Micro and macro dynamics...a discussion.

[JackD201]

Yeah, it's not like we've seen some "experts" here use the term treble, midrange or bass right? Microdynamics isn't even an audiophile term. It's an appropriation from the musical world. I think that is a lot better than PRAT which was a misappropriation from physiology. At least music creation and reproduction are related (at least as far as most of us here are concerned LOL.)

Oh, you might mean vertical and not lateral Greg.

 

[Gregadd]

Oh, you might mean vertical and not lateral Greg.

it depends on what body part you mean.

 

[treitz3]

Huh? Tall implies vertical.

Tom

 

[Gregadd]

Think it through Tom. I changed it to long just for you Tom,

 

[treitz3]

OoooooooooooK. Gotcha'. Moving on....

There are a plethora of audio terms that are inexact. Come to think of it, a lot of audio itself is still inexact.

Tom

 

[JackD201]

think it through tom. I changed it to long just for you tom,

rfol!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yeah, it's not like we've seen some "experts" here use the term treble, midrange or bass right? Microdynamics isn't even an audiophile term. It's an appropriation from the musical world. I think that is a lot better than PRAT which was a misappropriation from physiology. At least music creation and reproduction are related (at least as far as most of us here are concerned LOL.)

Oh, you might mean vertical and not lateral Greg.

I agree wholeheartedly. Even musical is better than PRaT. Microdynamics -- redundant and unnecessary but somewhat meaningful. Musical -- means such different things to different people as to be completely useless as communication. PRaT -- Clearly spells out its own meaning, and means something that it cannot be.

I'm not aware of the use of microdynamics as a musical term. What does it mean?

Tim

 

[Robh3606]

I'm not aware of the use of microdynamics as a musical term. What does it mean?

To me nuances that are lost in many systems that just don't have enough low level resolution. There are ail kinds of subtle volume changes that can get lost. Any system can do large scale dynamics, they may not get them clean or effortless but the swing is there and it's obvious. It's the low level subtleties that really bring things to life.

Rob

 

[Gregadd]

My problem is if you think something is B.S.that's fine. If you don't understand I'll try to explain. You can't say PRaT is B. S. unless you understand what I'm talking about.

PRaT has been explained on numerous occasions. You are entitled then to say either I don't understand or I understand it and it is B.S. You can't do both.

 

[Gregadd]

To me nuances that are lost in many systems that just don't have enough low level resolution. There are ail kinds of subtle volume changes that can get lost. Any system can do large scale dynamics, they may not get them clean or effortless but the swing is there and it's obvious. It's the low level subtleties that really bring things to life.

Rob

and no musician would question their importance.

 

[JackD201]

I agree wholeheartedly. Even musical is better than PRaT. Microdynamics -- redundant and unnecessary but somewhat meaningful. Musical -- means such different things to different people as to be completely useless as communication. PRaT -- Clearly spells out its own meaning, and means something that it cannot be.

I'm not aware of the use of microdynamics as a musical term. What does it mean?

Tim

Robh summed it up pretty nicely but if you go back a few pages you'll see where it is used officially in the musical lexicon.

I know what people mean by PRAT. I just find its origin, well, sketchy. That's why I don't like it. I guess that happens when you grow up with a with a Columbia U educated english professor for a mom.

 

[Ethan Winer]

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

Even if your [expert's] use of "microdynamics" was meaningful, it's irrelevant in the context of audio fidelity. I have seen claims that this or that audio device is incapable of reproducing "microdynamics" properly. So that led to my questioning what the term even means, and how it differs from regular dynamics. The reason a clear distinction must be defined is so we can then debunk the notion that some gear can't reproduce it. This reminds me of the Humpty Dumpty quote, "It means just what I choose it to mean." And that's exactly the problem.

--Ethan

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

To me nuances that are lost in many systems that just don't have enough low level resolution. There are ail kinds of subtle volume changes that can get lost. Any system can do large scale dynamics, they may not get them clean or effortless but the swing is there and it's obvious. It's the low level subtleties that really bring things to life.

Rob

Never mind, I thought "musical term" mean used by musicians/composes to describe something in the music. I've never seen it used in that context. In the audio context I've seen it use plenty, and your definition is as good as any. It seems to occupy a pretty broad space for a "micro" characteristic, encompassing small volume changes, resolution of small details, or both.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

The reason a clear distinction must be defined is so we can then debunk the notion that some gear can't reproduce it. This reminds me of the Humpty Dumpty quote, "It means just what I choose it to mean." And that's exactly the problem.

I like it when people admit or proclaim they have an agenda It's just so much better than than that "aw shucks gee whiz position."
To your credit you said at the outset.

Dynamics relates to how the volume of sound changes over time. But there's no such thing as microdynamics. It's a meaningless term that means whatever the person using it wants it to mean.

--Ethan

Just because someone misuses a term improperly does not mean it is meaningless. I could misuse the dynamics. That does not suggest it is devoid of a useful meaning.
i have demonstrated what it means and why it is expressed in laymen terms. No disrespect intended, you are entitled to your opinion, but it is not binding on those of us who find the term useful.
I think anyone can feel free to be as technical with jargon as they so desire. In my own profession I try to consider the level of my audience when explaining things. As you might imagine the lawyers also have a chat room. We use more complex jargon and presume a knowledge of terminology by the members.



.

 

[Orb]

I agree wholeheartedly. Even musical is better than PRaT. Microdynamics -- redundant and unnecessary but somewhat meaningful. Musical -- means such different things to different people as to be completely useless as communication. PRaT -- Clearly spells out its own meaning, and means something that it cannot be.

I'm not aware of the use of microdynamics as a musical term. What does it mean?

Tim

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:

I received my Master's degree with distinction in piano and musicology from the St. Petersburg (formerly Leningrad) Conservatory, St. Petersburg, Russia, and Ph.D. in musicology from Russian Institute of the Arts History.
For 17 years I served as Music director for the preeminent Bolshoi Drama Theatre in St. Petersburg, and performed with the theater in Europe, Argentina, and Japan.
During the same time I had faculty appointments in College at St. Petersburg Conservatory, and the University of Culture.

Published book: The Anatomy of Musicality

John McGuire:

Education - Institutions Attended
•Occidental College, B.A. in composition, 1964
•University of California, Berkeley, M.A. in composition, 1970
•Folkwang-Schule, Essen, Germany, 1966-1968
•Institute für Neue Musik, Darmstadt, 1967, 1968
•State University of Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1970-1971
•University of Cologne, Musikhochschule, 1975-77

Professional Training
Master Classes and Seminars
Subject Instructor Institution Dates
Composition Seminar Robert Gross Occidental College 1961-66
Composition Seminar Seymour Shifrin UC Berkeley 1964-66
Advanced Analysis David Lewin UC Berkeley 1966
Electronic Studio Mauricio Kagel Siemens Studio, Munich 1966
Composition Studio Karlheinz Stockhausen Darmstadt Summer Courses 1967
Composition Studio Karlheinz Stockhausen Darmstadt Summer Courses 1968
Voltage-Control Circuits G.M. Koenig University of Utrecht 1970-71*
Computer Composition G.M. Koenig University of Utrecht 1970-71*
*Institute of Sonology

Individual Instruction
Composition Halsey Stevens U. of Southern California 1962**
Composition Ingolf Dahl U. of Southern California 1963**
Counterpoint Richard Donovan U. of Southern California 1964**
Composition Karl Kohn private lessons 1965
Analysis Heinz Schubert Folkwang-Schule, Essen 1966-67
Composition, Counterpoint, Orchestration Krzysztof Penderecki Folkwang-Schule, Essen 1966-68
Electronic studio Hans Ulrich Humpert University of Cologne 1975-77
**U.S.C. summer program

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

 

[JackD201]

Impressive CVs there. Very impressive.

 

[Ethan Winer]

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.

Timbre and dynamics are totally different things. The first relates to frequency content, and the second to volume levels. If those experts are confusing these basic concepts, it's tough to accept their other definitions. Are you sure you're not quoting them out of context?

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

Ah yes, the old Argument From Authority logical fallacy.

--Ethan

 

[JackD201]

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

 

[mep]

Timbre and dynamics are totally different things. The first relates to frequency content, and the second to volume levels. If those experts are confusing these basic concepts, it's tough to accept their other definitions. Are you sure you're not quoting them out of context?



Ah yes, the old Argument From Authority logical fallacy.

--Ethan

Ethan-where is my $100 that you owe me? You made a bet in front of everyone on WBF and I clearly won, but you clearly haven't paid. I want my $100.00.

 

[Orb]

Timbre and dynamics are totally different things. The first relates to frequency content, and the second to volume levels. If those experts are confusing these basic concepts, it's tough to accept their other definitions. Are you sure you're not quoting them out of context?



Ah yes, the old Argument From Authority logical fallacy.

--Ethan

Ethan, great talent for insulting there with the last few posts

YES timbre and dynamics ARE different as I have been saying for quite a few pages
So therefore any "timbre dynamics" (used by physics/mechanical engineering research btw NOT musicians and describing behaviour matching quite a lot of musicologists not just the 2 I am using) must be something else as you seem to finally said they are different, hence why microdynamics IS NOT dynamics and yet before you keep on going that they are meant to be similar therefore microdynamics is meaningless
Glad you now agree that context between the two is very different and as timbre is influnced by at least 3 behaviour traits linked to "timbre dynamics or microdynamics" it is then not meaningless

So it is ok for you to say your an expert with your background (that was part of your post earlier on used to prove the validity of your experience btw), but not for others to use those with exceptional formal training and backed up by research that formal trained musicians have a different approach in the application of timbre.....
Sorry I never realised you understood this subject as well as MIT research and musicologists that have been taught the theory and application of music-notes to a standard we would envy.

AGAIN you miss out parts where my posts do mention matching and correlating to existing research; both MIT mechanical engineering research among others and seperately with regards to research study informal vs formal trained musicians, so "Argument from Authority" logical fallacy seems a strange call although I have the feeling you have not been really looking deeply in what I am saying and researching it afterwards.
Ironically you raised Argument from Authority, but it was you who first mentioned your expert background and the insulted those I used by demeaning them with "expert", and still demean that they are wrong and you are right lol.

You are a one track record at times Ethan
Just to stop this, yes you are completely right; the physics research papers describing and investigating timbre is wrong, and so are two very well respected musicologists, and the paper backing up formal training vs informal training is wrong.
Your making this sound so simple when the reality is this is an incredibly complex subject.
Anyway.
So congratulations on winning and proving they all know nothing, or oh I see yes I do not know this subject and I am misquoting, yeah right
BTW no prize for winning apart from the lack of need to read more research (never ends) and musicologists papers.
Definitley bowing out now as it is disintegrating from what should be an open discussion.

Edit:
I do not think I am misquoting this simple reduced definition of microdynamics or its context (color-expression-etc relates to timbre) by John McGuire:
"microdynamics, i.e. the relative loudness of different partials within the mixtures. This is the single most important influence on color."
Orb