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

[hollowman]

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.

For the record:

I am not an "audiophile". I do engage in that community from time to time, via forums, but only to seek answers to certain queries. I'm not in pro-audio or the recording industry. [What is (an) "audiophool"? Is this a pejorative of "audiophile"?] For the most part, I engage in the DIY PC/audio community. (If you want more info on my bg or projects, use SE or feel free to ask, in-lne or via PM)

Ultimately, I have no control as to how you want to charac/label me. You should, of course, weigh the evidence-- accounting for myriad cog. biases, e.g. esc. of commitment -- and come to your own decisions.
greynol ... you asked about keeping this topic open:
I'm working on a more extensive response. It will have some more extensive info ... much in the form of ref. links. But I'm multi-tasking other (non-audio) errands. And need a week or two.

1. Find some discussion-forum with a clear profile (e.g. "we demand ABX-tests attached to any claims of audibility").
2. Throw in a lot of words that goes counter to 1. ("I have heard that the bionic flux capacitor stirrs my 30kHz response in a non-measurable fashion")
3. Watch the number of replies rise rapidly. ("Please support your statements", "Audiophool")
4. Ignore all questions and comments and keep injecting the same highly verbose nonsense, now with meaningless charts and graphs.
5. Stand back and enjoy the commotion.

For the most part, I agree with this.
Can you temp. close it? Or can I continue it -- later -- in a non-Sci Disc sub-forum? IAC, I will accept whatever decision you/forum-body decide.