Your loudspeakers are too small!

[MattHooper]

Your long explanation is a known and measurable phenomena.

Yes, I didn't think it wasn't. That's part of the point. What is referenced by the phrase "micro dynamics" (and "macro dynamics") are real phenomena. They aren't simply fantasies spun by subjective reviewers or whatever.

It is an objective quality that is called linearity of the transfer function.

Fine. And...?

You seem to be traveling along a strange line - as if the existence of a "word referencing A" is obviated by "the explanation for A."

The fact a scientist can explain "sweetness" in technical terms doesn't mean the term "sweet" is "unscientific" or should be ruled out of any "scientific" discussion. No more than the fact "solid" can be explained via technical terms means the term "solid" isn't used scientifically, or isn't useful informally to describe real phenomena.

Here for instance is, once again, the forum founder Amirm referencing literature for a dynamic range meter, that uses the terms "macro" and "micro" dynamics:

Amplifier Power: How much do you really need and your system’s dynamic range.

A possible error in this equation is unquestionably going by Manufacturers specs. Don’t a lot of manufacturers play loose and fast in reporting the real efficiency rating of their speakers? Addressed this at the 1:28 mark in the video. Timestamp link below:

www.audiosciencereview.com

It’s subjective when two devices measure the same but sound different. You have not even measured anything, but talking about the possibility of subjective difference. That shouldn’t be the way we discuss on a forum based on science.

Again...strange.

Do you agree that the phenomenon of dynamic gradients exist between an orchestra playing it's softest and loudest?

Do you agree that there are also smaller dynamic gradients between the picking of acoustic guitar strings, for example?

Is true to claim such phenomena exist?

If so, what could be anti-scientific about referencing real phenomena, so long as the terms are defined to explain the observation?

If you want to phrase the EXPLANATION for these phenemona are found in linearity of the transfer function, great. But to say that actually identifying real phenemona, even if the terms are informal, is to be ruled off the table...that's a tad dogmatic, to the point of impracticality.

And...again... you may want to take your complaint to the forum owner who has a pretty good idea what this forum is about, and yet he sees fit to employ sonic descriptions in his reviews.

 

[sarumbear]

Yes, I didn't think it wasn't. That's part of the point. What is referenced by the phrase "micro dynamics" (and "macro dynamics") are real phenomena. They aren't simply fantasies spun by subjective reviewers or whatever.




Fine. And...?

You seem to be traveling along a strange line - as if the existence of a "word referencing A" is obviated by "the explanation for A."

The fact a scientist can explain "sweetness" in technical terms doesn't mean the term "sweet" is "unscientific" or should be ruled out of any "scientific" discussion. No more than the fact "solid" can be explained via technical terms means the term "solid" isn't used scientifically, or isn't useful informally to describe real phenomena.

Here for instance is, once again, the forum founder Amirm referencing literature for a dynamic range meter, that uses the terms "macro" and "micro" dynamics:

Amplifier Power: How much do you really need and your system’s dynamic range.

A possible error in this equation is unquestionably going by Manufacturers specs. Don’t a lot of manufacturers play loose and fast in reporting the real efficiency rating of their speakers? Addressed this at the 1:28 mark in the video. Timestamp link below:

www.audiosciencereview.com

Again...strange.

Do you agree that the phenomenon of dynamic gradients exist between an orchestra playing it's softest and loudest?

Do you agree that there are also smaller dynamic gradients between the picking of acoustic guitar strings, for example?

Is true to claim such phenomena exist?

If so, what could be anti-scientific about referencing real phenomena, so long as the terms are defined to explain the observation?

If you want to phrase the EXPLANATION for these phenemona are found in linearity of the transfer function, great. But to say that actually identifying real phenemona, even if the terms are informal, is to be ruled off the table...that's a tad dogmatic, to the point of impracticality.

And...again... you may want to take your complaint to the forum owner who has a pretty good idea what this forum is about, and yet he sees fit to employ sonic descriptions in his reviews.

I’m afraid I can’t even follow you. Have a good day.

 

[Robin L]

I’m afraid I can’t even follow you. Have a good day.

It's not "or", it's "and".

 

[JRS]

What do you make of this Greg Timbers quote from the 2017 interview: (claim that one couldn't afford to put together a good system today)

Personally I think it's mostly nonsense, particularly the part about a system being unaffordable. Au contraire,. my first real system was a Marantz 100W per channel int amp--cost $600. Speakers were AR-5 cost $350. Technics SL1300 TT cost with cartridge: 300. Total 1500, 1972 dollars.

Never mind that one could easily achieve the same SQ for 1500. That 1500 would be closer to $9000 in todays dollars. Now what totally kick ass system could I get for that? I'm sure I could find some Revel, KEF, Genelec, Adam, JBL, Golden Ear, etc, etc etc for 5K, drop another 1k for streamer/dac, and I still have 3K for amps and cabling. At those prices maybe Purifi for 1800.00, cabling 150.00 and I still have a thousand for concert tickets, streaming subscriptions, etc. I don't know on what planet people live to make claims like that.

I think it boils down to is people don't appreciate what a priority good music was to us back then, and the huge financial sacrifices we made.

 

[sarumbear]

It's not 'or", it's "and".

???

 

[MattHooper]

???

Like much in life, we can have more than one way of referring to aspects of the same thing. It doesn't have to be "either/or" as you seem to be promulgating.

If "micro dynamics/macro dynamics" and "linearity of the transfer function" are talking about essentially the same phenomena, using one doesn't render the other invalid. Both terms can be used, insofar as the terms come with definitions referencing real phenomena.

Just like one can use the term "ice" or a more formal descriptions of water molecules in a certain state (e.g. "a naturally occurring crystalline inorganic solid with an ordered structure"), to refer to essentially the same phenomenon. It's not "one term rules out the use of the other."

 

[DanielT]

I'm convinced my speakers, your speakers and 98% of enthusiasts speakers are too small. Too small not only to provide enough headroom for uncompressed loud dynamic peaks, but too small (and inefficient) to provide micro-dynamics at lower volumes. Increasing amplifier wattage does not solve this issue.

I can't see a way out of this scenario, big speakers aren't exactly inconspicuous (or beautiful for that matter), but I think of the reviews of 5" or 6" bass driver bookshelf speakers looking for ever better measurements could just be chasing our collective tails. Is there really something groundbreaking yet to come out of such small speakers, however expensive?

Even the Genelec Ones have an optional W371A bass unit to go with it, to free them up from reproducing the difficult bass region, suggesting that for all it's clever design, you can't fight physics and what physics demands is more cone area & larger cabinet size.

If you have the space (and most of us do), then what you need are bigger speakers.

Had to check what the thread was about now again.

Answer to question: Small speakers are good as long as you do not play them too loud because then they sound bad.

Good night.

Edit:
Bad = distortion. Hear "details" = low distortion.

It is mainly in the bass range that it begins to distort at higher SPL. This is how small speakers work, see any test Amir performs. Compare distortion levels (at increased SPL) for small speakers compared to larger ones.
Distortion, speakers can definitely be heard.

 

[Robin L]

Like much in life, we can have more than one way of referring to aspects of the same thing. It doesn't have to be "either/or" as you seem to be promulgating.

If "micro dynamics/macro dynamics" and "linearity of the transfer function" are talking about essentially the same phenomena, using one doesn't render the other invalid. Both terms can be used, insofar as the terms come with definitions referencing real phenomena.

Just like one can use the term "ice" or a more formal descriptions of water molecules in a certain state (e.g. "a naturally occurring crystalline inorganic solid with an ordered structure"), to refer to essentially the same phenomenon. It's not "one or the other."

There's the simple issue of intelligibility. It might be obvious to me that microdynamics would encompass the difference between ppp and pp and macrodynamics as p to f, but people who are not musically inclined might not understand the difference, whereas a musician most likely would.

It all depends on the audience you wish to reach. Some will not be technically versed. Some will not be musically versed. But if one intends to communicate with others, one learns to adapt one's language into concepts the "unversed" can comprehend.

 

[RobL]

Personally I think it's mostly nonsense, particularly the part about a system being unaffordable. Au contraire,. my first real system was a Marantz 100W per channel int amp--cost $600. Speakers were AR-5 cost $350. Technics SL1300 TT cost with cartridge: 300. Total 1500, 1972 dollars.

Never mind that one could easily achieve the same SQ for 1500. That 1500 would be closer to $9000 in todays dollars. Now what totally kick ass system could I get for that? I'm sure I could find some Revel, KEF, Genelec, Adam, JBL, Golden Ear, etc, etc etc for 5K, drop another 1k for streamer/dac, and I still have 3K for amps and cabling. At those prices maybe Purifi for 1800.00, cabling 150.00 and I still have a thousand for concert tickets, streaming subscriptions, etc. I don't know on what planet people live to make claims like that.

I think it boils down to is people don't appreciate what a priority good music was to us back then, and the huge financial sacrifices we made.

Not trying to speak for Greg Timbers, but I think he was referring to “the big Altec's, JBL's, Klipsch's and Tannoys of the day…”.

The part of his quote I found interesting was his assertion that the smaller inefficient speakers of today are less dynamic than the larger, more efficient speakers of the past.

 

[dc655321]

Almost nothing you said has any engineering or scientific meaning. Phases do not interact. Sound doesn’t bounce around the room. There is no statistical region. Etc.

I've been told, "I don't know", is a reasonable response when one doesn't actually know.
Seemed wise at the time. YMMV.

You may want to look at the link @Bill Brown provided, lots of interesting knowledge there.
Or maybe skim Mr. Toole's book:

 

[Ken1951]

Personally I think it's mostly nonsense, particularly the part about a system being unaffordable. Au contraire,. my first real system was a Marantz 100W per channel int amp--cost $600. Speakers were AR-5 cost $350. Technics SL1300 TT cost with cartridge: 300. Total 1500, 1972 dollars.

Never mind that one could easily achieve the same SQ for 1500. That 1500 would be closer to $9000 in todays dollars. Now what totally kick ass system could I get for that? I'm sure I could find some Revel, KEF, Genelec, Adam, JBL, Golden Ear, etc, etc etc for 5K, drop another 1k for streamer/dac, and I still have 3K for amps and cabling. At those prices maybe Purifi for 1800.00, cabling 150.00 and I still have a thousand for concert tickets, streaming subscriptions, etc. I don't know on what planet people live to make claims like that.

I think it boils down to is people don't appreciate what a priority good music was to us back then, and the huge financial sacrifices we made.

People did have systems, but the number of people who spent $1,500 on a Hi-Fi system in 1972 was really, really small. I worked in a good company back then and there weren't that many sold at that price level. And we sold some really good stuff as well as the more main line stuff. I expect the number of people investing in anything these days is even smaller.

 

[MattHooper]

There's the simple issue of intelligibility. It might be obvious to me that microdynamics would encompass the difference between ppp and pp and macrodynamics as p to f, but people who are not musically inclined might not understand the difference, whereas a musician most likely would.

It all depends on the audience you wish to reach. Some will not be technically versed. Some will not be musically versed. But if one intends to communicate with others, one learns to adapt one's language into concepts the "unversed" can comprehend.

Yes that is a good point.

Though the question I had been answering is "what is meant when people use the terms "micro dynamics?" If someone actually wants to understand what many audiophiles are referring to with that term (rather than simply dismiss it out of hand), I sought to answer that question.

If anyone here doesn't want to use that term themselves, of course that's fine.

 

[mightycicadalord]

May I remind you the name of the forum. It says science. Wouldn’t it make sense to use scientific terms to explain physical phenomenon?

Attitudes like this scare people away from the forum and learning about audio in general. There is a time and place for both subjective and objective discussions. Please don't attempt to gate keep discussion here.

This forum is really a place for anyone to come and learn about audio no matter their technical vocabulary.

-MightyCicada "I wish were Rick Denney" Lord

 

[JRS]

Not trying to speak for Greg Timbers, but I think he was referring to “the big Altec's, JBL's, Klipsch's and Tannoys of the day…”.

The part of his quote I found interesting was his assertion that the smaller inefficient speakers of today are less dynamic than the larger, more efficient speakers of the past.

Rereading I get that now thanks. Price paid for reading only part of the comment before dashing off. There is something about the effortless dynamics of big horns that's heard to match, much less beat. For me, big LA's tickle my fancy. Something like those swoopy CDT's of DB Keele, only with good drivers would be end game for 2 channel.

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

80 hz is 14 feet wavelength (wider than almost all speaker separations) so I don’t understand how that could possibly be localized by anyone.

Well you rarely get 80Hz in isolation in actual music. A sub also outputs some content above the crossover frequency that could theoretically be localized.

I think most of it is psychological in nature. The brain of the owner knows that the bass comes from another location already, so it probably takes that into account, which is why we see people claiming localization issues of subs so often.

 

[abdo123]

80 hz is 14 feet wavelength (wider than almost all speaker separations) so I don’t understand how that could possibly be localized by anyone.

If the crossover isn’t steep there might be significant output in the 150-200Hz region.

 

[Duke]

Do you think directivity would be different in these two speakers? If yes, why?
View attachment 177117

Yes.

The directivity will be the same in the horizontal plane and different in the vertical plane.

At wavelengths which would normally wrap around the baffle, there will be less wrap-around below the midwoofer in the tower speaker.

Likewise diffraction effects will be a bit different because there is no diffractive edge just below the midwoofer of the tower speaker..

 

[thewas]

Yes.

The directivity will be the same in the horizontal plane and different in the vertical plane.

At wavelengths which would normally wrap around the baffle, there will be less wrap-around below the midwoofer in the tower speaker.

Likewise diffraction effects will be a bit different because there is no diffractive edge just below the midwoofer of the tower speaker..

Correct, the bafflestep gets affected also by the longer dimension of the baffle, here is a nice online simulation tool where everyone can test it in few seconds https://www.micka.de/en/bafflestep.php#ideal

 

[killdozzer]

You may want to take your complaint up with the owner of the forum: See Amirm's reviews for instance in which he employs informal subjective descriptions in the listening tests.

There it is; Reductio Ad Amirum. I told you it's a real phenomena.

Joking aside, I think you're wrong as well as @Robin L and @mightycicadalord . Again, I want to state I'm not saying this to provoke.

There is an assumption on your side that there is a strong and unique correlation between a layman's term and the actual term. In other words, that when ever an uninformed person says micro-dynamics, he means precisely "linearity of the transfer function" and he merely has another word for it.

This proved wrong so many times that there's hardly anything else one can do, but try to decipher what micro-dynamics mean this particular time it is being used. Since the use is almost specific to an individual. We still don't even know if micro-dynamics mean linearity of the transfer function, not even in this specific debate. So, "what are we debating" looks like a fair question.

This thread looks very much like "Hey everyone, I heard something and I trust my ears so I'm sure it's not my impression but an objective phenomena, now go out there and find me what it is unless you want to be accused of not being welcoming to me". I have a feeling that even when/if you find something there will be no way of proving that's what OP was referring to. Not even if he accepts the explanation.

All this makes it hard to even assert that we're communicating. At times it just looks like random sentence uttering. Whatever you have to offer, OP might take as definitive. Again, your comments do look chivalrous, but not exactly helping. (I guess I'm pointing this out because this chivalry looks like pity to me.)

I know, this throws the ball back to the corner of the one asking. It's hard (impossible?) to ask about things that are not known to you. But if you ask; "I heard something, what is it?" things go to the realm of mind reading.

Almost all subjective impressions we heard about big speakers, other than known ones, we heard someone saying about small speakers or at least we heard someone saying it about both. All we really have is the same old: big speaker can go louder and deeper with less distortion and have different directivity.

If we're trying to see if there's anything else, it would sure help to know what we're looking for, if possible, and not waste time on what is already known. If the "task" is go and find something, you'll always find something. It's like listening for a difference. That's what sells snake oil cables.

Sidenote, it's not fair scaring people with "this thread will lose members if you try to stick to scientific". So far, the only thing we can say is ASR is sticking with scientific and gaining members.

 

[DanielT]

There it is; Reductio Ad Amirum. I told you it's a real phenomena.

Joking aside, I think you're wrong as well as @Robin L and @mightycicadalord . Again, I want to state I'm not saying this to provoke.

There is an assumption on your side that there is a strong and unique correlation between a layman's term and the actual term. In other words, that when ever an uninformed person says micro-dynamics, he means precisely "linearity of the transfer function" and he merely has another word for it.

This proved wrong so many times that there's hardly anything else one can do, but try to decipher what micro-dynamics mean this particular time it is being used. Since the use is almost specific to an individual. We still don't even know if micro-dynamics mean linearity of the transfer function, not even in this specific debate. So, "what are we debating" looks like a fair question.

This thread looks very much like "Hey everyone, I heard something and I trust my ears so I'm sure it's not my impression but an objective phenomena, now go out there and find me what it is unless you want to be accused of not being welcoming to me". I have a feeling that even when/if you find something there will be no way of proving that's what OP was referring to. Not even if he accepts the explanation.

All this makes it hard to even assert that we're communicating. At times it just looks like random sentence uttering. Whatever you have to offer, OP might take as definitive. Again, your comments do look chivalrous, but not exactly helping. (I guess I'm pointing this out because this chivalry looks like pity to me.)

I know, this throws the ball back to the corner of the one asking. It's hard (impossible?) to ask about things that are not known to you. But if you ask; "I heard something, what is it?" things go to the realm of mind reading.

Almost all subjective impressions we heard about big speakers, other than known ones, we heard someone saying about small speakers or at least we heard someone saying it about both. All we really have is the same old: big speaker can go louder and deeper with less distortion and have different directivity.

If we're trying to see if there's anything else, it would sure help to know what we're looking for, if possible, and not waste time on what is already known. If the "task" is go and find something, you'll always find something. It's like listening for a difference. That's what sells snake oil cables.

Sidenote, it's not fair scaring people with "this thread will lose members if you try to stick to scientific". So far, the only thing we can say is ASR is sticking with scientific and gaining members.

FR on axes, directivity and distortion. Thats it plus absolute phase, perhaps time delay and noise. Well that was probably all that determines the sound within Hifi. I think. From the signal source, into the amp out to the speakers and into the ears.

Then you can dress up, explain, sound the experiences with the help of various concepts and parables. Nothing wrong with doing that. On the contrary, it's nice to talk about experiences. How did it sound, how did you think the food tasted and so on.