The thing about objectivists is...

@tylermunns ,

Your response makes about as much sense as your statement that I tried to address. Kind of nonsensical. There's nothing vague in what I said, nor was it rude. 

Rhythm and pace, or as the British use to call it, PRAT, has always been known to refer to just how realistic the sound is to the point where it has you actively participating with it as you listen. You know, moving your feet or bobbing your head. 

It's just another perfectly acceptable way of saying it sounds more realistic and I don't see what the problem is with anyone using it.

All the best,
Nonoise

@tylermunns - it's always interesting to me when I hear people talking about a system or component that will 'get their toes tapping'.  To me, it's the music that gets my toes tapping - my toes did plenty of tapping in the 60's when I listened to it on a small transistor radio, and that continues on to this day! Rhythm is rhythm.... 😁 

Proof that all audio discussions eventually degrade to cables or vinyl vs. digital.

Got stuck with a Jetta with the factory radio for a rental recently. It was that or who knows how long and Maui was calling.  256kbps MP3/AAC ... Really don't know, Bluetooth to the stereo, cheap electronics, cheap speakers, and tapping my fingers and toes the whole way. Mood is everything.

@nonoise Some of us care about the efficacy of language, and the meaning of words.

Using the terms “PRaT,” and “rhythm and pace,” when describing the respective qualities of various electronics and speakers, is the very definition of “nonsensical.”

Music has “rhythm,” not gear.  
As far as “pace,” goes, even for music itself, this word is pretty meaningless.  “Pace?” Uhhhhh, you mean, “tempo?”

“Timing?” I suppose, as someone else here noted, “timing” may be somewhat useful in describing “realism,” that is, communicating the sense that the signal has been processed with such efficacy as to feel the music is being played live-on-the-spot.

Rattling off the term “PRaT,” has no meaning to a laymen, and little meaning to someone who actually thinks about what the term actually means.

But I suppose being an effective communicator to the average person is not necessarily the goal; it’s much more fun for an insular group to have their own little vernacular.

@tylermunns ,

If you believe that, then you are in a very small minority of audiophiles who do so. Like I said before, the term PRaT has been around for decades and shouldn't even be doubted unless someone is so new to this game that they need to look it up.

If a piece of gear is/was poorly designed, then it couldn't convey the PRaT in the music, so yes, undoubtably, it's inherent in the design of the gear as the maker of said gear knows it and made sure it could reproduce it. 

It may all boil down to just being a hell of a lot more accurate but being so allows it to sound all the more realistic, and that, my friend, is in the gear and not in someone's head.

When they hear it, they recognize it, and then express it, and then people like you and others fly off the handle about it, dancing on the head of a pin. 

All the best,
Nonoise