PRAT v soundstage

[Covenant]

Some speakers image brilliantly and others punch you in the face. Can you combine the two virtues in one cabinet?

[chris@panteg]

Acoustic Energy AE1's , the 1st model way back in 88 almost did this with the right amp and in the right room ? But they could also sound hard and shouty .

[Covenant]

My Panties image superbly but don't do prat. I prefer this-I think a punchy sound can be a bit tiring after a while although initially impressive.

[chris@panteg]

I heard vandersteens at a show back in 89 , fell in love with em !

[Covenant]

I heard vandersteens at a show back in 89 , fell in love with em !

I would really like to hear the 1ci's which have a better tweeter I believe...

[chris@panteg]

I can't remember which version I listened to ? But they produced a wonderful soundstage with such a lovely tonality and grace ! I liked them , probably not for Naim fans though ?

[Yomanze]

My Amphion Argon 3s definitely do both.

I think a lot of this is to do with the even off-axis response, time-alignment of the tweeter and mid due to the tweeter waveguide & the very low crossover point allowing the tweeter to handle much more of the midrange than conventional speakers & free up the mid/bass. They also have a "cardioid" dispersion pattern minimising side and rear dispersion.

So yes, you can combine the two virtues. :)

[daytona600]

try a pair of big Stats

[DSJR]

Some speakers image brilliantly and others punch you in the face. Can you combine the two virtues in one cabinet?

Yes, but my immediate thoughts would perhaps not garner a huge amount of enthusiasm here :lol:

[Rare Bird]

I have two pet hates within hi-fi circles (I don't really i have more) but that's the word 'PRAT' & the word 'Flat Earth' :steam:

[Sonority]

I have found imaging to be far more of a function of the room, placement and 'first reflections' than the speakers per see.
In answer to the OP question - yes, definitely. Just depends how far one wants to take one aspect or the other, or balance with wonderful music.
I also prefer accurate images. I dislike grand pianos being thirty feet wide or expansive soundscapes stuck right betweeen the speakers.
Recordings in 'q' sound such as those by Roger waters can be very amusing - I like having crickets behind the sitting position & a radio by my left shoulder :)
It adds nowt to the music but is an interesting aside.

I have also found pretty much every part of the audio chain does impact on both though.

[Yomanze]

try a pair of big Stats

Yes good choice. Some Magnepans too, I recently heard the MG1.7 and these definitely did the 'PRaT' and Soundstage thing.


I have two pet hates within hi-fi circles (I don't really i have more) but that's the word 'PRAT' & the word 'Flat Earth' :steam:

I don't like the acronym PRaT either, but they are attributes that can be looked out for in a system surely? Flat Earth is more marketing bullshit and ideology rather than HiFi attributes.

[Rowlf]

Agree with Sonority. As long as the amp and speakers are half decent, soundstage has more to do with room treatment and speakers placement and I may add inherent attributes of the room, such as size and ceiling height.

Those who have been to Brussels Central may have come across the classical CD shop next to the musical instruments museum. The set up was decent but nothing flashy consisting of Cambridge Audio CD player, Rotel integrated amp and Spendor mid-sized bookshelves speakers placed against the wall in a tiny room firing onto a room separator just 4 feet away! Absolutely horrible placement and room. But notice the crisp and holographic imaging from the speakers; it sounded much better than what a modest system should sound in such conditions. I then came to realised that this small room,in fact, has an 18ft dome shaped ceiling that acted as acoustic treatment and prevented the sound from being cluttered.

[wee tam]

well , some folks like , imagerry ,
some folks like sound stage , some folks like dynmamics , all of the above was my protocal , tried to get the best detail , soundstage , dynamics etc , all from more than a one trick pony , imho , i think i have achieved the beast i could

[Floyddroid]

OK, I'll fess up! What does PRaT mean. I once read it many years ago but have since forgotten? hey, sue me!:eyebrows:

[jon1]

OK, I'll fess up! What does PRaT mean. I once read it many years ago but have since forgotten? hey, sue me!:eyebrows:




Bugger old age creeping in:D



jon

[Marco]

Some speakers image brilliantly and others punch you in the face. Can you combine the two virtues in one cabinet?

Yes, just buy a big pair of (DC) Tannoys! I enjoy both of those traits, delivered to the highest sonic standards, daily :)

Marco.

[Marco]

OK, I'll fess up! What does PRaT mean.

Pace, Rhythm and Timing - also commonly known as 'boogie factor'.

:cool:

Marco.

[Spur07]

i think you need to define what you mean by soundstage and imaging, people use the terms liberally even though they long stopped making speakers that can do either.

[Covenant]

i think you need to define what you mean by soundstage and imaging, people use the terms liberally even though they long stopped making speakers that can do either.

If true, that's very sad and means that I will stick with my 20 year old speakers.
Definition wise, simply the ability to close your eyes and be able to position instruments and voices. One of the most important attributes of a speaker imho.

[Spur07]

If true, that's very sad and means that I will stick with my 20 year old speakers.
Definition wise, simply the ability to close your eyes and be able to position instruments and voices. One of the most important attributes of a speaker imho.

sounds good to me jerry

[tim_bissell]

If true, that's very sad and means that I will stick with my 20 year old speakers.
Definition wise, simply the ability to close your eyes and be able to position instruments and voices. One of the most important attributes of a speaker imho.

Genuine question - do you need to shut your eyes to do it, or does it just help in marginal cases?

I can 'see'/hear where different instruments are with my eyes open on my system, although with most studio recordings I realise it is just where the producer chooses to put them.

-- Tim

[Covenant]

Genuine question - do you need to shut your eyes to do it, or does it just help in marginal cases?

I can 'see'/hear where different instruments are with my eyes open on my system, although with most studio recordings I realise it is just where the producer chooses to put them.

-- Tim

No, it's just how I prefer to listen Tim. Either eyes shut or lights off. As you say, with studio recordings its another matter. Sometimes the engineer is after a distinct 'left or right' effect and there is no soundstage.

[f1eng]

I like a good sound stage on my home stereo too, but to what extent it is actually on the record and to what extent created by room reflections/speaker position tuning is moot IMO.
Omni and dipole speakers -definitely- unavoidably add listening room acoustics effect to what we are hearing, horns perhaps less.
Also, it is worth noting that at a rock concert there is -no- soundstaging, just a wall of sound from stacks of speakers which will be totally phase incoherent, and at a classical concert only a tiny majority of the audience will be in seats from which a realistic soundstage will be audible, so soundstage is not really an important part of reproducing live sound at home, however much we value it in a home hifi.

[The Grand Wazoo]

...so soundstage is not really an important part of reproducing live sound at home, however much we value it in a home hifi.

Sorry, maybe it's not important to you, but I and many others would completely disagree.
We have to accept that you can never properly reproduce a live sound in the home. So what we listen to through the hi-fi is a lie.
But to have a well presented soundstage with coherent imaging present will go some way to replacing some of the visual cues that your brain receives when witnessing real musicians playing in front of you.
It makes the lie more believable.

[Covenant]

Sorry, maybe it's not important to you, but I and many others would completely disagree.
We have to accept that you can never properly reproduce a live sound in the home. So what we listen to through the hi-fi is a lie.
But to have a well presented soundstage with coherent imaging present will go some way to replacing some of the visual cues that your brain receives when witnessing real musicians playing in front of you.
It makes the lie more believable.

Agreed! :)

[Rare Bird]

I'm no good at all this Hi-Fi terms for sound reproduction.

However i find most of the recordings from the late 60's i tend to listern to, have a more raw feel to them, more simple if you like, than say recordings from the 70's. With the 60's recordings i tend to hear say a drum kit more up front in the mix, where as later recording, drums seem to be of lesser importance!

Anyhoots if i can sit back & clearly hear every drum & cymbal as clear as day & the sound is as i would like to hear a vintage drum kit, then i'm an happy bunny.Thankfully i don't listern to modern recording, they may sound crystal & well recorded to some folk but quite frankly i find them very artificial, if thats the right term..

[Haselsh1]

I'm no good at all this Hi-Fi terms for sound reproduction.

However i find most of the recordings from the late 60's i tend to listern to, have a more raw feel to them, more simple if you like, than say recordings from the 70's. With the 60's recordings i tend to hear say a drum kit more up front in the mix, where as later recording, drums seem to be of lesser importance!

Anyhoots if i can sit back & clearly hear every drum & cymbal as clear as day & the sound is as i would like to hear a vintage drum kit, then i'm an happy bunny.Thankfully i don't listern to modern recording, they may sound crystal & well recorded to some folk but quite frankly i find them very artificial, if thats the right term..

Andre, I find modern recordings just too damn loud and forward. OK so I have to listen to them because some of my favourite music is very modern but even on vinyl the sound is so damn loud and shouty. If you then include a stereo effect I think you're pissing in the wind. When I eventually get my finances back in some sort of order I intend to put together a new system based almost solely on stereo effect and stereo precision. As my preference is for LS3/5a's I think that may well involve Sterling Broadcast monitors with some sort of valve amplification. Time will tell I guess.

[DSJR]

Please remember that most recordings post late 50's were done on multi-track tape recorders, the recorded "live" sounds then mixed artificially into a multi-mono mix. reverb and compression was then added in varying amounts to "blend" the mix together...

My Spendors have still great imagery and despite certain shortcomings, still enable me to suspend disbelief really well. In this case, careful matching of drivers and using selected crossover parts that don't deteriorate over time has helped enormously I think. Anyone who thinks these old "BBC" timers are crap really hasn't heard them on modern sources and amps, the bass issues easily sorted on BC1's and not really there at all on the BC2's I use...

