Do I have "PRAT"??

[marcmorin]

Very well put, gusten. It is sad to see some people here want to make fun of us just because we strive to use CLEAR ways to convey what we hear in the sound, instead of resorting to esoteric, unclear terms like "pace, rhythm and timing" or "foot-tapping potential".

I dare ya to try to tap your feet to "most" anything Frank Zappa did.
('cause every time I've tried I resemble an epileptic on meth) Love the pace and timing parts though.

 

[gusten]

Very well put, gusten. It is sad to see some people here want to make fun of us just because we strive to use CLEAR ways to convey what we hear in the sound, instead of resorting to esoteric, unclear terms like "pace, rhythm and timing" or "foot-tapping potential".

I wouldn´t worry too much about the fun-making. I´m glad to be here and write about things that might matter. We can´t please everybody, some will do.
gusten

 

[Bigerik]

Very well put, gusten. It is sad to see some people here want to make fun of us just because we strive to use CLEAR ways to convey what we hear in the sound, instead of resorting to esoteric, unclear terms like "pace, rhythm and timing" or "foot-tapping potential".

I'm not making fun of your lack of comprehension of easily and commonly understood audio terminology. The language already exists. You just choose not to use it.

 

[Bigerik]

Writers have the task of conveying what they hear, experience, and feel about a component or system through the written word, which is not a linear event. The task can be quite tricky, for music in many respects is an emotional event, and transferring those feelings and provoked sensations is not easy. This is especially true for equipment reviews, since the writer is often trying to convey subtle differences, or juxtapose the performance of one component to another, and give the reader a relative reference point in terms of sound and value. Quite often writers/reviewers get bashed on the audio boards for their articles, but most people don't even try their hand at the process. Writing a comprehensive review even for an audio site, provides some perspective on how challenging the task can be. Take into account that a writer does this several times a year, and that every person out there is trying to dissect his/her grammar, style, and hidden agenda...well it makes it certainly compounds the difficulty factor.

That would cut down on confusion related to using words that already have other meanings.

The English language, and darn near every other language I know of, has words with multiple meanings. People fluent in these languages have little difficulty understanding the various connotations, and can infer intent quite consistently. It should be no different in terms of audio related writings. Actually in some ways the methods of using alternate meanings works very well for this task, since the goal is to find words that have a shared meaning or feeling that is used in our everyday life, and can be applied to audio gear. For it creates a frame of reference. Yes there can be confusion as things do not translate literally, but it does have the potential of being an effective means of passing along an experience or feeling. While some of the metaphors may get stretched, I am not a fan of food descriptors, I can certainly read them and decipher what the writer is trying to convey. From my perspective it seems to work just fine.

Regards
Mister Pig

Well said.

The issue seems to be that some choose to look down their noses at anything they consider to be "audiophile", and therefore will not use the existing language. As in any type of writing, their are people who are better or worse than others in expressing in words what they experienced. There are a few who who really are great writers. Harry Pearson of The Absolute Sound was the first to bring true journalism to the audio world. Of the current writers, Art Dudley is in my opinion the best. He wrote well enough that you would have a good idea of what a piece would sound like, and weather or not YOU would like it, regardless of how he felt about it.

I must say that our own Mr. Pig is a fine writer also!

 

[flavio81]

I'm not making fun of your lack of comprehension of easily and commonly understood audio terminology. The language already exists. You just choose not to use it.

You assume that i don't comprehend "easily and commonly understood audio terminology". That's not very friendly, isn't it?

As far as i know, Pace and Rhythm are rather poetic ways to refer to timebase/pitch stability and smoothness. While Timing is the ability for all frequency components to actually sound simultaneously in time if they are supposed to occur simultaneously in time. Something that can better be expressed as "linear phase response". A multi-way loudspeaker that is not time aligned can mess with timing, a turntable/tonearm itself, not so much. A cartridge cantilever and stylus assembly can also mess with timing.

"Pitch stability" and "linear phase response" is audio terminology. PRaT is not audio terminology. Audiophile terminology, yes.

If that's what you understand with PRaT, great. The problem is that "Pace, rhythm and timing" are words that have a more mundane meaning that has little to do with the characteristics of an audio signal. Thus, PRaT is often used by people in forums simply to mean "good sound" (just search the internet for the diverse definitions of PRat), with no more specifics. In this way, the subtleties of the audio performance are not clearly conveyed anymore.

 

[Art K.]

As to the 'PRAT', what we can possible strive for, and hope for, is a sound that will be close to the master tapes. So in reality it all comes down to how they sounded. IMHO.
gusten

Precisely.

All music has Pace Rhythm and Timing and if it is captured in the master tape then all a quality audio system has to do is have sufficient resolution to communicate that. Unfortunately not all do and I think we have all heard systems that bored us to tears. Saying that it lacked PRaT is just another way of communicating that. That it is a term invented as part of Linn's marketing (as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong) is immaterial to it's applicability and usefulness IMO.

 

[iLUVanalog]

As is the case with most/all made-up slang terms: it's lame.

