A somewhat "controversial" topic in audio gear subjective reviewing is the reproduction of Pace/Rhythm/Timing, sometimes abbreviated PRaT. (Sometimes, PRAT with a cap. 'A' may denote A=acceleration). The topic also includes an interdependent subjective metric, dynamics.
Perhaps the seminal introduction to the phenomenon is the Nov. 1992 article in Stereophile, Pace, Rhythm, & Dynamics by Martin Colloms (http://www.stereophile.com/reference/23/index.html). I noted that this topic is "controversial" in that it not often reported in gear/equipment reviews -- especially in forum- or message-board-based reviews ... where most folks stick to the common (and, IMO, repetitive) BMTS (bass, mids, treble, soundstage). From there, some may additionally describe, e.g., a headphone's 'dynamic' or 'speed' qualities. But when asked to comment on PRaT, the same reviewer responds with puzzlement, smug ridicule, or ignorance.
Pace/Rhythm/Timing -- or PRaT -- is something I'm particularly sensitive too. It is one of the first attributes that I notice the presence or absence of in audio gear, like headphones, all else held equal. I even notice it in slow music, like adagio or lento movements (the Colloms article above goes into this a bit).
Because of the apparent "underreporting" of the "PRaT" phenomenon as important audiological subjective metrics -- and even some hostility as to its importance or even its existence -- I'm wondering how much its perception is genetic. This may be like genetic sensitivity to perfect pitch (http://perfectpitch.ucsf.edu/study/):
http://perfectpitch.ucsf.edu/study/ (http://perfectpitch.ucsf.edu/study/)
Or, more simply, the PTC genetic bitterness test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenylthiocarbamide) from high-school biology class?
I'm wondering how much its perception is genetic.
You should be wondering how much it is based on placebo.
Pace/Rhythm/Timing -- or PRaT -- is something I'm particularly sensitive too. It is one of the first attributes that I notice the presence or absence of in audio gear, like headphones, all else held equal. I even notice it in slow music, like adagio or lento movements (the Colloms article above goes into this a bit).
Please make sure you follow TOS #8 regarding your claims about your sensitivity. You're approaching an area where the ice is getting thin. Besides, if you are particularly sensitive maybe you can help in reducing the apparent amount of underreporting. Simply telling us without providing objective evidence isn't going to cut it, though.
BTW, this subject has been touched upon in the past:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=72446 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=72446)
A somewhat "controversial" topic in audio gear subjective reviewing is the reproduction of Pace/Rhythm/Timing, sometimes abbreviated PRaT. (Sometimes, PRAT with a cap. 'A' may denote A=acceleration). The topic also includes an interdependent subjective metric, dynamics.
Perhaps the seminal introduction to the phenomenon is the Nov. 1992 article in Stereophile, Pace, Rhythm, & Dynamics by Martin Colloms (http://www.stereophile.com/reference/23/index.html). I noted that this topic is "controversial" in that it not often reported in gear/equipment reviews -- especially in forum- or message-board-based reviews ... where most folks stick to the common (and, IMO, repetitive) BMTS (bass, mids, treble, soundstage). From there, some may additionally describe, e.g., a headphone's 'dynamic' or 'speed' qualities. But when asked to comment on PRaT, the same reviewer responds with puzzlement, smug ridicule, or ignorance.
Pace/Rhythm/Timing -- or PRaT -- is something I'm particularly sensitive too. It is one of the first attributes that I notice the presence or absence of in audio gear, like headphones, all else held equal. I even notice it in slow music, like adagio or lento movements (the Colloms article above goes into this a bit).
Because of the apparent "underreporting" of the "PRaT" phenomenon as important audiological subjective metrics -- and even some hostility as to its importance or even its existence -- I'm wondering how much its perception is genetic. This may be like genetic sensitivity to perfect pitch (http://perfectpitch.ucsf.edu/study/):
http://perfectpitch.ucsf.edu/study/ (http://perfectpitch.ucsf.edu/study/)
Or, more simply, the PTC genetic bitterness test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenylthiocarbamide) from high-school biology class?
There are a few small problems with PRaT.
The first problem is that differences in PRaT are attributed to equipment that have no known physical capability for altering the Pace/Rhythm/Timing of the signals passing through them to an audible degree.
The second problem is that differences in PRaT are attributed to equipment that have no known physical capability for altering the Pace/Rhythm/Timing of the signals passing through them to a measurable degree.
The third problem is that differences in PRaT are attributed to equipment that cannot be distinguished from each other in reliable listening tests.
Differences in PRaT appear to be artifacts of sighted listening evaluations.
Now, if you can provide any experiental evidence to the contrary, I would be very happy to try to replicate a reliable, bias controlled listening test that was positive for differences in PRaT. AFAIK no such thing exists to this day.
Many years after reading the first, 1978, edition of 'High Performance Loudspeakers' by Martin Colloms from which I learnt much, even if some of that was due to wrestling with printing errors, I decided to treat myself to the fifth, 1997, edition.
Although the book still had much useful information, and new printing errors, I was disappointed to see the subjective elements such as base drums failing to 'time properly' or being 'slowed' being brought up.
Much of this was put down to cone hysteresis and cabinet resonances, IIRC, but I would have thought that any effect that would make a bass drum sound audibly out-of-time would be very, very easy to measure objectively.
I have been out of the pro-audio business for some years now so may have missed something but I am still unaware of anyone having demonstrated this objective measurement.
I find that the thread opener follows the usual audiophile (phool) routine to report a phenom that someone of perceived (or real) authority postulates, but as usual without any evidence whatsoever.
This is in this case compounded by the fact that this "real" phenomenon - real only in the posters brain - is then the basis of some biological cum genetic speculation.
That degree of credulity supported by nothing else but the musings of some authority of speaker building leads to incredulity on my part how those almost religiously held assumptions can become the basis of a discussion.
It is nothing short of mental masturbation, one of the reasons I no longer participate (voluntarily and involuntarily) in any forum that uncritically supports the purveyor of such nonsense.
If the phenom of PRAT was in any way correct - how would mastering any recording even be possible?
I truly hope this doesn't end up like it did when Martin Colloms came to the forum to puffily interject his two cents on similar matters and then fail to answer any criticism and/or questions posed.
I noted that this topic is "controversial" in that it not often reported in gear/equipment reviews --
PRAT is 'controversial' first and foremost because it hasn't been shown to actually exist as a quality of gear, not because it is 'underreported'
It is, however, perhaps the most delightfully
well-named bit of nonsense to be associated with audiophilia.
As for the rest of your post, you might as well ask if ESP is genetic. That's called 'jumping the gun'.
Perhaps the inclination to believe in such things is genetic.
Pace, rhythm and timing are all sensations that come about from stimulii far, far above audible thresholds.
So, I'd have to submit that being unable to hear them would more or less indicate that one is hearing massive distortion of the painful sort, or alternatively dead silence.
[...] you might as well ask if ESP is genetic. That's called 'jumping the gun'.
Several of you have responded with valid counter-arguments. But what about the UCSD study of perceived perfect/absolute pitch as a genetic trait? Is that 'jumping the gun', too?
Pace, rhythm and timing are all sensations that come about from stimulii far, far above audible thresholds.
So, I'd have to submit that being unable to hear them would more or less indicate that one is hearing massive distortion of the painful sort, or alternatively dead silence.
Not sure what you mean by "far, far above audible thresholds"???
IMO, more distortion hinders pace an rhythm because it can corrupt micro-dynamic markers (micro-dynamic markers may be thought of as metronome events) .
(http://cdn.head-fi.org/3/36/1000x500px-LL-362ce576_attack_and_decay.JPG)
Pace/Rhythm/Timing -- or PRaT -- is something I'm particularly sensitive too. It is one of the first attributes that I notice the presence or absence of in audio gear, like headphones, all else held equal. I even notice it in slow music, like adagio or lento movements (the Colloms article above goes into this a bit).
Please make sure you follow TOS #8 regarding your claims about your sensitivity. You're approaching an area where the ice is getting thin. Besides, if you are particularly sensitive maybe you can help in reducing the apparent amount of underreporting. Simply telling us without providing objective evidence isn't going to cut it, though.
BTW, this subject has been touched upon in the past:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=72446 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=72446)
The word 'sensitivity' was not meant to convey emotion in the sense that I'm touchy/angry/etc. about the issue. It meant I, FWIW, can sense it in the terms of "hearing it" (or detecting it, or am aware of it ... FWIW, IMO and YMMV, etc.)
Yes, I searched the archives (and perhaps should have stated I did and that I found that post). I found the archival thread under-informative to my reqs.
Finally ... yes ... I realize there isn't that much "evidence" supporting any of the ideas I put forth. I was hoping that some evidence -- pro or con -- would flourish as a result of bringing the matter to the attn of this forum body-scientific.
IAC, the OP has one relevant link. One can Google 'PRaT' or "pace rhythm timing audio" etc. and come up with some hits. E.g., and FWIW, of course:
http://forums.naimaudio.com/displayForumTo...566878606976414 (http://forums.naimaudio.com/displayForumTopic/content/1566878606976414)
No one has commented on the validity of UCSD's study/survey of perfect pitch. If that is not a valid comparison, please say do.
Perhaps the inclination to believe in such things is genetic.
Yes, it comes with being human! ;-)
The solution to belief in such things as pace and timing is usually scientific education which Martin Collums clearly has. With regards to his handing of this issue, his scientific education is apparently incomplete. Since much of the study of human hearing and the study of perception evolved after their initial formal schooling, engineers of a certain age are often not up-to-date or failed to obtain proper eduction before they had first formed certain false beliefs.
If Collums applied these beliefs to just speakers, I'd be more patient, but he also applies them to power amplifiers.
Perhaps the inclination to believe in such things is genetic.
Or perhaps the genetic inclination to gang-up-attack -- and with quick, frustrated kraut-like diatribes, ad hominum remarks, etc -- new and
potentially important issues as opposed to more thought-out remarks (several above --- thx!) or pointing to URL link to, say, peer-reviewed, double-blind-controlled
counter-evidence.
Example of a valid counter argument that requires little supporting evidence: PRaT is simply a matter of personal taste .... that one genetically (or via early nurturing or both the complex and interdependent dynamic of nature + nurture) simply LIKES music with "better" or more-pronounced pace/rhythm? This does not address why certain gear has more/less PRaT ... and I posed the orig. query pre-thought-thru many of these counter-arguments.
All digression aside ... the "pet theory" from the OP is most likely off-track. But it has been reported in various audio forums and circles -- as well as the usual, market-serving commercial press -- often enough to deserve some scrutiny.
Not sure what you mean by "far, far above audible thresholds"???
Just what it means, Timing events in music are far, far above either absolute or composite masking threshold. Masking a timing event requires really, really bad reproduction.
As to your arguments about indecipherable plots, well, let's teach you what a threshold of audibility is first, ok? That is, if we are to bother.
Not sure what you mean by "far, far above audible thresholds"???
Just what it means, Timing events in music are far, far above either absolute or composite masking threshold. Masking a timing event requires really, really bad reproduction.
How about a psycho-acoustic system (a human being with brain/ear, etc) that is particularly sensitive to timing events? Kinda like some folks -- albeit a notable minority -- are sensitive to ragweed pollen. Maybe a few kiloyears ago or so, some tribal hunters walk across a field wondering why Sneezy was down for the count?
How about a psycho-acoustic system (a human being with brain/ear, etc) that is particularly sensitive to timing events?
Possible, but (as you've been told before) stop jumping the gun. I'm not sure how a reproduction system which can accurately and measurably reproduce a 1kHz tone (1000 cycles per second) with near zero distortion is suddenly suspect at reproducing paces / rhythms / timings an order of magnitude slower. You're suggesting an ability to reproduce HF tones but yet "smearing" of VERY low frequency timings? Please.
