So what do the acronym words actually mean in practice? And if nothing, or you don’t know, how do you know the system has PRaT as opposed to just being good at conveying the music? Or does it mean that a system conveying the emotion of the music inevitably must have PRaT, even though maybe only one of the is meaningful?
If conveying the emotion of music means ot has PrAT, all systems I’ve had have had it…
I’m pretty sure that my conclusion here is that the only way of unifying all these descriptions is that PR&T is equivalent to the quality of music reproduction. It’s like saying that Naim is good hi-fi. Absolutely true. So, anything that is good hi-fi is good at PR&T and this is not an attribute specific to Naim.
I’ve heard it been said that older naim boxes have more PRAT. Is there any truth to that?
When I think of PRAT and the naim sound, it makes me think of a sound that is a bit more forward and faster sounding (not actually faster), and more rhythmic, and punchier, than hifi with less PRAT. Less dispersed and wide, more focussed. All the good things that make the listener feel more involved and connected to the music. The stuff that gets your toes tapping and your head bobbing. It’s addictive and hard to walk away from.
I think this is the essence of the naim sound and it helps to explain why the naim sound is a bit different to other brands, because I believe that naim focus heavily on equipment with lots of PRAT. Maybe it’s the guiding principle in their product development as the primary goal - I don’t really know.
PRAT is probably why so many people love naim (not always knowingly) and plough huge amounts of their hard earned cash into it.
interesting thread…
PRaT only means Pace,Rhythm and Timing.
So what do pace and rhythm mean in the context of differentiating between systems that do or don’t "have PRaT?
…and all of these would need to include the concept of time in their objective descriptions.
Yet, most people talk about PRAT as relating to emotions, or more latterly above, in spatial dimentions.
Why not just accept that Naim gear is really good, and this does not need some inaccurate coding.
Likewise, other gear is good too, but there is no need to label it with some mythical attribute.
Naim focus on Pace,Rhythm and Timing,Linn focus on Pitch .
Yes all good Hifi should be good at Pace,Rhythm and Timing.
Today I listened to Roksopp’s Like an old dog (Enrico Sangiuliani remix) on a non Naim system, then on my 82/supercap/250 system.
Wow what a difference, demonstrates PRaT wonderfully.
Never have understood the phrase and never will. Music is music. I love listening on my home system but also get great enjoyment from my car system. The two systems are very different but both are very enjoyable. Of course the car system is secondary in quality and focus - the driving is the priority!
I can safely say I have never thought that pace, rhythm or timing is something I think about with Naim - or anything else for that matter. When I listen to music, slower music is obviously a slower pace than faster music. Some music is more rhythmic than others - does name make everything rhythmic?
As for timing, surely it is the accuracy of the equipment keeping everything in phase that counts.
Amusing thread.
If one cannot enjoy music in one’s care it may be more due to the driver’s (a) PRAT rather than Naim PRAT.
PRAT, musicality, transparency - all Horlicks
.sjb
Stu299
As simple as that - well said
It’s why I’ve had Naim since 1979/80
Out of curiosity, why do you want your toes to tap? And does that apply regardless of type of music?
Foot tapping is not an indication of sound quality: Tapping of toes (or feet) has nothing whatsoever to do with music being interesting or entertaining or involving or engaging or well played or “musical”. Nor anything to do with whether sound quality is good. Music can be the most engaging possible and not trigger toe tapping, or quite trivial and trigger it:
I have been to the most engaging live performances I can imagine happening and with some I doubt my toes tapped once. And I have watched films or other programs onTV, playing through its own crummy internal speakers, and a piece of familiar music has come on purely in the background and I have tapped my foot to it out of recognition.
Isn’t it better to focus on presenting music neutrally - as naturally and realistically as possible?
I admit to remaining confused after years of trying to grasp what appears to be an undefined concept.
PACE is a word that I got sick of hearing at work i.e. “Working at pace” which always doing more with less, cutting corners. Then, when I was fit enough to go walking/rambling with a 21 litre pack on my back, after many hours on an unmade path my pace would have been plodding, uneven compared to the start.
RHYTHM might start being simply setting a metronome, except that was one of the the things I disliked about tracks where the drums were set to a click track, mechanical, robotic, inhuman. Move on to a learning musician trying to work out Take Five to that metronome. A bit further with syncopation, the rhythm might be “fixed” but various players slightly in front of or behind the beat.
TIMING, not the same as rhythm, players making entrances or exits in the right place.
I can remember a couple of instances, a review of Rickie Lee Jones - Girl at her Volcano where one of the comments asked whether some of the backing musicians turned up for the ride or contributed the the whole. One of the organ tracks on Cantate Domino a seemingly random collection of notes. Both suddenly made sense when I moved from an original RB300 to an Ittok on my LP12.
At a hifi show to people coming out of a room, " Wow, that’s got PRaT", all I heard was a shouty, in your face noise.
Back in the days of Laskys, Comet etc a lot of equipment was apparently voiced to grab attention, stand out in a demo, but was ultimately fatiguing after a time.
I became uncomfortable with using “hifi” because of that, a phrase that made me think more of attention grabbing rather than enjoying music.
@Bjm pulls part of it together for me, keeping in phase, something I had explained to me as coherence, musicians might use ensemble.
I’ve just tested your theory with Diamond Head’s “Borrowed Time” on the LP12 and I think you’re right 
Just doing a back check with Metallica’s “Ride the Lighting”. Oh Lordy
I was in a bar the other evening listen to the music thinking “why is the bass not in time with the rest of the band”? and “Why does the timing of when instruments start and end, seem out of time with each other”?
It’s nothing to do with the way the music was recorded but everything to do with the poor reproduction in the bar, with “satellite” speakers and a sub woofer tucked away somewhere.
It really screwed with the music and I was more than pleased to hear the same piece of music when I got home playing with the pace, rthym and timing it was recorded with. (A track by Elbow).
I experienced a similar issue at a live gig recently. The bass was somehow disjointed from the music. I really HATE it when that happens.
It’s good to focus on Pace Rhythm and Timing,because it’s the most important things to get right.
Spot on… it reminds of a hifi event several years ago in a big country house… there was a largish day room with a so called über system playing and a dozen or so chairs set out for people to listen on. This system was playing away, to my ears it was uninvolving and confused sounding… but boy it looked good. I noticed there were lots of tapping feet in the audience, but they were tapping at different timings and at different points… I could hear no vibe to tap in what sounded like a mediocre / bland MOTR pop jazz track with a female singer…it was almost as if these gentlemen and I think they were all men, were conditioned to toe tap if they felt they should… I had to leave the room to have a snigger.