Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

A few questions

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
July 23, 2004 11:03:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

A couple of things that bother me:

1. What are "microdynamics", exactly?
2. If you audition 2 speakers that sound different, but one of which
is known to have a perfectly flat frequency response, can you tell by
listening alone which one is the flat one?

Thanks,

Norm Strong

More about : questions

July 24, 2004 6:32:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

normanstrong wrote:
> A couple of things that bother me:
>
> 1. What are "microdynamics", exactly?

A catch-all for any perceived sonic differences that cannot be
classified as frequency response differences. Not possible to correlate
to any measurements, and that is the beauty of using this term, since
you then can be as imprecise as you want when discussing microdynamics.

Of course, there is the complementary term "macrodynamics".

> 2. If you audition 2 speakers that sound different, but one of which
> is known to have a perfectly flat frequency response, can you tell by
> listening alone which one is the flat one?

I believe you need training, but it is possible. What you can do is to
train yourself to be familarize yourself with pink noise (or white
noise, too) played through very neutral earphones or speakers. Of
course, if the differences are only 1 dB or so, it gets very hard.

On the other hand, a several dB bump in the frequency response is
noticeable by a lot of experienced listeners without using pink noise.
For example, excess sibilance, or excess bass boom.
Anonymous
July 24, 2004 8:34:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

1) Microdynamics are very, very small dynamics - but you knew that :=).
More to the point, when the Absolute Sound uses the term they seem to
mean that very small changes in amplitude of the signal SHOULD produce
very small changes in apparent loudness. If your equipment chain (or
some piece of it) isn't doing that then there will be less apparent
dynamic variation so the "true" impact of the music won't come through -
they think. Now, how micro a change is important I couldn't say. Surely
there's some theoretical level where the human hearing apparatus can't
tell the difference and somebody out there will post back and remind us.

2) If the difference is "big enough" enough one will sound sharp or flat
on some well known (to me) bit of music. If it's 2Hz off, probably not.
It's kind of like microherzics ...

normanstrong wrote:

>A couple of things that bother me:
>
>1. What are "microdynamics", exactly?
>2. If you audition 2 speakers that sound different, but one of which
>is known to have a perfectly flat frequency response, can you tell by
>listening alone which one is the flat one?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Norm Strong
>
>
Related resources
July 24, 2004 8:41:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

normanstrong wrote:
> A couple of things that bother me:
>
> 1. What are "microdynamics", exactly?
> 2. If you audition 2 speakers that sound different, but one of which
> is known to have a perfectly flat frequency response, can you tell by
> listening alone which one is the flat one?

1. I have never heard a definition by engineers, so there probably is no
meaning at all. Quack terminology like "microdiodes".
2. A very good question. IME it is not possible to exactly get an even
frequency response just by listening and adjusting an EQ, wheras with a
microphone soundcard and software it is very easy. Our ears are not always
"in shape", and with moods also our hearing abilities are changing. It will
take time, but then you can distinguish between an uneven and a smooth
response.
Maybe it would be better to ask the question in this way:
Can we recognize a flat frequency response of a well adjusted speaker
against the raw and slightly peaky response of the same speaker unequalized?
*Yes*, but it will take time to evaluate. Pink noise gives the fastest
results when comparing, with music you will need to listen to a lot of
different pieces and the more subtle the differences are the longer it will
take.
When you use a measuring mike the adjustments are done much faster, and they
correspond with the hearing experience.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
Anonymous
July 24, 2004 9:50:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Ban <bansuri@web.de> wrote:

> 1. I have never heard a definition by engineers, so there probably is no
> meaning at all. Quack terminology like "microdiodes".

A fellow I for whom I once repaired an amplifier insisted later that I had done
something to the "microwiring" that "destroyed" its sound.

It's difficult to be patient with things like that, especially after one does
a good job and they pay you for it. It happens all the time and is the
reason I made some changes to quit dealing with end users, which also
happens often.
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 2:25:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:cdtrua0l05@news2.newsguy.com...

> normanstrong wrote:
> >
> > 1. What are "microdynamics", exactly?
>
> A catch-all for any perceived sonic differences that cannot be
> classified as frequency response differences. Not possible to
correlate
> to any measurements, and that is the beauty of using this term,
since
> you then can be as imprecise as you want when discussing
microdynamics.
>
> Of course, there is the complementary term "macrodynamics".

Perhaps complimentary, as in, "Wow, neat macrodynamics."

Yes, I see it can be very handy. I wonder what one says about
microdynamics. Are they high or low, too much or not enough, clean or
muddy, excessive or insufficient, loud or soft, better or worse?
Perhaps you could say that "the microdynamics are at least 6db too
low."
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 6:59:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"normanstrong" <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ilBMc.23200$eM2.19184@attbi_s51...
> "chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> news:cdtrua0l05@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> > normanstrong wrote:
> > >
> > > 1. What are "microdynamics", exactly?
> >
> > A catch-all for any perceived sonic differences that cannot be
> > classified as frequency response differences. Not possible to
> correlate
> > to any measurements, and that is the beauty of using this term,
> since
> > you then can be as imprecise as you want when discussing
> microdynamics.
> >
> > Of course, there is the complementary term "macrodynamics".
>
> Perhaps complimentary, as in, "Wow, neat macrodynamics."
>
> Yes, I see it can be very handy. I wonder what one says about
> microdynamics. Are they high or low, too much or not enough, clean or
> muddy, excessive or insufficient, loud or soft, better or worse?
> Perhaps you could say that "the microdynamics are at least 6db too
> low."
>

No, you say "the amp seems to loose the microdynamic detail" or "the amp
has poor microdynamics". In general poor microdynamics and poor
transparency combined rob the reproduction of a sense of realism.
July 25, 2004 7:00:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

normanstrong wrote:
> "chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> news:cdtrua0l05@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>> normanstrong wrote:
>> >
>> > 1. What are "microdynamics", exactly?
>>
>> A catch-all for any perceived sonic differences that cannot be
>> classified as frequency response differences. Not possible to
> correlate
>> to any measurements, and that is the beauty of using this term,
> since
>> you then can be as imprecise as you want when discussing
> microdynamics.
>>
>> Of course, there is the complementary term "macrodynamics".
>
> Perhaps complimentary, as in, "Wow, neat macrodynamics."
>
> Yes, I see it can be very handy. I wonder what one says about
> microdynamics. Are they high or low, too much or not enough, clean or
> muddy, excessive or insufficient, loud or soft, better or worse?
> Perhaps you could say that "the microdynamics are at least 6db too
> low."
>

I think more microdynamics = better microdynamics in the reviews and
opinions that I find online. Lack of microdynamics = poor microdynamics.
So you want as much microdynamics as you get. I have never seen people
complaining about too much microdynamics :) .

Typically, according to reviews and audiophile opinions, you get more
microdynamics from SET's, vinyl LP's, expensive interconnects and
speaker cables, specialty power cords, green pens, etc. Digital
equipment and solid-state amps, perhaps with the exception of SACD gear,
tend to have much less microdynamics.

Since microdynamics are not measureable, you don't say that they are 6
dB too low. Just like you don't say a certain piece of gear is 3 dB more
liquid than another, or has 3 dB more inner detail than another. Try
correlating those qualities to measurements, and you run the risk of
being called "meter-readers", a definitely lower form of being in the
eyes of those who only decide with their ears :) .
Anonymous
July 27, 2004 3:10:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"No, you say "the amp seems to loose the microdynamic detail" or "the amp
has poor microdynamics". In general poor microdynamics and poor
transparency combined rob the reproduction of a sense of realism."

Then would you say this "difference" would be easy to spot if the
connections of amps were covered by a cloth, which would then require
listening alone as the basis of choice?
Anonymous
July 27, 2004 8:28:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 25 Jul 2004 14:59:24 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:

>"normanstrong" <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:ilBMc.23200$eM2.19184@attbi_s51...

>> I wonder what one says about
>> microdynamics. Are they high or low, too much or not enough, clean or
>> muddy, excessive or insufficient, loud or soft, better or worse?
>> Perhaps you could say that "the microdynamics are at least 6db too
>> low."
>>
>No, you say "the amp seems to loose the microdynamic detail" or "the amp
>has poor microdynamics". In general poor microdynamics and poor
>transparency combined rob the reproduction of a sense of realism.

However, 'microdynamics' is just another of those bits of TAS
technobabble that have no meaning in the real physical world. Only in
loudspeakers does this effect show itself at all, and that's easily
detected by playing at low level, when many speakers seem to lose
their clarity due to excessive self-damping of heavy bass/mid cones.
Doesn't require any degree of 'Golden Ear' to detect this effect,
which was rife among the old Bextrene-coned speakers.

Sonically transparent amps at reasonable prices have been around for a
couple of decades - it takes heroic incompetence (or malice
aforethought) to make an amp which *does* have a distinctive 'sound'.
Mostly, they just sound like the input signal, despite the fanciful
prose of the ragazine reviewers, who *never* use DBTs - after all, who
will pay money to read an amp review that says "this amp sounds just
like all the other amps I reviewed this year"? Selling ragazines, not
providing information, is the name of that game.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
July 27, 2004 8:33:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

jjnunes@sonic.net wrote:

>Ban <bansuri@web.de> wrote:
>
>> 1. I have never heard a definition by engineers, so there probably is no
>> meaning at all. Quack terminology like "microdiodes".
>
>A fellow I for whom I once repaired an amplifier insisted later that I had
>done
>something to the "microwiring" that "destroyed" its sound.
>
>It's difficult to be patient with things like that, especially after one does
>a good job and they pay you for it. It happens all the time and is the
>reason I made some changes to quit dealing with end users, which also
>happens often.

Good examples. But on the other hand, there is a term we use in autosound
evaluation that is useful ...... low level intelligibility and the quality
implementation of loudness compensation. IOW; can you hear rhe vocals and
acoustic instruments clearly and are the extremes of bass and treble still
audible?

These are clear constructs .....but microdynamics is bluster.
Anonymous
July 28, 2004 3:38:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6SkNc.195388$XM6.131160@attbi_s53...
> On 25 Jul 2004 14:59:24 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> >"normanstrong" <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:ilBMc.23200$eM2.19184@attbi_s51...
>
> >> I wonder what one says about
> >> microdynamics. Are they high or low, too much or not enough, clean or
> >> muddy, excessive or insufficient, loud or soft, better or worse?
> >> Perhaps you could say that "the microdynamics are at least 6db too
> >> low."
> >>
> >No, you say "the amp seems to loose the microdynamic detail" or "the amp
> >has poor microdynamics". In general poor microdynamics and poor
> >transparency combined rob the reproduction of a sense of realism.
>
> However, 'microdynamics' is just another of those bits of TAS
> technobabble that have no meaning in the real physical world. Only in
> loudspeakers does this effect show itself at all, and that's easily
> detected by playing at low level, when many speakers seem to lose
> their clarity due to excessive self-damping of heavy bass/mid cones.
> Doesn't require any degree of 'Golden Ear' to detect this effect,
> which was rife among the old Bextrene-coned speakers.
>
> Sonically transparent amps at reasonable prices have been around for a
> couple of decades - it takes heroic incompetence (or malice
> aforethought) to make an amp which *does* have a distinctive 'sound'.
> Mostly, they just sound like the input signal, despite the fanciful
> prose of the ragazine reviewers, who *never* use DBTs - after all, who
> will pay money to read an amp review that says "this amp sounds just
> like all the other amps I reviewed this year"? Selling ragazines, not
> providing information, is the name of that game.

