Perception of Pace/Rhythm/Timing (PRaT) -- genetic? Options

[hollowman]

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 . 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/
Or, more simply, the PTC genetic bitterness test from high-school biology class?

This post has been edited by hollowman: Jul 4 2011, 16:42

[kraut]

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?

This post has been edited by kraut: Jul 5 2011, 02:22