Your loudspeakers are too small!

[Sal1950]

In the abstract, yes -- applied to an actual person, rather less so.
That said, I still went there. I am not always my own best editor.

I've never been a PC type of guy.

 

[Putter]

Under what definition does it normally need instrumentation or magnification to be perceptible?


Look, you are clever, we recognize that, but how can we be sure you too aren't either a bog standard audiophool or just toeing the party line?

I've looked at your post history and I was surprised, it is mostly (overwhelmingly?) picking other peoples ideas apart, and not always in the most charitable of ways. Where are your ideas? Perhaps you could link us to all the papers you've published, and the new understanding contained within, so we can be sure of your right to an opinion on the matter.

Krabapple and Axo1989 afaict in this fairly tedious thread with an insulting title implying that many people on this forum have bad speakers, have at least attempted to define what microdynamics might mean. Most of the rest of this thread seems to consist of hand waving. There is really nothing wrong with picking other peoples ideas apart. That is the nature of (audio) science. Ideas must stand up to critical scrutiny. And while you accuse him of not being charitable, you then imply that he may be an audiophool (def?) or toeing the party line, whatever that is, and that he needs to be an accomplished scientist to have an opinion or understanding of the matter.

 

[Axo1989]

I always thought it was technically defined as what you hear through the plankton.

You may (or may not) be disturbed to learn that there are macro-plankton and micro-plankton (all the way from mega- to femto- in fact). There are even pseudo-plankton. So audiophiliacs and objectivores are all covered, taste-wise.

 

[gene_stl]

nice micrograph

 

[mhardy6647]

nice micrograph

Should we offer some macrophotgraphy as a counterpoint?

from my son's photoblog (which, sadly, has been dormant for the COVID era): https://icouldbeahero.blogspot.com/2012/01/macro-musings.html

 

[Martin]

I agree with the original post...

That is why my stereo speakers have dual 9" woofers in a hybrid transmission line. My a/v system main l/r speakers have dual 8" woofers.

5" or 6" woofers are OK if they are used near field or augmented with subwoofers but I prefer the impact of large floor-standing full-range speakers.

There is nothing like a big speaker playing at 85dB average volume.

Martin

 

[gene_stl]

tell your son to learn how to use "stacking" so that the whol macrophotograph is in focus.

 

[mhardy6647]

tell your son to learn how to use "stacking" so that the whol macrophotograph is in focus.

Pretty sure he doesn't stack. He has a disdainful attitude towards many "modern" photographic trends.
He still uses film, including large format -- although less and less in recent years.
He's more of a dodge and burn kind of guy.

(from his "work" blog -- but not a terribly recent photograph)


my own personal favorite of his dragonfly series (FWIW):
Pretty sure he was still using screw-on closeup lenses for this one. He was in high school, too.

 

[dshreter]

I lost track of what thread I was in, but hearing “microdynamics” seems much more a feature of a room than the speakers and electronics.

Carry on.

 

[Sal1950]

my own personal favorite of his dragonfly series

Oh good, I thought it might be an alien invasion!

 

[Axo1989]

nice micrograph

I see what you did there.

 

[Thomas_A]

My take is that large speakers have their benefits, especially in larger rooms and when room boundary effects are not used as part of the loudspeaker design. In small rooms, use of boundary gain, and by reducing peaks with EQ can win a lot of headroom both for speakers and amps. I use 5 inch mid woofer crossed at 100 Hz to subwoofer used as stands (8 inch woofers, ported 21 Hz x2), close to wall, and reducing peaks around 45 Hz of 10 dB or so with Audyssey. Seating position also close to wall which reinforces bass. 85 dB average SPL is doable and also enough for me.

 

[gene_stl]

I see what you did there.

Normally I might take credit for being half-witted, but I didn't actually do anything. In several other lives I have been heavily involved with microscopy, and also photomacrography, so it was just a compliment. And I have been more or less ignoring the micro dynamics discussion. The arguments got so opaque I couldn't tell which witch was which.

 

[mhardy6647]

In this discussion of size vs. -- shall we say? -- end-user satisfaction, I think I'll take this opportunity to cross-reference a jocular commentary on the subject* that was recently offered in another thread here at ASR...

A Call For Humor!

www.audiosciencereview.com

____________
* Well, kind of an analogous subject.

 

[MattHooper]

I am serious.

Why don’t you show me a paper written about it? Or do you expect us to accept that just because people on audio forums talk about it, it is a term?

If you can’t measure it, if it doesn’t have a unit, if there is no mathematical model of it, then it has no place in science.

I had explained over and over it wasn't a scientific term. Just like "forte" and "pianissimo" aren't scientific terms, yet have meaning and a reference that those who use the terms.

Take a look at the terms used in music:

Musical terms: A glossary of useful terminology

Struggle to remember the entire dictionary of music terms? From adagio to waltz, here is a comprehensive guide to Italian musical terms and other terminology.

www.classicfm.com

Not much scientific precision in there, right? But does that mean the terms have no use or meaning? Clearly not.

I mean, wouldn't it be a bit strange if you asked musicians what they meant by the terms they use and you kept saying they were useless unless they could put it in scientific engineering terms? They'd just shrug and go on using those terms to notate music, because they actually communicate information among those who care to understand the terms and communicate with them, even if not to some scientific level of precision. (In the same way, when audiophiles I know use the term "micro dynamics" I generally know what they are referencing).

So if your point is always going to be "that's not a scientific term" that was established right from the beginning.

