Two terms I don't understand - please explain

When attacks and decays are not accurate, the music *will* lose "pace, rhythm, and timing." So in that sense I do believe the acronym makes at least enough sense to be used. PRaT also sounds a little cooler than something like AAAD (accurate attacks and decays). Can anyone think of any other ones to use?

"That CDP has PRaT" is a bit easier to say than "That CDP is very good at not blurring attacks and decays." It's just a way to generalize. Some acronyms just exist, and while they may not be perfect, they've become the generally accepted way to refer to something.

So I guess what I'm saying is, I think a lot of us are going to continue to be "lazy" and "cliched" and just say "PRaT."

Well as I said, PRaT is not a direct reference to the physical effects of a loss of accurate attacks and decays. Rather, it is a perception of rhythm and timing loss. You have to think outside the box a little bit here.

I believe that from the entire acronym, "rhythm" is the most appropriate descriptor, because the rhythm of a song is perceived as being inaccurate or unmoving when the attacks and decays are not reproduced in their original form. I guess that applies to the entire waveform as well.

But in the end, I think "PRaT" is mostly used to describe something like the "toe tapping factor" (which sounds a lot dumber than PRaT). If it's music that gets you involved, get's you bobbing your head, tapping your toes, whatever, then the music has "PRaT." As far as physics go, I believe that music that lacks this quality has poor reproduction of dynamics, and a huge part of the sound of dynamics is attacks and decays. You can argue that the term is stupid, I really don't care. I don't use it that much anyhow. But at least when someone uses it, I know what they're *trying* to refer to. :)