Kinda like some folks -- albeit a notable minority -- are sensitive to ragweed pollen. Maybe a few kiloyears ago or so, some tribal hunters walk across a field wondering why Sneezy was down for the count?
If you want to be taken seriously cut this
unrelated bullshit out of your posts in the future. You're knocking on the door of Argumentum Verbosium.
(several above --- thx!) or pointing to URL link to, say, peer-reviewed, double-blind-controlled counter-evidence.
Example of a valid counter argument that requires little supporting evidence: ....
Here's one more bullet for your pea shooter ... Accuse me (hollowman) as Appealing to consequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences)
Or, hollowman you're "Pigeonholing" ... you're http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonholing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonholing)
I've dug into the issue a bit further and found reporting of it -- using slightly diff. semantics -- not quite as uncommon as I believed. To wit: this info-graphic equipment review style used in the no-longer-pub'd UK audio mag Sonic Boom:
(http://cdn.head-fi.org/9/9d/1000x500px-LL-9dc0555a_Stereophile_May1993_p49_fig1.jpg)
Fig. 1: Sonic Boom’s circular quality plot. Shown is their finding for the Adcom GFA-555 II power amplifier.
Looking like a microphone’s polar response (see fig.1), the circle is segmented into wedges, with concentric rings indicating levels. Used in conjunction with a lengthy explanatory breakdown of the categories, the graph creates what the magazine calls “Sound Shapes,” with examples to show what’s good and bad. I assume that any product achieving the largest possible perfect circle would be a perfect performer. Among the points on the outer perimeter are “Presence’ “Rhythmic Coherence,” “Tonal Palette,” “Intimacy,” “Spatial Coherence,” and “Resolution” as primaries, with inner markings for categories including “Weight,” “Dynamic Range,” “Staging,” “Decay,” and others. If used with care, it produces a cleverly realized picture of the performance, as fascinating as the overhead drawings of soundstage dimensions David Wilson used to produce when he was reviewing for The Abso!ute Sound. If Gregory can develop this further, he could be onto some thing much more useful when used in con junction with a review than conventional specifications have been in the past.
We do get the occasional golden eared prat in here.
Mods, can you lock this thread already? OP (hollowman) has thus far refused to directly answer the questions posed of him (despite spending vast amounts of time on the board) and instead continues to use this thread as a dump for a verbose amount of unscientific, unsubstantiated, out of context, and dubious material of questionable merit.
The name of this forum is "Scientific Discussion" and this thread is neither.
How about a psycho-acoustic system (a human being with brain/ear, etc) that is particularly sensitive to timing events?
I'm not sure how a reproduction system which can accurately and measurably reproduce a 1kHz tone (1000 cycles per second) with near zero distortion is suddenly suspect at reproducing paces / rhythms / timings an order of magnitude slower. You're suggesting an ability to reproduce HF tones but yet "smearing" of VERY low frequency timings?
There are two separate (but concurrent) events: psycho-acoustic (possible genetically-enhanced ability to perceive/detect, like 'perfect pitch') AND reproduction (e.g., a headphone with poorly transducer polymer material [or otherwise bad engineering] will sound 'slower', rhythmically incohesive, etc., than a better design).
All else held equal of course.
If science can't (yet explain it), then maybe it has not evolved enough to explain these 'minority' phenomenon ...
May be similar to the "appearance" of the following specs/metrics/techniques that entered (or became sig. more important) the digital-capture/reproduction world
well after CD playback was intro'd in 1982 ...
oversampling/digital filtering ( ~ 1984)
linearity ( ~ 1987)
time-domain DF (1989, e.g. Wadia)
jitter (~ 1990)
min. phase/apodizing filters (latest fads)
How about a psycho-acoustic system (a human being with brain/ear, etc) that is particularly sensitive to timing events?
I'm not sure how a reproduction system which can accurately and measurably reproduce a 1kHz tone (1000 cycles per second) with near zero distortion is suddenly suspect at reproducing paces / rhythms / timings an order of magnitude slower. You're suggesting an ability to reproduce HF tones but yet "smearing" of VERY low frequency timings?
There are two separate (but concurrent) events: psycho-acoustic (possible genetically-enhanced ability to perceive/detect, like 'perfect pitch') AND reproduction (e.g., a headphone with poorly transducer polymer material [or otherwise bad engineering] will sound 'slower', rhythmically incohesive, etc., than a better design).
Yes, there is reproduction and perception of said reproduction. No need to wrap either up in needless verbosity. Your proposition is not nearly so complex as to require so many words.
All else held equal of course.
If science can't (yet explain it), then maybe it has not evolved enough to explain these 'minority' phenomenon ...
May be similar to the "appearance" of the following specs/metrics/techniques that entered (or became sig. more important) the digital-capture/reproduction world well after CD playback was intro'd in 1982 ...
oversampling/digital filtering ( ~ 1984)
linearity ( ~ 1987)
time-domain DF (1989, e.g. Wadia)
jitter (~ 1990)
min. phase/apodizing filters (latest fads)
Worthless blather adding nothing to the discussion. Cut that bullshit out.
What I hear said is "I can not defend with scientific principals my idea that different systems have different abilities to reproduce Pace, Rhythm, and Timing. Maybe the science does not exist."
What I reply is "Pace, Rhythm, and Timing are low frequency events needing very little resolution in the time domain to
perfectly reproduce. The idea that problems in their reproduction are immeasurable and outside the understanding of current audio science is laughable on its face."
[...] you might as well ask if ESP is genetic. That's called 'jumping the gun'.
Several of you have responded with valid counter-arguments. But what about the UCSD study of perceived perfect/absolute pitch as a genetic trait? Is that 'jumping the gun', too?
No, because 'perfect pitch' demonstrably exists, and is a quality of the listener. Nor does anyone dispute that frequency differences can be audible. Nor is a relationship between pitch perception and frequency imaginary. Nor is it in dispute that different audio gear could produce different audible frequencies....though there are whole classes of gear that shouldn't.
