire PRAT, maybe that's why computer audio is flat and soulless?
david
PRAT - pace rhythm and timing was a term invented by Linn and Naim in the 70's. Linn was king at getting you to listen to the timing of the music so your feet were tapping when listening to music and this holds true today with Atmosphere mentioning it in his gear.
Naim traditionally put far more emphasis on pace, rhythm, and timing than on audiophile concerns like imaging and soundstaging which gave Naim better drive in the music.
It was a way of giving the British audio brands " a sound " vs the Japanese neutrality of the US with their huge sound stages and big bass. Basically saying their gear had PRAT and drive was musically more satisfying than the Japanese and US counterparts.
What PRAT means now to the audiophile community is as convoluted and confused as much of this thread.
Regards got PRaT on their TTs...by running them too fast!
Welcome to the bizarre and weird world of audio fanatics!
On the OP 'PRAT' subject I believe some systems exhibit great rhythmic drive, i.e. a greater solidity and a body to the midrange mainly, and a dynamic envelope that portrays the music with realistic drive and dynamics compared to a live event.
I have heard it before on top tube based systems, not yet on SS, but I am open to hearing that, as I am sure it exists. I also believe system synergy comes into it, sum off the parts / gain stages in the chain, the source and the speakers. Getting an ideal PRAT then is, in my view, part of the mystery to this hobby. A 'one make' system may prove easier to achieve that, as long as that manufacturer has achieve excellence in all those products and they are designed to work together to the full. And there's the rub, and why many of us are searching and trying endless combinations of different products. My take on this and YMMV.
I am trying to understand the term PRaT so that police wouldn’t arrest me when I misuse it.
So PRaT can only be used with tt? Can it be used with other equipments?
Kind regards,
Tang
I think the above is the best explanation of what PRaT means to me, but the question is what exactly is it in any particular system/recording that causes this to happen. For years I always felt analog achieved a more consistent level of PRaT than digital. However, as I have seen the clocks improve over the last 20 years in DAC's, I feel digital has definitely become more PRaT-ish (although still only equal to analog at best , but that's another discussion). This leads me to believe in some way it is the human brain's time domain perception (the rules Ralph refers to) that allows processing to move to the limbic system. Very slight perturbations in the time domain determine whether we get positive emotion (the limbic system) or just perform a chore (the cortex) when we listen to music.
Last edited:
That is my experience as well, see earlier in the discussion.
The interesting thing is, why is analog naturally so good at this, while absolute speed variations in the medium are much greater than on digital with its picosecond jitter? I assume this must have to do something with the lockstep of signals within the entire frequency range relative to one another, even if in macro-terms the speed of the turntable (or analog tape) fluctuates. Or perhaps the problems in digital also have to do with, as John suggested in post #10, noise-shaping that fluctuates in correlation with the signal.
In my days in Thailand there was only one radar on the way to Pattaya that I think someone personally imported and generally the offenses were settled on the spot between the driver and the agent
. Unless he became too greedy and he'd get the PRaT, "Why do you want to cause problem for your boss?"It depends on your interpretation and can apply to other components but certainly the source is key.
david
Last edited:
Martin Colloms even, démonstrated the effect of rythm with different components on Elizabethan classical music in a high end show in the 90.
Interesting. Are you saying that the problem is pervasive even in modern digital? I thought the problem was pervasive in the past, but that it has become much less over time, to the point that, with the best digital sources, there is now no problem at all.
(I am talking about uncompressed digital audio; compressed files, for example on Youtube, can sometimes sound rhythmically horrible.)
Similar threads
