What are microdynamics?

I think of it as what gives the music it's beauty,the shading and nuances you hear surrounding a particular note or sound,just like the large dynamics which give power and emphasis to the music the micro convinces you that the illusion is real.

In my experience the macro and micro are both equal in great systems one cannot over shadow the other. If you have great clarity you should have great dynamics on both ends of the spectrum. Although just like a subwoofer helps with the macro a dedicated hi frequency driver will help with the micro.

A extremely low distortion and low noise system is needed to realize what can be heard regarding nuances and shadings of the music. And of course it is recording dependent also.
 
Sorry to keep questioning everything, but this is a bit confusing, because what you describe is accomplished by, is to a great degree the purpose of extreme compression during mastering. It brings up the volume of the soft stuff, brings down the volume of the loud stuff, and insures that the subtleties are not masked. If what you're talking about is truly dynamics, ie: volume-related, good reproduction would demand that the softest sounds be masked by louder ones in the same range...
Tim,

That's correct that compression (depending on how it is set, threshold, ratio, etc) especially when really pushed hard (and peak limiting too, for that matter) will bring up the level of softer and more subtle elements of the recording. But that mostly applies to more 'commercial' recordings where every little thing needs to be in your face. Even then, the more crowded it gets the more difficult it is to separate on playback. The stuff kind of blends together unless there is sufficient resolution to separate each element.

On an audiophile type recording extreme compression and peak limiting is seldom used at all, or minimally. There you have much more dynamic range and the possibility that higher level elements of the mix will mask or at least partially obscure the lower levels. It's really the same mechanism -- detail and high resolution -- that separate the various instruments and sounds from each other, giving each their own character separately.

--Bill
 
You can still have a very low noise floor and not be able to render macro-dynamics well; in that case, you can still have very good micro-dynamics; contrast this with another component that raises the noise floor (and/or loses low-level resolution) with large scale macro-dynamics, thus losing micro-dynamics. The difficulty is in improving one w/o affecting the other.

Now this makes sense. A system with a very low noise floor and good transient response, could deliver great detail and dynamics at a low level, but still not have the headroom to for the big slam. But the opposite couldn't be true, could it? If you had a system with low noise, good transient response and detail, and the guts to deliver the heavy punches, it could not, by definition, have lesser microdynamics than the system with the higher SN. Could it?

Tim
 
Excellent Subject & well worth discussing.

All excellent points brought up by all. Great !

I think Bruce B. should also chime in with his definition of a systems expectations of Macro & Micro Dynamics .

Another great discs to use to help audiophiles understand what they should be listening for in Critical Listening would be ( Chesky Records' Guide to Critical Listening ) The Ultimate demonstration Disc.

Gary
 
Gary,

You make a challenging point when you refer that you have to have good macro-dynamics to be able to proper use your micro-dynamics idea - something I easily associate with the Genesis type of sound.

Although I am not a SET owner, I have listened to some Audio Note and Cary systems that did not have great macro-dynamics but I would have considered they had excellent micro-dynamics - this means we also need an alternative view.

Some people will say it is an hifi recording, but I found the La Folia from Harmonia Mundi, both the LP and the CD as an excellent tool for checking micro-dynamics - both in the bass and small detail.

Micro, I did say "macro-dynamics already being good". I do agree that many SET amplifiers - while they do not have great macro-dynamics, they have excellent micro-dynamics. Other SET amplifiers do not even have mediocre macro-dynamics, and are unable to deliver any micro-dynamics. In my context, I don't even begin to hear the micro-dynamics unless the macro-dynamics are already decent.

However, you can have great macro-dynamics and be totally lacking in micro-dynamics. I think that we agree..... just a small difference in scale :)
 
Now this makes sense. A system with a very low noise floor and good transient response, could deliver great detail and dynamics at a low level, but still not have the headroom to for the big slam. But the opposite couldn't be true, could it? If you had a system with low noise, good transient response and detail, and the guts to deliver the heavy punches, it could not, by definition, have lesser microdynamics than the system with the higher SN. Could it?

Tim


Micro, I did say "macro-dynamics already being good". I do agree that many SET amplifiers - while they do not have great macro-dynamics, they have excellent micro-dynamics. Other SET amplifiers do not even have mediocre macro-dynamics, and are unable to deliver any micro-dynamics. In my context, I don't even begin to hear the micro-dynamics unless the macro-dynamics are already decent.

However, you can have great macro-dynamics and be totally lacking in micro-dynamics. I think that we agree..... just a small difference in scale :)

Now headroom plays a big part into the full range of dynamics.

If you have great macro dynamics and totally lack micro-dynamics something is terribly wrong with the system. I will admit the macro might be skewed to the positive,but you should have a "glimpse" of the micro.
 
Now this makes sense. A system with a very low noise floor and good transient response, could deliver great detail and dynamics at a low level, but still not have the headroom to for the big slam. But the opposite couldn't be true, could it? If you had a system with low noise, good transient response and detail, and the guts to deliver the heavy punches, it could not, by definition, have lesser microdynamics than the system with the higher SN. Could it?

Tim

Excellent question... That would be correct, but only if you can also assert that such a system would not lose low-level _resolution_ during macro-dynamics. Remember, I listed two criteria earlier in post #3: a) low noise floor that is always kept low; b) the component has and retains low-level resolution.

Basically, just lowering noise is not enough. You also need the speed to and speed stability to be able to achieve and retain low-level resolution, thus follow the signal as close as possible. Thus, speed also relates to micro-dynamics. And it's also true that speed is also a major enabler of the quality of micro-dynamics.
 
Last edited:
I'd pose a question: Even if a playback chain can reproduce sounds accurately from medium amplitude to triple "f", are there differences in system response that alters the playback level of the softest recorded sounds? I'm not talking about the inherent noise of a system, but its ability to remain linear in the playback of the "less significant bits" and softer sounds. If a system "falls off" in the electrical circuitry or in the physical linearity of a speaker driver (inertia/sensitivity issues), is it possible that we don't hear these softer sounds at the correct level?

Lee
 
(...) But I ask the question of microdynamics simply because it contains the word "dynamics," which has a very specific meaning in audio, related to loudness. (...)

Tim

Tim,
I am coming back to your sentence. May be we can relate the word "dynamics" with "variation" and the microdynamics concept with the microdetail capability along the full dynamic scale?
 
Excellent question... That would be correct, but only if you can also assert that such a system would not lose low-level _resolution_ during macro-dynamics (also referred to as a _kind_ of "congestion"). Remember, I listed two criteria earlier in post #3: a) low noise floor that is always kept low; b) the component has and retains low-level resolution.

Basically, just lowering noise is not enough. You also need the speed to and speed stability to be able to achieve and retain low-level resolution, thus follow the signal as close as possible. Thus, speed also relates to micro-dynamics. And it's also true that speed is also a major enabler of the quality of micro-dynamics.

Clarity,speed,and dynamics...sounds familar to me. But if I think back about all the incremental progress and hearing the "glimpses" of this and that concerning dynamics as a whole,until I introduced my preamp with mountains of headroom, I never knew how big a part micro dynamics played in enhancing the reproduction.
 
Last edited:
Microdynamics; is that the extreme nuances between subtle and grandiose power a lower listening volume level?

Like the perception of black & white within a narrow and also a wide range ...
And with pastel colors added between to enhance the illusion ...
Or the emotional impact still remaining in the most minuscule details ...
 
Tim,
I am coming back to your sentence. May be we can relate the word "dynamics" with "variation" and the microdynamics concept with the microdetail capability along the full dynamic scale?

Maybe. I'm not at all sure, to be honest, but I love the question. Above, Ack said, correctly, I think, that without sufficient resolution of detail -- a function of headroom, transient response, driver control (anything else?), the quality of the "microdynamics" isn't likely to mean much. I'm sure that's true. So many things in audio reproduction are interdependent. I'm still struggling, though with a concept I come across fairly often in the audiophile world, of excellent - superior even - microdynamics existing with a lower S/N ratio. Detail? Sure. You can have headroom (low distortion), speed, driver control and still have a relatively high noise floor. But when you get down to the very subtle "micro" level, wouldn't a lot of that detail get lost in the noise?

Tim
 
Maybe. I'm not at all sure, to be honest, but I love the question. Above, Ack said, correctly, I think, that without sufficient resolution of detail -- a function of headroom, transient response, driver control (anything else?), the quality of the "microdynamics" isn't likely to mean much. I'm sure that's true. So many things in audio reproduction are interdependent. I'm still struggling, though with a concept I come across fairly often in the audiophile world, of excellent - superior even - microdynamics existing with a lower S/N ratio. Detail? Sure. You can have headroom (low distortion), speed, driver control and still have a relatively high noise floor. But when you get down to the very subtle "micro" level, wouldn't a lot of that detail get lost in the noise?

Tim

Tim,

For some reason it doesn't atleast in my current experience. These are "my markers in "my" system that go with increased micro dynamics; energy that you can literlly feel,great clarity,great seperation,power,great effortlessness,great speed and the speakers produce a very 'open air" quality. Now in it's best rendition, a lot depends on the quality of the recording. There is great "space" created in every aspect of the music.
 
until I introduced my preamp with mountains of headroom, I never knew how big a part micro dynamics played in enhancing the reproduction.

Exactly, because that preamp improved the macro-dynamics w/o losing micro-dynamics, and you were able to better distinguish between contrasts, large and small... What preamp was this?
 
Tim,

For some reason it doesn't atleast in my current experience. These are "my markers in "my" system that go with increased micro dynamics; energy that you can literlly feel,great clarity,great seperation,power,great effortlessness,great speed and the speakers produce a very 'open air" quality. Now in it's best rendition, a lot depends on the quality of the recording. There is great "space" created in every aspect of the music.

But Roger isn't your system very low noise, very high S/N ratio?

Tim
 
A lot of music is repetitive in the sense that there are several to many cycles, not just an impulse (even a drum whack lasts a while, relatively). We (humans, maybe making a leap of faith here ;) ) can integrate sound well below the noise floor, thus pull "microdynamics" out of even relatively low SNR source material. The mind can also find patterns, again pulling things out of the noise.

Assuming we can even hear the noise floor, natch.
 
Exactly, because that preamp improved the macro-dynamics w/o losing micro-dynamics, and you were able to better distinguish between contrasts, large and small... What preamp was this?

But Roger isn't your system very low noise, very high S/N ratio?

Tim

My tubed Ampex preamps.

Tim,

your'e right I missed your low S/N point. I can't address such micro dynamic reproduction with a low (inferior?) ratio. I would think that the S/N ratio would play into the equation,just one of the essentials.

The Ampex is not a audiophile piece of equipment. As most know it is a pro studio equiment, but I am now a firm believer in using pro gear if it can be used in a audiophile setup. I can drive my SS amplifiers fully. I think that has to play a big part in the sound realised.

I might add that driving the amplifiers in such a way has dramatically effected the dispersion qualities of my speakers...But even the ampexes have seem to have changed these characteristics of my subs and my psycho pair speakers also, which each has it's own amplifier.
 
Last edited:
I've always considered that microdynamics transmogrified from "ability to resolve small details" > "microdetails" > "microdynamics", with the latter becoming the antipode of macrodynamics, which must have gotten the macro- prefix since musical dynamics go from the barely audible to those capable of raising the ceiling, *and one wanted two related terms to describe the opposites of dynamics.

Phew.

Music from acoustical instruments has an enormous variety of sounds, can punch with the best, and whisper, and has lots and lots of extra sounds that actually travel, and tell you that you are listening to a real instrument. So, while waves of fundamentals and overtones are crashing against you, there is also a world of details. To stay with the wave metaphor:
The rustle from bubbles of froth popping as a wave is expended and recedes. The whistle of the wind behind the advancing waves. Small rivulets of water that produce sound, and can shift an empty crab shell, or the remains of coral ground to small pieces. Throughout, there's been this crash of the wave throwing itself against the shore, but if you pay attention, and tune your hearing, you'll literally hear a large soundscape within that crash - consisting of myriad sounds. And once you've heard all those minor accents to the wave's work, you'll never be able to just listen to the coarse crash again.

Early synthesizers gave you the crash, and little else - and quite a few systems do the same. In order to believe in a reproduced instrument, I must get all these details, that are there when you hear it in live performance - they are an essential part of the sound. Unfortunately, recording and mastering techniques and less discriminating systems are leaving people to listen to the crash of music, and that's a shame.
 
your'e right I missed your low S/N point. I can't address such micro dynamic reproduction with a low (inferior?) ratio. I would think that the S/N ratio would play into the equation,just one of the essentials.

What I was talking about when I said "inferior" is some opinons I've read in which folks have compared media/components/systems and stated that the one with the lower S/N ratio actually had the superior "microdynamics." I didn't know how that could be possible. Now, having read through this 4 pages of responses, I find it more questionable than ever. In fact, it appears that when people are refering to "microdynamics" they're either talking about dynamic range, and simply focusing on the quiet stuff, or they're talking about detail, which is, of course effected by S/N ratio but...well, I'm not sure at this point that "microdynamis" is a discreet performance parameter at all...YMMV.

Tim
 
Early synthesizers gave you the crash, and little else - and quite a few systems do the same. In order to believe in a reproduced instrument, I must get all these details, that are there when you hear it in live performance .

This is because early synths were not touch/velocity sensitive. They gave you one amplitude and until MIDI came along players were using volume pedals and pitch wheels to make the effect.

I aggree with the consensus of the respondants so far. Microdynamics are the amplitude changes of instruments/sounds under the existing performance. A lot of times it gets washed out and blurred. Digital, especially, has the hardest time with this. The best test for a converter is the room/ambient sounds and what happens AFTER a transient.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu