Ethan was responding to an earlier post of mine, which he misunderstood. Because of that, his response has little to do with this discussion of micro- and macro-dynamics, however true it may be in isolation.
Micro and macro dynamics...a discussion.
- Thread starter treitz3
- Start date
-- Rob, I took the time to go back (time is all I have) to the very beginning (few pages back) of that particular exchange of yours with Ethan. I was going to cite all the posts, but I decided against because I understand now.
...Regarding Ethan's mentioning the various volume levels in a room, and their effects (influences by the room's acoustics plus the ear's psychoacoustics).
No biggie at all.
_______________
The original purpose of this thread has to do with what those terms mean (macro and micro dynamics) when used by professional audio reviewers/writers.
And also, how, us, we perceived them definitions.
It is a vast subject, and it emcompasses several variables. And in my book, all of these variables are worth analysing. ...Because, after all, there is no absolute definition but the one coming from the writer himself. So, really, only the reviewer/writer can fully explain what he means by those two specific terms. Anything else is pure presumption from our part.
Me, I already said on how I 'interpreted' them. Others said that they don't mean anything at all, but simply the overall dynamics.
The volume level, room's acoustic, neural systems of our own psychoacoustics, parts used in the electronics (amps, preamps, sources, loudspeakers, and cables), can they be described as having micro and macro dynamics? ...And furthermore, better than other electronics?
We don't seem to all have the same understanding on this, and that is just fine. ...In audio, as in anything else in life we are at the mercy of our own knowledge and understanding.
...Regarding Ethan's mentioning the various volume levels in a room, and their effects (influences by the room's acoustics plus the ear's psychoacoustics).
No biggie at all.
_______________
The original purpose of this thread has to do with what those terms mean (macro and micro dynamics) when used by professional audio reviewers/writers.
And also, how, us, we perceived them definitions.
It is a vast subject, and it emcompasses several variables. And in my book, all of these variables are worth analysing. ...Because, after all, there is no absolute definition but the one coming from the writer himself. So, really, only the reviewer/writer can fully explain what he means by those two specific terms. Anything else is pure presumption from our part.
Me, I already said on how I 'interpreted' them. Others said that they don't mean anything at all, but simply the overall dynamics.
The volume level, room's acoustic, neural systems of our own psychoacoustics, parts used in the electronics (amps, preamps, sources, loudspeakers, and cables), can they be described as having micro and macro dynamics? ...And furthermore, better than other electronics?
We don't seem to all have the same understanding on this, and that is just fine. ...In audio, as in anything else in life we are at the mercy of our own knowledge and understanding.
Last edited:
IMO/IME:
macro = "normal" definition of dynamic range, that is how loud/soft a component/system plays
micro = ability to present small changes in dynamics riding on larger signals
For me, as with Ethan, it is all "dynamic range", with "micro" referring more to resolution than dynamic range per se.
Please note IMO/IME. I have seen plenty of variations, including some articles in the past year (I think, I am not about to go dredge them up) where different reviewers in describing a system's ability to change from loud to silent (e.g. between drum beats) was described by one as "macro" and the other "micro". I give up.
Seeing a noise-power ratio test on systems would be interesting...
macro = "normal" definition of dynamic range, that is how loud/soft a component/system plays
micro = ability to present small changes in dynamics riding on larger signals
For me, as with Ethan, it is all "dynamic range", with "micro" referring more to resolution than dynamic range per se.
Please note IMO/IME. I have seen plenty of variations, including some articles in the past year (I think, I am not about to go dredge them up) where different reviewers in describing a system's ability to change from loud to silent (e.g. between drum beats) was described by one as "macro" and the other "micro". I give up.
Seeing a noise-power ratio test on systems would be interesting...
IMO/IME:
macro = "normal" definition of dynamic range, that is how loud/soft a component/system plays
micro = ability to present small changes in dynamics riding on larger signals
For me, as with Ethan, it is all "dynamic range", with "micro" referring more to resolution than dynamic range per se.
Please note IMO/IME. I have seen plenty of variations, including some articles in the past year (I think, I am not about to go dredge them up) where different reviewers in describing a system's ability to change from loud to silent (e.g. between drum beats) was described by one as "macro" and the other "micro". I give up.
Seeing a noise-power ratio test on systems would be interesting...
Don,
When you say with "micro" referring more to resolution than dynamic range per se, it seems to me that you are not focusing on what is being addressed by the proponents of the expressions. We can have systems that can have high detail resolution and low micro dynamic resolution and vice versa.
I am not so concerned so much with what one person says. I think I have made my case for what the terms mean and giiven an example. That is what thee OT called for. Others, in saying thy agree with Ethan are fair enough. I realize he has many followres. On some issues it is deesrvedly so.
Her is what Ethan said:
Whose fault is it that others use the term incorrectly? If in fact they do. Many terms take on unintended meanings. For example Psychology has basically abandoned the term manic-depressive because it was so misused. It was replaced by the term bipolar.
If the term is being uesed in a manner that was unintended that is the fault of the user.
If you don't pay proper atention to these charactristic you ar not maximizing your sytems potential. Plain and simple
AS Julliet said " What's in a a name? Would not a rose by any othr name smell as sweet?"
Her is what Ethan said:
Dsspite saying you agree with Ethan, to my reading no one else is taking that extreme position.
Whose fault is it that others use the term incorrectly? If in fact they do. Many terms take on unintended meanings. For example Psychology has basically abandoned the term manic-depressive because it was so misused. It was replaced by the term bipolar.
If the term is being uesed in a manner that was unintended that is the fault of the user.
If you don't pay proper atention to these charactristic you ar not maximizing your sytems potential. Plain and simple
AS Julliet said " What's in a a name? Would not a rose by any othr name smell as sweet?"
