PRaT - please explain

[Pharos]

In principle I agree Alex that errors, wherever they come from, can mask detail as you describe above, and this is surely, (at least with objectivists), what we are all trying to do.

As the resolution increases so we hear more, and clutter gives way to clarity of sound and easy distinction of separate events, and this is what I mean by 'more forensic'.

Which part of the chain is limiting must vary, and there must be so many combinations of equipment that there must also be numerous weak points, and which differ greatly. I suppose eventually with discussion a consensus develops and an establishment occurs that certain equipment is relatively flawed.

I am still after 2 and 1/2 years struggling with what I am hearing with new speakers, and like you am getting revelations, but also some 'oddness' which may be a factor of the speakers, or previously unheard oddities on recordings, this being particularly noticeable on vocals.

However I have difficulty in associating PRaT with any really establishable scientific factors, as alluded to previously my experience has been with these as rather more vaguely touted notions, often from more sales orientated people.

[Barry]

As an aside, the rheostat was invented by Charles Wheatstone around 1843. Considerably earlier than 1919, for Mary Greenewalt's non-linear device.

[zzag]

Great thread this good reading.

What I do remember about 'PRaT' systems 10 -20 years ago is i used to get listening fatigue after 1/2 hour, making them useless to me.

[Barry]

I remember in the '80s, the Flat Earthers would have you believe that unless an audio system had you tapping your foot, then it was a failure as regards PRaT.

To that end, at demonstrations of audio gear designed to follow the Flat Earth school of philosophy, the demonstrator would often be there tapping his foot with the expectation that listeners in the audience would pick up on the visual clue and tap their feet as well.

Well once when I attended an audio fair in London, in the early '80s, I looked in at one such demonstration (by an audio manufacturer whose name I'll not disclose), and yes there was a guy up there jiggling away and tapping his foot - completely out of time with the music! So much for 'pace, rhythm and timing'.

[Firebottle]

[AJSki2fly]

Once a PRaT always a PRaT


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Light Dependant Resistor]

As an aside, the rheostat was invented by Charles Wheatstone around 1843. Considerably earlier than 1919, for Mary Greenewalt's non-linear device.

Mary however patented the rheostat, securing her as the recognized inventor patent 1,357,773 Application filed Dec 12 1919, and patented Nov 2 1920
https://patents.google.com/patent/US1357773A/en

Another patent that of Thomas Edison 131,334 differed, called a rheotome it used negative current and is described here as a switch for telegraph equipment
http://www.edisonmuckers.org/wp-cont...6/00131334.pdf

The point being the device was never designed to pass audio signals, rather - one could argue heavily borrowed, but not in sympathy with the actual requirements of audio circuits.
Hence we find 90 years later: https://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/...tortion.68076/

[DavefromDorset]

I'm a bit of a hifi outlier in that I understand only a fraction of what has been discussed, so I can't bring much to this topic. However, I've been listening to music with good-ish kit for most of my adult life (I'm 70). A few years ago I reinstated my 401/3009/V15 analogue set up, and to my ears the major advantage over my digital CD set up was an improvement in what I perceived to be timing. Whether that was caused by better PRaT, better leading edge or some other audio esoterica I have no idea, but the phenomenon was, to me, real.

As a postscript, I recently changed to 2.1 stereo after years of 5.1 multichannel, sold my analogue gear (little used, I had remained with CD) and bought into streaming via an NAD M10 and Qobuz. That sense of better timing has returned, so presumably the culprit was my Arcam AVR350/DV137 gear.

[Pharos]

I remember in the '80s, the Flat Earthers would have you believe that unless an audio system had you tapping your foot, then it was a failure as regards PRaT.

To that end, at demonstrations of audio gear designed to follow the Flat Earth school of philosophy, the demonstrator would often be there tapping his foot with the expectation that listeners in the audience would pick up on the visual clue and tap their feet as well.

Well once when I attended an audio fair in London, in the early '80s, I looked in at one such demonstration (by an audio manufacturer whose name I'll not disclose), and yes there was a guy up there jiggling away and tapping his foot - completely out of time with the music! So much for 'pace, rhythm and timing'.

That is entirely consistent with the sought of people I encountered and referred to earlier, a type ham fisted and radiating insensitivity, and whom I seem never to encounter now.

The last one was a man from Vintage Wireless who bought my Tannoy Gold 152 Lancs, and on taking them away put one on top of the other tearing my lavishingly waxed cabinets to shreds. He reeked of cigars, and on paying me pulled out a fat wad from his jacket wrapped in a band. This represented to me a dissonance.

[Pharos]

I'm a bit of a hifi outlier in that I understand only a fraction of what has been discussed, so I can't bring much to this topic. However, I've been listening to music with good-ish kit for most of my adult life (I'm 70). A few years ago I reinstated my 401/3009/V15 analogue set up, and to my ears the major advantage over my digital CD set up was an improvement in what I perceived to be timing. Whether that was caused by better PRaT, better leading edge or some other audio esoterica I have no idea, but the phenomenon was, to me, real.

As a postscript, I recently changed to 2.1 stereo after years of 5.1 multichannel, sold my analogue gear (little used, I had remained with CD) and bought into streaming via an NAD M10 and Qobuz. That sense of better timing has returned, so presumably the culprit was my Arcam AVR350/DV137 gear.

That sequence would need some scrutiny IMO.