[Rare Bird]

Yes but at least 60's recording wernt destroyed with masses of over dubs :spew:

The latest vinyl issue of KC's 'In The Court Of The Crimson King' prooves to me that 60's recording were just pure awesome.

[Macca]

Again we are trying to compare the sound of a band playing live at a gig with the sound of their studio album. Why? It is apples and oranges. The studio album was recorded with one purpose in mind - to be replayed on a home hi-fi. It s not about making a lie seem more believable, there is no lie. A studio album will never sound like the band doing a live gig because (with the odd exception e/g Oasis - 'Definitely Maybe') it is not intended to.

Personally I would take PRaT over soundstage if forced to choose but even a modest ssytem, working well, should give one some idea of what the producer intended in terms of soundstage.

[The Grand Wazoo]

....compare the sound of a band playing live at a gig with the sound of their studio album. Why?
I brought it up because that is what so many people are trying to achieve with their systems. In that respect a studio recording is a lie.

[Macca]

I brought it up because that is what so many people are trying to achieve with their systems. In that respect a studio recording is a lie.

Are they really? If so they are in for constant disapointment then ;) That's like buying a Ferrari F40 and then trying to green lane with it. Or taking your Range Rover Vogue out to a track day and wondering why all the 911's are lapping you.

My gauge is not whether it sounds 'live' - and I'm assuming we agree that a 'live' sound and a 'realistic' sound are two different things here, but how close it sounds to what the producer and engineer heard in the studio.

[The Grand Wazoo]

Are they really? If so they are in for constant disapointment then

Absolutely

[DSJR]

Yes but at least 60's recording wernt destroyed with masses of over dubs :spew:

The latest vinyl issue of KC's 'In The Court Of The Crimson King' prooves to me that 60's recording were just pure awesome.

Isn't that a pukka remix, done with more time and care fairly recently????? I wonder if the vinyl cut was taken from analogue or digital sources?

[f1eng]

Sorry, maybe it's not important to you, but I and many others would completely disagree.
We have to accept that you can never properly reproduce a live sound in the home. So what we listen to through the hi-fi is a lie.
But to have a well presented soundstage with coherent imaging present will go some way to replacing some of the visual cues that your brain receives when witnessing real musicians playing in front of you.
It makes the lie more believable.

You perhaps didn't read everything that I wrote.

I said I liked a good image.

It just isn't what you get with live music, in general.

I actually get very close to reproducing the sort of music I like live in my home, actually. Some sorts not though of course.

[f1eng]

Isn't that a pukka remix, done with more time and care fairly recently????? I wonder if the vinyl cut was taken from analogue or digital sources?

Probably an analogue original - the original was way before digital.
I have only ever heard the original LP, which I bought the day it was available :-).

I hadn't the foggiest idea what soundstage or prat were then, though.

[Rare Bird]

Isn't that a pukka remix, done with more time and care fairly recently????? I wonder if the vinyl cut was taken from analogue or digital sources?


Original Studio Masters

[The Grand Wazoo]

I said I liked a good image.

Actually Frank, that's what I thought you were saying.....right up until I got to the part that I quoted!

[Mika K]

It's interesting why from time to time despite of the location the same discussion comes around or resurfaces. Just like these would be the old arch enemies from ancient times :)

Yes I know the history and the thing and have had my share of flat-earth stuff at my rack. Still have to remind that they did far more than plain Prat, and also have encountered several different makers that exceed at the same field evethou should not.

Apples and oranges? Maybe but more I learn more I start coming into conclusion that this is also matter of two things:
1) how open minded you are e.g. do you prefer to follow some certain gurus that tell you what to do or try different things that rock your boat
2) skill to build that system to the environment that has what it takes. Here it all comes down to system synergy, where room and speakers are important components just as the front end is..

[Floyddroid]

Thank you Marco, I now feel enlightened.

[nat8808]

Original Studio Masters

That probably means it has had to undergo a lot of processing to overcome the loss of top-end (a time-based deterioration of tape) and ghosting from the next layer on the reel.

Possibly been through a fair amount of digital processing for the re-master which would be a testiment to today's digital and a revealing of how the mastering itself can have such a massive effect on the final product (if the previous re-issue offerings weren't as good).

[hifinutt]

Some speakers image brilliantly and others punch you in the face. Can you combine the two virtues in one cabinet?

yes my martin logan summits have tremendous soundstage and really have superb bass that can turn your nether regions to trife if you wish
they shimmer with detail too with the current incumbant puresound pre amp

[Covenant]

yes my martin logan summits have tremendous soundstage and really have superb bass that can turn your nether regions to trife if you wish
they shimmer with detail too with the current incumbant puresound pre amp

I thought electrostatic may be the answer. Do you use a subwoofer with them Phil?