Micro and macro dynamics...a discussion.

[NorthStar]

You know what I like best about What's Best Forum?
...The elaborate discussions, the micro and macro extensions from the member's perceptions.

Here's another shot at it:

* Microdynamic resolution: The quality/ability of a device (electronic component including loudspeaker) to convey the smallest variations in dynamic expression at minuscule levels.
{It delineates the reality from the illusion.}

* Macrodynamic impact: The explosive power from the full orchestral movements (crescendos and all) with total control and full exposure/composure at the loudest/live/realistic levels.
{It is live or it is not.}

- I love well recorded piano music. :b

 

[Orb]

You know what I like best about What's Best Forum?
...The elaborate discussions, the micro and macro extensions from the member's perceptions.

Here's another shot at it:

* Microdynamic resolution: The quality/ability of a device (electronic component including loudspeaker) to convey the smallest variations in dynamic expression at minuscule levels.
{It delineates the reality from the illusion.}

* Macrodynamic impact: The explosive power from the full orchestral movements (crescendos and all) with total control and full exposure/composure at the loudest/live/realistic levels.
{It is live or it is not.}

- I love well recorded piano music. :b

Indeed so do I, one of my favourite instruments.
Also there is a lot of interesting research looking at piano timbre and expression play by expert musicians (both physics/mechanical engineering and theory/applied music research).
Cheers
Orb

 

[Robh3606]

Even if your [expert's] use of "microdynamics" was meaningful, it's irrelevant in the context of audio fidelity.

Hello Ethan

Why is that, are you saying all systems are the same?? Do you think a pair of Bose satellite cubes are the equal of a good pair of monitors??

Rob

 

[NorthStar]

Which hat were you wearing, the musician, composer or audio expert hat as you typed that?

Jack Jack Jack, how are you doing? ...My very peaceful/friendly friend. :b

* Mark, relax. :b

** ...I've seen better days .... 'Bout you Orb?

 

[JackD201]

Welcome back Bob

 

[NorthStar]

Thx Jack; I'm having some good soup right now, made by Will, my pro musician/painter friend.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Just to expand.
The reason I used the two sources I did is that they have an exceptional formal training/background in music-notes theory and music .
The reason I have emphasised it in bold is because those with a strong formal training in music have a different POV and application of expression-colour with timbre; this is based upon a research paper investigating timbre and its application by musicians with formal training and those with informal training.
Anyway both Rozalie and John have the same approach to musicality and critically microdynamics (that also fits in with paper on those with formal training), however as they rightly link this in with timbre it becomes incredibly complex because we still do not understand all the behaviour and facts-parameters behaviour associated with timbre still for physics-psychoacoustics-musical perspective.
But critically both the sources I used tie in accurately with more recent physics/mechanical engineering related research on timbre, in fact some of those studies use the term "dynamic timbre", which has parameters different to the standard use and description of loudness-dynamics.
However these studies to try and maintain some stable parameters exclude the subtle manipulation of timbre by expert musicians and also large scale timbre (some papers may also mention this as it adds another level of complexity researching timbre and human perception with complex waveform/musical note).
That said both the science research and academic music converge on timbre and use either microdynamics or another name like dynamic timbre to describe very similar behaviour and traits.

So from a musical term perspective, look back to the one description I provided from John McGuire and everything I mentioned about timbre-expression-colour-dynamics-partials-envelope-adsr-etc as it does compare well with Rozalie Levant books and and also both fit in with research from MIT and others on timbre.

I think it is worth clarifying what an exceptional formal training/background is, because some may seem them just as "experts"
Dr Rozalie Levant:

Published book: The Anatomy of Musicality

John McGuire:

I was following him for his work on Pulse Music, but much more to John than this and what I have included about his formal training-background.