But if you also want to say that "micro dynamics" doesn't really mean anything, has no real world reference, that's wrong, as I've given the meaning, given real world references for what I and many others would mean by the term, with literally an example of a guitarist playing a performance, as well as references defining the term for music production and musicians (which are consistant with how I've explained the term).

And, again, despite that the term itself is a GENERALITY, it doesn't mean that what it refers to can't be scientifically understood or explained in engineering terms with precision. When I say that an EXAMPLE of "micro dynamics" is this guitarist playing this piece - that I'm talking about the differences in force/loudness/softness and hence dynamics of his playing - we can ask "Ok, what does it require in terms of recording and the reproduction chain in order to record and reproduced those dynamics accurately?" That should have a pretty precise engineering answer.
And we could talk about whether all, most, or some speakers would be up to this task, or how speaker A may be less up to the task and for what reasons.

But if someone is dead set on refusing to accept the term, no matter how many examples are given, then of course not much can be done.

So, I've written enough (too much) already on this. I infer from the number of "likes" on some of my posts in this thread that at least some seem to be getting my point, but it looks like we are spinning wheels with others. I'm moving on, and thanks again for the discussion.

 

[mhardy6647]

I mean, wouldn't it be a bit strange if you asked musicians what they meant by the terms they use and you kept saying they were useless unless they could put it in scientific engineering terms? They'd just shrug and go on using those terms to notate music, because they actually communicate information among those who care to understand the terms and communicate with them, even if not to some scientific level of precision. (In the same way, when audiophiles I know use the term "micro dynamics" I generally know what they are referencing).

Actually, I think you just crystallized the disconnect.
The musical terms have well defined, or at least well-accepted, meanings in the relevant discipline.
The musical terms don't port over (so to speak) to the art/science/technology (and I'll maintain that it's all three) of sound reproduction.

The audiophile vocabulary that is the subject of the countrapunctal discussion in this thread falls in a grey space in between, I'd submit. Like a lot of jargon, it probably serves more to obfuscate than to clarify.

(Modified from Bill Watterson's cartoon: Calvin & Hobbes: Verbing weirds language )

 

[Robin L]

I mean, wouldn't it be a bit strange if you asked musicians what they meant by the terms they use and you kept saying they were useless unless they could put it in scientific engineering terms? They'd just shrug and go on using those terms to notate music, because they actually communicate information among those who care to understand the terms and communicate with them, even if not to some scientific level of precision.

And if you keep up with that kind of attitude, they won't share their dope with you either.

 

[SIY]

I had explained over and over it wasn't a scientific term.

Then tell the ignorati that asking how to measure it is meaningless.

(resisting getting sucked into yet one more eristic debate)

 

[DanielT]

I had explained over and over it wasn't a scientific term. Just like "forte" and "pianissimo" aren't scientific terms, yet have meaning and a reference that those who use the terms.

Take a look at the terms used in music:

Musical terms: A glossary of useful terminology

Struggle to remember the entire dictionary of music terms? From adagio to waltz, here is a comprehensive guide to Italian musical terms and other terminology.

www.classicfm.com

Not much scientific precision in there, right? But does that mean the terms have no use or meaning? Clearly not.

I mean, wouldn't it be a bit strange if you asked musicians what they meant by the terms they use and you kept saying they were useless unless they could put it in scientific engineering terms? They'd just shrug and go on using those terms to notate music, because they actually communicate information among those who care to understand the terms and communicate with them, even if not to some scientific level of precision. (In the same way, when audiophiles I know use the term "micro dynamics" I generally know what they are referencing).

So if your point is always going to be "that's not a scientific term" that was established right from the beginning.

But if you also want to say that "micro dynamics" doesn't really mean anything, has no real world reference, that's wrong, as I've given the meaning, given real world references for what I and many others would mean by the term, with literally an example of a guitarist playing a performance, as well as references defining the term for music production and musicians (which are consistant with how I've explained the term).

And, again, despite that the term itself is a GENERALITY, it doesn't mean that what it refers to can't be scientifically understood or explained in engineering terms with precision. When I say that an EXAMPLE of "micro dynamics" is this guitarist playing this piece - that I'm talking about the differences in force/loudness/softness and hence dynamics of his playing - we can ask "Ok, what does it require in terms of recording and the reproduction chain in order to record and reproduced those dynamics accurately?" That should have a pretty precise engineering answer.
And we could talk about whether all, most, or some speakers would be up to this task, or how speaker A may be less up to the task and for what reasons.

But if someone is dead set on refusing to accept the term, no matter how many examples are given, then of course not much can be done.

So, I've written enough (too much) already on this. I infer from the number of "likes" on some of my posts in this thread that at least some seem to be getting my point, but it looks like we are spinning wheels with others. I'm moving on, and thanks again for the discussion.

This type of scale, its structure, can be used in research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamics_(musik)

Ordinal data - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

An example among many:

Neighbour noise annoyance is associated with various mental and physical health symptoms: results from a nationwide study among individuals living in multi-storey housing - BMC Public Health

Background Noise exposure is considered a stressor that may potentially exert negative health effects among the exposed individuals. On a population basis, the most prevalent and immediate response to noise is annoyance, which is an individually experienced phenomenon that may activate...

bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com

 

[Larry B. Larabee]

Then tell the ignorati that asking how to measure it is meaningless.

(resisting getting sucked into yet one more eristic debate)

Didn't you mean to say:

S “resisting getting sucked into yet one more eristic debate” IY