PRaT

[mep]

They are one and same in my book. All music has a time signature with 4/4 being very common for rock and 3/4 is common for waltz music. Pace just sounds like an audiophile term made up by somebody who doesn't understand time signatures.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

They are one and same in my book. All music has a time signature with 4/4 being very common for rock and 3/4 is common for waltz music. Pace just sounds like an audiophile term made up by somebody who doesn't understand time signatures.

That's exactly what I was thinking....

 

[LL21]

They are one and same in my book. All music has a time signature with 4/4 being very common for rock and 3/4 is common for waltz music. Pace just sounds like an audiophile term made up by somebody who doesn't understand time signatures.

In music making they are different, though in audio playback, that is different. When i studied piano, I had to understand the timing of the piece from the composer...4/4 timing, as MEP points out. However, the pace was the speed with which i actually moved thru the music in that meter. (I always got yelled at for 'rushing' my pieces as a kid. "Slow down!" even if i keep the right meter.) For example, you will definitely find that every conductor will finish a symphony in a different amount of time even though they have not changed the meter of the composition...it was still 4/4...but the Conductor may have had a quicker pace thru the music...which is the artistic license that all musicians exercise in their interpretation.

in the case of audio playback, perhaps reviewers differentiate by the fact that the pace should always be basically the same unless there is something seriously wrong with the CD...or the recordplayer is slow or fast. But the timing can appear to be altered when certain beats are muddied by, for example, poor bass damping...so the bass snap becomes a muddy rumble and the beat does not seem to snap exactly when it should.

 

[NorthStar]

Just an example: Glenn Gould - The Goldberg Variations (Bach).
The 1955 and the 1981 versions.

 

[LL21]

Just an example: Glenn Gould - The Goldberg Variations (Bach).
The 1955 and the 1981 versions.

Great example for musical pace v timing. Same timing...totally difference pace. Another example of pace v timing on audio playback was rap music on my SF Strads with CJ amplification and CJ preamplification...the amp was not powerful enough to conrol the 2.7ohm Strads...bass was loose and wobbly. We had just come back from listening to Sashas driven by Krell monos and an ARC Ref 5 preamp...what a let down to come home and feel like the hip hop was slow, almost off...it was because i was not even really hearing the beats down at the bottom...just a low indistinct rumble.

Switch to Gryphon Antileon...and bam!...the low beats all came in, the detail, snap, etc. Switch to Wilson X1s and it improved again with far greater detail and decay. Obviously the CD still finished in 59 minutes 16 seconds...but the 'perceived' timing of my bass was far better.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

In music making they are different, though in audio playback, that is different. When i studied piano, I had to understand the timing of the piece from the composer...4/4 timing, as MEP points out. However, the pace was the speed with which i actually moved thru the music in that meter. (I always got yelled at for 'rushing' my pieces as a kid. "Slow down!" even if i keep the right meter.) For example, you will definitely find that every conductor will finish a symphony in a different amount of time even though they have not changed the meter of the composition...it was still 4/4...but the Conductor may have had a quicker pace thru the music...which is the artistic license that all musicians exercise in their interpretation.

in the case of audio playback, perhaps reviewers differentiate by the fact that the pace should always be basically the same unless there is something seriously wrong with the CD...or the recordplayer is slow or fast. But the timing can appear to be altered when certain beats are muddied by, for example, poor bass damping...so the bass snap becomes a muddy rumble and the beat does not seem to snap exactly when it should.

So if PACE=SPEED and TIMING= MAINTAINING STRUCTURE (4/4)..then those are the result of the performance, not the recording or a components ability to reproduce that. PRaT in the context of the topic is a descriptive of how components sound. No?

 

[LL21]

So if PACE=SPEED and TIMING= MAINTAINING STRUCTURE (4/4)..then those are the result of the performance, not the recording or a components ability to reproduce that. PRaT in the context of the topic is a descriptive of how components sound. No?

Hi John, My descriptions above were in 2 parts: Pace and Timing for musicians. and Pace and Timing for audioplayback.

Another example of pace v timing on audio playback was rap music on my SF Strads with CJ amplification and CJ preamplification...the amp was not powerful enough to conrol the 2.7ohm Strads...bass was loose and wobbly. We had just come back from listening to Sashas driven by Krell monos and an ARC Ref 5 preamp...what a let down to come home and feel like the hip hop was slow, almost off...it was because i was not even really hearing the beats down at the bottom...just a low indistinct rumble.

Switch to Gryphon Antileon...and bam!...the low beats all came in, the detail, snap, etc. Switch to Wilson X1s and it improved again with far greater detail and decay. Obviously the CD still finished in 59 minutes 16 seconds...but the 'perceived' timing of my bass was far better.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Hi John, My descriptions above were in 2 parts: Pace and Timing for musicians. and Pace and Timing for audioplayback.

Another example of pace v timing on audio playback was rap music on my SF Strads with CJ amplification and CJ preamplification...the amp was not powerful enough to conrol the 2.7ohm Strads...bass was loose and wobbly. We had just come back from listening to Sashas driven by Krell monos and an ARC Ref 5 preamp...what a let down to come home and feel like the hip hop was slow, almost off...it was because i was not even really hearing the beats down at the bottom...just a low indistinct rumble.

Switch to Gryphon Antileon...and bam!...the low beats all came in, the detail, snap, etc. Switch to Wilson X1s and it improved again with far greater detail and decay. Obviously the CD still finished in 59 minutes 16 seconds...but the 'perceived' timing of my bass was far better.

Hope that makes sense.

Yeah, I saw the second part only after I posted.

It does make sense, although I had to read it a few times for it to truly sink in. Interesting subject and discussion.

 

[Ronm1]

This is like terms used by Oenophiles(I hope that is spelled right). Phile's do have a tendency to do that.

 

[LL21]

This is like terms used by Oenophiles(I hope that is spelled right). Phile's do have a tendency to do that.

Yes...i think anytime you get really into something, the terminology starts to get quite 'specific' or 'out there'...depending on your perspective.

 

[fas42]

I'm sure there's a technical explanation: your body and mind certainly register when it's not up to scratch. I suspect that it is all to do with how well, how distinctive, the stressed and unstressed beats are reproduced with respect to, contrast each other; whether the downbeat is sufficiently resolved, highlighted. I'm no muso, whatsoever, but just had a quick look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_%28music%29

Frank

 

[treitz3]

...but the 'perceived' timing of my bass was far better.

Hello, lloydelee21. Was it actually perceived or just the precise and perhaps, accurate reproduction thereof?

 

[LL21]

Hello, lloydelee21. Was it actually perceived or just the precise and perhaps, accurate reproduction thereof?

In truth, it was absurdly obvious...and at the time, depressing. Basically, the mid-powered CJ (much as i enjoyed it) could not drive the SF Strads properly and the bass response was a rumble instead of snap. So in truth, it was not accurate and instead of steady beats and snaps, there were rumbles which made the music lose its snap. In that sense, it was inaccurate...in terms of perception, the music seemed to lose pace and seemed slower because there were no longer the steady beats and snaps...even though we all knew it could not be slower...the track took exactly as long to play as on the Sasha/Krell/ARC system.

But it was also an excellent learning experience and i have since been able to take the system and maintain the midrange voicing thru the Zanden/CJ combo i enjoy so much...and update the amplifier to make a huge improvement.