Micro and macro dynamics...a discussion.

Here is as good of a definition that I have seen and it's rooted in the real-world of music and how music is read and played:

"The two basic dynamic indications in music are:

p or piano, meaning "soft", and[2][3]
f or forte, meaning "loud."[2][4]

More subtle degrees of loudness or softness are indicated by:

mp, standing for mezzo-piano, meaning "moderately soft", and
mf, standing for mezzo-forte, meaning "moderately loud".[5]

Beyond f and p, there are also

pp, standing for "pianissimo" and meaning "very soft", and
ff, standing for "fortissimo" and meaning "very loud".[5]

To indicate an even softer dynamic than pianissimo, ppp is marked, with the reading pianissimo possibile ("softest possible"). The same is done on the loud side of the scale, with fff being fortissimo possibile ("loudest possible").[6][7]
Note Velocity is a MIDI measurement of the speed with which the key goes from its rest position to completely depressed, with 127, the largest value in a 7-bit number, being instantaneous, and meaning as loud as possible.

Few pieces contain dynamic designations with more than three f's or p's. In Holst's The Planets, ffff occurs twice in Mars and once in Uranus often punctuated by organ and fff occurs several times throughout the work. It also appears in Heitor Villa-Lobos' Bachianas Brasileiras No. 4 (Prelude). The Norman Dello Joio Suite for Piano ends with a crescendo to a ffff, and Tchaikovsky indicated a bassoon solo pppppp in his Pathétique Symphony and ffff in passages of his 1812 Overture and the 2nd movement of his Fifth Symphony. Igor Stravinsky used ffff at the end of the finale of the Firebird Suite. ffff is also found in a prelude by Rachmaninoff, op.3-2. Shostakovich even went as loud as fffff in his fourth symphony. Gustav Mahler, in the third movement of his Seventh Symphony, gives the celli and basses a marking of fffff, along with a footnote directing 'pluck so hard that the strings hit the wood.' On another extreme, Carl Nielsen, in the second movement of his Symphony No. 5, marked a passage for woodwinds a diminuendo to ppppp. Another more extreme dynamic is in György Ligeti's Études No. 13 (Devil's Staircase), which has at one point a ffffff and progresses to a ffffffff. In Ligeti's Études No. 9, he uses pppppppp. In the baritone passage Era la notte from his opera Otello, Verdi uses pppp. Steane (1971) and others suggest that such markings are in reality a strong reminder to less than subtle singers to at least sing softly rather than an instruction to the singer actually to attempt a pppp. Usually, the extra f's or 'ps written reinforce either ff or pp, and are usually only for dramatic effect.

In music for marching band, passages louder than fff are sometimes colloquially referred to by descriptive terms such as "blastissimo".

Dynamic indications are relative, not absolute. mp does not indicate an exact level of volume, it merely indicates that music in a passage so marked should be a little louder than p and a little quieter than mf. Interpretations of dynamic levels are left mostly to the performer; in the Barber Piano Nocturne, a phrase beginning pp is followed by a diminuendo leading to a mp marking. Another instance of performer's discretion in this piece occurs when the left hand is shown to crescendo to a f, and then immediately after marked p while the right hand plays the melody f. It has been speculated that this is used simply to remind the performer to keep the melody louder than the harmonic line in the left hand. In some music notation programs, there are default MIDI key velocity values associated with these indications, but more sophisticated programs allow users to change these as needed."

Based on the above information, I don't know how it can be disputed that microdynamics and macrodynamics exist in the real world. And I say that knowing that anything and everything in the audio world can and will be debated until the dead horse is down to tooth, hair, and bone.

You've demonstrated that dynamic range, in real music, is more than just loud or soft. It's still all just dynamic range. Micro, macro, midi maxi mini. Fortissimo, missimo, sissymo. Still dynamic range. Wide, varied, nuanced dynamic range. It's been dynamic range for years. I wonder why some audiophiles felt compelled to subdivide dynamics into macrodynamics and microdynamics? I wonder why they didn't divide it up further? Mezzo-pianodynamics? Mezzo-fortedynamics? PIanissimodynamics? Diminuendodynamics? Why is micro/macro better? And does it really mean any more than soft/loud? It's still just two. In the face of all those issimos it seems woefully inadequate, and like it accomplished absolutely nothing more than soft/loud.

Tim
 
I wonder why some audiophiles felt compelled to subdivide dynamics into macrodynamics and microdynamics?

How do you know it was the result of compulsion and not just a simple choice? Were economists compelled to divide economics into microeconomics and macroeconomics?
 
