The thing about objectivists is...

 

"Rhythm and Pace" is a term that’s been in use for many, many decades and how you don’t see it having any meaning in "this context" is baffling to me, unless you’re under, say, 20 years of age, and have no appreciation for what’s gone on before you.

What you say could be the factors are some of the factors in determining "rhythm and pace". If it comes across more realistically, then it will have that "rhythm and pace."

That, and the contradictions in what you describe in your scenario with one system versus another shows that one system is better at it than another and is, therefore, responsible for the difference.

"Rhythm and pace" aren’t something you can plug into a system. It’s the result of the system, in toto.

All the best,
Nonoise

I am not sure…
In term of TTs, ones that suffer from alteration of the speed when the sylus drag changes could be reflected in the output signal.

But objectively, one could actually measure that if one choose to do so.

That idea of R&P being possible, gets a bit harder to defend with digital equipment, as the clock in the DAC or iPad is pretty accurate… more accurate than a bird knowing it is 9:00 AM. 😋

@nonoise Your response is unnecessarily rude and condescending.

A couple people here at least tried to address the idea.

All you did was issue rude condescension, and then give a vague non-answer.

With a nice slice of (while pushing proverbial audio-nerd glasses up with finger): “uhhhh, you really don’t know that? (nerdy-snicker, nerdy snicker) I thought only teenagers that don’t care about the History of Audiophilia didn’t know that! (nerdy-snort, nerdy-snort)”

To use your “description,” (very liberal use of the word ‘description’) if “it (I’m assuming what you mean by ‘it’ is ‘music emanating from speakers’) comes across more realistic, then it will have that rhythm and pace.”  
Well, there you have it!  Not vague at all, and certainly extremely meaningful language when analyzing sound quality!

If something sounds “realistic,” (I’m assuming what you mean by ‘realistic’ is ‘sounds like a live band or sounds as-close-as-possible to the sound on the master tapes) then what more is communicated by saying it has “rhythm and pace?” 

Are you able to give an actual, concrete, useful, description of what constitutes sound quality that exhibits “good rhythm and pace?” Or is it more vague, meaningless audiophile jargon that people wank away with while listening to Dark Side of the Moon and Brothers in Arms?

… (while pushing proverbial audio-nerd glasses up with finger) …

@tylermunns 

Like this ?:

Digital clocks could be superbly accurate, but that is not the issue.  The issue is their implementation as part of the DA conversion process.

The issue with digital is a fundamental one - why convert analogue, the sound we can hear, to digital.  And then back again.  Everyone knows that such conversions have unavoidable costs, such processes always impose costs.  In digital, the main downside is the need to convert a real-time event into a digital clock time-frame, and then back again.

Because no analog recording format exists that does not have a myriad of far more significant issues but is that relevant to the discussion? Perhaps? Our interpretation of reality is influenced by what we choose to believe and what we chose to believe is often wrong.