Tom,
Is this one more example of your bizarre quantum theories? The micro dynamic $30k minimum threshold?
BTW, the Fletcher-Munson explanation was used to debate a different subject:
I have not read this entire thread and am not sure I would understand any better what the proponents mean anyway. As I said, in my experience, my definition is what folk speaking of mcirodynamics are referring to, but everybody seems to have a little different idea in mind. What is your definition (sorry if I am making you repeat, you could point me to an earlier post)?
I will not try to summarize the whole thread, but we had some agreement around Soundproof first posts on micro dynamics.
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?9344-Micro-and-macro-dynamics-a-discussion&p=167037&viewfull=1#post167037
Hello, Don. Your thoughts on this mimic mine. This has always been what my "meaning" has been when describing or interpreting things.
Tom
Thanks Tom, and Tom.
@micrsostrip: I skimmed a few posts and am not sure where my definition conflicts with that? My quick read says I agree...
On the noise floor: of course noise can mask small signals, whether they are alone or riding on a full-scale signal. That implies a low noise floor, and high SNR, is needed. Always assuming the whole microdynamics verbiage is meaningful and audible.
Honestly, I do not want nor am in any way competent to stay in this fray, I just felt like throwing out my definitions. I have gone back and forth on the relevance and what the requirements should be, how to measure, how to listen, what is audible, etc. and after decades of research have decided I like Scotch better than beer but beer is cheaper.
@micrsostrip: I skimmed a few posts and am not sure where my definition conflicts with that? My quick read says I agree...
On the noise floor: of course noise can mask small signals, whether they are alone or riding on a full-scale signal. That implies a low noise floor, and high SNR, is needed. Always assuming the whole microdynamics verbiage is meaningful and audible.
Honestly, I do not want nor am in any way competent to stay in this fray, I just felt like throwing out my definitions. I have gone back and forth on the relevance and what the requirements should be, how to measure, how to listen, what is audible, etc. and after decades of research have decided I like Scotch better than beer but beer is cheaper.
Does seem strange some get a bit grumpy because some describe music using term micro and macro dynamics.
Same people usually become grumpy when the term musicality is used, yet ignore some (I admit not all) professors of music even use the term along with musicians and various dance-ballet-etc performers/choreographers.
So if terms are good enough for some musicologists, hey good enough for me
So the argument then comes down to one of semantics, but maybe the solution then is to try and empathise with what someone is trying to communicate rather than seeing in absolutes.
Ethan, write and complain with your ire to: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-rozalie-levant/4b/841/306
Such an educated person as Dr Rozalie should be put in her place on poor technical knowledge
Not being serious btw, because this thread to me is just semantics or the logical breakdown of broader terms such as dynamics.
Slightly differently the term microdynamics is used in physics and context of liquids and solids, just a heads up.
Cheers
Orb
Same people usually become grumpy when the term musicality is used, yet ignore some (I admit not all) professors of music even use the term along with musicians and various dance-ballet-etc performers/choreographers.
So if terms are good enough for some musicologists, hey good enough for me
So the argument then comes down to one of semantics, but maybe the solution then is to try and empathise with what someone is trying to communicate rather than seeing in absolutes.
Ethan, write and complain with your ire to: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-rozalie-levant/4b/841/306
Such an educated person as Dr Rozalie should be put in her place on poor technical knowledge
Not being serious btw, because this thread to me is just semantics or the logical breakdown of broader terms such as dynamics.
Slightly differently the term microdynamics is used in physics and context of liquids and solids, just a heads up.
Cheers
Orb
That guy is just making **** up, and he even admits it. Sheesh Reg, I know you can do better than this!
--Ethan
Ethan, you said:
If you read Dr Rozalie Levant background do a search on the term microdynamics in that link.
It is far from meaningless, unless one is working in only absolutes as it seems you are with regards to its context.
Part of what Dr Levant says:
Cheers
Orb
If you read Dr Rozalie Levant background do a search on the term microdynamics in that link.
It is far from meaningless, unless one is working in only absolutes as it seems you are with regards to its context.
Part of what Dr Levant says:
I can find other musicologists/composers using the term microdynamics and musicality (which I know a few also have a problem with).
Cheers
Orb
I agree with your view on semantics - it is why most of us go on using these terms and understanding each others.
But for some people there is strong heresy in accepting that a system can have good macro-dynamics and bad micro-dinamycs and vice versa, as they are supposed to be the same thing! To be on not to be ...
Yeah Micro
The irony is none of us disagree with what dynamics is
Here is a good description for microdynamics, because it touches on an aspect that covers physics of sound; specifically timbres and and the perception of tone quality/colour to the note - late so please appreciate I am being very brief so please no new semantic argument on my phrasing.
It is late so why I am just throwing it out there, heck why bother with too much effort sure this thread will be 28 pages by tomorrow
From part of the writings done by John McGuire, including point 1 and 3 to keep some kind of context.
Orb
The irony is none of us disagree with what dynamics is
Here is a good description for microdynamics, because it touches on an aspect that covers physics of sound; specifically timbres and and the perception of tone quality/colour to the note - late so please appreciate I am being very brief so please no new semantic argument on my phrasing.
It is late so why I am just throwing it out there, heck why bother with too much effort sure this thread will be 28 pages by tomorrow
From part of the writings done by John McGuire, including point 1 and 3 to keep some kind of context.
Cheers
Orb
A small, flat monitor can have great resolution thereby letting us hear very small dynamic shadings. By itself however it may cough up fur balls (compress) when fed large scale LF. Just a concrete example.
By itself however it may cough up fur balls (compress) when fed large scale LF. Just a concrete example.
I just love your colourful descriptive language here Jack - 'coughing up fur balls' works so much better for me than the overly simplistic 'compress'