What is in dispute is that audio gear has intrinsic qualities that produce different stimuli in the listener for 'pace, rhythm, and timing'. Evidence please. Or at least, explain why your question is any different from 'Is ESP genetic?' Your arguments and pseudoscientific charts so far ring
hollow.
Extremely refreshing, Kraut
Maybe it is refreshing for you to be called out on posting unsubstantiated bull covered in a cloud of semi scientific fluff. It still smells bad.
Fig. 1: Sonic Boom’s circular quality plot. Shown is their finding for the Adcom GFA-555 II power amplifier.
What a fantastically arbitrary arrangement of words and lines!
A simple, non-judgmental question:
If a system can reproduce, without audible distortion, a sine wave oscillating 15 thousand (or more) times per second, why in the world would one believe the same system couldn't reproduce, without audible distortion, musical timings that are probably in the range of 50-100 times greater?
I've dug into the issue a bit further and found reporting of it -- using slightly diff. semantics -- not quite as uncommon as I believed. To wit: this info-graphic equipment review style used in the no-longer-pub'd UK audio mag Sonic Boom:
I've recently bought air gun, but hated to draw targets on paper. Can I print this one?
A simple, non-judgmental question:
If a system can reproduce, without audible distortion, a sine wave oscillating 15 thousand (or more) times per second, why in the world would one believe the same system couldn't reproduce, without audible distortion, musical timings that are probably in the range of 50-100 times greater?
I'm going to play devil's advocate here. Two major issues with amplifier and speaker design that could explain this are slew rate and servo feedback. A typical drum hit involves a huge transient that can be effected by the amplifier's slew rate as well as the natural inertia of the woofer's speaker cone. In addition, the "bounce back" of the cone after the initial transient can cause the speaker's motion to diverge heavily from the audio waveform. Self-powered monitors can fix this with servo feedback motors or other mechanisms (flyback transformer?) to give better motion control. I know this is a major problem in electronic injection automotive systems where the injector behaves basically as a miniature subwoofer and the timing of the system can get ruined by the voltage effects of the magnetic driver moving on its own due to inertia and elasticity.
Whether or not this manifests audibly in music equipment is subject to debate, but it does give a plausible rationale for prat effects.
And, again, I'm playing devil's advocate and not actually claiming that speaker elasticity and inertia is going to cause an audible effect except on very bad equipment.
If these effects were audible, would you expect them to be perceived by the listener as "timing problems" or "distortion" (or both)?
And could they be objectively measured to quantitatively account for a listener's perception of "PRaT"?
They should show up as measurable distortion, no?
If these effects were audible, would you expect them to be perceived by the listener as "timing problems" or "distortion" (or both)?
And could they be objectively measured to quantitatively account for a listener's perception of "PRaT"?
They would be both distortion and timing problems. The distortion would occur shortly *after* a drum hit. The timing errors would be a smearing of the transient. As a good way to visualize the problem, find a big woofer on an old speaker set and push it, notice how it has some elasticity to it and goes back to "center" when you let go.
They could be objectively measured quite easily. A simple solution would be to use a high-quality flat-response microphone like Earthworks' "Time Coherent" series or their lab-quality "Measurement" series.
A better solution would be to use some sort of laser/light sensor to record speaker motion and compare it to the audio waveform.
They should show up as measurable distortion, no?
Correct, but it's harder to measure when it's the speakers fault (or the interplay between the speaker and the amplifier) versus just measuring the line-level output of a device. And it's a non-linear time-dependent error that would not necessarily manifest itself in traditional speaker frequency-response graphs.
So then the devil's advocate argument is:
1. The listener would likely perceive both timing and distortion problems.
2. It would be objectively measurable.
It meant I, FWIW, can sense it in the terms of "hearing it"
This is exactly the meaning of "sensitivity" that I had in mind when responding. At this point I think "imagining" is a much more fitting word than "hearing".
FWIW, IMO and YMMV
Sorry, this does not absolve you from having to present objective evidence that you actually hear these things.
pointing to URL link to, say, peer-reviewed, double-blind-controlled counter-evidence.
The burden falls on you to prove your claims, not us to disprove them. Please google "flying spaghetti monster"!
Are you going to present any objective evidence or should I close the topic?
[
I'm going to play devil's advocate here. Two major issues with amplifier and speaker design that could explain this are slew rate and servo feedback. A typical drum hit involves a huge transient that can be effected by the amplifier's slew rate as well as the natural inertia of the woofer's speaker cone. In addition, the "bounce back" of the cone after the initial transient can cause the speaker's motion to diverge heavily from the audio waveform. Self-powered monitors can fix this with servo feedback motors or other mechanisms (flyback transformer?) to give better motion control. I know this is a major problem in electronic injection automotive systems where the injector behaves basically as a miniature subwoofer and the timing of the system can get ruined by the voltage effects of the magnetic driver moving on its own due to inertia and elasticity.
Whether or not this manifests audibly in music equipment is subject to debate, but it does give a plausible rationale for prat effects.
And, again, I'm playing devil's advocate and not actually claiming that speaker elasticity and inertia is going to cause an audible effect except on very bad equipment.
In a rational design, a subwoofer (or woofer) isn't supposed to reproduce frequencies outside it's useful range, so with that drum hit, the low frequencies go to the woofer, and the higher frequencies go to the higher frequency drivers. Also recall that a bandwidth limited low frequency signal (like goes to a woofer) mathematically won't be able to precisely represent when the drum hit occurs. That information lies in the higher frequencies.
Faults in how the speaker as a whole handles that (say, a time difference between drivers) or an amp's inability to drive the speaker should be handled by conventional measurements without having to drag fuzzily defined terms into it.
fuzzily defined terms into it.
Thank you!
This is in part why I linked the other thread. As a musician, I'm somewhat disturbed seeing these well defined and accepted terms hijacked by the audiophile community in order to further their dialog of subjective woo.
