A fairly meaningless acronym invented as a sales tool, as was " Tune Dem" imho.
If memory serves me right it was invented to sell/defend the Naim sound of a few decades ago which was quite bright/lean/cool which made it sound fast and quite exciting. The Naim sound has evolved over the years.
PR&T or Pace, Rhythm and Timing are attributes of how the music makes you feel. Music without PR&T doesn’t make the listener feel much of anything. A system with lots a PR&T will get the listener hugely involved.
Pace is when the music communicates a sense of energy, propulsion and drive
Rhythm is the ability of the music to communicate both bold and subtle regular shifts in timing, frequency and/or amplitude that grab the listener’s attention and communicate how the musicians are boogieing together
Timing is the ability of the music to create feelings in the listener of things like tension, suspense, ease and excitement
PR&T is not an objective measure. It’s a subjective measure that is felt by the listener as attributes of how connected they feel with the music. Do you feel driven, do you want to dance, do you feel moved?
PR&T is definitely an attribute of well set up Naim systems. It’s also a major attribute of Sean Jacob’s power supplies.
Back in the day, UK systems liker Naim, Linn etc tended to emphasize PR&T over imaging, while US systems like Conrad Johnson and Audio Research did the opposite
Not heard that one… what did it mean?
But you need the T in PR&T for imaging. Poor phase coherence will lead to flat imaging. If you have poor T in my experience you have poor or mediocre P & R.
But imaging also needs careful speaker, room, listening position matching. To many reflections, much of your T will just turn into a mess.
A Linn thing, iirc.
Can you easily follow the tune (melody/how the musicians interplay together etc) as opposed to being wowed by hifi fireworks…
Thanks, slightly subjective perhaps, because people listen to music differently… some one will focus on melody others chord structure and motifs, others on melodic/rhythmic riffs… others the overall impression.
But yes being able to hear into the audio clearly at the different layers is a sure sign of good/tight timing… but of course is also very recording and production dependent.
Hi Simon,
Way back in the mid-2000s, 4 US based companies got together and started to market a new collective branding called 2C3D (2 Channels, 3 Dimensions).
At the time I was based in Germany, running a Naim SBL 4-pack active system. Being an avid reader of the TAS and Stereophile I was extremely curious about what a top of the line US-based system would sound like compared to my British HW so on one of my US trips I made a date for a demo of Overture Audio’s 2C3D system. Before leaving I auditioned several CDs to highlight various qualities I valued like emotion, PR&T, listener involvement, tonal beauty, funkiness, air and acoustic space etc.
When I arrived at Overture the system had been warmed up and was ready to play. The store owner set me up with a coffee and inserted the first of his selection of CDs designed to show off the imaging prowess of the system. Roger Water’s Amused to Death, with the dog barking well behind the listening chair was quite memorable. The imaging was impressive, indeed spectacular, although musically I can’t say I was particularly moved. But I expected that to change as soon as my careful selection of CDs were played. First up was a track off the album Budapest by jazz harpist Deborah Henson-Conan. This track had been bouncing me out of my chair the evening before so I was really expecting something special, but it was as if the imaging was taking so long to ‘build’ that all the drive, energy and vibrancy was somehow gone. The rest of my albums faired about equally well. Unimpressive, to be kind. I was actually embarrassed by how lack-lustre some sounded. I left that demo with a deep sense of gratitude that my own system sounded as it did. The imaging I heard was spectacular, but the cost in terms of PR&T was huge.
My most recent system, based entirely on local and remote streaming was a great example of just how marvellous and involving the combination of imaging and PR&T can be but back in the early 2000s it was still quite a polarized choice between more of one and less of the other.
I know what you mean too.
I notice it most with a lot of rock music. Whilst some can do a decent job, only Naim amps ‘really’ Rock!
Yeah imaging is benefitted from timing, but having little in the way of dynamics un sympathetic speakers in your room can leave it falling short. The T in timing is about phase coherence - imaging relies on phase coherence - not the other way around. Hence why I say phase coherence - or what is referred to as timing in audiophile land - is so important for involving replay where your brain doesn’t have to work too hard. Timing is also important on monophonic sounds.
For me I tend to find PR&T in smaller speakers more intensive, some larger speakers can be ok at the P&R but if the baffle is too large with respect to the listener you can loose the point source effect and therefore timing suffers - and to me PR&T overall.
But this is all subjective and we are all different - I if you have read my posts over the years you see I tend to be a ‘T’ fanatic. One reason why I love the Nait50 so much - it is superb at the ‘T’ and reasonably good at the P&R as well with the right speakers.
BTW I had a similar expiernce in the early 90s with a Meridian system, and large electro static speakers. Great spacial positioning - albeit I think exaggerated - but slightly lack lustre engagement.
Apparently listening to see if you can “follow the tune”, and is used by some people as a means of judging which is best in a comparison. I am wholly unconvinced, as there is far more to sound quality, and indeed different people will have different aspects of sound quality that to them are the more important, however at least one member on the forum swears by it, and in the context of ethernet switches, and their power supplies, and ethernet cables has said you can tell which is best very quickly using ‘Tube-dem’.
Tune dem was coined to mean the sense of a musical whole where the interplay between instruments was easily heard,I guess that this would be most impressive in jazz improvisations. In any case, it’s just a marker of excellent hi-fi, and is not owned by any single manufacturer…as is the case with PRaT.
That seems different to the description I read and propounded by a forum member, which as I described is a a way of listening to compare systems or changes to systems. A quick Google leads to the Linn site, explaining.
I didnt really understand PRAT until I lost it, 10 years ago, about 20 years into my Niam/hifi journey, when tinkering with speaker wire . For me it’s in large part the energy and pluckiness of each note’s leading edge that gives music the bounce that makes my feet tap. Reposting a message from a different thread about my experience:
Years ago I swapped out my NACA 5 for Chord Signature. At the time I had a CDS2/252/250 going to Quad 2905. Upon first listening I was blown away with the much wider soundstage, the warmer tones and what I thought was more realistic sound to instruments and vocals. I thought I’d found “the missing piece.”
But then after a couple of months I realized I wasn’t listening to music very much anymore. I couldn’t figure out why until I went to a live guitar jazz concert and paid close attention to what I thought was making it sound so much more exciting than what I had been listening to at home. It was the leading edge of the guitar, the pluckiness of it.
I got home from the concert and threw on Al Di Meola et all’s Friday Night in San Francisco, an album I loved but hadn’t listened to since swapping the wires. Pressed play and realized that while the sound was very pretty, it was missing that pluckiness and my foot was not tapping.
Swapped the NACA 5 back in and while it sounded a bit rougher again, the excitement had returned and I couldn’t help but bob my head and tap my toes. That was the point that I truly and finally understood PRAT.
I sold the Chord and haven’t removed the NACA 5 since.
PRAT is a feeling. It’s like when you feel love. As I said before, it can’t be measured or defined. It’s absolute. A positive connection. To me anyway.
It seems that “PRaT”, far from being an acronym for three key factors in sound reproduction, as implied, is simply another term for good sound quality in the eyes (ears!) of the beholder. So why on earth coin the term??? Or is it a ‘mystique’ to make people already buying into certain brands feel a commitment to remain with that/those brand/s?..
So you mean that PRaT don´t stands för Pace,Rhythm and Timing ?
Have a search for PRaT: audio system timing in context
An article in The Ear references Martin Colloms book High Performance Loudspeakers
Why the need to try and define the sound in these terms? For me it is simply a question of whether the music involves you. Musical engagement is not limited to Naim or costly equipment.
Many years ago, we were after a small CD/radio system and auditioned a TEAC unit with small speakers for about £200 or so if I remember correctly. One of the demonstration discs was chosen by the dealer and it was Van Morris son’s ‘Back on top’ album. It sounded so good that we immediately bought the TEAC system and then headed to the nearest CD shop to buy the album.
Year’s later I wanted to change my Pioneer A400 integrated on the main system and settled on the Myryad MXi2080 integrated at about £1,000. The demo was at a dealer in Swindon who had the same Tannoy DC2000 speakers as I had at the time. One of his discs was Hans Theesink’s ‘Bridges’ album. Again, it was so involving that I bought the amp and immediately ordered the album on line (not available in shops). It was actually a SACD but it would be years before I got to hear the SACD element.
Now, I never knew of any acronym that described what I was hearing but both systems were fantastic and really allowed enjoyment of music.
Things moved on and I had great enjoyment from my NDX2/SN3 and now my NC300 series.
The 300 series wowed in the way that it allowed better insight into musicians actually playing together. I can now really appreciate how tight they sound and the way that these very talented people add to the whole.
I suspect that this means the pace, timing and whatever is very good but to me I just appreciate being able to listen in the ‘hotspot’ or not, while being able to follow different threads or listen as a whole. Whichever way I listen, I don’t feel the need to analyse my system but rather just enjoy the music.
Hahaha love this quote on this context! Well found!
Most of us have been to a dealer who, consciously or otherwise, tapped their foot enthusiastically when the component they favoured was in the demonstration system. Someone made a comment to this effect in one of the forums a long time ago, and it remains one of the best and most concise putdowns I’ve ever come across:
“These days I like to audition kit slowly at home, without a foot conductor trying to Scientologise the more lucrative result.”