 

[Naptown Rob]

I don't want to get into a PRAT spat. I think I know what people who use it are getting at. It's a term that works for some, but not for others.
I'm in the latter category.
Perhaps years of training as a musician & decades of work as a producer leave me with a different understanding of the words in question.

Having recently acquired a PF-1000 myself, what I am interested in is what cart the OP is using. And is that the KAB stabilizer you're using?
Here's mine.

 

[JohnVF]

Very well put, gusten. It is sad to see some people here want to make fun of us just because we strive to use CLEAR ways to convey what we hear in the sound, instead of resorting to esoteric, unclear terms like "pace, rhythm and timing" or "foot-tapping potential".

PRaT is perfectly clear to many.

Semantics. And get over yourselves.

Its just a term used to describe a systems ability to hold musical attributes together. Timing cues. And lots of things can muck it up.

Again,you and Gusten not thinking something meets approval doesn't mean it isn't useful to others.

I repeat:

Get over yourselves.

And I repeat it again.

Get over yourselves.

If you repeat it over and over a certain rhythm develops. Do it precisely, and you will have PRaT, too.

Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves.

 

[pandaman]

if you have to ask, then the answer is no.

 

[flavio81]

PRaT is perfectly clear to many.

Semantics. And get over yourselves.

Its just a term used to describe a systems ability to hold musical attributes together. Timing cues. And lots of things can muck it up.

Again,you and Gusten not thinking something meets approval doesn't mean it isn't useful to others.

I repeat:

Get over yourselves.

And I repeat it again.

Get over yourselves.

If you repeat it over and over a certain rhythm develops. Do it precisely, and you will have PRaT, too.

Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves. Get over yourselves.

Is that to be performed in 7/4 ?

 

[gusten]

A lot of things are not clear to me, PRaT is just one of many.

If I want to learn a new language I think I´d go for a real one, probably French. That would actually give me something. At the moment I have a hard time with English and Finnish.
gusten

 

[Brett a]

As far as i know, Pace and Rhythm are rather poetic ways to refer to timebase/pitch stability and smoothness. (...) "Pitch stability" and "linear phase response" is audio terminology. PRaT is not audio terminology. Audiophile terminology, yes.
(...)
If that's what you understand with PRaT, great. The problem is that "Pace, rhythm and timing" are words that have a more mundane meaning that has little to do with the characteristics of an audio signal. Thus, PRaT is often used by people in forums simply to mean "good sound" (just search the internet for the diverse definitions of PRat), with no more specifics. In this way, the subtleties of the audio performance are not clearly conveyed anymore.

FWIW, I can understand what is being referred to when "PRaT" is used a whole lot more successfully than if people said "linear phase response". 30 years in the hobby has not prepared me to understand that phrase. I assume that term is for use by audio or electrical engineers, not regular people.

And I think that's why we use terms like PRaT; becasue most people can understand it. (but obviously not everyone).

And how can you define the difference between "audio terminology" and "audiophile terminology"? Honestly, that just sounds like you're being a snob.

 

[flavio81]

And how can you define the difference between "audio terminology" and "audiophile terminology"? Honestly, that just sounds like you're being a snob.

The former is the terminology used by audio engineers and technicians; the latter, by audiophiles.

I do agree it sounds snobbish.

But returning to the core idea, my problem is simply that i see the way "PRaT" is used around the forum, it can mean anything related with good sound, thus losing a bit of its value as an adjective.

 

[Naptown Rob]

The former is the terminology used by audio engineers and technicians; the latter, by audiophiles.

As somone who is all of those things, that seems about right to me.

 

[rnorton]

That's what I'm aiming for, nothing more and nothing less. Now if I can just get my hands on the original master tapes of KOB, and the gear to play it on.:scratch2:

On second thought, I think I'll end up settling for less. Much less, in all likelihood.

What is KOB, other than a horrible TV station I once worked for?

 

[Brett a]

But returning to the core idea, my problem is simply that i see the way "PRaT" is used around the forum, it can mean anything related with good sound, thus losing a bit of its value as an adjective.

I guess i just haven't had that experience. I think whenever I've seen the term PRaT used, it was used appropriately.

That said, I don't see it used too often.

 

[jimreeves]

There you go 62sunbeam.

You have it, or you don't, if you have it, it's probably irrelevent, if you don't, you probably wouldn't know it if you did. Anyway, it's a lame proposition to begin with...

does that answer your question?

 

[flavio81]

What is KOB, other than a horrible TV station I once worked for?

Probably KOB= Kind Of Blue, the famous Miles Davis jazz record. Worth many listens!

 

[juno]

The former is the terminology used by audio engineers and technicians; the latter, by audiophiles.

I do agree it sounds snobbish.

But returning to the core idea, my problem is simply that i see the way "PRaT" is used around the forum, it can mean anything related with good sound, thus losing a bit of its value as an adjective.

LOLZ Agree 100% as far as terms used by hobbyists as opposed to professionals.

Ah....yes.....the barcalounge expert!