1. Find some discussion-forum with a clear profile (e.g. "we demand ABX-tests attached to any claims of audibility").
2. Throw in a lot of words that goes counter to 1. ("I have heard that the bionic flux capacitor stirrs my 30kHz response in a non-measurable fashion")
3. Watch the number of replies rise rapidly. ("Please support your statements", "Audiophool")
4. Ignore all questions and comments and keep injecting the same highly verbose nonsense, now with meaningless charts and graphs.
5. Stand back and enjoy the commotion.
BTW, I am a big fan of generous moderating - even if it means that the occasional troll gets his 5 minutes of fame. Hydrogenaudio would not benefit from being any more of an isolated island of educated, rational, like-minded people than it allready is.
-k
Likes ^.
(we need a like button for posts...... )
I'm going to play devil's advocate here. Two major issues with amplifier and speaker design that could explain this are slew rate and servo feedback.
Maybe add phase response to this. A 90 degree phase shift at 30 Hz is 8 milliseconds. We know that listeners are sensitive to timing changes of this magnitude. Why would they not be able to hear this?
What is in dispute is that audio gear has intrinsic qualities that produce different stimuli in the listener for 'pace, rhythm, and timing'. Evidence please. Or at least, explain why your question is any different from 'Is ESP genetic?' Your arguments and pseudoscientific charts so far ring hollow.
For the record:
I am not an "audiophile". I do engage in that community from time to time, via forums, but only to seek answers to certain queries. I'm not in pro-audio or the recording industry. [What is (an) "audiophool"? Is this a pejorative of "audiophile"?] For the most part, I engage in the DIY PC/audio community. (If you want more info on my bg or projects, use SE or feel free to ask, in-lne or via PM)
Ultimately, I have no control as to how you want to charac/label me. You should, of course, weigh the evidence-- accounting for myriad cog. biases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases), e.g. esc. of commitment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_escalation) -- and come to your own decisions.
greynol ... you asked about keeping this topic open:
I'm working on a more extensive response. It will have some more extensive info ... much in the form of ref. links. But I'm multi-tasking other (non-audio) errands. And need a week or two.
1. Find some discussion-forum with a clear profile (e.g. "we demand ABX-tests attached to any claims of audibility").
2. Throw in a lot of words that goes counter to 1. ("I have heard that the bionic flux capacitor stirrs my 30kHz response in a non-measurable fashion")
3. Watch the number of replies rise rapidly. ("Please support your statements", "Audiophool")
4. Ignore all questions and comments and keep injecting the same highly verbose nonsense, now with meaningless charts and graphs.
5. Stand back and enjoy the commotion.
For the most part, I agree with this.
Can you temp. close it? Or can I continue it -- later -- in a non-Sci Disc sub-forum? IAC, I will accept whatever decision you/forum-body decide.
greynol ... you asked about keeping this topic open:
I'm working on a more extensive response.
You mean a response that actually addresses the many points of other users, rather than approaching them asymptotically at best? This is what we’ve all been waiting for!
It will have some more extensive info ... much in the form of ref. links.
Relevant ones, for a change?
Can you temp. close it? Or can I continue it -- later -- in a non-Sci Disc sub-forum? IAC, I will accept whatever decision you/forum-body decide.
For what little it’s worth, I’d be happy to cast my vote for this being closed until you make any effort to defend your assertions directly rather than simply hoping you can drown out opposing views with barely related waffling. But I’ll leave the decision to those who have had the energy to attempt to wrestle some sense out of you.
This is in part why I linked the other thread. As a musician, I'm somewhat disturbed seeing these well defined and accepted terms hijacked by the audiophile community in order to further their dialog of subjective woo.
Especially since pace, rhythm and timing can be conveyed in a 4kHz bandwidth with a 20dB SNR.
This is in part why I linked the other thread. As a musician, I'm somewhat disturbed seeing these well defined and accepted terms hijacked by the audiophile community in order to further their dialog of subjective woo.
Especially since pace, rhythm and timing can be conveyed in a 4kHz bandwidth with a 20dB SNR.
Hi,
I joined to post on this.
Prat is something I've taken a interest in for many years, and I have asked many people what is responsible for it. Good prat is reported to be particularly noticeable by its ability to reproduce fast paced music with accuracy, particularly in the bass range. The closest I got to a possible answer is speaker related.
Option 1.
A raised FR around 60hz giving a louder and therefore more prominent band around a kick drum impact
Option 2
Low inductance drivers either for there range (ie a pro sub as opposed to a long throw consumer option) or outright ( as in designing a speaker that rolls off at about 50hz but has a raised response at 60 and will likely include low inductance as a driver feature by default as the design doesn't seek to play low anyway which is what you add inductance for (to extend the LF extension.
Inductance effects the delay of the movement of the driver to the signal, so although a driver will either produce the signal flat or not, it may not start and stop the signal very close to the correct time, amplifier feedback is also related to this (damping factor)
The perception that electronics (amp etc) are responsible for perceived prat is just because the speakers the demoed amp is usually played with is actually the reason for the sound. Good current delivery always helps reinforce the low end too.
A discussion with the designer of 'kudos' speakers confirmed the rather 'British' tuning technique.
Having read a little of the
Stereophile article linked, I feel a need to quote these posts:
I truly hope this doesn't end up like it did when Martin Colloms [author of said article—Ed.] came to the forum to puffily interject his two cents on similar matters and then fail to answer any criticism and/or questions posed.
Spoiler: It did.
Mods, can you lock this thread already? OP (hollowman) has thus far refused to directly answer the questions posed of him (despite spending vast amounts of time on the board) and instead continues to use this thread as a dump for a verbose amount of unscientific, unsubstantiated, out of context, and dubious material of questionable merit.
The name of this forum is "Scientific Discussion" and this thread is neither.
Are you going to present any objective evidence or should I close the topic?
Please keep these, and #8 of our Terms of Service (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3974), in mind when discussing this supposed phenomenon.