Going to bow out now, because it takes awhile to write this when making sureI am not misrepresenting associated research papers,experts,context,etc.
Cheers
Orb

Wow. I don't mean to be insulting, but I will be frank; I find that kind of pedantic, academic dissection of art just short of soul-killing. Death by autopsy. It certainly doesn't serve the art; it detracts. Reminds me of my days as an English lit student listening to profs pompously pradle on about what Whitman or Elliot or Shakespeare "meant," making it more obvious with every word that they hadn't a clue what they "felt." Roomsfull of hot air. Oxygen wasted. When I was nearly to the bottom of that analysis, slack jawed, lips moving, eyes glazed over as if on the verge of seizure, I shook myself free and ran to my little listening space to renew my will to live. I was compelled to hear something from the gut and the gonads, from the heart of artistry rendered incredibly beautiful and untouched by such academic nonsense.

I chose Eric Clapton, "Just One Night," "Double Trouble." There's a passage in there where the band comes WAY down and Eric paints these little minatures, wisps of phrases, bursts of melody with the occasional emphasis that jumps suddenly, magnificently forward, but never gets anything approaching loud. It is a very dynamic passage that barely rises above a whisper. Microdynamic? Call it what you will. I doubt Eric cares.

I don't think Eric finished art school. But I'll bet his fingers know more about applying musical dynamics to the art of emotional communication than your two formally trained musicians will grasp before they leave this mortal coil. I'm not sure you even can write that sort of thing if you get it. I'm absolutely certain that you wouldn't. Oh and yes, dynamics and timbre are two very different things.

And I'll bow out now, because the weight of the pretense is more than I can suffer gladly. If I carry on, I'll likely get myself banned.

Tim

 

[Ethan Winer]

are you saying all systems are the same?? Do you think a pair of Bose satellite cubes are the equal of a good pair of monitors??

Of course not. But any difference between two loudspeakers can be explained and defined using the four standard parameter groups we already have. There's no need to invent new made-up terms that have no standard meaning. That's what I object to: hi-fi magazine writers who make up nonsense words, with PRaT being perhaps the most egregious. Pace, Rhythm, and Timing have specific musical definitions that are well established. Whatever audiophooles who use PRaT think it means, they are most assuredly wrong. Same for microdynamics.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

Wow. I don't mean to be insulting, but I will be frank; I find that kind of pedantic, academic dissection of art just short of soul-killing. Death by autopsy. It certainly doesn't serve the art; it detracts.

You have more patience than me Tim. I wouldn't even bother to respond.

BTW mep, I haven't sent you $100 because even though you said you're wrong, your posts show you were lying when you said that.

--Ethan

 

[Orb]

Wow. I don't mean to be insulting, but I will be frank; I find that kind of pedantic, academic dissection of art just short of soul-killing. Death by autopsy. It certainly doesn't serve the art; it detracts. Reminds me of my days as an English lit student listening to profs pompously pradle on about what Whitman or Elliot or Shakespeare "meant," making it more obvious with every word that they hadn't a clue what they "felt." Roomsfull of hot air. Oxygen wasted. When I was nearly to the bottom of that analysis, slack jawed, lips moving, eyes glazed over as if on the verge of seizure, I shook myself free and ran to my little listening space to renew my will to live. I was compelled to hear something from the gut and the gonads, from the heart of artistry rendered incredibly beautiful and untouched by such academic nonsense.

I chose Eric Clapton, "Just One Night," "Double Trouble." There's a passage in there where the band comes WAY down and Eric paints these little minatures, wisps of phrases, bursts of melody with the occasional emphasis that jumps suddenly, magnificently forward, but never gets anything approaching loud. It is a very dynamic passage that barely rises above a whisper. Microdynamic? Call it what you will. I doubt Eric cares.

I don't think Eric finished art school. But I'll bet his fingers know more about applying musical dynamics to the art of emotional communication than your two formally trained musicians will grasp before they leave this mortal coil. I'm not sure you even can write that sort of thing if you get it. I'm absolutely certain that you wouldn't. Oh and yes, dynamics and timbre are two very different things.

And I'll bow out now, because the weight of the pretense is more than I can suffer gladly. If I carry on, I'll likely get myself banned.

