I have often used the Shostakovich Piano trio nº2 Glinka Quartet as an example of micro dynamics capabilities in the sense I highlighted in bold on your post. The connection between the performers is established by the subtle nuances of the players of this mono close milked performance. Most systems can deliver a boring performance. IMHO small ensemble chamber music such as trios need this type of performance to envelope the listener in the performance. Some people say we must listen the performers, not only to the instruments.
Micro and macro dynamics...a discussion.
- Thread starter treitz3
- Start date
I have often used the Shostakovich Piano trio nº2 Glinka Quartet as an example of micro dynamics capabilities in the sense I highlighted in bold on your post. The connection between the performers is established by the subtle nuances of the players of this mono close milked performance. Most systems can deliver a boring performance. IMHO small ensemble chamber music such as trios need this type of performance to envelope the listener in the performance. Some people say we must listen the performers, not only to the instruments.
I think Soundproof nailed it. I also agree that in order to hear information at the very bottom of the dynamic scale, your system must have a very low noise floor. Otherwise, the musical information will be buried in noise and you will find yourself joining threads and proclaiming that microdynamics don't exist.
Yep, concur - the problem arises in considering it a 'floor' - because in actuality its varying with the signal. 'Noise elevator' might be closer to the truth.
Ok, let me take a stab at what I mean by noise floor: To me, the root noise floor of your system is the sound you hear when you are in your listening chair with your system switched to an input with no music playing and the volume control turned up to the level where you normally listen to music. What do you hear?
Now, I do think there are multiple noise floors that we do hear, but they are all stacked on top of your root noise floor. I know that Opus is a noise-modulation geek, but his idea of a "noise elevator" could be used to describe the changing (elevating) noise floors that do exist above the root noise floor. Tape has a noise floor that rides on top of your root noise floor, ditto for LP and digital. LP playback really has multiple noise floors which are comprised of the noise floor inherent in the recorded music and the noise floor of the vinyl itself plus the noise floor of your phono preamp. On really good systems with really good LPs, all of those LP noise floors are very low, but they do exist.
And if you don't have a really quiet room to begin with, you may have no idea what your root level noise floor is because it might be masked by the ambient noises of your house in which case you will find yourself posting to threads and declaring that microdynamics don't exist.
Now, I do think there are multiple noise floors that we do hear, but they are all stacked on top of your root noise floor. I know that Opus is a noise-modulation geek, but his idea of a "noise elevator" could be used to describe the changing (elevating) noise floors that do exist above the root noise floor. Tape has a noise floor that rides on top of your root noise floor, ditto for LP and digital. LP playback really has multiple noise floors which are comprised of the noise floor inherent in the recorded music and the noise floor of the vinyl itself plus the noise floor of your phono preamp. On really good systems with really good LPs, all of those LP noise floors are very low, but they do exist.
And if you don't have a really quiet room to begin with, you may have no idea what your root level noise floor is because it might be masked by the ambient noises of your house in which case you will find yourself posting to threads and declaring that microdynamics don't exist.
And here we even have to consider as separate properties (a) the noise floor that is part of the listening environment, and (b) whatever noise is then supplied by the medium we are listening to (surface noise, tape noise, ambient noise at the recording venue, etc.)
And some amplifiers even add their own noise to the mix, as perceived from the drivers (usually mid/top).
These various noise sources can mask microdetails and nuances in microdynamics.
===
It's worth considering the claim that "the current gets better late at night, because I hear more details then."
Another explanation is that the system-extraneous noise-floor has dropped considerably, letting those details through.
And some amplifiers even add their own noise to the mix, as perceived from the drivers (usually mid/top).
These various noise sources can mask microdetails and nuances in microdynamics.
===
It's worth considering the claim that "the current gets better late at night, because I hear more details then."
Another explanation is that the system-extraneous noise-floor has dropped considerably, letting those details through.
Last edited:
I think we're getting a little off-track here with the introduction of the "noise-floor". Next we'll be introducing cables and their effect on macro and micro dynamics, which I don't think was the intent of the thread start.
John-I disagree because the dynamic range of your system is tied to its inherent noise floor. I think they go hand in hand and I don't know how you would divorce microdynamics from the noise floor. In reality, anything you introduce into your system that raises or lowers your noise floor is impacting your total dynamic range for the better or worse.
I completely agree with mep here. A low noise-floor in your listening room is a prerequisite for being able to appreciate these details.
Or put in another way - the Loudness War is the result of having to punch through music in environments that drown details. When people got portable music, they needed their music to stand out from background noise (city noise, underground, office buzz, etc) which made it impossible to use these details and soft passages. All you'd hear was silence, until something happened in the music, the details were drowned out by surrounding noise.
In a high-end listening room, the noise floor needs to be very low for all these details to be discerned properly, and it's a rare room that really has a proper noise floor.
Which was the point of my "the current is better at night" comment. The reasons these details get through, is because people are inside and traffic is not moving about - your noise-floor is several db's lower and you're hearing details and nuances that are otherwise drowned out.
Soundproof
Now you have to introduce a new concept
The subject of another thread... @everybody
I dont't have strong opinions on the term. The tendency, even compulsion we have to fabricate terms that seem that only we, understand the true meaning ultimately dilutes the meaning of what we have to say.
Why not "dynamics gradients".. "shadings" or "reproduction of fine details"?
I know the difficulty to translate perceptions in words but we are not making it easy: Our wild and careless use of words and expression make of many attempt to understand a guessing game.
That may be true for a high-end listening room, and I would hope that the noise-floor within such a system and environment has been tamed, but not all of us are in that fortunate position. I, for instance, cannot address the noise-floor living in an apartment whereby I have no control over the electrical. And that's just one example. Should I therefore not even be discussing this as I get the sense that unless you have a high-end system one cannot truly appreciate the difference between the two dynamics?
John-This isn't a high-end snob thread-or at least I don't think it is. And really Soundproof brought up the ambient noise floor of the room itself which depending on how high that level is, the noise floor of your system is riding on top of the room's noise floor (assuming the room's noise floor is lower than your system's noise floor) or it is buried beneath the room's noise floor. Your system's dynamics are held hostage to the noise floor of your room and your system.
Why? Cables are just an excellent example of something that can help in improving the micro dynamics in systems - or on the contrary, destroying it.
I thought it was about their ability to portray them, and not arguing about whether they even exist.
The only difference between dynamics - the difference between loud and soft stuff - and "microdynamics" is magnitude. So why do we need micro or macro when dynamics alone conveys all that's needed? Again, every time I've seen an audiophile type use those terms, they were unable to define what they meant when asked. Such terms only serve to distract us from what really does affect the quality of audio gear. What next, microfrequencies? microdecibels? microbytes?
--Ethan
--Ethan
Mep,
F. Toole wrote:
"The origin of emotion in a listener is the art itself—the music or movie—and not the audio hardware. It is inconceivable that a consumer could feel an emotional attachment to a midrange loudspeaker driver, yet without good ones, listening experiences will be diminished."
It says it all. When we refer to some properties of audio gear we are addressing its action on the sound reproduction. Some times in order to shorten sentences we abbreviate somewhat careless, but IMHO this always the main idea - it is how I read others posts.
The reason both terms are useful is because a system that is good at rendering volume differences high in magnitude is not necessarily good at rendering volume differences small in magnitude. Or vice versa. I don't find it such a difficult concept and find it quite self-explanatory, I think it's at risk of being over-complicated/analysed here?
Intellectually, I agree with Ethan. Music has its language and its notations, and they are perfectly capable of telling musicians how to execute various passages, from tutti forte to the softest of sotto voce.
I've had this discussion on numerous occasions, though, and it seems there's a need in Hi-Fi to be able to distinguish between easily perceived musical effects, usually involving ample helpings of bass, and the much more granular and evanescent details that are also there, but often missed by listeners for a variety of reasons, many of them involving flaws in the playback chain and the room interaction.
I don't mind microdynamics being used, if there's some consensus as to what it means. But as there is little consensus about what dynamics means, we're probably hoping for the impossible to believe one will arise on the micro-variety of same.
And people will say microdynamics when they are actually indicating artefacts, and they will say "this is a dynamic system," when they mean it delivers a hefty bass punch.
So it goes.
For what it's worth, I believe a system's ability to deliver a consistent and believably resolved array of fine detail is the most important element in achieving a sense of realism, particularly when it comes to the correct characterization of transients. If we need particular terms to know what we're talking about, then OK. Let's just agree upon what they mean.
