Micro and macro dynamics...a discussion.

[Orb]

Just because you can find some musicologist using a term in the context of music doesn't mean that same term is useful in the context of defining the fidelity of audio equipment. I thought I explained that clearly enough above. I've also seen people use the term "subharmonic," which also is meaningless because there is no such thing.

--Ethan

I think you are missing the point of what they say or understand, especially regarding timbre/partials to colour-accents-expressive timing and dynamics.
Just because you disagree with professors of music does not make them wrong, even scientists research what I have mentioned
So how do you describe timbre and colour that one hears being played back? - the use of a spectral envelope of a complex chord has yet to be used for defining the fidelity audio equipment and yet this is primarily what audio equipment plays back.
Even using spectral envelope will not describe how an expressive musician can change the sound very subtly in a way that a reader can relate to, hence microdynamics as well as can be explained IMO by John McGuire who defines it as "microdynamics, i.e. the relative loudness of different partials within the mixtures. This is the single most important influence on color" - not perfect or compete but seems pretty reasonable to me.

How do you describe the relative loudness of different partials in the tone of an instrument-voice-etc, which is subtly changed for colour-accents-expressive timing and dynamics (bear in mind timbre also involves attack-sustain-decay of many partials), or do you suggest a musician cannot influence the colour?
There is a reason why testing audio fidelity uses a simple sinewave/tone because complex waveforms/timbre-colour is incredibly challenging; it seems this maybe why you dislike microdynamics because it is an expression beyond some of the measurement techniques currently used, which ignore complex sounds and critically the colour of a note; timbre of an instrument is incredibly complex to measure and present accurately in both envelope and frequency.
Regarding sub-harmonics, again possibly just a POV but really that is a very sweeping statement Ethan when considering partials and exists in the research papers I have - but a very different topic to this one so maybe discuss another time.

But I am very interested what test-measurement you suggest shows the fidelity of audio equipment in the following specific context (fits more with this thread); playback of multiple complex notes at the same pitch and loudness but with different timbre-colour, lets say for amps and speakers.
But not sure your comment regarding context of defining the fidelity of audio equipment is truly part of this thread discussion unless the scope relates to complex notes and timbre-colour.
Cheers
Orb

 

[Ethan Winer]

From Wikipedia:
In music and dynamics, subharmonic or undertone frequencies are frequencies below the main frequency of a signal.

It's still wrong. Really.

Subharmonics can be produced by signal amplification through loudspeakers.

No, that's IM distortion which is different from overtones that occur naturally in acoustic or (not distorted) electronic musical instruments.

They are naturally produced by bells, giving them their distinct sound.

That too is incorrect. See the first section Overtones on this university physics department's page:

http://www.moz.ac.at/sem/lehre/lib/pd-sounddesign/acoustics.html

From that Physics of Bells page: The simplest mode gives rise to the lowest frequency vibration (the lowest pitch) which is called the "fundamental".

The lowest frequency produced is always the fundamental, and all higher frequencies are overtones. In bell-speak, the fundamental is also called the "Hum" frequency. See the illustration of the first five bell modes here:

http://carillontech.org/timbre.html

$100 says you'll continue to disagree rather than reply "Sorry, you are right and I was wrong."

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

I don't get what you are trying to say with the latter. A 2 dB boost at 5 KHz is not how I would describe audio. Frequency boost at 5KHz yes, describing audio, no. There are plenty of speakers out there that fit the description of having "an airy sheen" with no boost at 5KHz.

I'm just trying to encourage people to use wording that's more precise when possible. Sure, an airy sheen could be at 6 KHz, or 8 KHz. Don't take me too literally, okay?

I understand that some people don't care about communicating effectively. But it's still important. If I go to a doctor and she tells me "My diagnosis is you have a tummy ache" I'd find another doctor immediately. Same for Steve's expert acoustic consultant in his other thread. I'm used to hearing "bloated bass" and "smeared transients" in audio forums, but I'd expect a professional to use more specific terms. For example: "Look at this graph Steve, where you have a slight resonance at 45 Hz. I think it's best to target that low frequency with a Helmholtz resonator rather than porous absorbers."

--Ethan

 

[treitz3]

Fair enough, Ethan. I gotcha'.

