What are microdynamics?

[Phelonious Ponk]

A common term in the audiophile community that doesn't seem to be common elsewhere, that I can see. And in the audiophile world, it's pretty vague. I understand dynamic range, of course -- the ratio between the smallest and the largest values in a changeable quantity. So I assume microdynamics must be many small variations between those extremes. What would be the demands/performance factors that would allow a media/component/system to have better microdynamic performance than another media/component/system that actually has superior dynamic range?

Tim

 

[garylkoh]

Thanks, Tim. This is a word I've seen, and I use, but I don't know if my own interpretation of the word is the same as the interpretation of others.

When I use the word, it has to be in the context of macro-dynamics already being good. Micro-dynamics to me is the fine shadings within a dynamic envelop - for example, to hear the wobble of the skin of a tympani when you hear the strike of a tympani, when the blat of a muted trumpet has an internal echo, when you can hear the neighboring strings of a piano when a key is struck. It's difficult to describe, but once you have heard it, you crave for it.

As an aside, when Steve McCormack developed the VRE-1, I thought that it was great, except that it didn't have the microdynamics of the FM Acoustics preamp. I tried over the course of 6 months to explain what I meant, and I'm sure that he struggled to understand me to implement it. Finally, in exasperation, I sent him my FM255. Within a day of getting it, he called me and said "I get it now" and sent it back to me. It took 9 months, but he called me, told me that he's done it, and sent me his VRE-1B. He had managed to achieve micro-dynamics - as I define it.

Others might have different interpretations of micro-dynamics, and my interpretation may not be important to other listeners. I'd like to hear more.

Thanks, for starting this thread Tim! It's very dear to my heart.

 

[ack]

A common term in the audiophile community that doesn't seem to be common elsewhere, that I can see. And in the audiophile world, it's pretty vague. I understand dynamic range, of course -- the ratio between the smallest and the largest values in a changeable quantity. So I assume microdynamics must be many small variations between those extremes. What would be the demands/performance factors that would allow a media/component/system to have better microdynamic performance than another media/component/system that actually has superior dynamic range?

Tim

microdynamics = dynamic contrasts of very low-level information; intimately related to low-level resolution, but referring to the existence, or lack thereof, of _dynamic contrasts_ of said low-level information. Better electronics don't lose or obscure micro-dynamic information - i.e. they maintain said contrasts - as macro-dynamics take over.

Lack of microdynamic resolution will render low-level sounds flat (no low-level dynamic contrasts) and may mask that information entirely (information loss) when macro-dynamics kick in. Equipment with good micro-dynamic contrasts will still render low-level sounds with varying amounts of contrast with any type of music material. Example: full organ blast while at the same time a triangle maintains its tiny dynamic contrasts, thus still sounds real and doesn't all of a sudden become a flat note.

Requires: a) extremely low noise floor that is _not raised_ significantly when passages get louder (macrodynamics); plus b) extreme low-level detail resolution to boot.

Some might refer to this type of sound as clinical; it can be, if the electronics lose (or don't possess at all) good spatial resolution at the same time.

At least the Spectrals I use excel at all this.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Gary, that's a better explanation than I've gotten before, where often "microdynamics" didn't even seem to be related to dynamic range. How does this definitiion fo microdynamics differ from detail or resolution? How do you see them related to dynamic range?

Ack, thanks. great explanation. Can a media/component/system that has lower dynamic range have better microdynamics?

Tim

 

[RBFC]

I see it merely as an additional level of audible resolution. As Gary stated, there are "primary" sounds which are characteristic of any "noise", and there are secondary, lesser-amplitude accompanying sounds. These secondary sounds can be a smaller part of the primary sound or be an "artifact" such as echo/ringing, etc. For instance, digital recording has been often accused of shortening the reverberation tails of sounds that would decay naturally over a longer period of time. Overall, the illusion of reality is more complete when we hear not only the primary sound, but also the normal side-effects of the production of that sound.

Lee

 

[Robh3606]

I always looked at if from the point of the intial attack of percusive or plucked instruments as an example. Like an acoustic quitar that is played with a pick or the initial strike on a piano key. None of these have to be loud so to speak to hear dynamic contrast between the begining and as the notes fade.

Robh

 

[ack]

Ack, thanks. great explanation. Can a media/component/system that has lower dynamic range have better microdynamics?

It might, but then one would clamor for more macrodynamics, which would be the more limiting factor; unless one listens to small scale music, which doesn't require large-scale macro-dynamics. Getting ultimate macro- and micro-dynamics along with accurate spatial resolution into a component at the same time is an extremely difficult feat to achieve. Doing so in an entire system is probably still nirvana at the moment, but I am not a reviewer thus my experience is limited. Couple all that (and their prerequisites) with accurate timbres and you have the real thing, at probably a very high cost.

 

[bblue]

All the descriptions given so far explain it very well. I never use the term micro-dynamics because it is vague and often misused. It's all about resolution, the ability to hear subtle details all the time (other instruments louder, even conflicting). The higher resolution lets you hear 'into' the presentation still able to hear the more subtle things clearly, and in the right position and with the correct timbre. It can be very elusive at times, depending on your state of mind, hearing on that day, and of course, the equipment. Unless the equipment is first rate, the rest doesn't matter much, though.

One example might be a very lightly played ride cymbal (or hi-hat). If you have high resolution (micro-dynamics, I guess) you'll be able to hear it in the mix clearly regardless of what other instruments are doing. It will have the same tonal characteristics, harmonics, as if it was playing by itself. In a lesser system you might hear it only during its louder playing, and it may not be musically distinct with its own sound. Any form of percussion played lightly, bells, triangles, effects added during mixing, a lightly strummed acoustic guitar, two guitars mixed together, etc., really make the recording more interesting, but on some systems you might not even notice them.

That's detail and resolution and often goes hand in hand with the musicality of a system.

--Bill

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

This is a question, not an opinion, but if dynamics are a function of S/N, how can something with less dynamic range have greater microdynamics? I would think that the S/N ration would be even more critical in allowing very low-level variations in volume to be properly resolved....

Tim

 

[MylesBAstor]

Microdynamics/dynamics accents as it relates to music is perfectly described in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/What-Listen-Music-Signet-Classics/dp/0451531760/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1328631150&sr=8-7

What to Listen For in Music is a must read for any music lover and audiophile--and was something that we constantly used in music classes in college Copland explains everything about composition such as color, timbre, etc, etc in laymans terms (something like Howard Hanson did on The Composer and His Orchestra Vol 1/2 on Mercury Records).

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

All the descriptions given so far explain it very well. I never use the term micro-dynamics because it is vague and often misused. It's all about resolution, the ability to hear subtle details all the time (other instruments louder, even conflicting). The higher resolution lets you hear 'into' the presentation still able to hear the more subtle things clearly, and in the right position and with the correct timbre. It can be very elusive at times, depending on your state of mind, hearing on that day, and of course, the equipment. Unless the equipment is first rate, the rest doesn't matter much, though.

One example might be a very lightly played ride cymbal (or hi-hat). If you have high resolution (micro-dynamics, I guess) you'll be able to hear it in the mix clearly regardless of what other instruments are doing. It will have the same tonal characteristics, harmonics, as if it was playing by itself. In a lesser system you might hear it only during its louder playing, and it may not be musically distinct with its own sound. Any form of percussion played lightly, bells, triangles, effects added during mixing, a lightly strummed acoustic guitar, two guitars mixed together, etc., really make the recording more interesting, but on some systems you might not even notice them.

That's detail and resolution and often goes hand in hand with the musicality of a system.

--Bill

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

 

[MylesBAstor]

microdynamics = dynamic contrasts of very low-level information; intimately related to low-level resolution, but referring to the existence, or lack thereof, of _dynamic contrasts_ of said low-level information. Better electronics don't lose or obscure micro-dynamic information - i.e. they maintain said contrasts - as macro-dynamics take over.

Lack of microdynamic resolution will render low-level sounds flat (no low-level dynamic contrasts) and may mask that information entirely (information loss) when macro-dynamics kick in. Equipment with good micro-dynamic contrasts will still render low-level sounds with varying amounts of contrast with any type of music material. Example: full organ blast while at the same time a triangle maintains its tiny dynamic contrasts, thus still sounds real and doesn't all of a sudden become a flat note.

Requires: a) extremely low noise floor that is _not raised_ significantly when passages get louder (macrodynamics); plus b) extreme low-level detail resolution to boot.

Some might refer to this type of sound as clinical; it can be, if the electronics lose (or don't possess at all) good spatial resolution at the same time.

At least the Spectrals I use excel at all this.

A lot has to with the "noise" between the notes that obscures microdynamics eg timing. Same goes for caps when they hold onto the signal or are noisy. Keith would probably call it "settling time."

 

[Steve Williams]

Hate to be OT but another term I struggle with in music is the term "nuances" which to me means ""subtle diferences" but IMHO it seems to be overused in music.

What is it about our gear that brings out nuances

 

[ack]

if dynamics are a function of S/N, how can something with less dynamic range have greater microdynamics?

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.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Hate to be OT but another term I struggle with in music is the term "nuances" which to me means ""subtle diferences" but IMHO it seems to be overused in music.

What is it about our gear that brings out nuances

I sometimes wonder if all of these terms don't simply mean "detail." That wonderful thing where you suddenly hear the beautiful little things that don't come through from lesser recordings, through lesser playback systems. 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. With that specific meaning in mind, some of the things I've seen said about "microdynamics" seem contradictory. So a lot of people's personal definitionss of the term, followed by a lot of my typically obnoxious questions, seemed to be in order.

Tim

 

[garylkoh]

Gary, that's a better explanation than I've gotten before, where often "microdynamics" didn't even seem to be related to dynamic range. How does this definitiion fo microdynamics differ from detail or resolution? How do you see them related to dynamic range?

In my book, detail and resolution does not equate to micro-dynamics. You can have detail and resolution, and yet micro-dynamics get swamped by the macro.

Low level resolution is also important to me - I define that as the music retaining all the resolution even when played softer than "live". For example, when playing music at night when everyone at home is in bed, I still want to hear detail and resolution. Dynamic range is a very "macro" thing - the ability to swing from soft to loud, and louder without compression and without delay. I emphasize because some high-power amplifiers I regard as "muscle bound and plodding" can go loud, but seem to be slow at getting to loud.

IMHO, Spectrals are the other brand which excels at micro-dynamics, but in my experience only with MIT cables.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I sometimes wonder if all of these terms don't simply mean "detail." That wonderful thing where you suddenly hear the beautiful little things that don't come through from lesser recordings, through lesser playback systems. 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. With that specific meaning in mind, some of the things I've seen said about "microdynamics" seem contradictory. So a lot of people's personal definitionss of the term, followed by a lot of my typically obnoxious questions, seemed to be in order.

Tim

Think of accents in music.

 

[garylkoh]

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

Correct!!! I was hoping that someone would bring this up. This is part of what mp3 compresses to reduce file size. The softest sounds within the context of loud ones are eliminated.

 

[microstrip]

( ...) When I use the word, it has to be in the context of macro-dynamics already being good. Micro-dynamics to me is the fine shadings within a dynamic envelop - for example, to hear the wobble of the skin of a tympani when you hear the strike of a tympani, when the blat of a muted trumpet has an internal echo, when you can hear the neighboring strings of a piano when a key is struck. (...)

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.

 

[bblue]

This is a question, not an opinion, but if dynamics are a function of S/N, how can something with less dynamic range have greater microdynamics? I would think that the S/N ration would be even more critical in allowing very low-level variations in volume to be properly resolved....

Unless the dynamic range is being compromised by poor electronics, the two are usually mutually exclusive. You can have exquisite detail on analog with a higher than preffered background noise level. It would be better if there is less noise, but noise itself doesn't doesn't erase the detail unless its level is higher than that of the level of the detail in question.

You can also have very high dynamic range with lack of detail due to poor electronics of one form or another.

On higher end gear the increased dynamic range *usually* implies higher resolution -- but not always.

--Bill