PRaT trumps all

[Clive]

Scale is important for myself. I can't abide small scale sound given that my OB setup produces very lifelike images....which are naff if small.

[Lerxst]

I also find that my mood seems to affect which system sound best to my ears on any given listening session.

I think this is spot on. If I am really tired for example I have thought a few times - what is wrong with this bloody recording? - to the point of checking connections etc.

Not sure if I understand PRaT. Is it not just speaker reaction-times and a decent amp? I couldn't care less about it anyway. Mine is good enough.

[Pharos]

From Neil;
"Scale: does a system reproduce the size and ‘physical presence’ of a musical instrument. For example, very very few systems can get close the accurately reproducing the scale of a pipe organ at lower frequencies. "

I take it that this is a generally agreed definition.

I cannot see how the size of an instrument can be captured at all given the logistics of the mic. capturing a small angle of sound, but maybe the reverb in the recording room may influence the perceived size of an instrument.

Physical presence has much more meaning for me, dynamics and impact.

When in '85 I completed the first ESS Monitor rebuild, I put on R3 which was playing an avant guard sax piece, and I was astounded by the presence of it, I'll never forget the experience of looking up the wall to the ceiling to see where the sound seemed to be emanating from.

[RothwellAudio]

I cannot see how the size of an instrument can be captured at all given the logistics of the mic. capturing a small angle of sound, but maybe the reverb in the recording room may influence the perceived size of an instrument.

The mic doesn't have to capture a small angle of sound. There are omni mics and various stereo recording techniques using two or more mics which could be omnis or figure-of-eight or boundary mics... there are ways to try to capture a sense of space and scale.
Still, most modern music is more likely to be a studio concoction with ambience created artificially. I think to some people "scale" means loud and with plenty of bass and they want large speakers to do that. Personally, I like to hear recordings which have a sense of a wide and deep soundstage which you feel you could walk into, and I think that small speakers are quite capable of achieving that. I suppose it comes down to personal preferences and priorities.

[Pharos]

Yes the angle can and is wide, but it integrates all that into one signal, which I suppose is strictly an artefact 'bodge', and this must compromise reality.

[YNWaN]

I spent many years dealing with the primary protagonists of the PRaT, those being Linn and Naim. In more recent years Linn seem to have reinvented the concept as the 'Tune Dem'. If we look at those systems that were recognised as supporting PRaT such as classic 80's systems like an LP12 with Naim amplification and Linn speakers (Kan's, SARA's or Isobarik's) I think it is clear where the strengths and weaknesses of the whole concept lie. So, the idea of PRaT (in the context of this discussion) is the emphasis on rhythm and pace over such elements as tonal accuracy, detail and stereo effect. However, whilst centring on core musical aspects like Pace, Rhythm and Timing seems like an admirable idea, it's reasonably easy to artificially enhance these aspects if a relatively limited pallet of music is used; if the system is band limited (both the very top and bottom are rolled off gently) and the mid bass is enhanced (where bass guitar is placed) for example. The LP12 of the 80's was quite a warm sounding beast and the Linn speakers had very uneven frequency responses.

[Pharos]

That is a helpful statement of the situation, but.

Pace; a rate of percussive musical events maybe? Surely these time as well on any system with perhaps the exception of slow bass on some speakers.

Rhythm; more vague to me, but timing related, and similar to pace surely.

Timing; well lets measure the speaker's O/P in terms of time of each beat or timpanic event, do they really differ in time of occurrence?

It is the conceptual difficulty I have in grasping what is meant by these which causes me to think it all related to the 80s 'voo-doo' of Linn and Naim.

[Jazid]

That is a helpful statement of the situation, but.

Pace; a rate of percussive musical events maybe? Surely these time as well on any system with perhaps the exception of slow bass on some speakers.

Rhythm; more vague to me, but timing related, and similar to pace surely.

Timing; well lets measure the speaker's O/P in terms of time of each beat or timpanic event, do they really differ in time of occurrence?

It is the conceptual difficulty I have in grasping what is meant by these which causes me to think it all related to the 80s 'voo-doo' of Linn and Naim.

It might help your conceptual struggle to disregard all but the acronym. These characteristics of reproduction (not music) are each symptoms of the same thing: a shelved off bass enhancing the 'thwack' rather than the thump of a drum along with loss of bass fundamental frequencies, coupled to a modest mid bass hump and a bright response. Many love this sound and good luck to them. Personally I'd rather eat toenails than listen to music squeezed out of such a system.

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk

[Pharos]

OK then, and thank you Mark and James, you concurred views lead me to believe that it is actually a distortion of the frequency spectrum, and so away from fidelity.

There is no doubt from my own experience that doing this can give very different experiences which are , or can be perceived as being musical in nature. My early ESS attempts were 'smiley' in FR, and this gave very odd, though enjoyable subjective results. I then steered towards accuracy.