Your loudspeakers are too small!

[rdenney]

Linear speakers are louder by 3 dB when the signal asks for 3 dB more power, at any scale. Some speakers compress, particularly close to their SPL limits. I don’t of any that expand dynamics (unless at a resonance), but that would be nonlinear, too.

Rick “linearity not in the loudness domain, not the frequency domain” Denney

 

[Duke]

From what I've been led to believe from people using the term 'microdynamics' is the ability to hear small details in the presence of louder sounds... In my experience, horns do this better than regular cone/dome speakers.

Yes! And the reduction in masking by "environmental noise" due to a higher direct-to-reverberant sound ratio, which we get with highly directional loudspeakers like horns, is one of the reasons why we hear more dynamic contrast with a good horn system:

... Hjortkjaer et al. in their study assert that " listeners were not sensitive to differences in dynamic range compression with respect to either the subjective preference or perceived depth " and that their data " suggest that listeners are less sensitive to even high levels of compression than commonly claimed " [15]. They also state to have used stimuli of 15s duration which would suggest that the study concentrated on micro-dynamics, as the "use of short samples shifts the focus to evaluating microdynamics rather than macro-dynamics " [18]. With this in mind, and coupled with the inclusion of a strong masking agent such as environmental noise, it is more than likely that the perception of microdynamics was further hindered making it less likely for subjects to discriminate between non-compressed and hyper-compressed stimuli. [emphasis Duke's]

In other words, the in-room "noise floor", which arguably includes the in-room reflections (particularly if they are spectrally deficient), tends to MASK low-level sounds, including the dynamic gradations in those low-level sounds.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Yes! And the reduction in masking by "environmental noise" due to a higher direct-to-reverberant sound ratio, which we get with highly directional loudspeakers like horns, is one of the reasons why we hear more dynamic contrast with a good horn system:



In other words, the in-room "noise floor", which arguably includes the in-room reflections (particularly if they are spectrally deficient), tends to MASK low-level sounds, including the dynamic gradations in those low-level sounds.

And the flip side of this for me is when I want to listen to a recording which is not all that great, I'll play it on my 'secondary' system off to the side of the room which uses either JBL 4412s or at present Wharfedale W60-Ds which have had their midrange and tweeter replaced with those like the JBL 4412. Like other conventional cone/dome speakers, details (I guess they're 'micordynamics' ) are kind of 'smooshed together' and rounded off (relative to a horn presentation) and this makes these less-than-pristine recordings more enjoyable.

This 'smooshing together' (technical term - don't try this at home) isn't obvious to people who only have heard conventional speakers and never directly compared the sound to a full range horn.

 

[Newman]

MTF30 is about lens contrast versus resolution, not photograph microcontrast.

Photoshop has a slider for it, called Clarity. It’s the process as Sharpness, but at a larger scale than the pixel level where sharpness works. It simply brightens the brighter side of an edge and darkens the darker side.

Low microcontrast:

View attachment 216230

High microcontrast:

View attachment 216232

Wrong place to do this, but FYI you are wrong. That's just a classic example of the misattribution I am talking about. If you are truly interested, take it to DPR Science and Technology forum, link, although rather than restart an old topic, just search and learn.

cheers

 

[Newman]

You keep making these types of claims without any actual evidence, while ignoring evidence presented to the contrary.

You are simply wrong that the term "microdynamics" does not appear in the writings of audio technicians and researchers.

I'll stick to my guns thanks. You are making the same mistake you have made in the past, which is thinking everything related to music itself and music production is also talking about music/sound reproduction. It simply isn't.

PS I have edited my post to exclude the musings of architects, IT guys, and musicians employed by guitar effects companies. Let's stick to sound reproduction, you know, the actual topic.

 

[Newman]

This 'smooshing together' (technical term - don't try this at home)

I actually recommend it at home.

 

[kongwee]

Just go hifi show, you can see and heard how big and small works in many rooms.

 

[MattHooper]

I'll stick to my guns thanks. You are making the same mistake you have made in the past, which is thinking everything related to music itself and music production is also talking about music/sound reproduction. It simply isn't.

PS I have edited my post to exclude the musings of architects, IT guys, and musicians employed by guitar effects companies. Let's stick to sound reproduction, you know, the actual topic.

^^^ I'll take "Can't Admit I Was Wrong On The Internet for $500, Alex.

This is just about the most severe case of plugging one's ears and covering one's eyes to counter-evidence that I've seen on a forum. And that's saying something as I've done a lot of debating with fundamentalist/creationists!

 

[Descartes]

If only I could afford these!

Project Everest DD67000 | Dual 15″ (380mm), three-way, floorstanding speaker designed for a superlative listening experience

Designed and engineered in JBL’s world-famous acoustic engineering facility in Northridge, California, and using the most advanced technologies and best components available, Project Everest DD67000 is one of the most sophisticated and sought-after speaker system available at any price. This...

www.jbl.com

 

[rdenney]

Wrong place to do this, but FYI you are wrong. That's just a classic example of the misattribution I am talking about. If you are truly interested, take it to DPR Science and Technology forum, link, although rather than restart an old topic, just search and learn.

cheers

You are so sure of yourself. Far be it from me to correct you, especially since what you know comes from camera geeks and not photographers. Of course their definition would be about equipment and not photographs. But you really should broaden your horizons.

But how could I misattribute you, when you were responding to my use and definition of the term?

Shit, I don’t need this.

Rick “who was using the term decades before DPR existed” Denney

 

[Newman]

You are so sure of yourself.

Which we all know is a crime here among those who have already exhibited equal surety of the opposite opinion...

Far be it from me to correct you, especially since what you know comes from camera geeks and not photographers.

Careful, or MattHooper will accuse you of ear-plugging and eye-covering fundamentalism...if he is consistent in disliking it when someone tries to specify or limit the sources of information.

Of course their definition would be about equipment and not photographs.

So now we know, (a) you haven't looked before leaping to keyboard, and (b) you don't realise that MTF30 is measured on photographs, not gear, and is about photographs.

But how could I misattribute you, when you were responding to my use and definition of the term?

It's not about you misattributing me, it's about seeing a quality in an image and thinking it is because the camera gear 'has' microcontrast, when the quality you are seeing is not actually from that source...misattribution of cause. Just like happens with audio gear, incessantly.

Shit, I don’t need this.

Yet here you are...typing...so there is still hope.

New "paying the price for playing the ball" man

 

[Newman]

Similarly for microdynamics, it is a case of misattribution and the use of the word seems to have originated in the Golden Ear Subjective Reviewer Flowery Lexicon domain, and associated publications,

Let's expand on this a bit. Here are some random reviews where the author casually introduces the term microdynamics:-

"Excellent microdynamics....better microdynamics into lower impedance loads..." - Genesis reference amplifier reviewed on 6moons

"...the microdynamic changes within musical passages that constitute a musician's phrasing were somehow more clearly defined than with most other amps I've heard....the Berning's microdynamic capabilities made these continuous variations in their instruments' volumes very easy to follow....Recordings high on boogie factor were propelled forward with a huge kinetic impulse. Microdynamic nuances were given full scope of expression...... Feelings and emotions are buried in the music's microdynamics. The Berning had no difficulty at all in retrieving the music's full emotional gamut." -various Berning amplifiers reviewed by Soundstage Ultra (Vade Forrester) and TAS (Dick Olsher).

"..the company reworked the existing Lavardin design for greater linearity, which improves overall transparency and microdynamic resolution."-Lavardin ISx amplifier reviewed by Alan Sircom.

"If this technology sounded any different from a good analog amplifier, tube or solid-state, it was in its transient and dynamic performance. Both were both stunning, especially in the rendering of bass microdynamics....I don't think you'll be less than impressed by its micro- and macrodynamic performance, by its rhythmic swagger and ease, by its exceptionally solid imaging, accomplished transient delivery, or overall coherent sonic performance." -Sharp SM-SX100 integrated amplifier reviewed by Stereophile (Michael Fremer).

"...there was remarkable sensitivity to this recording’s microdynamics. Vengerov’s vibrato was as easy to hear, and in several sections I was surprised to hear slight changes in dynamics that I hadn’t before." -Genesis Reference GR180 amplifier reviewed by UltraAudio.com (Albert Bellg, probably influenced by the manufacturer's constant promotion of the product's microdynamics, all quoted extensively in the review)

"...the resulting sound is big, powerful and meaty but without sacrificing the nuance or micro dynamics in delicate recordings....the MHA200 just kept "revealing the true nature of every headphone, without adding anything of its own. And it does so with power and punch but without sacrificing on the subtlety or micro dynamics." -McIntosh headphone amp reviewed by What Hifi?

"Yes, it can thunder when the music demands, but it's just as adept with the internal drama and microdynamics of an Andante un poco moto." -Rotel amplifier reviewed by Hi-fi News (Andrew Everard)

"There is some penalty for the extra devices and complexity (compared to a single-ended direct-heated triode amplifier), that seemed to be one of the trade-offs here: a penalty on microdynamics. Likewise, this amp isn’t as immediate as simple tube amps. It still has immediacy, but not on the level of the finest tube products. I could say the same thing about really big tube amps: not as much immediacy or micro-dynamics—very simple amps can do some things quite well." -Sanders ESL amplifier reveiwed by Dagogo (Phillip Holmes)

"So there is proper tonal saturation and perfect micro-dynamics and resolution." -Plinium Leonidas amplifier reviewed on High Fidelity (Wojciech Pacuła)

"Feedback levels much above 20dB, aside from stability issues, appear to constrain the soundstage as well as compress microdynamics....The Carver had a slight edge in dynamics from soft to loud, though both amps fell short in terms of microdynamic conviction relative to a good SET amplifier, at least in the context of a high-sensitivity loudspeaker." Z-Infinity Z120F power amplifier reviewed by TAS (Dick Olsher)

"Microdynamics

1. MIT Terminator 5...many faults...most of all, a definite loss of ambient detail. This is rather striking in low level listening, as fine musical nuances seem lost, and the music comes across as rather flat and lifeless. Sort of like listening to public address system, the volume is there, but there's no finesse.​
2. Graham Slee Cable 1...Soundtracks came alive, detail was restored to a high degree, and most important to me, the passion was indeed there. Fine nuances could be heard, something I don't expect to happen at this price, ...​
3. VDH D102 MK 3...this cable can deliver almost anything that is in the program material, leaving my KA-i180 to deliver it to the speakers. The point here is, this cable can transfer the emotion in and behind the music, the fire in the music which is all too often lacking elsewhere." -3 interconnects reviewed by TNT Audio (Dejan Veselinovic)​

"...traits such as microdynamics were increased, separating the apparent volume between instruments and voices occurring simultaneously. In a word, the Accusound interconnects sounded like I could hear more music, as they revealed the intentions of the musicians, engineers and producer behind the performance more easily." -Accusound XD interconnect reviewed by Enjoy the Music (Tom Lyle)

"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. But in the afternoon he became restless for he saw that some improvements are necessary for Ethernet (audio) cables to satisfy humans... Through the AudioQuest Vodka the Rochat’s cello was firmly locked in space, slightly left to center. Its timbre was rich and assured, with fine microdynamic resolution and vibrant textures. The blast of orchestra that arrives at 2’ mark was natural and uncompressed, and the close-miked finger-plucked strings were like gunshots through the TAD speakers. It was easy to sit back and enjoy the depth of soundstage with the soloist playing just for us. When the Vodka was removed and replaced by the OTSC the sonic gap between those two was heard right away. The sound collapsed to become sketchy and one-dimensional. What was previously heard as rosin on a bow became merely a wiry sound. The transparency and bloom of the orchestra transformed into undistinguished mass, we were not able to detect any individual instruments within it." -ethernet cable shootout reviewed by audiodrom

OK I'm back. Random reviews but not of random components. I focused on amplifiers and cables. Why no speakers? Because I want to make a point. When these same reviewers above, and countless others, go to review loudspeakers, they will write about the microdynamics of the speakers, just like they did above for electronics and cables. From their point of view, they are talking about the same perceptual quality when they talk about microdynamics, no matter what the type of gear. So let's not kid ourselves: just because some here can imagine a somewhat-plausible mechanism by which a loudspeaker might exhibit a greater or lesser amount of 'microdynamics' (which is still horribly-loosely defined by most people as "whatever I can imagine it might sound like if the words Micro and Dynamics were mooshed together (word of the day mooshed courtesy of MakeMineVinyl)"), and let's not forget that I have described just yesterday in this thread a few flaws such as frequency response failings that could conceivably be a somewhat-plausible mechanism by which a loudspeaker might exhibit a greater or lesser amount of perceived 'microdynamics', but just because you (or I) can imagine it for a loudspeaker, I bet you are going to struggle a lot more to justify its appearance when listening 'to' decently-engineered amps and cables.

So like I said, let's not kid ourselves: when sighted subjective reviewers, including ourselves, say we hear more or better microdynamics from a component, it is generally imaginary (MattHooper will never believe this: read his dozens of thousands of words in other threads defending the writings of sighted subjective reviewers as being legitimate descriptions of the sound wave differences), or misattribution, and that's a fact. And with loudspeakers, even though they do sound detectably different, I will wager heavily that in almost every single instance, any non-imagined difference is simple misattribution, where maybe something simple like frequency response imbalances have made it sound a bit clearer in one band, and we leap to call it microdynamics, when in fact the speaker is not in any way able to make small changes in amplitude more accurately within the large 'macro' scale of music.

cheers​

 

[rdenney]

Newman—I agree. There is no term that can’t be used in the service of obfuscation. But that isn’t always the term’s fault.

Some speakers do compress peaks. Others do so less. I have no idea why it would be difficult to measure, but it usually takes making measurements at the speaker’s limit. The NRC measured linearity at quite loud levels, and if the speaker was particularly good at that level, they raised the SPL by 5 dB and tried again. Very few speakers earned that consideration in the measurement summaries I’ve read in Soundstage. Loss of linearity would eventually occur at some group of frequencies, suggesting to me distortion caused by cone breakup or excursion limits. If the cone bottoms out, the speaker will rattle horribly, but excursion can also be limited by the surround, and at some frequencies by excessive damping. Those may not be as obvious.

It seems to me it would be easier to design a large driver that avoided excursion limits at X SPL, but I suspect with the trade off of likelier breakup. But individual examples confound models.

Rick “not blaming language for its ability to convey lies” Denney

 

[Newman]

Yes, and that sounds like a fair summary of dynamic loudness limits, and the advantages of large drivers at that…which is closer to macrodynamics than the other sort.

cheers

 

[MattHooper]

So like I said, let's not kid ourselves: when sighted subjective reviewers, including ourselves, say we hear more or better microdynamics from a component, it is generally imaginary (MattHooper will never believe this: read his dozens of thousands of words in other threads defending the writings of sighted subjective reviewers as being legitimate descriptions of the sound wave differences),

I'm not at the moment inclined to more fruitless conversation with Newman, but since he keeps invoking me this way, please notice he seems dedicated to misrepresenting my views. Whether through malice or incomprehension, I leave for others to speculate.

Newman—I agree. There is no term that can’t be used in the service of obfuscation. But that isn’t always the term’s fault.

Yep. Nicely put.

The claim that "microdynamics can or does refer to something real" does not entail "therefore any use of that term is going to be true or accurate."

This is the case for any valid audio term you can think of. For instance: "Dynamics" refers to something real, and is a useful term in audio. The fact any subjective reviewer may imagine hearing differences in "dynamics" between expensive AC cables doesn't mean the term "dynamics" itself is invalid or useless!

We don't say "Oh, since he imagined hearing dynamics when there wasn't any, we have to throw out the term dynamics because now it's clearly just a bullshit term."

It's amazing how often this distinction has to be made. (And it still doesn't take with many people).

Further, we need to distinguish that: because a term is not used with precision by one cohort, it does not entail their use of the term doesn't refer to something real or useful, nor does it entail that greater precision can't be brought to the phenomenon. This is true of countless terms we use daily.

This is why I have continually argued that the use of "microdynamics" by audiophiles and reviewers is not a term of scientific precision - though since it often references a real phenomenon, it also should in principle allow for more precise understandings of the phenomenon. Which is why I have supplied such references.

So when I read the term "microdynamics" in a review or whatever, I take the use of the term to have some squishiness insofar as not every audiophile uses the term for precisely the same thing. So I would look for clarification or anything suggesting they are using the term as I would use or understand it. Often it seems to be used in the sense I have defended the term: dynamics at the level of a musicians phrasing, even to the most subtle, e.g. the intensity of picking notes on an acoustic guitar, a piano played even quietly, etc. Even in some of Newman's examples you can see this:

"...the microdynamic changes within musical passages that constitute a musician's phrasing were somehow more clearly defined than with most other amps I've heard....the Berning's microdynamic capabilities made these continuous variations in their instruments' volumes very easy to follow.


"...there was remarkable sensitivity to this recording’s microdynamics. Vengerov’s vibrato was as easy to hear, and in several sections I was surprised to hear slight changes in dynamics that I hadn’t before."

Dynamics at the level of a musician's phrasing is a REAL THING. The fact a musician or listener hasn't demonstrated "musical phrasing" or "microdynamics" with scientific-level rigor doesn't mean it's not a real thing, any more than the fact musical notation for phrasing, loudness etc, isn't a real thing, or isn't useful.

And we can ask "Does it makes sense to make distinctions like this, between for instances of the widest dynamics in a track, or in music, vs smaller dynamics?

Well...we can already see in the real world that it is a valid and useful distinction. It's why we see just such distinctions and nuances used in musical performance (e.g. the notation in music distinguishing the ranges of loudness/dynamics between pianissimo and fortissimo).

So for sound, "microdynamics" can refer to real phenomena: smaller dynamic changes within the larger subset of dynamics. Yet we can ask "Does it makes sense to have this distinction, and can it be explicated or analyzed with more precision?"

I've supplied links to technical explications that suggests the answer is "yes."

Mixers can use the term to communicate and manipulate the relevant dynamics, and some audio researchers have studied it with even more precision.

And, btw, it's deeply confused to think that we can't be referencing essentially the same thing - e.g. microdynamics - across the original music performance, a recording, and it's reproduction. If you are for instance trying to record and translate a piano player's performance in to a recording and playback, there is a fact about how that player is phrasing his notes dynamically, which will entail there is a fact about to what degree the recording is capturing that information, and a fact to what degree the playback system is translating that sonic information. Whether we are talking about capturing and translating the (micro) dynamics of a musician playing an acoustic instrument, or whatever utterly artificial dynamics one has created in the studio (e.g. with synths, playing with compression etc), the ultimate end is for that to be played back on speakers of some sort and so we can speak of the through-line as to whether the speakers are fully translating that dynamic information. Newman's attempts to wave off technical references to "microdynamics" when used in music or mixing or research in to recordings etc, as if it had no relation to "sound reproduction" is hence absurd, since in the end it's the same phenomenon to be REPRODUCED by sound systems. That is, after all, the point of the research I linked to - unless one imagines the researchers believe listeners will be perceiving the microdynamic distinctions they are referencing by sensing the signals via the invisible ether, rather than through a sound system.

 

[dc655321]

Let's expand on this a bit. Here are some random reviews where the author casually introduces the term microdynamics:-

"Excellent microdynamics....better microdynamics into lower impedance loads..." - Genesis reference amplifier reviewed on 6moons

"...the microdynamic changes within musical passages that constitute a musician's phrasing were somehow more clearly defined than with most other amps I've heard....the Berning's microdynamic capabilities made these continuous variations in their instruments' volumes very easy to follow....Recordings high on boogie factor were propelled forward with a huge kinetic impulse. Microdynamic nuances were given full scope of expression...... Feelings and emotions are buried in the music's microdynamics. The Berning had no difficulty at all in retrieving the music's full emotional gamut." -various Berning amplifiers reviewed by Soundstage Ultra (Vade Forrester) and TAS (Dick Olsher).

"..the company reworked the existing Lavardin design for greater linearity, which improves overall transparency and microdynamic resolution."-Lavardin ISx amplifier reviewed by Alan Sircom.

"If this technology sounded any different from a good analog amplifier, tube or solid-state, it was in its transient and dynamic performance. Both were both stunning, especially in the rendering of bass microdynamics....I don't think you'll be less than impressed by its micro- and macrodynamic performance, by its rhythmic swagger and ease, by its exceptionally solid imaging, accomplished transient delivery, or overall coherent sonic performance." -Sharp SM-SX100 integrated amplifier reviewed by Stereophile (Michael Fremer).

"...there was remarkable sensitivity to this recording’s microdynamics. Vengerov’s vibrato was as easy to hear, and in several sections I was surprised to hear slight changes in dynamics that I hadn’t before." -Genesis Reference GR180 amplifier reviewed by UltraAudio.com (Albert Bellg, probably influenced by the manufacturer's constant promotion of the product's microdynamics, all quoted extensively in the review)

"...the resulting sound is big, powerful and meaty but without sacrificing the nuance or micro dynamics in delicate recordings....the MHA200 just kept "revealing the true nature of every headphone, without adding anything of its own. And it does so with power and punch but without sacrificing on the subtlety or micro dynamics." -McIntosh headphone amp reviewed by What Hifi?

"Yes, it can thunder when the music demands, but it's just as adept with the internal drama and microdynamics of an Andante un poco moto." -Rotel amplifier reviewed by Hi-fi News (Andrew Everard)

"There is some penalty for the extra devices and complexity (compared to a single-ended direct-heated triode amplifier), that seemed to be one of the trade-offs here: a penalty on microdynamics. Likewise, this amp isn’t as immediate as simple tube amps. It still has immediacy, but not on the level of the finest tube products. I could say the same thing about really big tube amps: not as much immediacy or micro-dynamics—very simple amps can do some things quite well." -Sanders ESL amplifier reveiwed by Dagogo (Phillip Holmes)

"So there is proper tonal saturation and perfect micro-dynamics and resolution." -Plinium Leonidas amplifier reviewed on High Fidelity (Wojciech Pacuła)

"Feedback levels much above 20dB, aside from stability issues, appear to constrain the soundstage as well as compress microdynamics....The Carver had a slight edge in dynamics from soft to loud, though both amps fell short in terms of microdynamic conviction relative to a good SET amplifier, at least in the context of a high-sensitivity loudspeaker." Z-Infinity Z120F power amplifier reviewed by TAS (Dick Olsher)

"Microdynamics

1. MIT Terminator 5...many faults...most of all, a definite loss of ambient detail. This is rather striking in low level listening, as fine musical nuances seem lost, and the music comes across as rather flat and lifeless. Sort of like listening to public address system, the volume is there, but there's no finesse.​
2. Graham Slee Cable 1...Soundtracks came alive, detail was restored to a high degree, and most important to me, the passion was indeed there. Fine nuances could be heard, something I don't expect to happen at this price, ...​
3. VDH D102 MK 3...this cable can deliver almost anything that is in the program material, leaving my KA-i180 to deliver it to the speakers. The point here is, this cable can transfer the emotion in and behind the music, the fire in the music which is all too often lacking elsewhere." -3 interconnects reviewed by TNT Audio (Dejan Veselinovic)​

"...traits such as microdynamics were increased, separating the apparent volume between instruments and voices occurring simultaneously. In a word, the Accusound interconnects sounded like I could hear more music, as they revealed the intentions of the musicians, engineers and producer behind the performance more easily." -Accusound XD interconnect reviewed by Enjoy the Music (Tom Lyle)

"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. But in the afternoon he became restless for he saw that some improvements are necessary for Ethernet (audio) cables to satisfy humans... Through the AudioQuest Vodka the Rochat’s cello was firmly locked in space, slightly left to center. Its timbre was rich and assured, with fine microdynamic resolution and vibrant textures. The blast of orchestra that arrives at 2’ mark was natural and uncompressed, and the close-miked finger-plucked strings were like gunshots through the TAD speakers. It was easy to sit back and enjoy the depth of soundstage with the soloist playing just for us. When the Vodka was removed and replaced by the OTSC the sonic gap between those two was heard right away. The sound collapsed to become sketchy and one-dimensional. What was previously heard as rosin on a bow became merely a wiry sound. The transparency and bloom of the orchestra transformed into undistinguished mass, we were not able to detect any individual instruments within it." -ethernet cable shootout reviewed by audiodrom

OK I'm back. Random reviews but not of random components. I focused on amplifiers and cables. Why no speakers? Because I want to make a point. When these same reviewers above, and countless others, go to review loudspeakers, they will write about the microdynamics of the speakers, just like they did above for electronics and cables. From their point of view, they are talking about the same perceptual quality when they talk about microdynamics, no matter what the type of gear. So let's not kid ourselves: just because some here can imagine a somewhat-plausible mechanism by which a loudspeaker might exhibit a greater or lesser amount of 'microdynamics' (which is still horribly-loosely defined by most people as "whatever I can imagine it might sound like if the words Micro and Dynamics were mooshed together (word of the day mooshed courtesy of MakeMineVinyl)"), and let's not forget that I have described just yesterday in this thread a few flaws such as frequency response failings that could conceivably be a somewhat-plausible mechanism by which a loudspeaker might exhibit a greater or lesser amount of perceived 'microdynamics', but just because you (or I) can imagine it for a loudspeaker, I bet you are going to struggle a lot more to justify its appearance when listening 'to' decently-engineered amps and cables.

So like I said, let's not kid ourselves: when sighted subjective reviewers, including ourselves, say we hear more or better microdynamics from a component, it is generally imaginary (MattHooper will never believe this: read his dozens of thousands of words in other threads defending the writings of sighted subjective reviewers as being legitimate descriptions of the sound wave differences), or misattribution, and that's a fact. And with loudspeakers, even though they do sound detectably different, I will wager heavily that in almost every single instance, any non-imagined difference is simple misattribution, where maybe something simple like frequency response imbalances have made it sound a bit clearer in one band, and we leap to call it microdynamics, when in fact the speaker is not in any way able to make small changes in amplitude more accurately within the large 'macro' scale of music.

cheers​

I would give you four thumbs up.
And a hug.
Let’s not make it weird though…

 

[aschen]

One observation I have had as a Thicc speaker advocate

• Giant speaker system plays with huge dynamic range: Brain says of course
• Smallish speaker plays music with OK bass and decent volume: Brain is super impressed

I'm not sure if the non audio enthusiast brain is as easy to trick without the pre conception.

 

[Plcamp]

Heh, I expect that ‘microdynamics’ is not adequately defined, but maybe could be usefully defined as something testable, and until something like that is done, the discussion won’t be fruitful.

I suggest that microdynamics could be defined to be the difference between a reference level of multitone signals (causing the device under test to produce whatever distortions, noise and particularly IMD it can) and the level you turn up an intended added signal before you detect it above the resulting noise floor.

So if a speaker exhibits 52 db headroom between its IMD stressed output and noise floor it will be more “microdynamic” than one that exhibits 45 db headroom?

 

[MattHooper]

Heh, I expect that ‘microdynamics’ is not adequately defined, but maybe could be usefully defined as something testable, and until something like that is done, the discussion won’t be fruitful.

In case you missed it, if you are looking for more precision, this is discussed with links in my previous post:

Your loudspeakers are too small!

Are my speakers too small? Maybe, for someone else's preferences. They might also be too cheap (despite the main speakers not being cheap at all)... for someone else's preferences. In the meanwhile I'm perfectly happy with my small speakers for my listening volumes, especially when augmented...

www.audiosciencereview.com

BTW, I can't go back and edit the post to add this link for one of the citations, so I'll add it here:

About Dynamic Processing in Mainstream Music

By examining attributes of recorded music over many decades, larger patterns emerge as long-term trends. The authors suggested a set of signal features and examined the impact of limiters and compressors on a corpus of music tracks. From 1967 to

www.academia.edu

Picamp, it appears a number of researchers have defined "microdynamics" in a way they find precise enough to do useful research. Do you disagree with their use of the term and their findings, and if so why?

 

[Plcamp]

Do you disagree with their use of the term and their findings, and if so why?

Why would you think that?

My suggestion was simply that until it’s routinely testable, it will remain ambiguous and of less utility to discuss than it could be.

Technically, I cannot imagine anything except linearity or signal to noise floor (under operating stress) could possibly contribute to ‘microdynamics’ performance under any useful definition of the word. I am interested to hear if I have missed something here.

So I suggested a pragmatic test that might (and I believe already has) demonstrated the ability to differentiate speaker driver’s ability to deliver detail. I was trying to help.