[alphaman]

Quote:

 No hard and fast rules.  There's physical design and then there's tuning.  So despite the nature of something you can always tweak it to try to be more like something else.
 
DBA-02/B2/CK10 are quite 'PRaTy'.  DBA with Rush for example = Win! 
 

"There's physical design and then there's tuning. " Right. And within the physical design. E.g., to get dynamic transducers to perform better, use more-powerful magnets in order to reduce voicecoil length/mass, and use stiffer/lighter member, etc. All things held equal, of course.
 
Elsewhere, someone also noted UE TF10 as great PRaT IEM.
 
 

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

Elsewhere, someone also noted UE TF10 as great PRaT IEM.

I can't comment on the TF10 as I like my music to have Mids and I have an aversion to faulty treble drivers that ring incessantly on certain notes.  Plus the ridiculous fit and usual high price.  I also find the bass presentation rather one-note and boring.  I don't see it's value over $99.  So, no comment.  

      
 

 

[james444]

Quote:

So, in your book (and limited to what you've heard ... and that in reliable memory), what is the (an) ultimate PRaT IEM?

 
Sorry, I wasn't clear in my statement. I really don't know about the ultimate PRaT IEM, I'm not even sure if there's a consistent interpretation of that term. Remember the discussion about speed in the SM3 thread? I feel on much safer ground extrapolating from the phones you heard and love, that's why I said the Sonys are a great upgrade for IE8 lovers. They are definitely not aggressive IEMs, but neither are the IE8 (that you described as having excellent PRaT). But they're among the best in getting your toes tapping, if that's what you're looking for.

 

[66645]

Quote:

2-Likewise the slight glare around 6-7khz.  Using both my DACPort and 602 I can't get rid of the upper mid/lower treble splashiness.  Snares, High hats, sometimes female vocals are just too much.  The 602 does better as it does w/ the GR07 but it's still there.  Once you notice it you can't really let go and it's all too apparent afterward.  I'm beginning to think that both the GR07 and EX1000 were voiced w/ Asian languages in mind as this seems to be quite common wrt this target market.

 
This is exactly what I hear, but instead of word "slight" I would say "huge". Just played with EQ, and removed this 5.5Khz pick (-9db). Now I can listen to it, finally! Turn EQ off - no way, I can't. Just hear ringing... 
 
Sad, these are going back ... if i could return them. Or for sale.
 
 

 

[dilpal]

Sorry for my ignorance but what is meaning of PRaT

 

[Jazz9]

Quote:

Sorry for my ignorance but what is meaning of PRaT

Pace, Rhythm and Timing.
 

 

[alphaman]

Quote:

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my statement. I really don't know about the ultimate PRaT IEM, I'm not even sure if there's a consistent interpretation of that term. Remember the discussion about speed in the SM3 thread? I feel on much safer ground extrapolating from the phones you heard and love, that's why I said the Sonys are a great upgrade for IE8 lovers. They are definitely not aggressive IEMs, but neither are the IE8 (that you described as having excellent PRaT). But they're among the best in getting your toes tapping, if that's what you're looking for.

You're correct about lack of clarity, but it may not entirely your doing. Earlier, you also noted: "Well, tbo I'm not sure whether your conception of "fast IEMs" matches mine (or most other's here)." WADR to many folks, one of the "sub-categories" of PRaT -- speed [and that which is slow or fast] (see below  + ref links) -- is confusingly (and IMO, incorrectly) "defined" in kiteki's heavily-populated thread. In large part, this difference in semantics is what led to my resource-wasting** purchase of the SM3v2 (that this IEM was great WRT "speed"; and generally earns very high reviews ).
 
The PRaT acronym (possible originator: Naim electronics??) appeared shortly after Martin Collom's groundbreaking article, "Pace, Rhythm, and Dynamics" in Stereophile, Nov. 1992. That was quite while ago and the presence and importance of this issue has ever since been quite well and extensively addressed ... and further defined ... in the audio press. I assumed this was banal, common knowledge -- even ubiquitous or trivial info for the generally well-informed and putatively tech-savvy Head-Fi crowd. This is  -- as I've finally come to realize -- one reason I'm not clear why the related acoustic phenomenon are rarely -- much less correctly -- accounted for in myriad Head-Fi "reviews" and impression threads??
 
I have noted the above several times before in this forum and I'm sure many of you are exhausted by my A-B Repeat preachings. What I'm not sure about is why kiteki re-defined "speed", and incorrectly at that. May be some sort of cultural/linguistic diff: West vs. East; English not being native language, etc?? IAC, the phenomena he notes in that thread is more like 'congestion' (which has also been long-defined in audiophilia). All that said, why re-invent the wheel? A clear and established audio glossary has been in existence since the early 50's. 
 
I've decided to wait on an IEM "upgrade". 
 
**resource-wasting -- not just the up-front sales $$, but the hassle of ordering, burning in, clarifying basic audio definitions in these long-winded posts,  etc.
 
One more important note: A lot of developers and manufacturers are reading our posts, trying to get a clearer idea of what we want in an ideal product. It helps them (hence us, the customer and music lover) tremendously if we all speak with a common and articulate vocabulary.
 
Time-honored defs of ...
Speed -- The apparent rapidity with which a reproducing system responds to steep wavefronts and overall musical pace. See "fast," "slow."
Fast -- Giving an impression of extremely rapid reaction time, which allows a reproducing system to "keep up with" the signal fed to it. (A "fast woofer" would seem to be an oxymoron, but this usage refers to a woofer tuning that does not boom, make the music sound "slow," obscure musical phrasing, or lead to "one-note bass.") Similar to "taut," but referring to the entire audio-frequency range instead of just the bass.
 
 

 

[dilpal]

Quote:

Pace, Rhythm and Timing.
 

That sounds like we are playing cricket.

 

[shotgunshane]

The PRaT acronym has been around since the 70's and was first introduced when discussing Linn turntables, as certain accounts of audio history are told. P stood for pitch at the time. It may have been defined more specifically over recent years but it has certainly been a somewhat ambiguous term in it's history. Good luck in finding your kings of PRaT.

 

[Anaxilus]

Here's the thing.  Many terms are actually a culmination of many individual characteristics coming together and working in harmony, hehe.  I consider terms like PRaT, timbre, imaging to be terms that take a multitude of factors into consideration so they aren't as easily defined as speed, frequency response, etc. 

 

[alphaman]

Quote:

The PRaT acronym has been around since the 70's and was first introduced when discussing Linn turntables, as certain accounts of audio history are told. P stood for pitch at the time. It may have been defined more specifically over recent years but it has certainly been a somewhat ambiguous term in it's history.

I've seen it as PRAT, too, with "A" for acceleration. It is vague acronym, and leaves out the important and synergistic metric -- dynamics. Still, better to start somewhere, than basement level, which (IMO) is where we (via discussions on this topic at H-F) have pretty much been. History or etymology is unimportant.
 
Anaxilus: Agreed ... synergistic effects are important. I have found that when a gear performs well WRT pace/timing/dynamics, it does at least above average with tradit. / over-reported subjectives (highs, mids, bass, soundstage, etc.), but not vice versa.

 
 

 

[music_4321]

 
I'd like to apologise to ALL HF'ers for not using such complex audio terms as pace, timing, dynamics, transients, decay and other key audio terms in my EX1000/EX600 comparison post. I know the lack of such terms invalidates my post altogether - I can't apologise enough. Perhaps if I understood such terms, I'd have come to the conclusion that the EX1000 is actually a bargain and the EX600 a total rip-off.
 
I have to admit I'm generally put off by the (over)use of audio jargon, perhaps unconsciously just a sign of my utter inability to understand such terms and incompetence in translating what I hear and putting it into words.
 
I do hope "PRaT" does not become the new "T" word.

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

 
I do hope "PRaT" does not become the new "T" word.

I think you are a couple decades too late.  =P
 
Apology accepted.  

 

 

[music_4321]

^ Oh, the "T" word has been around for even longer than PRaT and suddenly became the buzz word not long ago in these forum threads as if that actually made people know what they were talking about and, more importantly, be right in their assessments. It often seems the more jargon one uses, the better our hearing is. One thing's for sure: (Over)use of jargon certainly impresses many. I may well resort now to simply saying "Love this, that sucks".

 

[i2ehan]

 
Quote:

Originally Posted by music_4321 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
I'd like to apologise to ALL HF'ers for not using such complex audio terms as pace, timing, dynamics, transients, decay and other key audio terms in my EX1000/EX600 comparison post. I know the lack of such terms invalidates my post altogether - I can't apologise enough. Perhaps if I understood such terms, I'd have come to the conclusion that the EX1000 is actually a bargain and the EX600 a total rip-off.
 
I have to admit I'm generally put off by the (over)use of audio jargon, perhaps unconsciously just a sign of my utter inability to understand such terms and incompetence in translating what I hear and putting it into words.
 
I do hope "PRaT" does not become the new "T" word.

 
Don't apologize my friend. Your review was honest, insightful, and was written based upon the best of your knowledge/experience with whatever time you've spent, and that's what counts. Be it you, me, or anyone else here music, there's no one perfect review/reviewee, and to be quite honest, I prefer simplicity to audio jargan any second of the day, to which I believe you've done a great job (as always), as have countless others here on head-fi. Don't let me, or anyone else here for that matter, change that. A great teacher of mine once said, "I live to teach, and if no one had showed up today to this very lecture, I'd have, at the very least, myself to teach." Live and learn my friend.

 
I'll tell you music, if it wasn't for the jargon, I'd have never necessitated the absolute need to have to hear each one of the top tiers myself. I say this because what I came to realize more and more is that IMO, we here at head-fi busy ourselves after "perfection", and almost forget altogether just how much fun it can be to simply enjoy the music. In a sense, the infamous "head-fi affect" (as I refer to) is like a mirage. In our minds, we believe it (perfection) is there and we continue to run towards it, drawn further and further away from what it was that brought us here in the first place; to just simply sit back and enjoy the music. That's not to say we are all subject to this of course, as there are a select few that are not drawn in as easily as others, and are able to limit their wants, versus their needs. For the newcomer, this place is an absolute maze, but as I've been informed from said new comers time and time again, the community here is friendly, and those here that are willing to offer their opinion time and time again are the reason we head-fi'ers return, time and time again. You're as much a contributor as anyone here, and I'd hate for you to have to alter anything about the way you express your listening experience.