Micro and macro dynamics...a discussion.
- Thread starter treitz3
- Start date
Macro means large . Micro means small. Could it be simpler. If you don't know what dynamic range is, here is some help
First, this still falls under the general term dynamics, and there's no need for micro and macro subsets. But more important, the notion that a system could play music well at soft and loud levels, but not at a medium volume, is logically flawed. I already explained that loud music contains smaller signals near the zero crossing. I also explained that if an amplifier can't handle any range of signal levels properly the result is distortion, which is easily measured. There's no need for magic or for new made-up terms that add nothing.
If a system really does sound poor only at medium volume, the problem is undoubtedly due to room acoustics. At low volumes the echoes are too soft to be bothersome. At loud volumes our ears compress, Fletcher-Munson takes over, and everything sounds full and clear. But at medium levels artifacts caused by the room are most audible. So this is a psychoacoustics issue, not a matter of equipment quality.
--Ethan
I have no doubt that we could survive without the expressions micro or macro dynamics - we could replace the expressions with long rigorous descriptions about our perceptions. However, thanks to a few brilliant people who described the concepts much better than any WBF post will do we have found a common denominator under these expressions and a large community can understand each other, increasing their audiophile knowledge and our capacity of debating audio systems.
I am 100% sure that we will not persuade any one has deep roots against this terminology of our good intentions. So debating its roots now is useless.
Tom asked in the original post
Could we split this thread in one thread about the existence of micro and macro dynamics and another debating the original intentions? I am sure that most of us would like to learn about others views and examples micro and macro dynamics, in preference with examples of music and systems and no videos trying to prove anything!
I am 100% sure that we will not persuade any one has deep roots against this terminology of our good intentions. So debating its roots now is useless.
Tom asked in the original post
Could we split this thread in one thread about the existence of micro and macro dynamics and another debating the original intentions? I am sure that most of us would like to learn about others views and examples micro and macro dynamics, in preference with examples of music and systems and no videos trying to prove anything!
Although I don't much consider or use terms such as macro / micro as sonic criteria myself, the way I understand the two as separate descriptions per overall dynamic expression is that Macro refers to large dynamic swings or instrumental impacts such as hard hit drums or cymbals, while micro refers to smaller dynamic contrast, like smaller percussive instruments that happen deeper within the soundstage. Where this may matter to me as criteria, is not so much an issue of a system doing Macro better than Micro (or vice-versa), but rather how a system handles the two dynamic contrast at the very same time ... in which many systems I've witnessed seem to lose overall dynamic definition.
I've always referred to that as dynamic expression or contrast.
tb1
A convenient whipping boy but by no means not the only possibility. Something as simple as a problem with a potentiometer (dirty or worn contacts in a stepped P) could cause strange behavior like this. I've done a house call where the system sounded fine at low volumes, buzzed at moderate volumes, stopped buzzing at higher volumes. The culprit: A loose spike was giving off a low level rattle that was not so easily identifiable. It was discovered as preparations were being made to take the loudspeaker apart. Those are the only times I've ever seen this strange behavior. I'm not discounting that others may have observed behavior like this and found the problem to have different causes.
Funny, I've had this happen also, and recently I might add. When my system sounds it's best, the speakers disappear, but recently I was noticing that the right speaker seemed louder, shoutier, but less dynamic, more obvious. Playing a Hammond B organ cut (a good test of system resonance) I noticed that the speaker became much more resonant and smeared at certain frequencies. When I tried to push the speakers back on it's mount, I noticed that a spike had become slightly loose. Once fixed, the speaker disappeared like Frodo.
tb1
I said I probably didn't explain it very well. What I meant is that while the volume control is untouched, the loudest parts of the music as well as the softest parts are produced at the correct volume. However, as Tbone mentions, the subtler dynamic changes in between those volumes are not reproduced correctly (the same volume control setting, the same piece of music, almost the same time in fact, just different parts of the music). And I doubt very much it's room acoustics; even more, I suspect that if someone tried hard enough with the right equipment, this could even be measured.
Explaining the differences you refer simply by room acoustics is not enough - most of us have listened to similar effects and small changes in the system can modify them significantly, keeping the same room and speaker placement.
Maybe so, but irrelevant to this discussion, and I'm sorry I couldn't have expressed myself clearly enough to have avoided that response
---- Rob, I was completely at lost here. ...So, on a second time I decided to go back and tried to understand.
I saw my reply to Ethan's post, and it has nothing to do with your quote or you.
...Only to the content of Ethan's post, and in particular to his last paragraph which I emphasized by darker and larger letters.