Tom

 

[Ethan Winer]

I think you are missing the point of what they say or understand, especially regarding timbre/partials to colour-accents-expressive timing and dynamics. Just because you disagree with professors of music does not make them wrong, even scientists research what I have mentioned

Those writings refer to aspects of musical performance, not the fidelity of audio gear. This is the third time I pointed out the distinction. And it's still a vague and unnecessary term. Please answer this: Where is the specific dividing line between regular dynamics and "micro" dynamics? Please give us a specific definition that makes the distinction clear.

So how do you describe timbre and colour that one hears being played back?

In the context of music instruments and how a player alters the timbre, I use terms like "loud" and "soft," and "bright" and "dull."

the use of a spectral envelope of a complex chord has yet to be used for defining the fidelity audio equipment and yet this is primarily what audio equipment plays back.

The answer lies in Fourier's proof that all complex sounds are simply a collection of sine waves.

Even using spectral envelope will not describe how an expressive musician can change the sound very subtly in a way that a reader can relate to

As a cellist I can tell you that the player controls the overall volume and the relative level of the overtones. With string instruments you control the brightness by how close you bow or pluck to the bridge. Bowing or plucking harder also increases brightness as well as overall volume. Replace "bowing harder" with "blowing harder" for wind instruments. There's no need for the term microdynamics in a musical context.

There is a reason why testing audio fidelity uses a simple sinewave/tone because complex waveforms/timbre-colour is incredibly challenging

Trying to use music to test audio gear is pointless because it's constantly changing. It makes much more sense to just use static tones. However, pink and white noise can be used, and they change just as much as music. But noise is not as easy to use as sine waves, and it's not appropriate for measuring distortion.

But I am very interested what test-measurement you suggest shows the fidelity of audio equipment in the following specific context (fits more with this thread); playback of multiple complex notes at the same pitch and loudness but with different timbre-colour, lets say for amps and speakers.

A 20 Hz square wave will tell you pretty much everything you need to know about an audio device. For more detailed measurements I'd use the standard tests that have been around since the 1940s: A swept sine wave for frequency response, static sine waves for THD and IMD, and an A-weighted voltmeter for measuring noise. Or for the most accuracy, a more modern AP test rig. If you believe the standard tests are somehow not valid for audio gear meant to play music, please explain specifically where the standard tests fall short. If you reply along the lines of "they won't reveal mishandling of microdynamics" I'm outta here!

--Ethan

 

[microstrip]

I'm just trying to encourage people to use wording that's more precise when possible. Sure, an airy sheen could be at 6 KHz, or 8 KHz. Don't take me too literally, okay?

I understand that some people don't care about communicating effectively. But it's still important. If I go to a doctor and she tells me "My diagnosis is you have a tummy ache" I'd find another doctor immediately. Same for Steve's expert acoustic consultant in his other thread. I'm used to hearing "bloated bass" and "smeared transients" in audio forums, but I'd expect a professional to use more specific terms. For example: "Look at this graph Steve, where you have a slight resonance at 45 Hz. I think it's best to target that low frequency with a Helmholtz resonator rather than porous absorbers."

--Ethan

Curious that someone who wants to encourage people to use more precise wording needs to warn them not to take him too literally!

As far as I understand most of the time the problem is when professionals address audiophiles, not the reverse. Do you think that the average audiophile needs to know the difference between a Helmholtz resonator and a porous absorbers?

Communication has two sides - if the other people speak your language it is simple. IMHO good communicators are those who manage to understand and be understood by those who speak other languages, not those who only manage to communicate in their own dialect.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Answer for me, when I use it, given in post #131 - http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...s-a-discussion&p=174273&viewfull=1#post174273

This:

To me 'musical' means 'gives a satisfying feeling while listening'.

Good to know what it means to you. Of course most people here use "musical" in the context of the performance of audio equipment and your meaning could very easily refer to nothing of the sort. I get a satisfying feeling listening to Miles Davis on my iPhone. Kenny G makes me want to run from the room, played through the finest hifi. It's a nice enough definition, but it's your little secret. It is unrelated to any common meaning of the word, and if you say "musical" instead of "gives a satisfying feeling when listening, you're communicating nothing outside of whatever small circle you've shared your personal definition with. That's not objectivist; it's commons sense.

Tim

 

[mep]

$100 says you'll continue to disagree rather than reply "Sorry, you are right and I was wrong."

--Ethan

Sorry, you are right and I was wrong. Now pay up the $100 you owe me.

 

[treitz3]

Hello, gentlemen and good evening to you all. In an effort to keep things on topic, I have created another thread that is solely based on the discussion of the word "musical" and what it means to you. I will invite all those who would like to discuss the term "musical" and what it means along your audio journey here >>> http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...musical-quot-a-discussion&p=174710#post174710

Lets please try to keep this thread focused on the original topic.

Now about that $100...... I keed, I keed....

Tom

 

[opus111]

Good to know what it means to you. Of course most people here use "musical" in the context of the performance of audio equipment and your meaning could very easily refer to nothing of the sort. I get a satisfying feeling listening to Miles Davis on my iPhone. Kenny G makes me want to run from the room, played through the finest hifi. It's a nice enough definition, but it's your little secret.

Fair enough - you'll find I rarely use it, and if I do I'll expand on what I'm meaning by it to give people a better picture of where I'm coming from. Its my working interpretation of how others are using it too. And if I notice somebody using it in a way that confuses me, or seems contrary to my working definition I'll ask if what they're writing makes me curious enough. For example one of my old buddies wrote a review and described a cable she was reviewing in this way - I teased her a bit as for me musical is a system level description rather than something that can apply to a simple cable.

It is unrelated to any common meaning of the word, and if you say "musical" instead of "gives a satisfying feeling when listening, you're communicating nothing outside of whatever small circle you've shared your personal definition with.

Next time I use the word 'musical' I'll be sure to bear this in mind. its unlikely to be in the near future.

 

[opus111]

If you believe the standard tests are somehow not valid for audio gear meant to play music, please explain specifically where the standard tests fall short.

Validity is beside the point, what's lacking is effectiveness in correlating with what we hear. They don't cut it. Specifically there are currently no tests for noise modulation nor for multitone (high crest factor) IMD.

 

[mep]

I'm still waiting for my $100 that I won fair and square.

 

[Orb]

Those writings refer to aspects of musical performance, not the fidelity of audio gear. This is the third time I pointed out the distinction. And it's still a vague and unnecessary term. Please answer this: Where is the specific dividing line between regular dynamics and "micro" dynamics? Please give us a specific definition that makes the distinction clear.



In the context of music instruments and how a player alters the timbre, I use terms like "loud" and "soft," and "bright" and "dull."



The answer lies in Fourier's proof that all complex sounds are simply a collection of sine waves.



As a cellist I can tell you that the player controls the overall volume and the relative level of the overtones. With string instruments you control the brightness by how close you bow or pluck to the bridge. Bowing or plucking harder also increases brightness as well as overall volume. Replace "bowing harder" with "blowing harder" for wind instruments. There's no need for the term microdynamics in a musical context.



Trying to use music to test audio gear is pointless because it's constantly changing. It makes much more sense to just use static tones. However, pink and white noise can be used, and they change just as much as music. But noise is not as easy to use as sine waves, and it's not appropriate for measuring distortion.



A 20 Hz square wave will tell you pretty much everything you need to know about an audio device. For more detailed measurements I'd use the standard tests that have been around since the 1940s: A swept sine wave for frequency response, static sine waves for THD and IMD, and an A-weighted voltmeter for measuring noise. Or for the most accuracy, a more modern AP test rig. If you believe the standard tests are somehow not valid for audio gear meant to play music, please explain specifically where the standard tests fall short. If you reply along the lines of "they won't reveal mishandling of microdynamics" I'm outta here!

--Ethan

And so this has gone the way of the distortion thread where you say only 4 measurements while others detail how they break down even further, said it would be like that
Amazing way to oversimplify and so evade the context of my post Ethan
Surprised you think we measure timbre accurately, because I have only in rare instances seen accurately both time and frequency for the 1st 30 partials of an instrument in some studies, and Fourier/sum of sinewaves is way oversimplistic IMO - I just cannot see how you justify pink noise and sinewaves as comparable to a true complex waveform with regards to audio fidelity and critically what we are sensitive to with human perception but I do understand and appreciate from an engineering perspective why they must be used (as I mentioned it is about technical complexity and measuring-analysing-interpreting results relating to a complex tone down to timbre detail is just too much of a challenge).
We measure with simple sinewaves and tones, and wonder why listeners mention they hear subtle differences when listening to real music that as you say changes; not just general amplitude and frequency that changes all the time but timbre (attack-sustain-decay-release) that has the expressions and aspects of dynamics and timing.

Interesting your view is very different to an academic composer and some music professors when you say "As a cellist I can tell you that the player controls the overall volume and the relative level of the overtones. With string instruments you control the brightness by how close you bow or pluck to the bridge. Bowing or plucking harder also increases brightness as well as overall volume. Replace "bowing harder" with "blowing harder" for wind instruments. There's no need for the term microdynamics in a musical context."
If anyone else is curious to compare what we are debating, suggest researching timbre with colour, sonority, along with the expression on timing and dynamics and compare to Ethan's description; comes back to the thread where could debate only 4 types of distortion while others say they break down further into better sub-groups.
And consider in this context the definition provided by John McGuire: "microdynamics, i.e. the relative loudness of different partials within the mixtures. This is the single most important influence on color.".

Think myself and Ethan have probably mentioned enough in our own debate so will leave it at that for this subject matter.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Orb]

Oh one really important thought on this.
Just to quickly expand, I think some or a lot do not see the differentiation between loudness-dynamics of playing soft or loud, and that of microdynamics used in the context of timbre-colour-expression of a note or instrument "personal" sound; the two are distinctly different.
Microdynamics is not about playing softer or an individual performer-instrument in an orchestra, it is purely about the quality-sound of a note and tone color in context of timbre and how it is subtly changed-influenced.
This makes sense because a notes timbre is made up of many individual partials that each have their own energy (amplitude and behaviour in time) and together produce the timbre, which can be manipulated by excellent musicians for nearly all instruments apart from bells (going by a few research studies I have read).

I think part of the problem is understanding the differentiation between them.
Furthermore it should be noted for those grumpy about microdynamics (sorry just makes me smile using the term grumpy), technically it is fine to use this word in association with timbre and colour-expression of a note because timbre has never been described in a way that is completely satisfactory, attempts have been made many times since and including Helmoltz.
Some may be surprised just how many times timbre has been researched-studies and described in physics-music-psychoacoustics.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Ethan Winer]

I just cannot see how you justify pink noise and sinewaves as comparable to a true complex waveform with regards to audio fidelity

I'm sure you cannot see it, but that's not my fault or problem. If you want to convince anyone, you need to explain what the difference is using clear specific wording. Speaking of specific wording, I see you ducked this question:

Please answer this: Where is the specific dividing line between regular dynamics and "micro" dynamics? Please give us a specific definition that makes the distinction clear.

I aim to answer everything asked of me, aside from obvious insults, so it's always disheartening when others ignore direct questions that are exactly on-point to the conversation.

Interesting your view is very different to an academic composer and some music professors

Well, besides being a cellist I'm also a composer and musical educator.

Are you a musician? If so, what do you play and at what level of expertise?

--Ethan

 

[mep]

Still waiting for my $100 that you owe me Ethan.

 

[treitz3]

Guys, let's try not to invite the "chest pounding" aspect into the conversation. That just leads to things getting personal in nature which is not only frowned upon but is also a clear violation of the WBF's TOS. Let's try to keep the aim of all posts in such a manner that benefits the discussion.

Tom

 

[Orb]

I'm sure you cannot see it, but that's not my fault or problem. If you want to convince anyone, you need to explain what the difference is using clear specific wording. Speaking of specific wording, I see you ducked this question:



I aim to answer everything asked of me, aside from obvious insults, so it's always disheartening when others ignore direct questions that are exactly on-point to the conversation.



Well, besides being a cellist I'm also a composer and musical educator.

Are you a musician? If so, what do you play and at what level of expertise?

--Ethan

Tought (included training leading to absolute pitch hearing) by someone for several years who has a degree in music and played with the LSO for a long time, but that is academic because I am using wording and context from professors of music/academic composers/research papers.
I am sorry but I feel the wording I have been using is as clear and specific as yours, but its out there in this thread so everyone can make their own minds up.

Edit:
Ethan I have not avoided your questions but feel it has been the other way round; I have provided a concise explanation for microdynamics and what it specifically applies to, along with one issue being some possibly not seeing the differentiation between dynamics involving soft-loud playing/individual instruments-musician , and that of timbre/colour where individual partials and their own dynamics (energy-amplitude and ADSR for each partial) are critically involved in the subtleness of timbre and aspects such as expression-colour.
They have very different context, and the definition I provided earlier was pretty clear on my position, hence why I have been going on for awhile now about timbre-colour-expression, and on last page explained my thoughts on the disconnect between some of us on this thread.

Orb

 

[JackD201]

Why is dividing dynamics into subcategories so evil when dividing frequency into subcategories isn't?

 

[Gregadd]

Jack I think there is an assault on audiophile terminology in general.
I agree with you. For example, lateral dimensions we have the terms short, medium and long. Useful terms that are very inexact.