Two terms I don't understand - please explain

When attacks and decays are not accurate, the music *will* lose "pace, rhythm, and timing." So in that sense I do believe the acronym makes at least enough sense to be used. PRaT also sounds a little cooler than something like AAAD (accurate attacks and decays). Can anyone think of any other ones to use?

"That CDP has PRaT" is a bit easier to say than "That CDP is very good at not blurring attacks and decays." It's just a way to generalize. Some acronyms just exist, and while they may not be perfect, they've become the generally accepted way to refer to something.

So I guess what I'm saying is, I think a lot of us are going to continue to be "lazy" and "cliched" and just say "PRaT."

04-30-08: Tobias said:
"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."

I've never heard of this, but I assume it must be true since you say so, however I wouldn't describe that as a lack of PRaT, but that the CDP was a worthless POS that no one should consider. I've only been in digital since the late 1970s and never witnessed a CDP skipping a beat, so that's a new one on me.

Dave

04-30-08: Jwglista said:
"When attacks and decays are not accurate, the music *will* lose "pace, rhythm, and timing.""

Please explain how. You're talking about the shape of the wave, not the timing.

Use musical terms. In music, pace means speed, rhythm means the timing between notes and timing means much the same thing. I've NEVER heard any electronic component impact that, with the exception of a very bad TT, with lots of wow and flutter.

Dave

Well as I said, PRaT is not a direct reference to the physical effects of a loss of accurate attacks and decays. Rather, it is a perception of rhythm and timing loss. You have to think outside the box a little bit here.

I believe that from the entire acronym, "rhythm" is the most appropriate descriptor, because the rhythm of a song is perceived as being inaccurate or unmoving when the attacks and decays are not reproduced in their original form. I guess that applies to the entire waveform as well.

But in the end, I think "PRaT" is mostly used to describe something like the "toe tapping factor" (which sounds a lot dumber than PRaT). If it's music that gets you involved, get's you bobbing your head, tapping your toes, whatever, then the music has "PRaT." As far as physics go, I believe that music that lacks this quality has poor reproduction of dynamics, and a huge part of the sound of dynamics is attacks and decays. You can argue that the term is stupid, I really don't care. I don't use it that much anyhow. But at least when someone uses it, I know what they're *trying* to refer to. :)

Jwglista, I think we agree. I think it's unfortunate that someone coined this phrase and it came into widespread usage. It just confuses many, like our good OP on this thread, and perpetuates the widespread belief that audiophiles are a bunch of tweaks that don't know what they're talking about.

Oh well, windmill wins again...

Dave