Back to said article, the following excerpt reads like a who’s-who of the things that are to be avoided here (
i.e. why TOS #8 exists), in all its wholly unsubstantiated, hopelessly metaphorical, warm-and-fuzzy, utterly nonsensical glory. I’d have thought it was parody had I read it out of context.
For all its quantifiable technical faults, easily identified in the laboratory when compared with the measured near-perfection of CD, the vinyl LP disc possesses a powerful and effortlessly musical content, with an easy, fundamental rhythmic stability and solidity. Interestingly, this innate character seems to be quite robust, more so than digital. [nonsense] Subjectively rewarding results [TOS #8 proscribes subjective methods of evaulation as worthless] may be obtained from analog sources without much trouble. Many well-established but not necessarily high-priced components may be assembled to produce musically satisfying results. With analog, one can listen through the blemishes and be aware of a strong musical message, one in which the music's flow, pace, and tempo are well conveyed, and into which the listener is drawn.
By contrast, digital audio is a fragile medium. Sonic greatness remains elusive, digital replay often seeming to get bogged down at an earlier stage, [what] one in which the listener's lack of involvement leads to a substitute activity. [what] The mind remains busy, but is now cataloguing perceptual features and comparing them with previous experiences. [what] This is an interesting abstraction, comparable in the realm of visual art with the analysis of the brush techniques of old masters. [irrelevant analogy] But, as Robert Harley points out in this month's "As We See It," an obsession with technical minutiae can blind one to an appreciation of the whole. That easy, rhythmic grace inherent in competent analog replay points to one of the greatest paradoxes of digital replay.
Digital's technical advantages at low frequencies include low group delay due to a highly extended bass response, in theory even continuing down to DC. Technical appearances can be misleading, however. From my experience [double-blind tested, I’m sure?] of more than 250 digital products, coherent, expressive, naturally explosive dynamics and the ability to present good musical pace and a confident, upbeat rhythm are areas in which digital is surprisingly weak. If digital bass is agreed to be tighter-sounding, less colored and less "phasey," then how on Earth can analog still be in the running when it comes down to subjectively satisfying bass rhythm? Nevertheless, digital bass generally sounds laid-back and downbeat, even if it is highly neutral when viewed purely in technical terms.
[/size]I stopped annotating out of disgust more than anything else, really! What utter nonsense.
For all its quantifiable technical faults, easily identified in the laboratory when compared with the measured near-perfection of CD, the vinyl LP disc possesses a powerful and effortlessly musical content, with an easy, fundamental rhythmic stability and solidity. Interestingly, this innate character seems to be quite robust, more so than digital. [nonsense] Subjectively rewarding results [TOS #8 proscribes subjective methods of evaulation as worthless] may be obtained from analog sources without much trouble. Many well-established but not necessarily high-priced components may be assembled to produce musically satisfying results. With analog, one can listen through the blemishes and be aware of a strong musical message, one in which the music's flow, pace, and tempo are well conveyed, and into which the listener is drawn.
By contrast, digital audio is a fragile medium. Sonic greatness remains elusive, digital replay often seeming to get bogged down at an earlier stage, [what] one in which the listener's lack of involvement leads to a substitute activity. [what] The mind remains busy, but is now cataloguing perceptual features and comparing them with previous experiences. [what] This is an interesting abstraction, comparable in the realm of visual art with the analysis of the brush techniques of old masters. [irrelevant analogy] But, as Robert Harley points out in this month's "As We See It," an obsession with technical minutiae can blind one to an appreciation of the whole. That easy, rhythmic grace inherent in competent analog replay points to one of the greatest paradoxes of digital replay.
Digital's technical advantages at low frequencies include low group delay due to a highly extended bass response, in theory even continuing down to DC. Technical appearances can be misleading, however. From my experience [double-blind tested, I’m sure?] of more than 250 digital products, coherent, expressive, naturally explosive dynamics and the ability to present good musical pace and a confident, upbeat rhythm are areas in which digital is surprisingly weak. If digital bass is agreed to be tighter-sounding, less colored and less "phasey," then how on Earth can analog still be in the running when it comes down to subjectively satisfying bass rhythm? Nevertheless, digital bass generally sounds laid-back and downbeat, even if it is highly neutral when viewed purely in technical terms.
[/size]I stopped annotating out of disgust more than anything else, really! What utter nonsense.
FWIW, when I read something like that, it would seem to me that the writer:
a) has to have some stake in denigrating digital audio
(trying to sell or promote a competing product/system? or hoping for kudos from like-minded naysayers?)
or,
b) has listened to analog sound recording playback systems for so long that he/she has grown accustomed and/or fond of said delivery systems inherent quirks (tape hiss, vinyl pops, limitations regarding dynamic range, etc.) and now reads the absence of such elements as "sterile-sounding".
I joined this forum 2 1/2 years ago. I thought all of these pro-vinyl/anti-digital arguments had already been thoroughly debunked when I got here. IIRC, my baptism at HA involved being slapped down for my initial reflections about sample rates/bit depths beyond 44.1k/16 bit. I was set straight by the evidence, and quickly. Seems to me that the claims of die-hard vinyl advocates would be far more of a stretch and far more easily debunked.
I was a quick convert, and I've sent many forum discussions to this site for real facts regarding such issues. Why wouldn't anyone believe the hard evidence? I suppose the difference between me and a vinyl advocate might lie with the fact that I have not invested $10k in a super turntable/class A tube amp/"oxygen-free" speaker cabling as-thick-as-my-thumb system. Those that have done so might really need to cling to any theory they can find that might justify their investments, and the less scientific the theory, the better. Harder to debunk subjective criteria when such criteria can be rhetorically shoe-horned around any attempts to quantify them and design experiments to verify claims.
If ABX testing conclusively debunks this stuff, why are people still arguing it?
An ironic aside/confession--I recently bought a tape sim for my recording projects, which adds even series harmonic distortion, squashes dynamics a bit, and rolls off high end in the way an analog master tape might--so I guess that I, too, sometimes show an affinity for a more antiquated "analog" sound (albeit one faked via software). If the sonic signature of vintage equipment is what sounds great to a listener, that's fine, so long as one admits that the familiarity of such sounds is why a person is fond of vinyl. No need to invent theories to justify one's preference for that particular sound, is there?
Perhaps time for a bit of history?
The whole PRaT thing emerged in the UK's flat earth period.
The (subjective) audio press evaluated components and systems mainly
on things like tune playing capability and whether or not you could tap
your foot to it. (Really. Bear with me.)
Back then systems that, according to said press, 'timed well' typically
centered around one particular turntable, and loudspeakers invariably
optimised for wall mounting and with a particular tonal balance. And these
were, presumably, auditioned in typical UK homes.
Almost invariably any turntable, tonearm, or loudspeaker originating outside
of the UK, and in particular the USA, was deemed hopelessly PRaTless.
So did the favoured components (Linn LP12 TT in its earlier cruder forms, Linn and
Naim loudspeakers) when used in UK rooms, exhibit objective properties that set
it apart from competing products (possibly optimised to other room types), leading
to an enhanced impression of rhythmic flow? IOW did they really hear something?
Or was it all a large conspiracy initiated by Linn dealerships?
A superb topic. And all the gang-up responses as expected for the type of inside-the-box, locked-in-syndrome-afflicted populace the HA body-politic has ALWAYS been.
A/B testing (and TOS-8) is turning out to be an unproven and UNSCIENTIFIC joke...
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/big-s...-pyrates-aboard (http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/big-sound-2015-pyrates-aboard)
A superb topic. And all the gang-up responses as expected for the type of inside-the-box, locked-in-syndrome-afflicted populace the HA body-politic has ALWAYS been.
A/B testing (and TOS-8) is turning out to be an unproven and UNSCIENTIFIC joke...
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/big-s...-pyrates-aboard (http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/big-sound-2015-pyrates-aboard)
I agree that A/B testing is an unscientific joke.
Kinda like his troll post and pathetic meritless link guised as some kind of slam dunk?
Fail.
A/B testing (and TOS-8) is turning out to be an unproven and UNSCIENTIFIC joke...
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/big-s...-pyrates-aboard (http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/big-sound-2015-pyrates-aboard)
What drugs are you on?
Test 1) Tyler+HD800
Here we have 3 different output impedances (very high .. let's assume 1k, 120, 0.5 ohm) interacting with HD800: +3.6 dB, +1.1 dB, +0 dB wide bass peaks. Anyone should be able to at least pick out the high impedance amp quite easily. No surprises here.
Test 2) Tyler+HE-1000
3 errors out of 5 trials, given p=1/3 we get P(X >= 2) = 54%. That is miles away from statistically significant, pure guessing.
Test 3) with 3 people between 2 DACs, all failing
Then Tyll describes exactly why blind testing is so damn important. People hear what they want to hear. "I know which DAC it is when I see it."
Test 4) Anax with the same 2 DACs
6/9 => 25.4% ... is again not statistically significant, not even close. It still isn't if we don't count the last extra trial.
(Just compare this bad performance to his placebophile "review" posts. Funny as hell.)
So... what are you on about?
Sugar.
Sugar.
Just short on ODing.
Imagined differences tend to disappear in such tests ... the placebophiles don't like it when their biased opinions are not confirmed.
Proof that blind testing is an unscientific joke.
Proof that blind testing is an unscientific joke.
My understanding is that one has to stare at the DUT for a couple months to properly hear it. Perhaps even touch it inappropriately as well, to get a better feel for how it sounds.
We should toss these results, as I believe the above was not adhered to.
They didn't try flipping the amp upside-down, either.
Hey, where's the extensive and referenced treatise on 'PRaT' that hollowman promised us 4 years ago?
(btw given WernerO's historical note -- that discussion of 'PRaT' originated in the British audio press -- I really have to wonder if the whole thing wasn't a joke from the start)
Hey, where's the extensive and referenced treatise on 'PRaT' that hollowman promised us 4 years ago?
Only certain types of members stick around HA. The rest (majority) move on.
Don't believe that? ... just check out HA's Alexa traffic ranking (over time)*** ...
As far as the OP ... that "member" was banned long ago from HA. Just ask db1989.
When HA is afraid, it bans. That's okay, tho' --- this is YOUR place.
***Alexa used to offer 5-year metrics free; now you have to pay for stats that far back. IAC, I have them saved from way back. Bottom line: You'll lose PayPal sponsors far sooner than the heat death of the universe. So, hope permanent employees of HA have saved their pennies for a rainy day -- it's starting to 'prinkle
HA could do something totally revolutionary: change (learn from stats) and, e.g., revise TOS, etc. But the joint is infested with too many good-ol' boyz, old-skool thinkers and tenured Mods (greynol, et. al) lovin' their cushy status quo.
FROM THE TRENCHES, HERE'S A HUGE MONETIZING TIP: HA China, HA Hindustan, ...
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Only certain types of members stick around HA. The rest (majority) move on.
This is mainly due to the fact that (digital) audio reproduction is
so good nowadays that it's basically a solved problem for all but a select few people. Of course, this excludes the Dunning-Kruger crowd on placebophile websites.
To the best of my knowledge there was no level matching using instrumentation, so the test wasn't blind, unless they mention more details in the video which I couldn't bear after about 6m30s in, when Tyll said, to paraphrase, "Blind tests introduce bias of their own."
When HA is afraid, it bans.
Afraid of what? Of who?
Blind faith audiophiles who steadfastly stick to their magical notions of how they
feel audio should work, rather than how it actually works?
In that case, calling it "fear" is laughably ignorant. It's more like annoyance or exasperation at the sheer stupidity and gullibility these audiophiles seem to take pride in.
HA could do something totally revolutionary: change (learn from stats) and, e.g., revise TOS, etc. But the joint is infested with too many good-ol' boyz, old-skool thinkers and tenured Mods (greynol, et. al) lovin' their cushy status quo.