If you want to hear a good example of the difference, play any well-recorded
(analog or dsd recorded) hybrid SACD disk on a good transparent SACD player
through a good, transparent sound system, and compare it to the CD layer of
same. You'll hear the same mix, the same audible frequency response, but a
remarkable difference in the sense of "realness" of the sound...and then
when you focus in on it you will realize that among other reasons, you are
hearing more of the dynamic minutiae at very low levels in the playing that
seems to be sonically "glossed over" in the CD layer.
Anonymous
July 28, 2004 3:59:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<6SkNc.195388$XM6.131160@attbi_s53>...
> On 25 Jul 2004 14:59:24 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> >"normanstrong" <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:ilBMc.23200$eM2.19184@attbi_s51...
>
> >> I wonder what one says about
> >> microdynamics. Are they high or low, too much or not enough, clean or
> >> muddy, excessive or insufficient, loud or soft, better or worse?
> >> Perhaps you could say that "the microdynamics are at least 6db too
> >> low."
> >>
> >No, you say "the amp seems to loose the microdynamic detail" or "the amp
> >has poor microdynamics". In general poor microdynamics and poor
> >transparency combined rob the reproduction of a sense of realism.
>
> However, 'microdynamics' is just another of those bits of TAS
> technobabble that have no meaning in the real physical world. Only in
> loudspeakers does this effect show itself at all, and that's easily
> detected by playing at low level, when many speakers seem to lose
> their clarity due to excessive self-damping of heavy bass/mid cones.

Excessive self damping? I personally never heard of it. A good driver
should have a whole lot of self damping, i.o.w. the diafragm surface
will only move air as stimulated but will not resonate on it's own.
Once a driver gets the air moving and it becomes sound, it's no longer
a matter for the loudspeaker. Suspension hysteresis could contribute
to differences at very low, almost undetectable levels, but nobody
listens at undiscernably low sound pressure levels. Seems to me the
ears would be the culprit, golden or not, since they are very prone to
frequency response changes at low sound pressure levels following the
Fletcher-Munsen curve.

> Doesn't require any degree of 'Golden Ear' to detect this effect,
> which was rife among the old Bextrene-coned speakers.
>
> Sonically transparent amps at reasonable prices have been around for a
> couple of decades - it takes heroic incompetence (or malice
> aforethought) to make an amp which *does* have a distinctive 'sound'.
> Mostly, they just sound like the input signal, despite the fanciful
> prose of the ragazine reviewers, who *never* use DBTs - after all, who
> will pay money to read an amp review that says "this amp sounds just
> like all the other amps I reviewed this year"? Selling ragazines, not
> providing information, is the name of that game.
Anonymous
July 28, 2004 3:59:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6SkNc.195388$XM6.131160@attbi_s53...

> However, 'microdynamics' is just another of those bits of TAS
> technobabble that have no meaning in the real physical world. Only in
> loudspeakers does this effect show itself at all, and that's easily
> detected by playing at low level, when many speakers seem to lose
> their clarity due to excessive self-damping of heavy bass/mid cones.


Can you name any speaker which truly shows its stuff at low volume? I've yet
to come across one. Nowadays I have to turn up the juice simply to know the
music is playing :-(
Anonymous
July 29, 2004 3:25:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 7/27/04 7:59 PM, in article ce6q9q08ha@news4.newsguy.com, "Norman
Schwartz" <nmsz1@att.net> wrote:

> "Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:6SkNc.195388$XM6.131160@attbi_s53...
>
>> However, 'microdynamics' is just another of those bits of TAS
>> technobabble that have no meaning in the real physical world. Only in
>> loudspeakers does this effect show itself at all, and that's easily
>> detected by playing at low level, when many speakers seem to lose
>> their clarity due to excessive self-damping of heavy bass/mid cones.
>
>
> Can you name any speaker which truly shows its stuff at low volume? I've yet
> to come across one. Nowadays I have to turn up the juice simply to know the
> music is playing :-(

I think the closest I have heard is from Quad - though it tends to do well
quieter overall, not so good loud....
Anonymous
July 29, 2004 3:33:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 27 Jul 2004 23:59:54 GMT, "Norman Schwartz" <nmsz1@att.net> wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:6SkNc.195388$XM6.131160@attbi_s53...
>
>> However, 'microdynamics' is just another of those bits of TAS
>> technobabble that have no meaning in the real physical world. Only in
>> loudspeakers does this effect show itself at all, and that's easily
>> detected by playing at low level, when many speakers seem to lose
>> their clarity due to excessive self-damping of heavy bass/mid cones.
>
>Can you name any speaker which truly shows its stuff at low volume? I've yet
>to come across one. Nowadays I have to turn up the juice simply to know the
>music is playing :-(

Too many rock concerts, perhaps? :-)

The obvious contenders here are the large planar dipoles (Quads,
Maggies etc), which as a family seem to maintain their magic at low
levels.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
July 29, 2004 3:34:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:ce6p1b073k@news4.newsguy.com...
> "Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:6SkNc.195388$XM6.131160@attbi_s53...
> > On 25 Jul 2004 14:59:24 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:
> >
> > >"normanstrong" <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > >news:ilBMc.23200$eM2.19184@attbi_s51...
> >
> > >> I wonder what one says about
> > >> microdynamics. Are they high or low, too much or not enough, clean
or
> > >> muddy, excessive or insufficient, loud or soft, better or worse?
> > >> Perhaps you could say that "the microdynamics are at least 6db too
> > >> low."
> > >>
> > >No, you say "the amp seems to loose the microdynamic detail" or "the
amp
> > >has poor microdynamics". In general poor microdynamics and poor
> > >transparency combined rob the reproduction of a sense of realism.
> >
> > However, 'microdynamics' is just another of those bits of TAS
> > technobabble that have no meaning in the real physical world. Only in
> > loudspeakers does this effect show itself at all, and that's easily
> > detected by playing at low level, when many speakers seem to lose
> > their clarity due to excessive self-damping of heavy bass/mid cones.
> > Doesn't require any degree of 'Golden Ear' to detect this effect,
> > which was rife among the old Bextrene-coned speakers.
> >
> > Sonically transparent amps at reasonable prices have been around for a
> > couple of decades - it takes heroic incompetence (or malice
> > aforethought) to make an amp which *does* have a distinctive 'sound'.
> > Mostly, they just sound like the input signal, despite the fanciful
> > prose of the ragazine reviewers, who *never* use DBTs - after all, who
> > will pay money to read an amp review that says "this amp sounds just
> > like all the other amps I reviewed this year"? Selling ragazines, not
> > providing information, is the name of that game.
>
> If you want to hear a good example of the difference, play any
well-recorded
> (analog or dsd recorded) hybrid SACD disk on a good transparent SACD
player
> through a good, transparent sound system, and compare it to the CD layer
of
> same. You'll hear the same mix, the same audible frequency response, but
a
> remarkable difference in the sense of "realness" of the sound...and then
> when you focus in on it you will realize that among other reasons, you are
> hearing more of the dynamic minutiae at very low levels in the playing
that
> seems to be sonically "glossed over" in the CD layer.

And then connect the output of your SACD player to a DAW at 4416, level
match and sync both sources, then conduct a blind listening test and try to
reliably determine which source is playing.

I have done this with over 20 self-confessed audiophiles and each and
everyone has failed to reliably spot the SACD (and vinyl).

The following players have participated in these listening sessions:

Sony DVP-NS900V
Denon 2900
Pioneer DV-868 (59 in the U.S.)
Philips DV-963SA
Linn Unidisk 1.1

My recording and playback equipment consists of:

DAW with a LynxTwo soundcard
NAD amplification
B&W Nautilus 805 speakers
Sennheiser 650 headphones.

Do you consider this equipment transparent enough?

Do you agree that inorder for DSD/SACD to exhibit these claimed differences
when compared to PCM/Redbook, then this difference must manifest itself in
the audible 20/20 range?

This is certainly a bandwidth where Redbook performs quite well, is it not?
Or is it your opinion that analog/DSD captures more details within this
bandwidth that somehow escapes 4416?
________
Thom
Anonymous
July 29, 2004 9:21:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 27 Jul 2004 23:59:00 GMT, wdirksen@p-we.com (Wessel Dirksen) wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<6SkNc.195388$XM6.131160@attbi_s53>...
>> On 25 Jul 2004 14:59:24 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:

>> However, 'microdynamics' is just another of those bits of TAS
>> technobabble that have no meaning in the real physical world. Only in
>> loudspeakers does this effect show itself at all, and that's easily
>> detected by playing at low level, when many speakers seem to lose
>> their clarity due to excessive self-damping of heavy bass/mid cones.
>
>Excessive self damping? I personally never heard of it. A good driver
>should have a whole lot of self damping, i.o.w. the diafragm surface
>will only move air as stimulated but will not resonate on it's own.
>Once a driver gets the air moving and it becomes sound, it's no longer
>a matter for the loudspeaker. Suspension hysteresis could contribute
>to differences at very low, almost undetectable levels, but nobody
>listens at undiscernably low sound pressure levels. Seems to me the
>ears would be the culprit, golden or not, since they are very prone to
>frequency response changes at low sound pressure levels following the
>Fletcher-Munsen curve.

While that's true, I'm talking about the sort of 'stiction' effects
which plagued the Bextrene-coned speakers of the '70s. While *some* of
the effect could have been suspension-related, it mostly seemed to
correlate to the cone material (you could of course argue that the
heavier Bextrene cones needed stronger suspension). Whatever, there
were clear indications that as you lowered the output level, there
came a point where it seemed that the voice coil would be stimulated,
but that stimulating force was absorbed by the suspension or by the
heavy and heavily-damped cone, and simply never reached the air. I'm
familiar with the variation of human hearing with level, but when two
speakers played at the same low level show startlingly different
levels of clarity, that is not human-related. Compare say a Quad ELS63
with a KEF104aB, both very well regarded contemporaries in the mid
'70s, and you will easily hear a huge difference at low levels, which
closes up greatly at higher levels. If you think that comparison of
dipole and monopole is unreasonable, then substitute the original
metal-coned Acoustic Energy AE-1 for the ELS-63.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 4:04:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<cP%Nc.180004$IQ4.45154@attbi_s02>...
> Compare say a Quad ELS63 with a KEF104aB, both very well regarded
> contemporaries in the mid '70s, and you will easily hear a huge
> difference at low levels, which closes up greatly at higher levels.

Couldn't agree more Stewart. I had a graphic demonstration of this
when I took part in a blind speaker test in 1977 organized by the late
Jimmy Moir. One of the test tracks was a recording of keys rattling.
On the least preferred speaker, which turned out to be the KEF 104aB,
it sounded like there was just one key compared with the others (all
direct radiators)!

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 4:06:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ce9d4m0hb2@news4.newsguy.com...
> On 27 Jul 2004 23:59:54 GMT, "Norman Schwartz" <nmsz1@att.net> wrote:
>
> >"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:6SkNc.195388$XM6.131160@attbi_s53...
> >
> >> However, 'microdynamics' is just another of those bits of TAS
> >> technobabble that have no meaning in the real physical world. Only in
> >> loudspeakers does this effect show itself at all, and that's easily
> >> detected by playing at low level, when many speakers seem to lose
> >> their clarity due to excessive self-damping of heavy bass/mid cones.
> >
> >Can you name any speaker which truly shows its stuff at low volume? I've
yet
> >to come across one. Nowadays I have to turn up the juice simply to know
the
> >music is playing :-(
>
> Too many rock concerts, perhaps? :-)
>
> The obvious contenders here are the large planar dipoles (Quads,
> Maggies etc), which as a family seem to maintain their magic at low
> levels.
> --
Maggies (various Tympanis), I have owned for over 30 years, along with
various headphones (Stax, etc.) and old age have most probably contributed
to my bum hearing (although I'm not in the hearing aid set just yet).
Contrary to your suggestion, I have read in various places that devoted
Maggie folk are supposed to have screwed up their hearing *just* because
they don't get off the ground unless you set UP the level. I thoroughly
agree with the latter opinion. My early 8 ohm Tympanis ran unfused and the
speaker was virtually indestructible no matter how loud you played them.
Most everyone does foolish thing when they are young. (I did see a pair of
these early Tympanis at my dealer's which were destroyed by playing at high
levels- I ten to think their owner is "stone" deaf.)
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 4:05:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Regarding the question "Can you name any speaker which truly shows its
stuff at low volume?" and the discussion about Magnepans I'd like to add
this. For the range covered by the ribbon tweeter, the Maggies do a
great job at low volumes. Once you get into the panel (the lower
frequencies) they do sound better at higher volume. I think, however,
that it's a combination effect of the Fletcher-Munson curves and the
panels rather than totally peculiar to the Maggies.

-- Bob T.
!