Two terms I don't understand - please explain

Well, you keep asserting that. I don't see a host of folkks rushing to agree.

You think the shape of the wave will not effect timing? The wave is IN TIME, no? Not that that proves anything, but the idea that blurred attacks and decays -- and different degrees of blur at at different frequencies -- cannot effect perceived timing pace and rhythm is not at all ridiculous.

I only want to see those terms banned in audio discussion, especially in professional reviews, just because they've become lazy cliches. They've become shorthands for the times when the reviewers need crutches. How many times have you read a review that had some reviewer saying great slam or great prat, and at the end, had no fricking idea how the component actually sounded? Too many, at least in my experience. A part of the reason why you can't take some of these reviewers too seriously as legitimate critics.

Well Rnm4, a blurred attack is better described as a blurred attach, not something to do with PRaT. That's my point.

I like Caspermao's assertion, that PRaT is just a lazy cliche. I add that it never made sense as an acronym in the first place because the word in the acronym don't match the attributes trying to be described.

Dave

So when we were all hanging out and boogieing to a transistor radio did that have prat?

Dcstep, I have a Magnasonic DVD player that loses the beat. A pal has an old Pioneer changer that's even worse. From reviews that appeared in UHF Magazine long before I bought my first CDP (in 1999), the phenomenon was more widespread and farther up the scale in the early days.