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

[krabapple]

I noted that this topic is "controversial" in that it not often reported in gear/equipment reviews --

PRAT is 'controversial' first and foremost because it hasn't been shown to actually exist as a quality of gear, not because it is 'underreported'


It is, however, perhaps the most delightfully well-named bit of nonsense to be associated with audiophilia.


As for the rest of your post, you might as well ask if ESP is genetic. That's called 'jumping the gun'.

This post has been edited by krabapple: Jul 5 2011, 03:22

[hollowman]

[...] you might as well ask if ESP is genetic. That's called 'jumping the gun'.

Several of you have responded with valid counter-arguments. But what about the UCSD study of perceived perfect/absolute pitch as a genetic trait? Is that 'jumping the gun', too?

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

[krabapple]

[...] you might as well ask if ESP is genetic. That's called 'jumping the gun'.

Several of you have responded with valid counter-arguments. But what about the UCSD study of perceived perfect/absolute pitch as a genetic trait? Is that 'jumping the gun', too?

No, because 'perfect pitch' demonstrably exists, and is a quality of the listener. Nor does anyone dispute that frequency differences can be audible. Nor is a relationship between pitch perception and frequency imaginary. Nor is it in dispute that different audio gear could produce different audible frequencies....though there are whole classes of gear that shouldn't.

What is in dispute is that audio gear has intrinsic qualities that produce different stimuli in the listener for 'pace, rhythm, and timing'. Evidence please. Or at least, explain why your question is any different from 'Is ESP genetic?' Your arguments and pseudoscientific charts so far ring hollow.

This post has been edited by krabapple: Jul 5 2011, 15:36