Tim

And that is the problem Tim, because you say microdynamics or what it stands for is meaningless, yet the theory of it is taught to those with exceptional formal training, including using expression-color.
There is nothing soulless about some of the best classical musicians and especially composers in the world, most are formally trained.
Calling someone who was the music director for Bolshoi Theatre background soulless is a bit well...
Technical understanding needs to be exceptional at the highest level for music and musicology, Eric Clapton has musicality and why he is good

Ethan, btw just to add: the definition you use for timbre a few pages back is out of date, yes Fourier was one of the 1st to arrive at a concise definition relating to frequency but in the last 5-10 years it has been superceded with further investigation and research on timbre, as I hinted research never stops and my point that even now timbre is not understood to a complete satisfactory level but is pretty well understood in terms of expression-colour (timbre dynamics/microdynamics parameters involved) and interraction with psychoacoustics.
Was not going to bother mentioning it, but hey you just make me bite
Cheers
Orb

 

[mep]

You have more patience than me Tim. I wouldn't even bother to respond.

BTW mep, I haven't sent you $100 because even though you said you're wrong, your posts show you were lying when you said that.

--Ethan

How can that be?? I haven't said another word on the subject (subharmonics) that we bet on since I agreed with you that you were right. Frankly I'm insulted that you said my posts show that I'm "lying" as you are incorrect and using that lie as your attempt to get out of paying me the money you owe me when the facts will clearly show that I haven't mentioned subharmonics again since I agreed with you. The mods can verify and you still owe me the $100.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

And that is the problem Tim, because you say microdynamics or what it stands for is meaningless, yet the theory of it is taught to those with exceptional formal training, including using expression-color.
There is nothing soulless about some of the best classical musicians and especially composers in the world, most are formally trained.
Calling someone who was the music director for Bolshoi Theatre background soulless is a bit well...
Technical understanding needs to be exceptional at the highest level for music and musicology, Eric Clapton has musicality and why he is good

Ethan, btw just to correct you: the definition you use for timbre a few pages back is out of date, yes Fourier was one of the 1st to arrive at a concise definition relating to frequency (Helmoltz 1st to define timbre in a basic structure) but in the last 5-10 years it has been superceded with further investigation and research on timbre, as I hinted research never stops and my point that even now timbre is not understood to a complete satisfactory level but is pretty well understood in terms of expression-colour and interraction with psychoacoustics.
Was not going to bother mentioning it, but hey you just make me bite
Cheers
Orb

Did he write that crap? That's what I called soul-killing. I don't know how a soulful musician could write such drivel. He'd have to have multiple personality syndrome; one personality to play the music, another to pick the wings and legs off of it as it squirms between his chubby little fingers.

Tim

 

[Orb]

Wow. I don't mean to be insulting, but I will be frank; I find that kind of pedantic, academic dissection of art just short of soul-killing. Death by autopsy. It certainly doesn't serve the art; it detracts. Reminds me of my days as an English lit student listening to profs pompously pradle on about what Whitman or Elliot or Shakespeare "meant," making it more obvious with every word that they hadn't a clue what they "felt." Roomsfull of hot air. Oxygen wasted.

I just realised Tim you changed the context of my original point.
The point was; formally trained musicians have a better understanding of timbre and the application of expression-colour when researched by a study, I tend to agree when we look at the way John McGuire provided a condensed description for microdynamics (his description is parameters of timbre and musician's application) that fits in with modern scientific research on timbre, he is not alone and why I also used another exceptional formally trained musician/musicology who matches as well.

This is important in this thread because the discussion is about "microdynamics" and whether it has any meaning or context.
The name could be something else such as timbre dynamics but the important aspect is that it does have meaning and context that is separate from dynamics-loudness, because it is linked to timbre and this comes back then to those with exceptional formal training for describing and the application of "microdynamics" in relation to expression-colour and timbre.
Personally I take the view the formally trained approach is the correct one for defining "microdynamics" (or another name describing same meaning and context) and musicality.
By all means buy Dr Levant's book on the Anatomy of Musicality, it is used by quite a few who do training/school of music.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Orb]

Did he write that crap? That's what I called soul-killing. I don't know how a soulful musician could write such drivel. He'd have to have multiple personality syndrome; one personality to play the music, another to pick the wings and legs off of it as it squirms between his chubby little fingers.

Tim

Err Tim,
There are two musicians in there; John McGuire who is reasonably known and is incredibly talented from a classical background and provides some great insight with his Pulse Music, and also Dr Rozalie Levant who was the music director at the Bolshoi Theatre AND a senior lecturer at what could be deemed pretty good music schools.
I do not understand how you think formal training is soulless, or you just picking faults with their background that is a summary of their life/CV.....
Anyway this is moving well away from the original direction so maybe for a different thread and whether such backgrounds are soulless or provides the technical background required to play at the highest level for music (lets say classical and structure/frame/etc).
Cheers
Orb

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Err Tim,
There are two musicians in there; John McGuire who is reasonably known and is incredibly talented from a classical background and provides some great insight with his Pulse Music, and also Dr Rozalie Levant who was the music director at the Bolshoi Theatre AND a senior lecturer at what could be deemed pretty good music schools.
I do not understand how you think formal training is soulless, or you just picking faults with their background that is a summary of their life/CV.....
Anyway this is moving well away from the original direction so maybe for a different thread and whether such backgrounds are soulless or provides the technical background required to play at the highest level for music (lets say classical and structure/frame/etc).
Cheers
Orb

I don't know if you're misunderstanding me or misrepresenting me, but I didn't say formal training or any individuals were soulless. Did I even use the word "soulless?" My only point is that kind of pretentious academic analysis not only leaves me cold, it leaves cold and does nothing to enlighten anyone to the music. It probably does damage. "Soul-killing" was, i believe, my choice of words I stand by it. There is nothing "musical" about the analysis. One can barely recognize tht music is the subject. But is it your two trained musicians who I'm reading? Have I actually read anything they've written, or is it yours?

This is so interesting. We insist on describing chips and wire and vacuum tubes as if they were beautiful, lyrical music, then we turn around and describe the subtlest nuances of beautiful music as if it were mathematics.

Post once more, my friend and you win by default. We're talking past each other and I'm tired.

Tim

 

[Orb]

Tim,
how many times do I have to say this; below is a condense description provided by John McGuire (his quote):

microdynamics, i.e. the relative loudness of different partials within the mixtures. This is the single most important influence on color.

You say:

Have I actually read anything they've written, or is it yours?

Everything else I have mentioned has come from specific research papers or books/articles that validate John McGuires condensed description.
How much have you said on microdynamics being meaningless or not linked to timbre and is from a research/theory/expert , or is it yours?

As I said with one of my very early posts, would it actually be worth my time spending effort going through them to discuss this subject and I concluded no.
But again this is another response that digresses from the main point of this thread; the context and meaning of microdynamics and where the best understanding and application of it used (meaning a very high formal training/education background in music IMO and from research studies I have read, and the fact John Mcguire has said it pretty succinctly as have other peers).
Nearly all great symphonies/works are based upon formal structure and framework; in fact music is linked to both mathematics and language.
Cheers
Orb

 

[microstrip]

Of course not. But any difference between two loudspeakers can be explained and defined using the four standard parameter groups we already have. There's no need to invent new made-up terms that have no standard meaning. That's what I object to: hi-fi magazine writers who make up nonsense words, with PRaT being perhaps the most egregious. Pace, Rhythm, and Timing have specific musical definitions that are well established. Whatever audiophooles who use PRaT think it means, they are most assuredly wrong. Same for microdynamics.

--Ethan

Reviewers and audiophiles subject their reviews and opinions to scrutiny of the community. Most of them have established a standard of communication with the public you do not want to understand. IMHO it is your problem, not theirs.

Systematically telling the others are wrong its an easy job, but can become just a futile exercise. Do you have a large record of audio reviews that you have carried using your approved methods and language standards that you can present us as an example?

 

[JackD201]

How can that be?? I haven't said another word on the subject (subharmonics) that we bet on since I agreed with you that you were right. Frankly I'm insulted that you said my posts show that I'm "lying" as you are incorrect and using that lie as your attempt to get out of paying me the money you owe me when the facts will clearly show that I haven't mentioned subharmonics again since I agreed with you. The mods can verify and you still owe me the $100.

He just tricked you into saying it. LOL!

 

[mep]

He just tricked you into saying it. LOL!

But I didn't say he was wrong which was what the bet was all about. I won his $100 fair and square and now he doesn't want to pay up.

 

[JackD201]

Did you really expect him to?