Do we need PRat?

I've commented on previous PRaT-related posts that if PRaT aint present in the band's preformance, no engineer can manufacture it into the recording. Conversely, I think PRaT can potentially be diminished to a degree by poor recording, mixing or mastering. In my experience, gear can enhance the virtues of PRaT through speed and accuracy. Still I find that on a tight performance, decently recorded, the PRaT will shine through, whether played on a boombox, car stereo, or in a dedicated listening room. There are plenty of recordings out there using antiquated gear and a single mic that capture PRaT.

Dear, interesting topic indeed.

Reading your post seems that exist a 'Kuma's website', when possible I would know the link (googling wasn't helpful).

Thank you in advance, have a nice Sunday, Maurizio

It's somewhat cryptic, but Kuma's profile provides the necessary clue 

Thanks joerand!

Do you immerse yourself in the music? Is your foot tapping? Do you want to get the air guitar or drums out? That's PRaT.

Steve,

I completely agree with you. But for me the PRaT thing can happen even while I'm watching a stupid ad on a cheap, tiny flatscreen TV, as long as the tune is good 

Absolutely, but not couched in those terms. A concert PA system can make a huge difference. Luckily the quality of PA systems and the care and consideration of the acoustics has taken a huge step forward in my experience. Get it wrong and the concert can sound uninspired and you are reliant on the visual cues... Get it right and you shut your eyes and get carried along.

Recent largish concerts where I thought PRaT was well managed was Lambert and Queen at the London O2 and The Australian Pink Floyd at the Regent, Ipswich.

Depending on where you sit, I find the PRaT in the Royal Albert Hall abysmal. I suspect down to poor acoustics and mediocre PA.

I agree with acoustic concerts, which neccessarily are hugely smaller, PRaT is naturally evident.. No amplification or electronics get in the way.

Simon

Some do not

Absolutely priceless...

Quite!

Of course the caption should be '...butchers J J Cale'....

I have been to classical concerts where what should have been enthralling turned into something dull, even without any amplification involved, it's as though the musicians were having a bad day and just couldn't get it together at all.

So, although the comment didn't involve the term PR&T, but the PR&T was certainly missing from the performance.

I may be mistaken, but I always thought PRaT meant pace, rhythm and timing. Is that so? If that is correct, then I don't really see the first two as being relevant to replay equipment at all. The pace of the piece is determined by the musician, as is the adherence and maintenance of the rhythm of the piece. In terms of timing, I guess it depends on what is actually meant. If it refers to the attack and decay of the note then I accept that the replay equipment does have a significant influence (BTW sometimes I feel this is confused with 'warmth' of replay). Timing could, however, refer to the precise time the musician plays the note relative to the score; some musicians will play marginally ahead of the beat which creates a different tension compared with those which lag the beat. That can greatly affect different interpretations. So all said and done, I think in hi-fi terms PRaT is meaningless waffle.

There you go, that should stimulate some debate. 

I think you have summarised PRaT quite well in terms of how it is captured and retained in replay equipment.. But I am confused as you then appear to contradict yourself by saying it's meaningless waffle after you have articulated it quite well... Or perhaps I have missed the point.

i think your point about warmth  is quite good, I agree excessive warmth can appear to stifle PRaT on replay.

Simon

What I'm saying is that it's all determined at source by the musician. The only element which could be affected by replay equipment (and the recording equipment) is the speed of attack and decay, which I assume to be captured in the term 'timing', but as I said above this can also be interpreted to mean the timing of the musician relative to the beat. Hence, I don't really think hifi has any effect on pace and rhythm and only partially on timing, and that's according to the interpretation of the term.

I suggest listening to a piece of piano music played on cheap/old turntable or cassette deck then.  A Garrard SP25 should do it.

The pace, rhythm and timing will be all over the place as the replay speed varies due to the deficiencies of the mechanical drive systems.  Please bear in mind that the acronym was invented before digital replay became commonplace, now the defects are heard in more subtle ways, but they are still there.

Dear God!!  My ears have just been raped.

At one level, I agree. The variation in the musician's interpretation (and skill) seems to me to be a lot more important than microsecond variation caused by electronics. However, I do think it plausible that the speed of the electronics amplifier and the sharpness (or lack of) of the "attack" of transients gives an impression of (good or bad) timing. It is psycho-acoustic, perhaps. I can also believe that some electronics are not linear in terms of attack rates across the frequency band, further smearing the start of sounds. Throw in the possibility of speaker cones (woofer Vs. tweeter) not repsonding evenly timing-wise at the start of the notes and there might be something in it. 

I know what you mean, Huge; I would say that better replay equipment can sound more 'musical', more like real music, or like being present at the recording session. But 'pace' is not affected by replay equipment. Pace is given by the metronome setting - that's why you get different time duration of classical recording of the same piece, for instance. Rhythm is also determined by the musician. As I argue above, it is only timing that can really be affected by the replay equipment, and then only to the extent of attack and decay times. 

On some of those old decks the overall speed (i.e. pace and pitch) could be out by as much as 5%, and could also vary from time to time whilst playing by as much as an additional +/-3%, this latter affecting both the pace and the rhythm.  This latter effect being termed wow and flutter.

In this way both Pace and Rhythm are being affected by deficiencies in the replay chain.

Going to the movies when I was younger and watching the big screen was an eye opener, not only by the scale but more by the analogue fly of shots passing through the light projector. + 25 frames a second fools the eye in seeing a natural sequence in motion. Which bettered the television at home . Now there is no contesting the fact of modern television and broadcasting for bringing more realism, but being able to hear metaphorically  more frames per second into what was recorded is for me what sums it all up.

I once attended a concert of two cello's playing in a small wooden amphitheater . The sound of wood and string playing in a wooden room will stay with me as a reference of sorts - as well as being hit in the ear by a drummer wacking the snare drum in a local live venue..

Do we need PRaT (Pace, Rhythm, and Timing)?  Well, that depends.

In the true sense of word as it relates to music, then, of course, as are these not terms that are already intrinsic to any music itself anyway?

In the other sense, that is, the sense where a philosophy (or marketing scheme) is much more contrived and self-serving, then, I am not so sure if we 'need' it.  

Yes, I get what PRaT is supposed to imply in this 'other sense' but I am more leery of it this way as I find so much misuse and abuse of it this way that leads to much misunderstanding of music.  When I hear someone say something lacks PRaT, I wonder how unidimensional this idea is?  All styles of music have pace, rhythm and timing but it may not be your type of music including slow music that you wouldn't dance to.

Who first coined this acronym (in connection with replay)?  Was it Linn?  Was it NAIM?

My personal conclusion is that assuming this is coming from a manufacturer of hi-fi equipment it certainly boils down merely as 'marketing speak.'  Nothing wrong with this but it simply reflects a brand and reflects their ideas or motivation in replay (i.e.. quick, upbeat, energetic etc.).  I imagine that you realize this through extreme gain and more distinct silence from one sound to the next. OK, I am not a sound engineer and Huge and others above are describing this more accurately.

Absolutely right, Florestan. When my main musical interest moved from Pop/Rock to Classical, I replaced my AE1 speakers for more revealing PMC's and changed the speaker cable to Chord (from Naim) - this may have rerduced the so-called PRaT, but certainly now provides a more realistic sound, to my ears.

You may have heard of Thelonious Monk, a jazz pianist. Some years ago I was persuaded to buy a (rather expensive) hifi component on an A/B comparison using a 3 minute segment of a Monk recording.  Monk had a heavily syncopated style and on the first system the music made no sense; on the second the piece snapped 'in to focus', as it were. The portrayal depended on precise reproduction on the timing of the notes. That's PRAT. It's not a marketing gimmick,

I personally think that this is not PRaT, but just T.  Pace and rhythm I think are set by the artist, and most () high quality systems can portray this. The timing however can very well be system dependent.

Just my tuppence - and I know nowt.