So as not to reinvent the wheel, there are a few glossaries out there already, but there isn’t entirely a consensus about the meaning of terms. The terms also evolve over time, of course, which can make definitions moving targets.
For what it’s worth, here are some of the ones I’ve bookmarked over the years:
Two on SBAF, one here, another here
Changstar (SBAF’s predecessor, no longer active)
Head-fi has several, here’s one
Stereophile has a long one here
Thanks, I just bookmarked your post. 
I do think that it would be worthwhile reinventing this particular wheel, if the new ‘wheel’ goes beyond descriptions and has links to songs. It might just be me, but I find it’s much easier to grasp the meaning of something if I have an example. To mangle up that over-used phrase, a song is worth a thousand words.
I think the issue may not necessarily be the definition but what constitutes “good” and “bad” within that definition.
We all know I enjoy the Utopia - nothing else Ive heard competes macrodynamically with it but do I judge those other cans as not having good macro? And if you’ve never heard a Focal how do you know what is possible?
The Verite may have the best detail retrieval you have every heard - but there are flagships that do better.
Can I judge staging without having heard an 800 series?
You may think the bass texture of a dynamic can is awesome, until you hear a good planar.
You get my meaning. The application of these definition is extremely relative.
Plus some definitions have so many mixed factors like staging/imaging/separation/layering.
Its madness!
You raise some good points, but I think that before we can start the healthy discussion (or argument) on good or bad, we need to establish a definition that we can all use. And I think if we’re all listening to the same song, that will help the common understanding.
Good thoughts. I’ve used this, which seems in line with what you’re describing.
I’m in agreement with you both, @perogie and @PaisleyUnderground. I suspect some terms are easier to pin down than others. Bright, for instance, is easy enough to grasp. Others that are trickier would benefit from reinvention, discussion (or argument). I’m not sure that I understand properly what @resolve means by “macro contrast,” for instance, and further discussion would help pin it down. And we might not need that many terms. The Stereophile list I mentioned above is a bit baroque (would we need, for instance, to include “inaudible - a sonic imperfection which is either too subtle to be consciously perceived or is actually nonexistent”?)
As for @perogie’s caution about common frames of reference, or a “control,” if you like, perhaps we might pick out some of the more popular and well-known headphones to refer to. I’m thinking here of such headphones as the Sundara and some of the ZMFs. Other forums have used the HD 650 and Elex, among others.
Great idea @bpcarb about a common set of recordings for reference purposes!
It’s basically how that SBAF post indicates. Basically the largescale volume swings or “gradations of volume” as they like to call it. I think it’s a good description, but perhaps more colloquially, it’s the liveliness of a headphone. Tyll called it “punchiness”, so we sometimes substitute that term.
Examples of headphones that exhibit this quality: Focal headphones, Fostex headphones, the ZMF’s I’ve heard, the Borealis, HiFiMAN HE-6, Abyss Ab1266, LCD4.
Examples of headphones that don’t exhibit this quality (to varying degrees): It’s far more common with planars generally, but in particular, the HiFiMAN Ananda, and the other egg-shaped HiFiMAN headphones (weirdly Sundara has some there), some of the DCA headphones I’ve heard recently like the Noire, but also honestly some of the Audezes as well, like LCD-1.
From the headphones I’ve heard, this quality seems to be more abundant in moving coil headphones, and less abundant in planars, and really I can count on one hand the planars that have been truly punchy the same way that some of the dynamic driver examples are. But as people have pointed out, it’s not a universally desirable quality. There are communities that seem to be dedicated to primarily this quality, but personally if that’s something I were to uniquely care about I’d probably just listen to speakers, since it’s much more abundant there.
Thank you for the reply and for the clarification. That makes clear sense to me now. I think you’ve also provided us with a format for glossary entries: definition, examples of headphones that exhibit this quality, examples that don’t, and further discussion.
Perhaps, if we were to pursue a headphonesdotcom glossary, we might fold in some examples of music that allows us to appreciate this quality or characteristic, perhaps after the definition or before the further discussion? It might also be good to fold in a “compare with” or “not to be confused with” label, e.g. slam or bass impact, in this case.
I agree with you about the headphones you’ve noted for lacking macro contrast; I’d add some AKG headphones, as well as some electrostatic headphones.
In any given track, there are gradations in volume with which the track is quieter and louder. I mostly define macro-dynamics as a transducer’s ability to “scale” and replicate these gradations. If you want an example within the context of a song, check out Yiruma’s River Flows in You (Orchestral Version) which follows a steady rise in volume from 2:25 to the point of which it peaks at 3:34. Ideally, a transducer should sound quiet at the quietest part and loud at the loudest part, hence the idea of contrast. It took me a while to notice it myself, but a lot of transducers sound more “flat” than they should - they don’t replicate these gradations properly - which becomes more obvious if you’re listening to music with more dynamic range. My experience is that Speakers > Headphones > IEMs for macro-dynamics.
Analist - person with tin ears who spends their time on a forum where only measurements count.
Gender Changer - Person who wraps black headphones with pink contact paper.
SUB(versive) - certain members who inexplicably have “Core Team” after their names.
Copper - the LE officer that stops you for driving with headphones on
Woofer - the only one that greets you with joy whenever you com home
Banana Plug - caught you, dirty mind
I use Stereophiles glossary made by the late Gordon Holt.
I have posted another interesting interview of a reviewer, this time @precogvision, you can find it here:
This is great stuff @SenyorC. I haven’t listened to it yet but just the fact that you are doing these interviews is great for the community. It’s a thank you from me anyway.
Thanks @prfallon69 , however, there is no listening, only reading.
These are interviews for the audio community, I don’t want them to interrupt the music listening 
Very interesting reading. I hope this is a regular thing.
I hope it can become a regular thing, obviously that depends on people agreeing to answer my questions 
Yeah, sorry I obviously didn’t read the post correctly. Lol. 
The modi multibit I ordered in March looks like it’s gonna beat the sw51+ from February (which hasn’t shipped yet).
Also most of the rest of you. Continuing the story of my office and sound.
The Sansui AU-919 restoration is almost complete. The completed beast, with documentation of the resto should make it worth about $3G on the collectable market. Class A pre-amp section, very clean and solid performance into 4, 8, or 16 ohms.
The speakers are still a problem. no word on when Maggie .7 will go back into production. My current temptation is this on Audiogon
Yes, I previously decided that the 1.7i is just a wee bit big for the office. But these are the right color, and have the DWM panel, and if I just couldn’t live with them, I could haul them to State College, where my wife’s house only is using SONOS. I think the price is very reasonable.
The other thing I was looking at would be maybe used Harbeth Compact 7’s. That would be a bit more money. I’d considered the Harbeth P3, but I have not heard it, it’s different in design than the other Harbeths, and probably has no bass…
Or something else. I need to audition things. People have suggested Joseph Audio, and I just haven’t listened to much in the $2-$4K range in modern bookshelf speakers from Focal, B&W, Paradigm, Sonus Faber. I guess those are the “usual suspects” along with KEF and Dynaudio.
Revel? GoldenEar? Monitor? Spendor? Wharfdale? Falcon?