- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,362
- Likes
- 12,357
Your long explanation is a known and measurable phenomena.
Yes, I didn't think it wasn't. That's part of the point. What is referenced by the phrase "micro dynamics" (and "macro dynamics") are real phenomena. They aren't simply fantasies spun by subjective reviewers or whatever.
It is an objective quality that is called linearity of the transfer function.
Fine. And...?
You seem to be traveling along a strange line - as if the existence of a "word referencing A" is obviated by "the explanation for A."
The fact a scientist can explain "sweetness" in technical terms doesn't mean the term "sweet" is "unscientific" or should be ruled out of any "scientific" discussion. No more than the fact "solid" can be explained via technical terms means the term "solid" isn't used scientifically, or isn't useful informally to describe real phenomena.
Here for instance is, once again, the forum founder Amirm referencing literature for a dynamic range meter, that uses the terms "macro" and "micro" dynamics:
Amplifier Power: How much do you really need and your system’s dynamic range.
A possible error in this equation is unquestionably going by Manufacturers specs. Don’t a lot of manufacturers play loose and fast in reporting the real efficiency rating of their speakers? Addressed this at the 1:28 mark in the video. Timestamp link below:
www.audiosciencereview.com
It’s subjective when two devices measure the same but sound different. You have not even measured anything, but talking about the possibility of subjective difference. That shouldn’t be the way we discuss on a forum based on science.
Again...strange.
Do you agree that the phenomenon of dynamic gradients exist between an orchestra playing it's softest and loudest?
Do you agree that there are also smaller dynamic gradients between the picking of acoustic guitar strings, for example?
Is true to claim such phenomena exist?
If so, what could be anti-scientific about referencing real phenomena, so long as the terms are defined to explain the observation?
If you want to phrase the EXPLANATION for these phenemona are found in linearity of the transfer function, great. But to say that actually identifying real phenemona, even if the terms are informal, is to be ruled off the table...that's a tad dogmatic, to the point of impracticality.
And...again... you may want to take your complaint to the forum owner who has a pretty good idea what this forum is about, and yet he sees fit to employ sonic descriptions in his reviews.