What do audiophiles mean when they talk about Pace, Rhythm & Timing?

I don't think that generally has been the way people have used PRaT at all. In fact I think this thread -- in which PRaT has been associated with "lean," "analytical" gear by you, and then offered as kind of the opposite of that -- as gear that has "musicality" as opposed to gear that is "analytical" -- shows exactly why PRaT is such a horribly non-descriptive term.....it really has no meaning, people use it in all kinds of ways an interpret in all kinds of ways. Everyone seems to have a different idea about what it means.

Now if anyone is old enough to remember when the term first entered the audiophile lexicon, I dunno, 40 years ago or do, it's only definition seemed to be kind of "toe-tappingness" -- X piece of gear, when I put on a piece of music, makes me tap my toes along with the tempo, Y piece of gear, playing the same music, makes me less likely to do that. That's really all PRaT means: toe-tappingness (or with classical music some folks would describe feeling like air-conducting).

But, is toe-tappingness a characteristic of a piece of gear, or is it something that's purely generated by the mood and pscyhe of the reviewer? It's it repeatable and transferable, something that goes with the gear -- if you find X integrated amp, makes you tap your toes, will I find the same thing -- or is it just peculiar to that one individual. Hell, will that same review feel that same toe-tappingness tomorrow?

And band when PRaT was introduced as an audio idea in the '70's, it appears to be a Linn thing, and yes, we know turntable motor speed and stability can literally affect the tempo and timing of the music we're listening to, so there's the one place where the audio repro gear can actually play a role in the pace, rhythm and timing of the music you're listening too. An amp or a preamp, regardless of whether or not it is "realistic" or regardless of its transient speed, or whatever things people are guessing may be related to an impression of PRaT, can't literally change the tempo or rhythm of the music. So whatever PRaT means as applied to something other than a turntable, it seems to me, literally can be about the pace, rhythm or timing of the music. So PRaT, doesn't even really mean PRaT.

 

I love this post! Extremely well-written portrait of a valid and specific stance toward audio writing.

It doesn't diminish my pleasure a bit that I disagree strongly with several points of your argument, not to mention that the Art Dudley quotations backfire by being even more well-written than your post, reminding me what a singular, graceful personal essayist he is and how his wide-ranging discursiveness as a columnist transcends the much-abused hi-fi reviewing template you're denouncing.

 

I'm pretty sure this could continue until some of us have turned to dust,however whilst I'm still able. I believe it's about changing as little as possible, so that a great system reproduces all the information, giving the listener an almost believable band in the room experience.

I think a technical description isn't necessary, as that's not how I approach a music. Not being able to see it in specs doesn't mean it's not experienced, although having that confirmation need may blind you to the experience.

I believe the flatearthers probably may be used against me, LP12, Naim, as I understand it relates especially to Naim's no tone controls, headphone socket etc. That may have been going on but at the time they were actually great products, which I chose to buy.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't now buy a better amp, as I believe PRaT exists even on a round earth

 

Well, writing's not a contest -- I'm not gonna face Art Dudley at noon for a write off -- and dashing off a internet post and writing an article are two entirely different undertakings (like one you writing off the top of your head and send, the other you consider your subject, plan it, write, edit, re-write, someone else edits it and then maybe you make changes again) , so I don't get the point of comparing the two, but, according to my understanding of what "well-written," obviously, I don't consider those Dudley leads to be well-written. As I said, that toothbrush lead in particular is horrible, it's a a text book example of a certain kind of bad lead, but I get it, when you writing a column (I did it for years, but on a much shorter deadline than Dudley's), or writing on any kind of deadline, everything's not a prize-winner. Still, if Dudley has spend time writing for something other than the self-valorizing audio press, he'd have lost that disposable lead habit a long time ago.

But I don't mean to single out Dudley, he was just mentioned by the person I was responding too. I think all audio writing is pretty much bloated, self-involved and hackneyed in more or less the same way. I'd love to see Stereophile, as an experiment, run an issue where no writers are aloud to use personal pronouns referring to themselves, or any cliched audiophile adjectives or catchalls (like PRaT). With Dudley, I don't care about his personal life or where he lives or about his friends, and his writing, ostensibly on the subject of audio, doesn't make me care about those things, nor, I think, does it use those things to illuminate his subject. But, obviously some people connect with that and with him. For me, with Dudley's pieces I can pretty much skip the first third....but that's true of almost all of these post-Holt, post-Pearson audio pieces. I got to a certain point with this navel-gazing, formally-cliched (it didn't start out as a cliche or a received way of writing this stuff, obviously, but after 30 or 40 years it became that), self-obsessed, personality-driven audio review style that I found I was skipping the leads, if you could even call 'em that -- I'd call 'em throat clearing -- scanning for where the circuit specifics were described, skimming the piece very quickly skipping all the parts where someone describes listening to a record and hearing a little more of this frequency and a little less of that frequency, reading the summary, and, if it was a piece with measurement, reading that section. That's how I knew -- as a one-time TAS subscriber and frequent Stereophile reader (and maybe a subscriber at some poine, I can't remember) -- that it was time for me to stop reading audiophile magazines.

 

I want to learn something when I read--whether it is history, music, even hard sci-fi (which I seem to be leaning on more these days)--to provoke thought, to see (or hear) more clearly the limitations of my own thinking (or hearing). Pearson did that-- I think JGH was more rigorous, but Harry made us think about what we were hearing without necessarily coming up with a good explanation for the "why" of it (something I think JGH did better on that score).
Your posts are thoughtful, and no one expects lyrical writing on a forum; hell, i'm glad if I can manage a post without typos before I lose the ability to edit and correct.
You are right about the "fill in the blank" template of most reviews- the boxes must be checked. I think Roy Gregory does a good job-- or at least he did when writing full throttle at HiFi+.
I don't read the magazines any more either.
I also learn a lot from the fora because there are so many different perspectives- I may not agree with something but sometimes, that "hey wait a minute, that's wrong" reaction may lead to more thought.
This is, in some ways, a very introspective hobby-- the measure of enjoyment is not something you can rate, grade or measure. The machinery that makes it possible is compared, lauded, measured (sometimes) and subject to a range of opinion. Occasionally, there is consensus. More often it's different shades of color using a filter we cannot control- someone else's ears.
Part of this is social too-- who else are we going to talk to about some of this stuff without being regarded as a boor (bore?).
I appreciate those that indulge me, and more, those that correct or help me align my thinking-- to quote Miller from Repo Man, I think about this stuff a lot on the bus.

 

Well you could say that about a lot of jargon we use and they're only descriptive if you believe you know what it means

 

I think he would have fit in well with some of the 80' reviewers, hyperbole about some supposedly transforming product.

Never met him but I've heard stories about him taking some of these things to dealers and having to admit he's wrong, writ on it's way

 

Yes, exactly. You can say that about a lot of the jargon we use. I know it's hard to describe sound in words. But I think so many of these phrases and words at this point have just become things people are supposed to say and they're deployed in a kind of catch-all manner, that they've lost their ability to convey anything specific or useful to the next person encountering the gear. That doesn't mean one has to measure everything (though it certainly can't hurt) -- if a reviewer tells you X piece of gear has a frequency balance that emphasizes high frequencies, we don't actually know if that's because the high frequencies are boosted or the mids and/or lows are recessed. But we still have a fair idea of what something sounds like. If a reviewer writes that a piece of gear has a great sense of PRaT or "musicality," I don't think we have an idea of what the gear sounds like, from that kind of description.

 

I agree with you about Pearson and Holt and making us think about what we were hearing and what we were listening to and what we were listening for, especially coming along as they did in an environment where the widespread assumption was the notion that the distortion and frequency response numbers on electronics had reached a point where everything sounded the same and the only issue for purchasers was features.

As a post-script to that, I think that now, the whole notion of audio has changed dramatically. When Holt and Pearson were doing there thing, the ideal was still "fidelity" to the source or, if not fidelity to source, fidelity to a knowable benchmark -- the "absolute sound" was the sound of live acoustic instruments recorded in a single space, with the theory that we could know what this was supposed to sound like and that it wasn't subject to lots of post-production manipulation. Now, in contrast to the "absolute" anything, we're in an era of audio relativism -- everyone is seeking out what sounds good or musical to them as individuals regardless of fidelity to source or any knowable standard. So, of course, the benchmarks that reviewers use all become personal, individual ones.

