Do I have "PRAT"??

[Naptown Rob]

...yours is a post that clearly communicates its message. The meaning of every word is conventional.

On the other hand, you can clearly see that in the previous posts, people have used implied at least 3 different and distinct understandings of what "PRaT" is. The meaning is not conventional because few follow the convention.

So, as i said before, that's my problem with the term: People use it liberally for anything that means to "sound good" to them. We might as well use "great toe-tapping potential" instead!

One of the first things we learned in Communications 101 (yes, that was actually the name of the course) was that if a communication can fail it will. And nearly all communications can fail.
That certainly seems to be the case here.
I don't deny the existence of PRat. I think I know what it's supposed to be. But I find the very words that the term is based on to be inappropriately used - and therefore the ensuing descriptions of the phenomenon to be utterly lacking.
And don't get me started on this "toe tapping" business. It implies that to experience PRaT, we must avoid putting anything on our turntables that could be considered Adagio.
It'll ruin the PRaT! Ain't nuthin' toe-tappin' about Adagio.
Banjos. Banjos got PRaT.

 

[Pio1980]

Mine only moved 40 yards off the face of my Hogan Radial 9 Iron. Had a funny rhythm during flight. Hardly any backspin.

Forgot that you were the displeased user of the Linn 'dog'.

 

[kirk57]

Didn't we have essentially the same argument over the word 'transparency' just last week?

Does AK need a glossary?

 

[JohnVF]

There are bad, average, good, great turntables, but what makes a great one from an average one is not black magic, and has direct relationship with its design and execution.

This statement doesn't make logical sense with the premise you and Gusten are making. It's well understood what the basic parameters are for turntable specs. So...its a reasonable assumption that any manufacturer can meet them pretty easily. So why are there bad turntables, then? Why is there so much trial and error in the launch of many turntables? Why do some VPIs (for example) look totally different than others? It would seem logical that they understand what they're doing, but they have many different approaches. Wouldn't one suffice, because shouldn't they all sound the same? Why make one turntable with a golf-ball hanging on a string, another balanced on the head of a needle, and another using bearings? And why does each approach sound different? Why does a Well Tempered Amadeus sound completely different than my VPI (and, cough, possibly better?).

And I'm also curious what these great turntables are.

 

[JohnVF]

Didn't we have essentially the same argument over the word 'transparency' just last week?

Does AK need a glossary?

"PRaT" and "Transparency" are just proxy-wars for some made up idea that there's this cult of snobs out there trying to poo-poo those who don't buy expensive things. It has nothing to do with those terms and everything to do with the arrogant idea that only one approach is allowed and only one approach is best, and that people shouldn't be free to pursue the hobby however they damn well please.

 

[Muddywaters]

I missed the turn of events that led this to all turntables sound the same? I didn't buy a ticket on that bus.

Please let me off

 

[Pio1980]

Didn't we have essentially the same argument over the word 'transparency' just last week?

Does AK need a glossary?

Can't agree on "transparency" being a non-descriptive made-up term, it's pretty apparent to me whether I'm listening "at' something or "thru" it.

 

[flavio81]

This statement doesn't make logical sense with the premise you and Gusten are making. It's well understood what the basic parameters are for turntable specs.

Seems you misunderstood my post. I said that good design and good construction are what makes a good turntable, and measurements are what the manufacturer use to check that everything is going ok.

So...its a reasonable assumption that any manufacturer can meet them pretty easily. So why are there bad turntables, then?

No, i don't agree with that assumption.

There are "bad" (or "average" or "just ok") turntables because most turntables have to meet a price point.

Why do some VPIs (for example) look totally different than others? It would seem logical that they understand what they're doing, but they have many different approaches.

Maybe they "look" different but the design choices are the same for all of them:

- Heavy platter
- Belt driven, motor in the periphery
- Heavy plinth, non suspended platter & tonearm
- Suspended motor

Wouldn't one suffice, because shouldn't they all sound the same?

You are the one assuming they should sound "the same", not me, John. I like variety.

Why make one turntable with a golf-ball hanging on a string, another balanced on the head of a needle, and another using bearings? And why does each approach sound different?

Because engineering is not perfect, and there are always compromises. You can't really have a perfect turntable, you can just approach perfection from different angles.

For example with a pivoted (conventional ball bearing) tonearm you have great stability on the azimuth plane (arm can't be twisted) but conventional bearings usually are compromised in low friction versus low chatter (you can usually have one but not both).

A unipivot tonearm ("balanced on the head of a needle") has a bearing with low friction and low chatter but then the arm can twist in the azimuth plane which is not good at all, thus you need to add extra lateral tonearm mass to compensate, which does not completely solve the problem.

The golf ball tonearm is simply a great design that allows to have a tonearm with fluid damping, antiskating, and minimal horizontal friction with very very few parts. But then the tonearm isn't rigidly coupled to the plinth, which would be a good thing to have.

See? It's all about compromises.

 

[JohnVF]

See? It's all about compromises.

So would it be reasonable to assume that some are better at timing cues (and everything associated with that) than others?

 

[flavio81]

So would it be reasonable to assume that some are better at timing cues (and everything associated with that) than others?

Maybe... but then, what do YOU understand as "timing"? Because i contend that if we were to make a written AudioKarma poll with only one question:

"What is 'timing"?

We will have at least 3 fundamentally different answers.

 

[JohnVF]

Maybe... but then, what do YOU understand as "timing"? Because i contend that if we were to make a written AudioKarma poll with only one question:

"What is 'timing"?

We will have at least 3 fundamentally different answers.

Well, that's kind of the point of this to me. I don't fully understand what is meant by PRaT because its not been a priority to me. But that doesn't make it bogus, just because I don't fully understand it or chase it. Others seem to know perfectly well what they mean, and I've heard lengthy conversations about it. Therefor, I assume they know what they're talking about instead of assuming that I know more than they do. Those that say PRaT seem to know very well what they're referring to. Just because others don't, doesn't mean its useless. It seems to come down to the idea that some people are very uncomfortable with the fact that they might not know everything.

 

[Bigerik]

Well, that's kind of the point of this to me. I don't fully understand what is meant by PRaT because its not been a priority to me. But that doesn't make it bogus, just because I don't fully understand it or chase it. Others seem to know perfectly well what they mean, and I've heard lengthy conversations about it. Therefor, I assume they know what they're talking about instead of assuming that I know more than they do. Those that say PRaT seem to know very well what they're referring to. Just because others don't, doesn't mean its useless. It seems to come down to the idea that some people are very uncomfortable with the fact that they might not know everything.

I remember not understanding it, until I heard a Rega P7 and a Sota Sapphire back to back. Everything else was the same. Then the lighbulb went off, and I said to myself "Self, that is what they mean by PRaT."
To paraphrase justice Stewart, " I know it when I hear it".

 

[Brett a]

The words you are using are made-up, but the meaning of most of these words or expressions ("made up", "including", "every one", "typing") is clear to every one of us. Thus yours is a post that clearly communicates its message. The meaning of every word is conventional.

On the other hand, you can clearly see that in the previous posts, people have used implied at least 3 different and distinct understandings of what "PRaT" is. The meaning is not conventional because few follow the convention.

So, as i said before, that's my problem with the term: People use it liberally for anything that means to "sound good" to them. We might as well use "great toe-tapping potential" instead!

Fair enough. I think what I and others are trying to say is the term (and others like it) work pretty well for us. And if i may go a step further, I'd say I (for one) would like to see folks like you joining us in the use of the term. There's always going to be some who can't follow a conversation. IMO, PRaT and transparency are words that work quite well in practice most of the time with most people.

 

[JohnVF]

I remember not understanding it, until I heard a Rega P7 and a Sota Sapphire back to back. Everything else was the same. Then the lighbulb went off, and I said to myself "Self, that is what they mean by PRaT."
To paraphrase justice Stewart, " I know it when I hear it".

Seems a bit like my audition of the Well Tempered Amadeus. I wasn't even looking for a turntable, I was just helping a friend hear what his options were, as he was new to the hobby. So we listened to this turntable and I was just amazed at how much I loved it. Indescribable, really- possibly because it did something that I hadn't really heard before. It just sounded like music should sound, and I thought "I love this turntable and I have no idea what about it is so much different than everything else I've heard".

FWIW, my Meitner CD/SACD player seems to be designed with PRaT in mind:

"Rather than address the digital signal as a series of sine waves—as is standard convention—the MDAT-equipped CDSA SE processes (and upsamples CD audio to DSD for conversion to analog) by dynamically adapting to the transient nature of the musical signal. In this way, the CDSA SE is utterly unique and singularly able to preserve the phase, frequency and dynamic integrity of the original signal. Once you’ve heard this level of improvement in terms of resolution, nuance and dynamic shading, there’s no going back."

And of course, somebody is going to call that audiophool marketing, without knowing who Ed Meitner is.

 

[Pio1980]

Seems a bit like my audition of the Well Tempered Amadeus. I wasn't even looking for a turntable, I was just helping a friend hear what his options were, as he was new to the hobby. So we listened to this turntable and I was just amazed at how much I loved it. Indescribable, really- possibly because it did something that I hadn't really heard before. It just sounded like music should sound, and I thought "I love this turntable and I have no idea what about it is so much different than everything else I've heard".

FWIW, my Meitner CD/SACD player seems to be designed with PRaT in mind:

"Rather than address the digital signal as a series of sine waves—as is standard convention—the MDAT-equipped CDSA SE processes (and upsamples CD audio to DSD for conversion to analog) by dynamically adapting to the transient nature of the musical signal. In this way, the CDSA SE is utterly unique and singularly able to preserve the phase, frequency and dynamic integrity of the original signal. Once you’ve heard this level of improvement in terms of resolution, nuance and dynamic shading, there’s no going back."