Absolutely not. HA is one of the only audio-related websites left where science and falsifiable evidence are still valued over anecdotes and fantastical unfounded speculation.
It's also blissfully free from "monetization", paid industry shills and blatantly paid-for "reviews".
When HA is afraid, it bans. That's okay, tho' --- this is YOUR place.
And what, pray tell, is HA afraid of in this particular case?
When HA is afraid, it bans. That's okay, tho' --- this is YOUR place.
You are confusing HA with audiophool places like huddler-fi or crapstar, where you do get in fact get banned if you criticize their highly flawed and biased listening comparisons - because
they cannot defend their flawed position.
People here are not banned for rational discussions or criticism. As a case in point, not long ago we had a >30 page discussion that was full with criticism about ABX and blind testing - most of the points where however based on complete ignorance about it and statistics.
The link you posted is actually also an example of that. To say something like "75% of the trials passed is statistically significant" is complete and utter nonsense. If I throw a fair coin and it lands a few times on the side I want then I can achieve a 100% success rate, yet it is still completely random.
What should we be afraid of? That someone builds an amplifier that sounds audibly different? That is trivial to do.
The problem with these audiophools is that they do not think rationally or critically when it comes to audio and fail to draw conclusions from solid evidence (one main problem being that they don't have any). They think that we are closed-minded, yet they don't even understand what the term means (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI) (YouTube video). They think that we do not allow certain things to be demonstrated, and the nutcases even think that science is a big conspiracy.
Why do you think the average Joe rolls his eyes, shakes his head or even bursts into laughter when he hears audiophools talking and fondling their gear?
Y'all super easy to trollbait, I have to say.
Y'all super easy to trollbait, I have to say.
Poe's law
If you dismiss such people as just trolls then you'd have to dismiss many audiophiles that seem to be absolutely sure and serious about what they say and do.
Fair enough. Keep the fire burning.
Showing someone where he is wrong does not keep the fire burning, it quenches it.
Sorry, I wasn't referring to flamewars, I was talking about passionately keeping the bullshit at bay.
Hollowman wasn't banned.
Even if he had been banned, he could have easily registered a new account just to come back and champion against our position with nothing more than fluff; and when that fails, provide internet statistics to tell us that we're dying...
...[a href="https://sites.google.com/site/audiothiest/"]https://sites.google.com/site/audiothiest/" rel="nofollow"]again[/a].
Of course we've had our share of non-banned members creating new accounts as well.
Interesting .... I open a long-dead thread with a few sentences, and .... well, i'ts like ringin' the dinner bell at Pavlov's joint.
Two pages of feedback. I brought the place back to non-Zombiness.
Akin to the modern, brainless primates, glued to their smartphone, waitin' for updates on Facebook, even when driving 80mph on the freeway ...admit it ... you're all addicted to contemporary socialism ... in the self-deluded guise of "scientific" pursuit.
Can you live w/o HA for a few hours?
How will you all psychologically survive the next 1859?
Interesting .... I open a long-dead thread with a few sentences, and .... well, i'ts like ringin' the dinner bell at Pavlov's joint.
Two pages of feedback. I brought the place back to non-Zombiness.
Akin to the modern, brainless primates, glued to their smartphone, waitin' for updates on Facebook, even when driving 80mph on the freeway ...admit it ... you're all addicted to contemporary socialism ... in the self-deluded guise of "scientific" pursuit.
Can you live w/o HA for a few hours?
How will you all psychologically survive the next 1859?
I just read this entire thread and learned almost nothing. Thanks for resurrecting it.
But his is a "superb topic!" How could you have missed that?!?
And so there was silence...
Now let's allow this thread to die peacefully without any fools PRaTtling on about their nonsense.
I brought the place back to non-Zombiness.
Congrats on winning nameless faceless troll of the day here and Dunning-Kruger hero of the day elsewhere, on the zombie-science constructed internet.
Interesting .... I open a long-dead thread with a few sentences, and .... well, i'ts like ringin' the dinner bell at Pavlov's joint.
Two pages of feedback. I brought the place back to non-Zombiness.
Akin to the modern, brainless primates, glued to their smartphone, waitin' for updates on Facebook, even when driving 80mph on the freeway ...admit it ... you're all addicted to contemporary socialism ... in the self-deluded guise of "scientific" pursuit.
Can you live w/o HA for a few hours?
How will you all psychologically survive the next 1859?
A perfectly executed puppet-master strategy.
Well done sir, you must be extremely proud of yourself.
A perfectly executed puppet-master strategy.
Is that what the kids call D-K trolling today??
I must be behind the times.
Hey, where's the extensive and referenced treatise on 'PRaT' that hollowman promised us 4 years ago?
Only certain types of members stick around HA. The rest (majority) move on.
Certain types that stick around must include trolls because you (oops, I mean "he") didn't move on.
Interesting .... I open a long-dead thread with a few sentences, and .... well, i'ts like ringin' the dinner bell at Pavlov's joint.
Two pages of feedback. I brought the place back to non-Zombiness.
Akin to the modern, brainless primates, glued to their smartphone, waitin' for updates on Facebook, even when driving 80mph on the freeway ...admit it ... you're all addicted to contemporary socialism ... in the self-deluded guise of "scientific" pursuit.
Can you live w/o HA for a few hours?
How will you all psychologically survive the next 1859?
You're a prat we can all agree is real, hollowman.
Akin to the modern, brainless primates, glued to their smartphone, waitin' for updates on Facebook, even when driving 80mph on the freeway ...admit it ... you're all addicted to contemporary socialism ...
I had in the very least expected a trolling on the genetics of pace, rhythm and timing to include some whining about how the evil music of
took off with your daughter (or your son's fiancee (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN3c64j2DPE#t=2m23s)) - and this "brainless primates" remark was all I got? D-i-s-a-p-p-o-i-n-t-e-d.