Maybe it's over reading things to suggest that it's a perfect reflection of our culturally atomized times, when individuals or groups of people each seem to have their own truth or facts, and a perfect reflection of our narcissistic "selfie" era...maybe that's just the cranky old man in me, having outlived the culture that made him, projecting; I mean, these reviewers, they're typically of my generation or older.

But I agree, that generation that set the mold for this explosion of audio subjectivism, was challenging orthodoxy and challenging readers to think outside the box and listen differently, and trying to come up with a language by which to do that, so of course, whatever else it was as a matter of style, it was thought-provoking. I think now you have the opposite: reinforcement and repetition of a new orthodoxy.

 

Hmm... When I read it it did make sense to me though. Are you sure that it's not an ASPECT of it? My first thought, as I said above, was speaker efficiency for the particular amp, but obviously better speakers will have a bigger effect with a well matched amp, and those analytic qualities, when they blend with the other things we look for, can be toe tapping. Of course compression can be toe tapping for five minutes too... But when the analytic blends with the oomph you get pace and timing? It really is something that comes from balance.

 

To me, the timing of the attack of the note and how it decays, with the harmonics in relation to the fundamental, makes a huge difference in the illusion. (That also contributes to 'space,' 'dimensionality' and 'soundstage' as I think all of these attributes overlap). I'm very attuned to it on piano, but i don't think the failing is with the hi-fi gear- i suspect it is how the piano is recorded in the first instance.

 

Heard Julian Vereker's system many moons ago. Not surprisingly, it was an active system, but more surprisingly, was the lack of volume control: it went from mute to eleven, at the flick of a switch.

 

Bill, i'd encourage you to read the above post. An example with a well recorded piano, which is affected by some equipment , losing its percussive attack.

 

Fascinating. I don't have the Bobil, I have a slightly later UK (because I wasn't in a spendy mood that day) and that much later EMI 100 Centenary, which sounds more modern, clean and a little leaner, I think, but it's been a while since I played either.
One of the records I like for piano that sounds real is Amina Claudine Myers Salutes Bessie Smith, but only the original Leo Records pressing. The audiophile remaster just sounds dead. You can hear the bass notes growl, the hammer and the shimmer and fade of the high frequencies. Perhaps I already mentioned this here or in another thread, but as my system improved, the somewhat strident vocals on this record--which sounded too closely mic'd or overloaded-- seemed to get less nasty. Thank you for bringing that post to my attention @cmcintyre.

 

Solo piano, was my favourite music for a "tune dem". A few simple notes from a Chopin Etude, revealed differences in the ability of two very competent pre-amps in regard to pitch and timing.

What words are used to express what was heard, may be open to all sorts of interpretation, and there may be listeners who aren't sensitive to this, but all present, independently, had the same preference.

If this had anything to do with PRaT, musical or Hi-Fi expression, is up to the individual to decide. Is it measurable? Well, the design engineer was present, and he heard it.

 

Agreed- it was easier to be the "underground" rebel than to be the establishment press (in audio, not political, terms).

 

Pace, rhythm and timing are attributes of music, not of equipment. Trouble is, they're meaningless in regards to sound quality because they cannot be defined. You can say something has "thin bass", or it's "bright", or "honky"and we'd pretty much know what you were talking about. It's like saying food tastes green, or a tree looks quiet.

 

It's precisely because they are attributes of a music performance, that they can be utilised when describing the ability of the equipment to create the illusion of a real music performance, rather than an approximation of one.

Does the (well -recorded) piano sound like a real piano sounds, or is your brain making some accommodations?

Does the interplay (of a well-recorded and expertly played) professional quartet sound like real instruments, each different from each other and playing in time with each other, or does your brain make adjustments?

On the occasions I heard equipment that has really good P, R & T, it just catches my attention - almost like "where are/is the invisible musician(s) - I hear them but I don't see them".

Your examples "thin bass" and "bright" refer to tonal qualities, rather than musical performance realism. Yes, one has to have a balanced tone of reproduction, but a balanced tone of reproduction alone does not make a recording sound like a real performance. (It's a bit like the days when cassette deck manufacturers strove to have a flat frequency response (FFR) (-20db) from at least 30hz to above 16khz, higher even better). Aware consumers soon learnt that there were other important factors to consider as well.

("Honky" - when I hear that I think of (e.g.) a piano which is not fully in tune - amplification and speakers don't affect the recording being 'in tune").

