My Thoughts on Macro-dynamics
Here's a fun audiophile buzzword:
macro-dynamics. I'm sure some have come across the word in my writing before. But if you've ever wondered what I'm talking about, or why I think this is such an important aspect of sound reproduction, then this post is for you. As a disclaimer, please don't consider this an authoritative post on the topic. This is simply my interpretation of what I'm hearing based on personal experience and what I've read.
First, let's establish what "dynamics” are in music. I often see this word mistaken for the equivalent of how hard a transducer slams (or just thrown around as some sort of catch-all term for bass); however, the word really has a quite different meaning!
Dynamics are the variations in loudness in a given track. It’s probably no more complicated than what you’re already thinking. A "dynamic swing" is simply a transition between a decibel peak (loud section) and valley (quiet section), or vice versa. Then as the prefix "macro" implies, macro-dynamics are large-scale swings. They encompass a song exploding into loudness or suddenly shifting into a quiet section; of course, these decibel shifts can also occur more gradually (crescendo vs. decrescendo). On the other hand,
micro-dynamics are more intimate swings, so the nuance of individual instrument lines and, say, vocal inflections. I won’t be covering micro-dynamics further in this post, as that's a post for another time.
Thus, we've established a foundation for what macro-dynamics are. More specifically, though, macro-dynamics can be further broken down into two subsets to my ears:
contrast and
weight.
Dynamic contrast is likely the term most readers will be familiar with. This is simply the extent to which a transducer is able to scale the difference between a track's peak loudness and minimum amplitude. Of course, not every transducer is able to do this well. Some transducers sound like they're always on peak loudness, some skew in the opposite direction, and some don’t seem to go either way entirely! The end result is what I refer to as dynamic compression. Only a transducer that does
none of the above - that is, scales decibel gradations high, low, and in the middle - can be considered to have good dynamic contrast. A pro tip if you want to find out for yourself? A hallmark of a transducer with good dynamic contrast is one where you find yourself turning up the volume on quiet sections of tracks and, conversely, turning down the volume on louder parts of tracks.
Arguably even more important, though, is the
weight of a transducer. And unfortunately, this is where things get more wishy-washy and I'll exit the scope of some of the definitions I outlined earlier. That aside, this quality is most obvious if you have ever listened to a two-channel system. It encompasses not only the force with which a transducer articulates dynamic swings - what some might describe as
macrodynamic punch - but also a general sense of pressure,
gravity, to the cadence and background of a track. Macro-dynamic weight and the aforementioned contrast do not always go hand-in-hand. I have heard many transducers with good dynamic contrast, but poor weight, and vice versa. And of course, this will also depend on the mastering of the tracks themselves you're listening to. I find that frequency response can aid in this perception of
weight - generally with more bass - but it is not mandatory. When I listen to my Genelec speakers, for example, their frequency response is near flat (and they roll-off in the bass); yet, they have a terrific sense of macrodynamic weight. I want to be clear that this sense of
weight is different from a sense of attack immediacy which some associate with good macrodynamic punch; to the contrary, most faster transducers I’ve heard do not do this quality well. Nor is it the same as "note-weight," the thickness or thinness of notes. Nowadays,
weight tends to be the more important (and more difficult to describe) of the two metrics for me.
Speaking of which, why should macro-dynamics matter to
you? Well, if you can't hear dynamics to start with, then I wouldn't worry about it. And I don't say this to be patronizing! I genuinely think it saves you a lot of hassle. But I think most people
can start to pick up on this stuff given close listening. It's definitely something that I've gotten better at discerning over time. And I think for many listeners, macro-dynamics are what dictate engagement factor. When macro-dynamics have been done justice, drops seem to hit harder, the chorus is imbued with more emotion, and generally, you find yourself on the edge of your seat for what will come next in a song. Sure, it's a cliche, but music sounds
alive. On the opposite end of the spectrum, what if you just want to kick back and relax? That's (one heck of) an easier requisite to meet; nonetheless, you again see the importance of macro-dynamics (rather, lack thereof, in this instance).
Overall, I hope this lends some more background to a term that I use frequently in my writing, and thanks for reading another so-called "philosophy" post from yours truly.
