Micro and macro dynamics...a discussion.

[JackD201]

I think the objection is how the word is used to exaggerate or romanticize and not what it has come to mean per se. The moment it's uttered its dismissed as a'phile drivel. Doesn't bother me one bit. Language is a funny thing. English is my second language. When I'm in the US my pronunciation adapts so I can be more easily understood whether it be a touch of Hawaiin, Californian or whatever. I go on an audio board, I use the words most likely to be understood. These are two of those.

 

[opus111]

The problem is with the objecting to certain language, rather than seeking further explanations to understand it. Objectivists are some of the most precious people - their forte is objecting, hence the name

 

[JackD201]

Lol!

 

[NorthStar]

It's funny because like you Jack, and Richard too, my second language is also English (French 1st).
And we seem to communicate quite well. We are quite articulate, and easily understood (when we want to).

 

[opus111]

Yes but unlike you my first language is also English Bob

 

[NorthStar]

Yes but unlike you my first language is also English Bob

---- Oh, sorry about that Richard, I thought that Chinese was your first tongue.

Then, only Jack, and I, are good.

 

[opus111]

I'm aware that I'm increasingly introducing more and more Chinglish into my writings, but really I had no idea it had become so pronounced.

 

[NorthStar]

I'm aware that I'm increasingly introducing more and more Chinglish into my writings, but really I had no idea it had become so pronounced.

---- No no, I was only referring to your location. Your English is perfect amigo.

 

[opus111]

I was just joshin' with ya bro'

 

[NorthStar]

-- I knew it; "Chinglish". ...That, for me is 'microdynamic' (subtle, but yet very present).

 

[opus111]

The canonical example of Chinglish is 'Long time, no see'. It's no longer counted as Chinglish though because its been assimilated as idiomatic English

 

[Soundproof]

Here's how musicians define these terms:

• Musical Nuance= alterations in volume over time, alterations of pulse, coloring of articulation; ADSR.
• Macro Dynamics= the traditional notation on a score; f mp, pp, etc.
• Micro Dynamics= The subtle changes in volume that are not notated by the composer and are dictated by principles inherent in nature.

http://bbamusic.wikispaces.com/Micro+Dynamics

w/o micro-dynamics the music sounds a bit uninteresting

This is actually how a person with his own theory of how to achieve detailed embouchure-work from horn players who play by numbers has arrived at the term micro-dynamics.

 

[Soundproof]

-- My turn. :b

Macrodynamics are the large swings in dynamics, like from the drum's strokes to the full orchestral impact.

Microdynamics are the subtle details in low passages, like the breathing of the singer, the musical pages being turned, the decay of a string being stricken...

The dynamics of a piece are indicated by the composer's and performers' use of the changes between piano and forte. In the earlier run-through of these notations Tchaikovsky's Pathetique was mentioned, where he has an extremely sotto indication for a bassoon (most often played by a bass clarinet, as it's hard for a bassoon to dig down there). What's more interesting, is what follows after that ppppppp, when the orchestra joins in.

What you call microdynamics, are details. There's nothing wrong with audiophilia developing its own terms for things, but it's a little unfortunate to use microdynamics, because dynamics is so established in music. You are describing a lot of artefacts that are not part of the intended music - is Glenn Gould's low singing in the background, which the engineers tried to mike away, microdynamics?

 

[NorthStar]

-- It's kind of like a microscopic detail, used by versatile audiophiles,
in reference to a verisimilitude of microdynamics. ...Michael Fremer for example, loves to use it.
...The word microdynamics.

Just getting Bach* on topic, through an indirect channel.

* Yes, Bach, the Classical music composer.

_____________________

Microdynamics are real, and the term is right in audio.
At low level listening volume, dynamics are smaller, and some components, and loudspeakers, are better than others at reproducing those low listening sounds with better definition and emotional impact (from the soft to the very soft to the pitch black background). ...Like from ribbon tweeters for example, and midrange drivers that are accurate and precise, and better designed bass drivers with more sensitivity to low level details from the low frequencies. ...All in tandem, from a well chosen crossover network (phase accurate), and at low listening volume level; like if we would be just small mouses with small but perceptive set of ears.

I have been reading the term for so many years now that I'm accustomed to it, and I accepted it. For me it is concrete, real solid in its implementation, definition, and real life meaning and listening experience.

Audio pro reviewers/writers have been using it for years and years, from J. Gordon Holt, to Steven Stone, to Michael Fremer (who I already mentioned), and many more.

Of course, we can elaborate much more on all its variables, and some more ....

 

[Soundproof]

-- It's kind of like a microscopic detail, used by versatile audiophiles,
in reference to a verisimilitude of microdynamics. ...Michael Fremer for example, loves to use it.
...The word microdynamics.

Just getting Bach* on topic, through an indirect channel.

* Yes, Bach, the Classical music composer.

_____________________

Microdynamics are real, and the term is right in audio.
At low level listening volume, dynamics are smaller, and some components, and loudspeakers, are better than others at reproducing those low listening sounds with better definition and emotional impact (from the soft to the very soft to the pitch black background). ...Like from ribbon tweeters for example, and better designed bass drivers with more sensitivity to low level details.

I have been reading the term for so many years now that I'm accustomed to it, and I accepted it. For me it is concrete, real solid in its implementation, definition, and real life meaning and listening experience.

Audio pro reviewers/writers have been using it for years and years, from J. Gordon Holt, to Steven Stone, to Michael Fremer (who I already mentioned), and many more.

Of course, we can elaborate much more on all its variables, and some more ....

What you are referring to now is relevant to musical details, whereas earlier you had the turning of the pages, the breathing of the singer, etc, down as microdynamics.

Those musical details are a result of technique and dynamic interplay, and there is little doubt that some systems are better at revealing these details than others. Audiophilia wants to call this microdynamics , but it does create for a lot of confusion, since many think it's details, also non-musical, that are meant when the term is used.

It's quite amusing to check what people think the term dynamics means, for instance, in various hifi-boards ... an exercise that kind of also tells us this is a pretty moot point in this hobby.

 

[Soundproof]

Instead of theorizing, let's discuss a practical example of the importance of a system's ability to resolve small details.
In another thread, we've been rejoicing over the music of the Jacques Loussier trios. In most recordings of the trios Loussier formed, there is exquisite drumwork, first by Garros and later by Arpino. Exquisite in the sense that they are often just barely touching metal and skin, with sticks, poms and swizzles. You really have to see them live or see the DVDs to truly be able to appreciate with what tenderness they add details to the overall music being created.

In fact, a lot of systems aren't able to resolve what they are doing at all - either not playing back anything one is capable of discerning, or else making a hash of it because nuances are missing.

So - we have very small musical details, and within those there are, of course, changes of dynamics.
A very good system tells you more about what is going on than a bad system. If there is general agreement that the word microdynamics is to be used to describe precisely those low-level near imperceptible changes in stress by the musician, that's OK.
But then it doesn't help much when the term is also used to describe a finger sliding on a guitar string, notes being turned or a singer breathing (those are artefacts).

I've had fun just playing the soundtrack from the DVD linked to below, without an image, to check whether I then hear what I am easily able to hear when I watch the video and can see Arpino's actions. There's little doubt that the image helps my inner ear better discern the minuscule details Arpino is working with.

And that is probably also the hallmark of a very good hifi-system: that it is able to see deep into the recording's true details, without the benefit of a video assist.

http://www.amazon.com/Jacques-Loussier-Trio-Play-Bach/dp/B0007X9T98

 

[JackD201]

Very good posts Soundproof.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Instead of theorizing, let's discuss a practical example of the importance of a system's ability to resolve small details.
In another thread, we've been rejoicing over the music of the Jacques Loussier trios. In most recordings of the trios Loussier formed, there is exquisite drumwork, first by Garros and later by Arpino. Exquisite in the sense that they are often just barely touching metal and skin, with sticks, poms and swizzles. You really have to see them live or see the DVDs to truly be able to appreciate with what tenderness they add details to the overall music being created.

In fact, a lot of systems aren't able to resolve what they are doing at all - either not playing back anything one is capable of discerning, or else making a hash of it because nuances are missing.

So - we have very small musical details, and within those there are, of course, changes of dynamics.
A very good system tells you more about what is going on than a bad system. If there is general agreement that the word microdynamics is to be used to describe precisely those low-level near imperceptible changes in stress by the musician, that's OK.
But then it doesn't help much when the term is also used to describe a finger sliding on a guitar string, notes being turned or a singer breathing (those are artefacts).

I've had fun just playing the soundtrack from the DVD linked to below, without an image, to check whether I then hear what I am easily able to hear when I watch the video and can see Arpino's actions. There's little doubt that the image helps my inner ear better discern the minuscule details Arpino is working with.

And that is probably also the hallmark of a very good hifi-system: that it is able to see deep into the recording's true details, without the benefit of a video assist.

http://www.amazon.com/Jacques-Loussier-Trio-Play-Bach/dp/B0007X9T98

Terrific post, but I want to make one small comment.

I think in terms of micro-dynamics in music you are right to dismiss the "artifacts". However, in terms of micro-dynamics in a system these artifacts cannot be dismissed.

 

[Soundproof]

Terrific post, but I want to make one small comment.

I think in terms of micro-dynamics in music you are right to dismiss the "artifacts". However, in terms of micro-dynamics in a system these artifacts cannot be dismissed.

I agree, John, but we should use the word "microdetails" instead of "microdynamics" to describe these artefacts, IMO. Because it's often clear that it's non-musical details that are being discussed, and not the finer points of the artistic musical expression.
I find that a lot more precise and less confusing.

If I can discern that an artist is turning her head when singing, is that "microdynamics" or is it a "microdetail" that is often missed by lesser systems?

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

I agree, John, but we should use the word "microdetails" instead of "microdynamics" to describe these artefacts, IMO. Because it's often clear that it's non-musical details that are being discussed, and not the finer points of the artistic musical expression.
I find that a lot more precise and less confusing.

If I can discern that an artist is turning her head when singing, is that "microdynamics" or is it a "microdetail" that is often missed by lesser systems?

I like that...."Micro-details". And your example is a good one.