The thing about objectivists is...

@gladmo Brilliant!  Wonderful writing, and salient, cogent arguments!

Can someone please explain what the words “rhythm and pace” mean in the context of analyzing music/sound reproduction?

@clearthinker Thanks for the response.

People toss these words out to describe the quality of a recording, and seemingly more often to describe the music-reproduction-quality of a piece of equipment.

Maybe I’m just dim, but I still don’t see how these words have any meaning in this context.  
If I listen to a piece of music on one sound system, and then listen to the same piece on another, how could “rhythm and pace” have anything to do with the equipment?  
If my toes start tappin’ more readily with one system, it would be from a myriad of factors.  Perhaps the bass is better.  Perhaps the entirety of the frequency spectrum is more balanced.  Perhaps the soundstage is wider, taller, and deeper.  Perhaps the imaging is better.  I just can’t see how the concepts of “rhythm and pace” have anything to do with sound equipment.

@nonoise Your response is unnecessarily rude and condescending.

A couple people here at least tried to address the idea.

All you did was issue rude condescension, and then give a vague non-answer.

With a nice slice of (while pushing proverbial audio-nerd glasses up with finger): “uhhhh, you really don’t know that? (nerdy-snicker, nerdy snicker) I thought only teenagers that don’t care about the History of Audiophilia didn’t know that! (nerdy-snort, nerdy-snort)”

To use your “description,” (very liberal use of the word ‘description’) if “it (I’m assuming what you mean by ‘it’ is ‘music emanating from speakers’) comes across more realistic, then it will have that rhythm and pace.”  
Well, there you have it!  Not vague at all, and certainly extremely meaningful language when analyzing sound quality!

If something sounds “realistic,” (I’m assuming what you mean by ‘realistic’ is ‘sounds like a live band or sounds as-close-as-possible to the sound on the master tapes) then what more is communicated by saying it has “rhythm and pace?” 

Are you able to give an actual, concrete, useful, description of what constitutes sound quality that exhibits “good rhythm and pace?” Or is it more vague, meaningless audiophile jargon that people wank away with while listening to Dark Side of the Moon and Brothers in Arms?

@nonoise Some of us care about the efficacy of language, and the meaning of words.

Using the terms “PRaT,” and “rhythm and pace,” when describing the respective qualities of various electronics and speakers, is the very definition of “nonsensical.”

Music has “rhythm,” not gear.  
As far as “pace,” goes, even for music itself, this word is pretty meaningless.  “Pace?” Uhhhhh, you mean, “tempo?”

“Timing?” I suppose, as someone else here noted, “timing” may be somewhat useful in describing “realism,” that is, communicating the sense that the signal has been processed with such efficacy as to feel the music is being played live-on-the-spot.

Rattling off the term “PRaT,” has no meaning to a laymen, and little meaning to someone who actually thinks about what the term actually means.

But I suppose being an effective communicator to the average person is not necessarily the goal; it’s much more fun for an insular group to have their own little vernacular.

@nonoise Fair enough.

Go nuts with your meaningless jargon, and your justification that “people have peddled this nonsense for decades, therefore it’s inherently valuable.”

Go nuts with your defense of “the rest of us swallowed this non-speak decades ago, so anyone who questions it is just a wet-behind-the-ears newbie who hasn’t learned how to properly dispense vague, insider-jargon non-speak.”

I’ll continue to use words that have meaning to describe things.

@nonoise I asked a question as to what practical function the term, “PRaT” has in describing audio gear.

You then said, “this is a term that’s been around for decades and how you don’t understand its meaning ‘in this context’ (nonoise’s initial use of the apparently-offensive quotation marks) is baffling unless you’re under 20 and have no appreciation for what’s gone on before you. ‘PRaT” refers to how ‘realistic’ the sound is.  It is apparent in the totality of the system’s sound, not something one can plug in.”

Okay.  So a condescending tone followed by a vague-as-hell explanation, followed by the charge of my being “nonsensical” and issuing “blather,” and harboring “hatred” of people describing things.  Not a lot here to garner respect from another thread user.

One practical use of the word, “prat”: it’s original meaning.

“A person’s buttocks,” or, “an incompetent, stupid or foolish person; an idiot”

This is a use of the term I can get behind.

Yes, within the context of this thread, there’s nothing useful about determining the meaning of subjective terms, and how they may, in certain instances, be used as a way to present an objective analysis of audio gear.  
We should really keep this discussion on track.

@nonoise I can’t speak to the others’ intent, but my last comment was sarcastic.