And of course, somebody is going to call that audiophool marketing, without knowing who Ed Meitner is.

I remember Ed Meitner but not why.
So John, how does all this relate to the diffs between your LT-30 and VPI-Classic?

 

[kirk57]

Seems a bit like my audition of the Well Tempered Amadeus. I wasn't even looking for a turntable, I was just helping a friend hear what his options were, as he was new to the hobby. So we listened to this turntable and I was just amazed at how much I loved it. Indescribable, really- possibly because it did something that I hadn't really heard before. It just sounded like music should sound, and I thought "I love this turntable and I have no idea what about it is so much different than everything else I've heard".

FWIW, my Meitner CD/SACD player seems to be designed with PRaT in mind:

"Rather than address the digital signal as a series of sine waves—as is standard convention—the MDAT-equipped CDSA SE processes (and upsamples CD audio to DSD for conversion to analog) by dynamically adapting to the transient nature of the musical signal. In this way, the CDSA SE is utterly unique and singularly able to preserve the phase, frequency and dynamic integrity of the original signal. Once you’ve heard this level of improvement in terms of resolution, nuance and dynamic shading, there’s no going back."

And of course, somebody is going to call that audiophool marketing, without knowing who Ed Meitner is.

Isn't Ed Meitner the guy who designed this TT? Kind of the antithesis of the 'heavy platter/plinth' approach described in previous posts...

 

[majick47]

Pio compared to the LT-30 how does the LT-20 match up? Would it be like a Yamaha PX-3 compared to a PX-2?

 

[Pio1980]

"Isn't Ed Meitner the guy who designed this TT? Kind of the antithesis of the 'heavy platter/plinth' approach described in previous posts... "

OK then. I didn't think much of the platter then and less so now.

 

[JohnVF]

Isn't Ed Meitner the guy who designed this TT? Kind of the antithesis of the 'heavy platter/plinth' approach described in previous posts...

That was his company with a guy named John Wright. But that's about all I know about it, except that the stuff is highly sought after, rare, and well thought of, especially their digital gear. Ed Meitner now is EMM Labs who do both professional gear and consumer stuff. His ADCs and DACs are in a lot of studios, widely regarded as some of the best, and he helped bring SACD to fruition. What a cool looking turntable- which such a different approach. Given the name behind it and how pleased I am with the digital player, I'd love to hear it.

 

[stereofanboy]

The words you are using are made-up, but the meaning of most of these words or expressions ("made up", "including", "every one", "typing") is clear to every one of us. Thus yours is a post that clearly communicates its message. The meaning of every word is conventional.

On the other hand, you can clearly see that in the previous posts, people have used implied at least 3 different and distinct understandings of what "PRaT" is. The meaning is not conventional because few follow the convention.

So, as i said before, that's my problem with the term: People use it liberally for anything that means to "sound good" to them. We might as well use "great toe-tapping potential" instead!

One of the first things we learned in Communications 101 (yes, that was actually the name of the course) was that if a communication can fail it will. And nearly all communications can fail.
That certainly seems to be the case here.
I don't deny the existence of PRat. I think I know what it's supposed to be. But I find the very words that the term is based on to be inappropriately used - and therefore the ensuing descriptions of the phenomenon to be utterly lacking.
And don't get me started on this "toe tapping" business. It implies that to experience PRaT, we must avoid putting anything on our turntables that could be considered Adagio.
It'll ruin the PRaT! Ain't nuthin' toe-tappin' about Adagio.
Banjos. Banjos got PRaT.

"PRaT" and "Transparency" are just proxy-wars for some made up idea that there's this cult of snobs out there trying to poo-poo those who don't buy expensive things. It has nothing to do with those terms and everything to do with the arrogant idea that only one approach is allowed and only one approach is best, and that people shouldn't be free to pursue the hobby however they damn well please.

Well, that's kind of the point of this to me. I don't fully understand what is meant by PRaT because its not been a priority to me. But that doesn't make it bogus, just because I don't fully understand it or chase it. Others seem to know perfectly well what they mean, and I've heard lengthy conversations about it. Therefor, I assume they know what they're talking about instead of assuming that I know more than they do. Those that say PRaT seem to know very well what they're referring to. Just because others don't, doesn't mean its useless. It seems to come down to the idea that some people are very uncomfortable with the fact that they might not know everything.

Fair enough. I think what I and others are trying to say is the term (and others like it) work pretty well for us. And if i may go a step further, I'd say I (for one) would like to see folks like you joining us in the use of the term. There's always going to be some who can't follow a conversation. IMO, PRaT and transparency are words that work quite well in practice most of the time with most people.

Maybe "most" people, although I doubt it. Obviously not all of us, as some who have posted in this very thread either don't understand the term, or don't understand it to be the same thing as others who "understand" it. I'd bet there are plenty of readers who haven't posted that are in the same boat.

How about defining the term? Once that is done, then we can progress to sarcasm, name calling, and pontification. Indulging in those things before we are all on the same page as to what PRaT means is just stupid.