The Lure of PRaT

Posted by: Mike Hanson on 19 September 2000

I've been running with a Cambridge D500 CD player in my office for about six months, going through a 32.5/SNAPS2(dual mode)/110/RoydMerlin. I recently purchased a used Cambridge CD6, just to see how it would compare to the D500. I figured I would pick the best of the two, and a friend of mine promised to buy the "loser" from me (because it would almost certainly be better than his existing player).

Just a little history for you: Cambridge has been making budget, one-box CD players for a few years now. Their old CD4SE was described as a "giant killer" by many, and I figured it would be good for my office system. I couldn't stand my old office system after upgrading to Naim gear at home, and I didn't want to spend too much money.

I was actually quite happy with the sound of the CD4SE. It was a tad rough sounding, but it did the PRaT thing well. Unfortunately, I had problems with tracking due to the electrical power in my office. The local Cambridge distributor here in Canada (Plurison), was quite helpful. They eventually did a free swap for the new D500. Although I wasn't able to test them side-by-side, the D500 seemed very similar to the old CD4SE.

Meanwhile, the CD6 was the supposedly one step up from the CD4SE. I had heard some suggest that the CD4SE was actually more "fun" than the CD6, though. You can't buy a new CD4SE or CD6 today (unless it's old stock).

As it's always hard for me to be patient, I had to try it straight out of the box. Initially the CD6 seemed much more refined than the D500. Everything sounded smoother and more natural (almost "analog" at times). Details that were entirely masked by the D500 were blatantly obvious with the CD6. Bass was much more controlled. It also handled intricate phrasing much better. In contrast, the D500 seemed occluded and harsh. All in all, the CD6 seemed to be the better player.

After a while, though, the scales started to tip. I realized that there were two things that the D500 did do better: The bass had a little more slam, even though it was a touch bloated. It also seemed to have more boogie! In other words, it was more exciting to listen to the D500, even though it was mixed-up, harsh, and edgy, with a semi-bloated bass. So what was I to do? I really liked the ability to see "into" the music with the CD6, yet I found myself getting a touch bored.

As I mentioned earlier, I had tried the CD6 when it was cold. After warming up for a day or two, it started to swing a little more, although it still didn’t' have the same boogie factor of the D500. In fact, some recordings seemed almost sedate when played on the CD6. Each time I tried the D500 I said to myself, "Listen to that bite! It sure is fun, but it's also noisy." (This perception seemed familiar to me, as it was pretty much how I felt about my CD3.5; the CDX cured my problem there. This also may be why a few people think that a 3.5 is more "exciting" than a CDX.)

Now here's the twist. The CD6 comes with both RCA and balance XLR outputs. I had an old Naim interconnect sitting around (after upgrading my cable at home to the new lavender variety). I decided to replace the connector on the source end of the cable with an XLR, then rewire the inside of the CD6 so that one of the two XLRs could feed the Naim cable. I was already using a Chord Cobra 2, though, so I wasn't sure how much of a benefit this would give me.

After hooking it up, I was able to do quick A/B comparisons between the RCA and XLR outputs. I was happy to discover that it added a bit more bite, as well as increasing the swing. The presentation also seemed more focused and precise, which may be why I was perceiving more bite. When I removed the cable connected to the RCAs, leaving the XLR as the only output, the sounded improved a bit more (due to reduced load on the CD output, I suspect). Naim cable and wiring wins again!!!

So I've decided to stick with the CD6 for now. Although I still think it doesn't boogie quite as well as the D500, it does almost everything else better, including helping me to follow the music. I can give up a touch of drive and energy for that gain. Perhaps I'll tire of it in a while, but I can always go back to a D500 if I really want to, or I could upgrade to something better.

This also makes me wonder about Pace, Rhythm and Timing (a.k.a. PRaT) in general. Although I'd realized that all of these are supposed to be individual yet related traits, I've always just lumped them together. If a piece of gear had good PRaT, then it would be lots of fun, with a sense of swing, slam, boogie, movement, phrasing, emotion, etc. Every player that I had auditioned before the Cambridge CD6 either did PRaT or it didn't. In the case of the CD6, it seemed to handle phrasing and swing, but didn't have the sense of drive that the D500 provided.

So what was the CD6 missing: Pace, Rhythm or Timing? Have the rest of you usually found that all three come together? Is it that some manufacturers "get it", while others don't? What is each of these elements of P, R, and T supposed to bring to the table? I seem to remember seeing a good explanation somewhere, but I can't recall whether it was on the old Naim forum or somewhere else.

Curiously when the CD6 was behaving "poorly", the soundstage always seemed much better than the D500's. When I changed to the Naim cable, the soundstage didn't seem quite so obvious. It makes me wonder how much credence to give to those who feel that "magic" soundstage and PRaT are mutually exclusive. Hmmm.

Catch you later!

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Smilies do not a forum make.

Posted on: 19 September 2000 by P
Don't get me wrong but this is a Naim forum isn't it?

Do you guys get paid for all this raving about other manufacturers products or what?

what next -Manana?

Regards P. - anything other than Naim disliker- including speakers

Posted on: 19 September 2000 by Jez Quigley
Come on Pierre! Please don't complain about us non naimers, this forum is THE BEST for hi-fi ramblings/ good advice. We like it here! Now if you had complained about the tedious and loooonnnngg nature of the posting from Mike H I would be agreeing with you..........
Posted on: 19 September 2000 by Mike Hanson
To Pierre:

I realize that the players are non-Naim, but the interconnects, pre-amp, SNAPS2, 110, and NACA5 are certainly from Naim. Also, I was ultimately trying to investigate the issues of PRaT, a topic which is near and dear to the heart of most Naim fans. Then there was the re-wiring of the deck, which relates to Naim's philosphy of star-earthing. Therefore, the post certainly seems appropriate.

To aaa101 (whoever you are):

Sorry for the rambling post, but there were a bunch of points that seemed interconnected. Even so, my father often said to me, "I asked you for the time, not how to build the watch."

Catch you later!

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Smilies do not a forum make.

Posted on: 19 September 2000 by Martin Payne
Pierre,

I would hazard a guess that most of us have at least some part of our system which is not Naim - MD, tape, tuner, racks, vinyl you name it.

Naim have said they are happy for us to discuss similar equipment and system matching issues.

Martin

Posted on: 19 September 2000 by Arye_Gur
Listen to the system that PLEASES you the most.
Why investigating PRaT ? When you are going to a live concert - are you concern about these questions too ?

Listen to the system that brings you as close as possible to a live concert - you can feel it,
don't have to investigate it.

Arie

Posted on: 19 September 2000 by Mike Hanson
I could just sit back and hope that I'm always blissfully happy. However, I tend to view it like the weather. I could always hope that it's a sunny day, and be frequently broadsided by those grey days. Or I could try to understand the weather patterns, so that I can predict which day will be sunny for my picnic.

For me, ignorance is not bliss. I prefer to enjoy and understand simultaneously.

Regarding live events, if it's acoustic then I'm usually looking for the best seats to optimize the sound of the performance. If it's amplified, then I'm usually wishing I were at home where it sounds good. I rarely enjoy live rock concerts for this very reason. I would much rather be at home where I can control both the sound and the audience. A good live performance with bad sound is very disappointing. Therefore, I tend to look for venues which have consistently good sound in a small intimate environment. Catch you later!

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Smilies do not a forum make.

Posted on: 19 September 2000 by Mike Hanson
I just finished listening to Sibelius' Violin Concerto (Midori+Mehta) on my home system (CDX/82/2*Hi/250/RoydAlbion). It's such a breath of fresh air to be able to come home to this; it tends to be my benchmark. Although I've heard better systems, I'm still very pleased with it in its current incarnation. The whole presentation seems "right" somehow (or at least "good enough").

Compared to this, my office system is often a work-in-progress. It's where I do the most tweaking, seeing how it might be improved with this change or that. I'm always judging it against my home setup, and it's actually not that bad, considering the modest components.

I recently ordered a Mana Sound Frame. I intended to place it under my CDX at home, but I'm concerned that it will not fit into the stereo cabinet. If that's the case, then it will be going into the system at work until I get my house with its new listening room. With all the talk lately of Mana boosting the performance of equipment to ridiculous levels, I fully expect this magical piece of metal-and-glass to hoist the level of my work system far beyond my home setup. We'll find out for sure once it arrives.

For now, I'm in the lucky position of experiencing that piece of heaven every time I go home from work.

As far as the Cambridge players go, I'm going to take them both home to compare them to the CDX. I'll know a whole lot more after that. Catch you later!

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Smilies do not a forum make.

Posted on: 19 September 2000 by Jez Quigley
I was just teasing. No offence intended. I enjoy the postings. As someone who has had to live with a mediocre system (JVC, Pioneer 400) for years due to financial reasons, but who once had a top Linn/Naim system many years ago, I wish you luck with your office system. I'm presently on my way back with a fairly modest system of second hand Karik, Chord chrysalis, Meridian, NAC, & Epos.
Posted on: 19 September 2000 by Arye_Gur
Mike Hanson,
I agree with you about the need to understand
how things happen - and I did investigate many
aspects of stereo systems and sound and I think I
know something about the subject, but the outcome
of my investigations was that it is not right to judge music (and you judge the music that comes
out of your system) by trying to see several aspects of what you are hearing. The right way, to my opinion is to see how the music impresses you.
While listening to a stereo system, you have to be like a music annotator not in a technical way.

About live concerts, I think usualy (I don't go often to live concerts) the sound is better then at home - and broadcasting live concerts are many times thrilling too.
Arie

Posted on: 20 September 2000 by Tony L
quote:
Listen to the system that PLEASES you the most. Why investigating PRaT ? When you are going to a live concert - are you concern about these questions too ?

Listen to the system that brings you as close as possible to a live concert - you can feel it, don't have to investigate it.

From my perspective, the pace, rhythm, and timing is a VERY large part of the whole musical experience (for me is a third). As far as I can tell music is comprised of three basic components for each individual note played (a "note" could also define any noise / percussion element etc in the piece):

  • Pitch - what note or group of notes are being played, an how does their pitch relate to others currently played, or those that have just been played.

  • Timing - exactly when was the new note(s) played, this is heard in relation both to absolute time, i.e. what position in the bar was it played, and how that position relates to the position in time of other notes. This category would includes note duration too. Timing is an amazingly subtle thing, the difference between a good drummer and a great drummer, is how they move beats slightly "off" the absolute bar positions - i.e. the groove.

  • Timbre - what does the note actually sound like, what is its shape or envelope - this includes the dynamic properties, i.e. how hard was it hit / plucked / strummed etc. We should be able to clearly identify the instrument / voice.

For me, PRaT is timing, the individual elements cannot be separated - if a system is capable of doing timing as defined above, then all three PRaT components are present, if not the timing is broken. Systems that artificially accelerate timing and make everything sound rushed (badly setup flat earth ones for example) are just as incapable of good timing as the typical round earth ones that grind the pace to a virtual halt (usually by slurring the timing relationship between the bass and treble).

Timing seems to be the easiest thing to break in a system, all it can take is a bad interconnect (silver wire is very guilty here), a dodgy mains block, or a bad equipment rack - and that is assuming all the actual components in the system are capable of accurate timing to start off with.

Round earthers frequently think of emotion as a separate element to the three above, though I feel that if the above are all kept sufficiently intact, the emotion or mood of the music will shine through.

Tony.

Posted on: 20 September 2000 by Arye_Gur
Tony Lonorgan ,
While listening to music - are you realy thinking
of all these elements of PRaT ?
Posted on: 20 September 2000 by Tony L
quote:
While listening to music - are you realy thinking of all these elements of PRaT ?

I look at hi-fi etc from the reverse perspective to most people, all systems break the music to some degree, the art is to choose one that does the least damage.

I acutely notice if any of the elements I described above are damaged by a hi-fi or PA system, they ALL need to be relatively, and equally intact. When they are all present, i.e. the system / PA etc works, then I can simply enjoy the music without having the inadequacy of the technology causing distraction.

I have been at gigs where the PA system has totally killed the musical experience for me. I have heard many, many (usually very expensive) hi-fi systems that totally kill the music too, ironically many simple radios or TV sets can often preserve the musical information better.

Many of the stereotypical US 'round earth' systems (Audio Research / Krell etc) concentrate entirely on the timbre point, and simply destroy the pitch and timing, thus I simply can not enjoy the incomplete aspect of the music they produce. I am absolutely appalled by tiny amount of musical information most expensive hi-fi can actually process.

Tony.

Posted on: 20 September 2000 by Greg Beatty
...pace and rhythm are more visceral than timing. I've heard systems that timed well - you can hear the threads in the music and they interrelate and make music together over time.

But the whole tune may not drive forward in time or knock you to the back of your seat when it should. It can be "polite" (lacks slam) - even though the timing is there.

Just my $.02.


- GregB
Freedom is not in finding the Holy Grail but in stopping the search for it

Posted on: 20 September 2000 by Tony L
quote:
...pace and rhythm are more visceral than timing. I've heard systems that timed well - you can hear the threads in the music and they interrelate and make music together over time.

But the whole tune may not drive forward in time or knock you to the back of your seat when it should. It can be "polite" (lacks slam) - even though the timing is there.

As I see it, the "drive forward in time" bit is the 'groove' - this is what sorts out great rhythm sections from the merely adequate ones. If you think of the most basic 4/4 beat of 'B…S…B…S…' (where B = bass drum and S = snare drum), and play everything right on the beat, it sounds dead and static. If however you very slightly move the snare drums forward in time, just a few milliseconds, you get a groove that does what you describe in relation to drive. Once a real drummer does it with a fuller rhythm (hi-hats etc) it will really drive forward. (Wal R would be able to say this far more articulately than I am able, as he is a drummer).

This is timing information, if the system can't accurately reproduce the fact that the snare drum is slightly off the beat, the groove is broken - therefore no drive or pace. There are also systems that manage to go the other way and 'add' groove, by getting the timing relationship wrong in a 'groovy' way - i.e. they make everything sound artificially fast, even slow things!

I have a half baked theory that much bad hi-fi time-smears over frequency, i.e. the treble arrives out of time with the bass. As I mentioned above, cables can stuff up timing spectacularly - I have a length of Kimber PBJ, that if I use to link my CD player to my preamp instead of my usual Naim Aro, the whole system timing goes totally out of the window. No groove, pace, anything, it sounds like a really kak handed band have taken over from a great one. Timing information is that fragile.

Tony.

Posted on: 20 September 2000 by Greg Beatty
...that's neat! I've noticed that good musicians do not play like metronomes (directly on the beats) even tho they are very accurate in their timing.

I guess I was referring to the dynamics of the system - even if the timing is spot on, the hits and beats can be compressed to the point that the experience is of observing the event in miniature rather than feeling it. For me, a compressed presentation renders the pace and rhythm less compelling, even if the timing is OK.

Maybe dynamics are not part of PRaT, but for me its part of what Naim does well that alot of other stuff doesn't.

- GregB
Freedom is not in finding the Holy Grail but in stopping the search for it

Posted on: 20 September 2000 by Tony L
quote:
I guess I was referring to the dynamics of the system - even if the timing is spot on, the hits and beats can be compressed to the point that the experience is of observing the event in miniature rather than feeling it. For me, a compressed presentation renders the pace and rhythm less compelling, even if the timing is OK.

I know what you mean, though I definitely see dynamics as part of the timbre, not the timing.

Whilst my ideal system would have equal ability at reproducing pitch, timing, and timbre, were I forced to compromise, the ability to tell accurately what note was played, and exactly when it was played is more important to me than its true sound. I guess this is why I can quite happily listen to TV sets, radios etc, as they get the pitch and timing quite well, and just stuff up the timbre. Flat earther through and through.

Tony.

Posted on: 20 September 2000 by Mike Hanson
quote:
I definitely see dynamics as part of the timbre, not the timing.

This may explain what's going on with the CD6. It's got the groove, but the initial bite (i.e. attack) of each note isn't as emphasised as it is with the D500. You could chalk this up to a problem with dynamics. However, I would have thought this related to the ability to handle fast transients, which should also be related to timing, shouldn't it? Hmmm.

Regarding TV sets and radios, I've got both a clock radio and a Panasonic midi system in my bedroom. I don't generally use the midi system myself, as it sounds pretty awful. I was listening to a nice bit of classical one day on my clock radio, and I decided to try it on the midi system. Even though it had better frequency response, louder output, etc., it entirely killed the performance. It was quickly turned off and I returned to the clock radio. Does that make me a flat earther? Catch you later!

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Smilies do not a forum make.

Posted on: 20 September 2000 by Rico
quote:
and I returned to the clock radio. Does that make me a flat earther?

Mike, that must be worth a few FEP's.

Rico - musichead

ricomuzik@hotmail.com

Posted on: 13 June 2002 by JohanR
Mike Hanson wrote:

"If it's amplified, then I'm usually wishing I were at home where it sounds good. I rarely enjoy live rock concerts for this very reason. I would much rather be at home where I can control both the sound and the audience."

Totally agree with you here, Mike. PA:s kill music. I have had the fortune, through the years, to listen when my friends different garage bands have been rehearsing. Without PA:s. Just screaming guitar amps and accoustic drums. This is my reference to how recorded music should sound. But no records sounds like that!
But any decent HiFi system manages to sound better than rock concerts.
The only thing you miss out at home are the chicks an old man like me can droole over att rock concerts!

Johan R
Posted on: 13 June 2002 by Mike Hanson
quote:
I have had the fortune, through the years, to listen when my friends different garage bands have been rehearsing. Without PA:s. Just screaming guitar amps and accoustic drums.


I've played in a bunch of these bands, as well as listening to many in this context. IMO, this is probably the worst sound of all, as no one has any concept of their relative volumes, etc. Everybody fights to hear themselves, and the result is utter cacophony.

You really need to take the individual elements, and then blend them in a reasonable manner. That's why there's a "mix-down" phase in recording studios. You can't get objectivity from a bunch of guys blasting away in a sealed box.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-