The food analogy's a great choice. Take a tomato (not sure what "colour" tomatoes tastes like), if one has great taste buds (no smoking, low salt) then each variety will taste different, and the ones grown in your own backyard will taste different to the ones purchased from most supermarkets.

Bite into a tomatoes that has a 'flour' like flavour and texture (usually grown and picked under less than ideal conditions) - your brain knows it's a tomato, but when you (blind taste) a fresh tomato (same variety) grown in an ideal manner, your tongue and taste buds will know the difference straight away. Tastes like a tomato should.

Trees: an experienced arborist will be able to tell exactly the state the tree is in, give a useful prognosis, and identify precisely what has caused whatever it is they're finding.

A good reviewer will have sufficient experience with real instruments and performances to be able to use language which indicates whether the equipment under review (using well recorded source material) reproduces that recording and gives the illusion of real instruments. She or he will be able to use the language of music so a person reading the review can understand what is meant without having to learn a whole new set of jargon. (Slew rates, damping, and so on).

 

"Honky" is generally accepted as a descriptor of a frequency balance with an excess of midrange in the range of about 500Hz - 1KHz or so.

 

Oh, OK. ........ must try it sometime .

 

Two things, I don't know why you keep going back to measurements. My issue with PRaT is not that it can't be measured. My issue with PRaT is that it's not a characteristic of the equipment, it doesn't exist in an audio component.

Frequency response is a characteristic of a piece of equipment. You can test it and see what it is; or you can listen to music and describe it --- two different languages and systems for "measuring" the equipment's performance. And you can show a graph or use phrases like the frequency balance doesn't sound tilted in an particular direction or bass seems emphasized or midrange seems recessed or whatever. Either approach -- measurement or anecdotal listening "test," you're examining a characteristic of the equipment.

PRaT is a characteristic of a musical performance. An amp, a preamp, these things don't have PRaT, they don't change the tempo and duration relationships of the music being played back through them. Other than a turntable motor speed, a piece of audio gear can't change the pace or rhythm or timing of the already-fixed recording. Whatever a listener hears that they imagine is changing the presentation of pace, rhythm and timing of the music, isn't changing pace, rhythm or timing. So this is just one person's psychological response to hearing something he or she can't identify. It's a phrase that doesn't describe the equipment's performance. It describes something in the listener's head.

Second, and related, audio is not music. A lot of people seem to approach audio as if the audio gear is making the music or has the qualities of a musician. It's not and it doesn't. Audio and music are two different things. We use audio gear to record and playback music (as well as other sounds), so obviously there's a relationship. And we can hear and listen for things that the audio does or fails to do in contrast to what the input music sounds (if we really know what the music sounded like when it was recorded), and try to describe what we hear. But when we start describing how listening to the sounds makes us feel, we're out of the realm of describing audio characteristics and into the realm of describing our own emotional responses. We're no longer talking about audio. And we're no longer talking about something that another person can take and replicate because the second person doesn't have the same psyche as the first.

 

I don't know about this... You are kind of saying that music is the ideas in a piece and not the sound, but music is made out of sound. It's why one person picks a strad and the next person picks a guarneri. It's why one person wants vocals on a U-87 and one person wants them on a 414. Or an AT 2020. Some people genuinely do their best work that way. You can't say there's no audio in the creation of Sgt. Pepper. It would not be the same music recorded some place else. And music has a listener as well as a player. The whole chain is a part of the music. Maybe you should not say timing to refer to the speed with which a speaker reproduces a wave, or really creates a wave, and maybe you should come up with a different word for how much of the wave is created and how accurately and whether if you measured an audio event that was recorded and then measured the playback you would see identical peaks and valleys. I doubt it. But it's all music. It's not a tree falling in the forest.

 

How about AVR's ability to "time" the sound waves arrival from multiple speakers to the listener? Isn't it the "T" part of PRaT from equipment?

 

That's not what I'm saying. Music of course if made out of sound. But audio repro equipment isn't a musical instrument. It doesn't make music. It plays back something already encoded on some storage medium. You can alter some of those characteristics if you want on playback with eq or something, and at the extreme I guess use the equipment to make music like a hip hop DJ or like John Cage's pieces for radios. But playing back a record or CD is not the same thing as making music.

 

I still don't think you're changing the timing of the performance but if you want to look at that kind of DSP as affecting musical timing, I guess you can.