|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.58.233.71
In Reply to: Well no... posted by castironandtubes on May 10, 2007 at 08:29:06:
You raise some interesting points, but either I didn't make myself very clear, or we'll just have to agree to disagree. ;)In response:
"The vibrato would not be more or less prominent because of the equipment used for playback."
Vibrato is a controlled (hopefully) variation in pitch and/or loudness in a sustained tone of an instrument or voice. It would seem that more accurate equipment might do a better job of getting the overtone series closer to correct and therefore portraying the pitch fluctuation accurately, and gear with better micro-dynamics would better portray the subtle loudness variations. So my analogy was intended to mean: If we say a piece of gear has better "PRaT" because it conveys the rhythmic elements of the recorded performance better, then we might as well say a piece of gear has better "VIBES" because it does a better job of conveying pitch and micro-dynamics.
Now, if we are talking about perceptions, then shouldn't we say that the LISTENER has better PRaT? As a listener, I seem to have the best PRaT after one beer. After three, my PRaT rapidly declines.
The original post asked why the acronym should apply to "equipment” instead of the music. In my humble opinion, it should not.
I think the fact that this thread has generated so many responses speaks to the vagueness of the term PRaT. It means so many different things to different people, that its use becomes problematic… again, in my opinion, one of which everyone has.
My 2 cents,
Sam
Follow Ups:
I think the main thing is that it sounds like you have not experienced a difference of that sort with equipment. I have, and I am not coming at this because I have an idler table and nothing does prat like my system. Not at all the case, I have a belt-drive and for all I know the prat of my system is very average. But I have heard the difference, most notably in rolling different tubes in my linestage, and also in switching CD players. I also have a friend who's digital setup anyway definitely has more prat than mine. So I have heard the difference, and it's a difference that is strictly related to the sonics not the music as we're talking about the same recordings compared. So it makes sense to me to refer to the prat of given components, but I could see how it would be hard to understand for someone that hasn't experienced it. I would agree that it is a somewhat misleading acronym as those terms are more commonly applied to musical aspects as you describe, but it does make some sense if you think of it in the abstract way of how those elements are portrayed by a system.
I think our disagreement is just in the usage of terms. I most certainly have heard all kinds of changes in my system, including more or less prominant rhythmic energy, as a result of every little change I make. I've heard big differences as a result of different tables, cartridges, tubes, and most recently, going from medium sized to very small, firm rubber feet under my LP12 greatly improved the portrayal of rhythmic energy.My take on all this is simply that I wouldn't say that the smaller feet have PRaT, I would just say that the other feet got in the way of the PRaT that was recorded in the music. The table, with the smaller feet, does a better job of revealing what's in the recording than the same table with the bigger feet. That's just a different way of describing what's going on. Some folks say "my team lost," others say "the other team won."
I'm glad that we agree that PRaT is a somewhat misleading acronym. But my problem with the term is not because I haven't heard the quality refered to as PRaT change with different gear playing the same source material. I have.
Best regards,
I think we'll just agree to disagree, and clearly we're not all that far apart. I do think that it is a sonic element related to the playback equipment and not simply a matter of how well something reveals what's on the recording. For example, I think prat is one of the significant advantages that vinyl (specifically as opposed to analog) has over digital. I don't think that is because the digital lacks detail, sometimes if anything it has more detail and many would argue that it portrays the recording more faithfully than vinyl, but they way the sound travels and the listener feels the vibrations of the strings or the plucking of the bass or the stick striking the cymbal is completely different, and (IMO) it has more impact coming from vinyl. I don't think that's a matter of what's on the recording, it's a matter of how the signal is generated and transmitted to the listener.Anyway, no need to hash it out as I think we just disagree, but what I'm saying is at least an explanation of why people attribute what they describe as prat to a piece of equipment rather than to a recording or musicians.
...and one thing I certainly agree with completely is that vinyl has some special qualities, accurate or not, that make me enjoy it more.Thanks for a civil, intelligent exchange. If we all agreed completely on everything, there would be no reason to discuss anything, except to say "Ditto!!"
Best,
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: