I’m making this topic as a sort of way to discuss different terminology and its uses in describing sound and how we hear it. There is a lot of different jargon in this hobby and it is easy to get confused especially if you are new, it also doesn’t help that everybody sort of has their own definitiion for different terms at times. I still struggle with some terms and how to use them properly when describing what I’m hearing. The two that has stumped me the most lately is micro and macro dynamics and what they refer to in terms of low and high level detail.
I’m sure there are other people who are a little confused as well with all the different descriptors used in hi-fi. This thread will serve as a place to ask and talk about different terminology, share our interpretations and try to understand what we hear.
So yes I’ll start off with my previous mention of micro and macro dynamics, low and high level detail. what does it all mean? I know dynamics is the range in which to measure how loud or quiet something sounds within the music, the contrast between the quieter instruments and the louder. If it is easy to differentiate between the two then your gear has good dynamics. There is more to it that that, but I lack the understanding to explain properly lol.
When I think of macro dynamics I think big swings and impact vs micro dynamics I think small swings and articulation. Example would be a kick drum vs a light tapping on a cymbal.
Yeah I think dynamics is a confusing one to me too because for a while I usually heard the term in relation to impact, punch, and slam. So I would usually relate it to the feeling of air being moved in the lower and higher frequencies. I think those things are related to dynamics but I don’t think that is the limit of what dynamics means.
The link below describes dynamics extremely well. Commonly, intensity of transient vs decay is what I always think of, but there is more to it than that.
For me timbre is the hardest. Not really the concept but describing it. Youre kind of trying to A-B and see how close something is textured without actually having the real A that youre trying to compare reproduction B to.
I always feel it is good in most headphones until you upgrade a bit. IE: That tape reel static that is added at the begining and end of some tracks… On headphone 1 I think it sounds good and I know its tape static. Switch to headphone 2, ok NOW THIS sounds like tape reel static, was headphone 1 actually just fizzing pop rocks?!?
Maybe I just havent had enough high end references to compare or to realize what I am missing yet.
Previously I had kinda defined the two as this in my dac comparison:
And another example from some other post I made
"Microdynamics: Typically the control of low level information, how accurately can it represent more minute changes in volume, and not have lower level changes become overwhelmed or masked by more large scale changes. While it’s not a term that is immediately apparent to think about, it’s actually pretty easy to tell when something lacks it. Setups that lack good microdynamics can tend to almost feel surface level and lack long term listing satisfaction, without microdynamics some things can sound boring and dull (and it’s hard to realize that problem is due to microdynamics at times), basically unable to communicate liveliness of nuance
Macrodynamics: Generally the control of large scale information, how accurately it can represent large swings in volume, being able to control this while still letting though small scale changes. Generally I’d think of macro as being more immediate wow factor in contrast from micro, it hits you right away, gives great sense of liveliness but doesn’t deal with the more nuance and smaller changes that play an equally important role. If something lacks macrodynamics, typically it will feel uninvolving right off the bat, with large scale changes feeling limited and restrained, lacking immediate impressiveness, unable to communicate large scale liveliness."
So this is just how I define it and use it, doesn’t mean it will be the same for others lol
When I think of low level detail and information, I think of things like basically the nuance and texture of music, for high level I think more immediately apparent surface level information. Like lower level detail might be minute spatial queues, extra information in transients, texture in music, basically information that pertains to more micro focused changes in music. Where high level detail is more apparent and immediate like the broad performance overall that focuses more on macro. These are a bit harder for me to define, I typically just keep it limited to low level = deals with nuance, high level = deals with surface and large scale things. This one is a term that I wouldn’t use too much though as it’s more confusing, because imo you can have high level detail without low level, but not the opposite. Will have to think on a better definition when I get the time
The easiest thing I just chalk it up to is “does this actually sound like how it would sound in real life.” Does a trumpet sound like an actual trumpet, does a guitar sound like an actual guitar. Timbre tends to basically deal with the time domain side of things in the end like transients, harmonic structure, texture, etc. Some mistake timbre for tonality which tonality is more the broad frequency response and coloration, so like do any instruments take prominence or a backseat for the overall balance, where timbre is more the idea of something sounding like it should irl taken in isolation. They potentially play into each other though.
Again though that’s just how I define, doesn’t mean it’s going to be the same for everyone lol
This is interesting and kind of helps me realise some things I couldnt place before. I had a few times where pieces felt like they were flat cardboard cutouts placed in a diorama. (Wookie reference insert here) No depth in their own space. Going back to the memory those little nuances werent there.
I think this hifi term is so misleading and kind of stupid tbh. They all mean the same thing!
I think it should just be called timing. It’s hard as a non-musician to describe this. What does it even mean for something to have proper timing? I think it’s something I’m able to hear but not perfectly grasp. Although, I imagine if you have a musical background you’re more likely to identify with this term.
I think most people have phased out that term. Most would sub-divide into time-domain, speed, microdynamics, etc depending on what you are specifically talking about.
Speaking of PRAT though, I’m listening to Rodrigo y Gabriela right now.
No, I believe it is something I can pickup on. But it is much easier to pick up on it when something is really off. When it comes to decay and attack, that is something I believe is easier to pickup on.
but pace and timing to me is something closer to BPM or tempo
and while rhythm is a bit more nuanced when I think of rhythm I think of the overall energy of the song like how a classical rhythm has a way different feel than a jazz rhythm. being a classically trained musician myself who attempted to play jazz. a classical rhythm is more straight forward very predictable feel and I can easily follow it watching a conductor while when I attempted jazz I had to feel for it and its a bit more personality due to the swing element of the music.
I personally see something liquid if it has exceptional coherency, smoothness without hampering anything, and great flow overall as to reveal texture and nuance in a way which feels as though it’s just flowing through without imparting any extra texture of it’s own (or preventing it from showing up). Basically how well can something handle the natural flow of music without adding or subtracting anything. Generally I’d say it’s somewhat related to smoothness, but also includes and mainly focused more on combined coherency and texture aspect, so to me good liquidity is more difficult and more impressive to achieve than good smoothness.
Effortlessness might play a slight role, but generally I’d say for myself those aren’t that closely related.
I appreciate this conversation, thanks. I am working harder to be able to translate what I am hearing and how I would describe what I hear, converting that into a common format of audiophile terminology. I’m purposely holding back on giving thoughts about my newest arrivals, so that I can do them justice.
When describing / comparing different pieces can detail retrieval and illumination be interchanged? Are they saying the same thing? My thought is that they are.
