I believe I experienced great PRAT for the first time

Pace, rhythm and timing are desirable commodities no doubt.

However, in my experience, systems which do them well often fall down heavily in other areas.

This realisation is the reason I moved away from a Linn/Naim system in the first place.

Apparently Naim amps can do far more than PRAT these days but for me tone is king, PRAT are mere accessories.

It's a shame that these 2 qualities often seem to be at almost opposite poles to each other.

@jjss49 

Apparently most British PA amps weren't very good back in the 1960s and this is what led Julian to believe he could do better himself.

I'm pretty sure that most of the nonsense came from the Linn side, although Naim did have their quirks. Eg they wouldn't put RCAs on their amps so we had to get our Linn's fitted with BNCs.

Linn certainly had a sense of humour and I'm pretty sure they were in on the prat joke.

@pesky_wabbit 

Many agree with you, no doubt. Rega for one.

As I said, it would be nice to have both.

In the UK this search for PRAT resulted in many systems sounding quick and snappy but almost totally devoid of tone, texture and colour.

In any case shouldn't PRAT be more a function of the loudspeakers than any other component?

If an amplifier sounds as if it's got great PRAT then shouldn't we ask why?

Could it be leaving something important out?

@pesky_wabbit

I have found sprakers can be a great killer of PRAT.

Me too.

I don’t think it’s too bad today but back in the 1990s and 2000s there seemed to be a lot of loudspeakers that would seem to suck out the life of music, unless perhaps they were turned up very loud.

Some of them seemed to blur the timing by leaving the bass lagging behind and squash some of the dynamics so that the music always felt ’sat on’.

This lead to some trying out various tweaks in order to correct things. I remember British reviewer Jimmy Hughes, the god of tweaks this side of the pond, advocating the extreme measure of removing some or all of the internal loudspeaker wadding in order to liven things up again.

Of course that could lead to an increase in cabinet resonances but as they say, ’you pays your money and takes your choice’.

@pesky_wabbit 

I think it was Hi-Fi Answers, mid 80s I think.

Somehow, I got sucked into the Linn/Naim cult after HFA ceased publication and I picked up Hi-Fi Review edited by Chris Frankland.

Bad if still an interesting move.

Maybe I'm getting old too but today's audio mags do all seem rather homogenised in comparison to those good ol' 'Wild West' days of the 1980s.

I can imagine manufacturers not being too happy after all their work (and additional expenses) in damping enclosures only to see Jimmy recommending the reverse.

I must have been naive back then for following much of his advice regarding twin and earth/solid core cables, LEDs etc.

Whether removing (some of) the damping from various speakers worked or not would depend upon your preferences. I would be lying if I said I never preferred the sound with at least some of the wadding removed.

Perhaps there was something in Jimmy's idea all along as can be seen by the approach of experienced designers such as Russell Kauffman (of Russell K loudspeakers) who don't use any wadding/damping material in their current designs.

Instead they seek to work with resonances instead of against them.

A brilliant idea, if it can be pulled off, and from what little I've heard, Russell may well have done exactly that.

@pesky_wabbit 

ah yes, the good old days of Chris and the flat earth society. In conjunction with the Linn/Naim marketing steamroller they did a pretty good job of brainwashing the British audio mindset for well over a decade, and managed to have the dealers who blinked at their demands fall into liquidation in quick succession.

I think a lot of us finally lost Jimmy when both he and Ed Paul Benson fell in with Peter Belt and went straight down the rabbithole - last I heard he was clamping strange devices to his water pipes. 

A good summing up.

Yes, the emergence of Peter Belt was a step too far for me too.

Good explanation too about shuffling resonances out of where they do most harm.

Perhaps I should have explained in greater detail.

After all I was there in person when Russell himself not only explained his approach but demonstrated it at the UK Hi-Fi Show a few months ago.

That's also the goal of Harbeth if I remember correctly.

Although they both use a lot of science in their designs, they take a different approach to get there. Harbeth favour lossy cabinets to Russell K's listening by ear.

Perhaps ultimately it's just a question of where you want to put the emphasis.