That's apples to oranges. Of course musicality has a place when discussing music and musical performance. But it does not have a place when discussing the accuracy of audio hardware or software.

--Ethan

More disturbing is that often "musical" is used to describe the inaccuracy of audio hardware. As if the music is not musical enough, the colorations of our precious audio is required to properly musify it.

Tim
 
How do you know it was the result of compulsion and not just a simple choice? Were economists compelled to divide economics into microeconomics and macroeconomics?

Good point. Compelled would imply some force of purpose. And I'm pretty sure they're just faking it. :)

Tim
 
Compelled to me indicates addiction, emotional attachment of some form.

To me 'musical' means 'gives a satisfying feeling while listening'. Not that hard to grasp, except for objectivists who simply enjoy objecting to perfectly reasonable uses of language :)

<edit> On reflection, 'enjoy' here isn't quite right - its the enjoyment the chain smoker feels on lighting up the next cigarette from the dying embers of the last. The enjoyment of addiction doesn't quite qualify as pure enjoyment - more 'feeling compulsion'.
 
Last edited:
Compelled to me indicates addiction, emotional attachment of some form.

To me 'musical' means 'gives a satisfying feeling while listening'. Not that hard to grasp, except for objectivists who simply enjoy objecting to perfectly reasonable uses of language :)

<edit> On reflection, 'enjoy' here isn't quite right - its the enjoyment the chain smoker feels on lighting up the next cigarette from the dying embers of the last. The enjoyment of addiction doesn't quite qualify as pure enjoyment - more 'feeling compulsion'.

Personal definitions, then? Fun with language, I can relate. As long as you don't expect to communicate very broadly, enjoy. But if you want others to understand you:

mu·si·cal (myz-kl)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or capable of producing music: a musical instrument.
2. Characteristic of or resembling music; melodious: a musical speaking voice.
3. Set to or accompanied by music: a musical revue.
4. Devoted to or skilled in music.
n.
1.
a. A play or movie that contains musical numbers.
b. A musical comedy.
2. Archaic A musicale.

com·pel (km-pl)
tr.v. com·pelled, com·pel·ling, com·pels
1. To force, drive, or constrain: Duty compelled the soldiers to volunteer for the mission.
2. To necessitate or pressure by force; exact: An energy crisis compels fuel conservation. See Synonyms at force.
3. To exert a strong, irresistible force on; sway: "The land, in a certain, very real way, compels the minds of the people"

Micro dynamics is an interesting Google search....

Tim
 
Personal definitions, then? Fun with language, I can relate.

Fun with language has become mere willy-wanging with dictionary definitions. I don't relate to that as it ignores context - you're welcome to play though as you love that stuff :) I tend to go by the maxim 'Text without context becomes pretext'.
 
That guy is just making **** up, and he even admits it. Sheesh Reg, I know you can do better than this! :D

--Ethan

Yes Ethan the term microdynamics is a made up term to describe what we hear.
 
Tim,
maybe check what musicologists and composers/dancers/etc mean by musicality.

Regarding your point
You've demonstrated that dynamic range, in real music, is more than just loud or soft.
This reminds me of the very long thread discussing distortion where some mention distortion is just 4 parameters, while others pointed out it goes beyond just broad categories; in essence all the distortions discussed are linked and all are correct.
Comes back to semantics.
So what is your view of an academic composer saying "microdynamics, i.e. the relative loudness of different partials within the mixtures. This is the single most important influence on color."

How would you describe timbre (and harmonic timbre) and its subtle changes in terms of dynamics as used in its broadest term to music (say a piano playing works by Chopin or violin playing works by Bach) without explaining it in spectra-envelope (which has little meaning when conveying a description of the sound)?
Even then using spectra-envelope does not enable describing how a musician can subtly use expression in a way that others could relate to.
For me the description by John McGuire that I provided before and bold in this post comes pretty close to how well we can define microdynamics.

This is not pianissimo or fortissimo or crescendo/decrescendo, but critically about colour-accents-expressive timing and dynamics; a subject that annoys some more than microdynamics and musicality I am sure :)
But they are valid subjects and exist in both the academic and research world.
Leaving it at this because like distortion, for me this is more about semantics in the arguing rather than fully different point of views, anyway hopefully food for thought.
Cheers
Orb
 
Last edited:
Yes Ethan the term microdynamics is a made up term to describe what we hear.

Ethan if you would llike to further acquaint yourself with audiophile terminology. J.Gordon Holts book. Audio Glossary is available at a reasonable price on Amazon.com.:b
http://www.amazon.com/Audio-Glossary-J-Gordon-Holt/dp/0962419141/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1.

I'm aware of these terms, and I know they're intended to describe what people hear. The problem is that without a standard meaning or universal definition, such terms mean nothing. They mean what they mean only to the person saying them. What sounds musical to you may not sound musical to me. Further, "2 dB boost at 5 KHz" is much more specific than "an airy sheen" etc. So why make up yet more terms that are vague, when we already have perfectly good ways to describe audio?

--Ethan
 
I can find other musicologists/composers using the term microdynamics and musicality

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've also seen people use the term "subharmonic," which also is meaningless because there is no such thing.

--Ethan

From Wikipedia:


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

Subharmonic frequencies are frequencies below the fundamental frequency of an oscillator in a ratio of 1/n, with n a positive integer number. For example, if the fundamental frequency of an oscillator is 440 Hz, sub-harmonics include 220 Hz (1/2) and 110 Hz (1/4). Thus, they are a mirror image of the harmonic series, the undertone series.

Subharmonics can be produced by signal amplification through loudspeakers.[2] They are naturally produced by bells, giving them their distinct sound.
 
.....What sounds musical to you may not sound musical to me. Further, "2 dB boost at 5 KHz" is much more specific than "an airy sheen" etc. So why make up yet more terms that are vague, when we already have perfectly good ways to describe audio?
Hello, Ethan. While I do agree with your first statement quoted here, 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.

Tom
 
I'm aware of these terms, and I know they're intended to describe what people hear. The problem is that without a standard meaning or universal definition, such terms mean nothing. They mean what they mean only to the person saying them. What sounds musical to you may not sound musical to me. Further, "2 dB boost at 5 KHz" is much more specific than "an airy sheen" etc. So why make up yet more terms that are vague, when we already have perfectly good ways to describe audio?

--Ethan

Because experts and laymen speak and comprehend differently. We do have a standard for what these terms mean. It's in the book.

For example i recall you using the term "shouty."
 
Fun with language has become mere willy-wanging with dictionary definitions. I don't relate to that as it ignores context - you're welcome to play though as you love that stuff :) I tend to go by the maxim 'Text without context becomes pretext'.

i tend to go with words have meanings, and when people begin to misappropriate them as readily as so much of the audiophile community does, they begin to lose their context, and their meaning, and it's sometimes helpful to go back to the source to see from whence we came.

In that context, I don't mind "microdyamics," really. It's redundant and unnecessary, if you'll excuse my willy-wanging, because in the context of music, dynamics equals the degrees of loudness -- all of them -- so micro, macro, and everything between is already covered without additional modifiers. But it's not hard to figure out what microdynamics should mean. Is that what people using it do mean? Occasionally, yes, I think it is. Often I think they're really just talking about detail resolution.

The use of "musical" in the audiophile context (since you insist on context), however, is far too vague to be useful. Anybody can call anything, from a 1,000 watt class D amplifier to a flea-powered SET, from a cassette to a hi-res file "musical." And who's to know? Musical can mean anything or nothing. It just muddies the conversation. Much better, I think, to make an earnest attempt to describe what you hear in definable terms, in context, to indulge in a bit of linguistic discipline. Or willy-wangling, if you prefer. Forgive me if I seem to take it too seriously; communication has always been at the center of my life. I suspect you're no less serious about engineering.

Tim
 
i tend to go with words have meanings

We differ fundamentally here - to me words are just signifiers, signs and we supply the meaning ourselves. We literally 'make sense' of the words we see. Hence 'A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.' Objectivists tend to get hung up over the precise words used and insist on 'proper' definitions and don't like it when people 'misappropriate' words. Tough I say, get over yourselves. If it doesn't make sense to you, move along and find something else that suits you. Or alternatively ask for clarification, that's what forums like this one are for.
 

I post this to dramatize a point.

Albert Einstein:Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.
The paper you present to the AES is and should be vastly different from a review in an audiophile magazine
 
We differ fundamentally here - to me words are just signifiers, signs and we supply the meaning ourselves. We literally 'make sense' of the words we see. Hence 'A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.' Objectivists tend to get hung up over the precise words used and insist on 'proper' definitions and don't like it when people 'misappropriate' words. Tough I say, get over yourselves. If it doesn't make sense to you, move along and find something else that suits you. Or alternatively ask for clarification, that's what forums like this one are for.

Clarification then. What is "musical?"
 

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

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing