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

[Woodinville]

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.

[hollowman]

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) .


This post has been edited by hollowman: Jul 5 2011, 09:02

[Woodinville]

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.

[hollowman]

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?

This post has been edited by hollowman: Jul 5 2011, 11:59

[Soap]

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.

[hollowman]

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)