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