Consideration about Timbre

[fas42]

Maybe overdoing the analogies and metaphors, what I get from audio systems are, in order of merit:

1. A 3D scene and clear separation between the 'objects' - it's a thrilling illusion. Dynamics can be visceral.
2. A beautiful 2D video sequence on a large hi-res screen - I can appreciate the content, but it's not as stunning as (1)
3. A workmanlike 2D video representation on a 22" screen - if I really love the 'art' I can get something from it
4. An understandable representation of the art but it's small and rough and just tells me that I might like to investigate it in better quality

Preferring (1) over (2) may be the curse of the audiophile. Maybe (1) doesn't really give much more enjoyment than (2) but it's a great trick to pull off!

Good list! The 2D thing just doesn't work, for me - as soon as you play material which encodes high levels of 3D information, it just sounds like a confused mess - our poor ear/brains can't unjumble what's going on, and you have lot and lots of "bad recordings", ...

Working with (1) is the place to be - and there are many, many sub-levels to this experience; it's the only area that interests me in audio. (2) requires "exactly the right recordings" to be satisfying; lops off far, far too many marvellous musical experiences.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Maybe overdoing the analogies and metaphors, what I get from audio systems are, in order of merit:

1. A 3D scene and clear separation between the 'objects' - it's a thrilling illusion. Dynamics can be visceral.
2. A beautiful 2D video sequence on a large hi-res screen - I can appreciate the content, but it's not as stunning as (1)
3. A workmanlike 2D video representation on a 22" screen - if I really love the 'art' I can get something from it
4. An understandable representation of the art but it's small and rough and just tells me that I might like to investigate it in better quality

Preferring (1) over (2) may be the curse of the audiophile. Maybe (1) doesn't really give much more enjoyment than (2) but it's a great trick to pull off!

Ha! I am content to listen to music I love over the phone, if I have to. Certainly I enjoy it more on a good hifi and use mine lots, but the quality of the listening only enhances my enjoyment - it isn't crucial to my enjoyment.
I would rather listen to Bach over the phone than Bruce Springsteen on the best hifi ever created, for example.

 

[Nowhk]

First of all, thanks you everybody for the partecipation of this thread. And happy Christmas to everybody (yesterday I was out with family and such, sorry).

Well, I think I didn't hit you in the point I want yet: lets retry

What I'm talking about is more similar to Observer effect: once I "need" to play a song, I'll impact it, in a way choosed by me.

I was in the car yesterday, listening to Hans Zimmer's Inception OST, when my favourite track of the album started: Dream is Collapsing.
A track that usually I hear on headphone.
Well, the side-effect reverberation (just a thing) added by my car was embracing. Somethings that Hans Zimmer probably never checked out when it made the song (or yes, who know). Shivers alongside my body.

The car system/environments added somethings unique and special to the "fixed" physical recordings, which is an added value to the whole sound I've perceived. I won't said that part of FX added by car is part of the piece. That's what I'm talking about...

Thus every "observation" will shape an "input" work. i.e. the end result seems to also depends by me, not just by the artist/studio work, and that's paradoxical and very weird, isn't?

 

[fas42]

First of all, thanks you everybody for the partecipation of this thread. And happy Christmas to everybody (yesterday I was out with family and such, sorry).

Well, I think I didn't hit you in the point I want yet: lets retry

What I'm talking about is more similar to Observer effect: once I "need" to play a song, I'll impact it, in a way choosed by me.

I was in the car yesterday, listening to Hans Zimmer's Inception OST, when my favourite track of the album started: Dream is Collapsing.
A track that usually I hear on headphone.
Well, the side-effect reverberation (just a thing) added by my car was embracing. Somethings that Hans Zimmer probably never checked out when it made the song (or yes, who know). Shivers alongside my body.

The car system/environments added somethings unique and special to the "fixed" physical recordings, which is an added value to the whole sound I've perceived. I won't said that part of FX added by car is part of the piece. That's what I'm talking about...

Thus every "observation" will shape an "input" work. i.e. the end result seems to also depends by me, not just by the artist/studio work, and that's paradoxical and very weird, isn't?

Poor excuse, being with family for Christmas ... tsk,tsk, tsk !

There are two possible reasons for "added FX": actual distortion from the playback system, or environment, which is euphonic to the musical content; or, the nature of the particular instance of the playback allowed you to hear more of what is encoded in the recording, with possibly some aspect highlighted, drawing your attention to it. Personally, I want absolutely no trace of the first, and, the very best version of the second, with the "highlighting" being under my control - that is, I can choose to focus on some characteristic of the sound, and allow that to dominate how I'm hearing it, for as long as I want. So yes, the way it impacts is chosen by me - by "switching" my mental focus.

Pop productions are particularly amenable to this - they can sound totally different, on different systems; because often there is so much going on, in various 'spaces'. That the end result, as I hear it, is a chance result of various distortions I don't find acceptable - I always want all of it to be on tap, on every listening ... think of it as a rich buffet of sound cuisine, where you can make your selections, depending upon mood ...

 

[fas42]

I've just thought of a good example of this, from decades ago - there's a track of "pub rock", by local band The Angels; the rhythm guitar has a tremendously impulsive drive to it, which is nearly always missing when heard on ordinary setups. Get this aspect right, or highlighted, and the song becomes a thrill ride, which kicks in every time you hear it.

 

[RayDunzl]

In my mind hifi equipment does influence the timbre of instruments since it adds harmonic distortion, so the timbre experienced due to the addition of second or third harmonics etc. to the fundamental will certainly be changed by any addition due to the hifi being used.

Hmmm...

The way sound levels add (decibel addition) to increase the SPL of a harmonic with a harmonic distortion product would require a lot of distortion:

If the fundamental is 50dB SPL, maybe the third harmonic would be 40dB (not unreasonable).

To increase the level of the third harmonic by 1dB (which might just be noticeable):

It would take a 22dB distortion product (based on the 50dB fundamental) to raise the third harmonic spl by 1dB.

The distortion is -28dB relative to the fundamental.

4% distortion.

Maybe not an unreasonable number as you press the speakers past the volume level of their comfort zone, which would likely be up around 85-95-105dB SPL depending.

---
The math remains the same for other SPL: 100dB fundamental, 90dB third harmonic, requires a -28dB third harmonic distortion product off the fundamental to raise the SPL of the third by 1dB, and is still 4% distortion.

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-coherentsources.htm
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-thd.htm

 

[March Audio]

Hmmm...

The way sound levels add (decibel addition) to increase the SPL of a harmonic with a harmonic distortion product would require a lot of distortion:

If the fundamental is 50dB SPL, maybe the third harmonic would be 40dB (not unreasonable).

To increase the level of the third harmonic by 1dB (which might just be noticeable):

It would take a 22dB distortion product (based on the 50dB fundamental) to raise the third harmonic spl by 1dB.

View attachment 9891

The distortion is -28dB relative to the fundamental.

View attachment 9892

4% distortion.

Maybe not an unreasonable number as you press the speakers past the volume level of their comfort zone, which would likely be up around 85-95-105dB SPL depending.

---
The math remains the same for other SPL: 100dB fundamental, 90dB third harmonic, requires a -28dB third harmonic distortion product off the fundamental to raise the SPL of the third by 1dB, and is still 4% distortion.

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-coherentsources.htm
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-thd.htm

Seems to me that if we are talking about the relative levels of harmonics, then its simply the speaker frequency response that will have the most impact.

 

[fas42]

Hmmm...

The way sound levels add (decibel addition) to increase the SPL of a harmonic with a harmonic distortion product would require a lot of distortion:

My impression is that most of the damage is done in the bass - the drivers generate most distortion here; the ear is more sensitive to the distortion harmonics ... 'fake' bass is the curse of many rigs - one of reasons I put little effort in trying to maximise this.

 

[Nowhk]

There are two possible reasons for "added FX": actual distortion from the playback system, or environment, which is euphonic to the musical content;

Rather than "euphonic", I think it added "persistance and depth" to each single part of the song, with all the bouncing sine around the car. Somethings special and unique in that moment, till the next one, which will be of course different...

Personally, I want absolutely no trace of the first, and, the very best version of the second, with the "highlighting" being under my control - that is, I can choose to focus on some characteristic of the sound, and allow that to dominate how I'm hearing it, for as long as I want. So yes, the way it impacts is chosen by me - by "switching" my mental focus.

This is what the discussion is all about I think. I don't get this point When you "highlight" some aspect (let say, you enhance bass for a better listening) you are not focusing on somethings fixed when you explore it, you are focusing and than "changing" its nature.
If I dump the EQ in a "smiley" way, I can focus better some bands of course, but in the meantime I'm editing timbre, which was somethings wrote by artist.
That's my concern... when you focus or highlight preferences, you are altering the product.
Am I wrong with this?

Pop productions are particularly amenable to this - they can sound totally different, on different systems; because often there is so much going on, in various 'spaces'.

I pratically hear only electronic/sophisticated music, and yes: every time I hear somethings is sounds different! Be careful: I don't mean that I can hear "somethings" new and never heard before (such as Snare with the Kick instead of just the Kick), but the same "elements" different (such as hearing that kick on headphone or Live PA sounds very different).

I've just thought of a good example of this, from decades ago - there's a track of "pub rock", by local band The Angels; the rhythm guitar has a tremendously impulsive drive to it, which is nearly always missing when heard on ordinary setups. Get this aspect right, or highlighted, and the song becomes a thrill ride, which kicks in every time you hear it.

Yes, each time it "kicks", but every kicks will be a different "kick" in function of the setup/environments (as well with mood and such; but that's another filter of the "time" model of our life; I'm not really talking about this, only by the input-product generated by artist).

Seems to me that if we are talking about the relative levels of harmonics, then its simply the speaker frequency response that will have the most impact.

Exactly Basically, following the science, each different frequency response alter the timbre (in minor way of course...).

Stop me if you think I'm saying bullshit please

 

[fas42]

This is what the discussion is all about I think. I don't get this point When you "highlight" some aspect (let say, you enhance bass for a better listening) you are not focusing on somethings fixed when you explore it, you are focusing and than "changing" its nature.
If I dump the EQ in a "smiley" way, I can focus better some bands of course, but in the meantime I'm editing timbre, which was somethings wrote by artist.
That's my concern... when you focus or highlight preferences, you are altering the product.
Am I wrong with this?

It seems the the thing that concerns you is whether you're commiting "wrongness" - if you listen to live music, and you change your position to hear one of the instruments better; is anyone going to penalise you for this? Music is an experience for the producers of the sound; and, also, but in a different way, for the listeners - both should have free range to adjust what they hear, to suit themselves, IMO.

 

[Nowhk]

It seems the the thing that concerns you is whether you're commiting "wrongness" - if you listen to live music, and you change your position to hear one of the instruments better; is anyone going to penalise you for this? Music is an experience for the producers of the sound; and, also, but in a different way, for the listeners - both should have free range to adjust what they hear, to suit themselves, IMO.

If that's true, the control on what arrive and trigger you (your emotions, the "nice part" of listening) is not directly coming by the artist, but it also depends by yourself (so, in a certain way, you got some kind of responsibility).

Let examine the two sides:

- producer side: what's the meaning of make such a sound if neither the same person will get it the same way every time he will listen to it? What's the expectation? Even if you want to encapsulate an "higher level" message of individual interpretation, it will always be messed by how listener will shape the input in the way he think its good. So you make a product A (and spent hours/days/months) for being manipulated later, in whatever mode a listener want. Where's the preservation of your work?

- listener side: how would I deal with the fact that there will always be a different (and maybe better?) "shade" to be applied to a certain piece? One would never be accomplished.

Ah, and happy new year

 

[fas42]

Let examine the two sides:

- producer side: what's the meaning of make such a sound if neither the same person will get it the same way every time he will listen to it? What's the expectation? Even if you want to encapsulate an "higher level" message of individual interpretation, it will always be messed by how listener will shape the input in the way he think its good. So you make a product A (and spent hours/days/months) for being manipulated later, in whatever mode a listener want. Where's the preservation of your work?

- listener side: how would I deal with the fact that there will always be a different (and maybe better?) "shade" to be applied to a certain piece? One would never be accomplished.

Ah, and happy new year

For me this is easy ...

- producer side: he can always experience it the way he wants it to be heard, because he knows what to do to achieve the right environment, for himself; so it's preserved in the first instance. And if he wants others to have the identical, or least similar experience he can identify all the conditions necessary, for posterity. This is the concept of THX, say.

- listener side: I can get a system to an optimised state where questions about whether it should be different, or could be better, are no longer important, subjectively. I'm getting enough of a buzz from the experience for there to be no desire to improve things - intellectually, I may decide that there could be a gain in some area ... but that's not why I listen to music ... .

Best in 2018, to you too!

 

[tomelex]

where is that popcorn eating smiley thingy..

 

[Nowhk]

- listener side: I can get a system to an optimised state where questions about whether it should be different, or could be better, are no longer important, subjectively. I'm getting enough of a buzz from the experience for there to be no desire to improve things - intellectually, I may decide that there could be a gain in some area ... but that's not why I listen to music ... .

In my case I've both Monitor, Loudspeaker and Headphones that all of them sound very nice on some tracks, just DIFFERENT (well, a little bit).
I feel like choosing a different playback medium change the piece itself (well, part of it)... and I found it deceitful, not sure why

I don't experience the same watching a movie: whatever Monitor I'll use (which have tone color balance as well) is the same. Maybe because there I don't care about the infinite amount of possible shades I could see... i.e. I consider a "red" as "red", whatever shades it would got due color balance (even if I'm aware I actually perceive different "red" every time).

It seems that the more you go/analyse deep the details, the more they are impossible to preserve across different listening. Which makes things a bit unpredictable...

where is that popcorn eating smiley thingy..

So, also you...
Really do you find this discussion ridiculous? Or is my way of asking questions that is vexing?

 

[DonH56]

When you "highlight" some aspect (let say, you enhance bass for a better listening) you are not focusing on somethings fixed when you explore it, you are focusing and than "changing" its nature.
If I dump the EQ in a "smiley" way, I can focus better some bands of course, but in the meantime I'm editing timbre, which was somethings wrote by artist.
That's my concern... when you focus or highlight preferences, you are altering the product.
Am I wrong with this?

Well, since we're getting all philosophical, I'll diverge from my usual tech-speak for this one...

In teaching, among other things, we have the saying "paralysis by analysis". You get so caught up in the analysis that you fail to "do" anything. In this case, fail to simply listen to the music in whatever manner makes it more pleasing to you.

Practically speaking, you'll never know exactly what the artist intended, or what the original session was like, if that even matters. The recording environment is intentionally quite different from the playback environment, and there are a myriad of changes to the sound from the artist's mouth or instrument to the final CD or whatever your source is, then you still have to go through your system and play it back in your room. The amount of influence the artist has throughout this process varies, and it is quite possible the artist's idea changes through the processes of mixing and mastering to the end result.

Yes, the system and room affect the playback, but given you'll never know exactly the original sound why not adjust for a sound you like and enjoy? The idea of a reference sound is slippery; maybe you know exactly what the hall and orchestra sounded like that day or not, maybe you know exactly what was in the artist's mind at the time of the recording, but in the end I think the goal is to achieve a sound pleasing to the listener -- his/her system, speakers, and room.

Minor changes in sound are going to have minimal impact on the perceived timbre IMO. Narrow frequency response ripples tend to be ignored. You are likely going to want to boost the bass and treble some if you do not listen very loudly so it sounds better. If your room has lots of highly reflective surfaces it will sound different than in a room that is heavily treated but again without a way to correlate to the source, as if that changes what you like, then you have no real reference, no way to tell what the original "product" was. I say forget about it. In the end your preferences will dictate what you like to hear and your system should reflect that.

IMO - Don

Aside: Normally this would be a discussion about the requirement for decent electronics, speakers with good on- and off-axis response, proper room treatment, and all that jazz. But everyone knows that already, and in practice (or at least IME) above a fairly low threshold most playback systems sound pretty good and do not completely trash the sound (timbre). Pondering whether the fifth or ninth partial of the oboe in the second movement is correct in my playback system on any given day strikes me as ridiculous.

 

[fas42]

I don't experience the same watching a movie: whatever Monitor I'll use (which have tone color balance as well) is the same. Maybe because there I don't care about the infinite amount of possible shades I could see... i.e. I consider a "red" as "red", whatever shades it would got due color balance (even if I'm aware I actually perceive different "red" every time).

And that's how I want the sound recordings to work. In the visual medium, the content takes over, almost immediately - the mind adjusts to subtle tonal variations - and, it's the "same" movie!

This doesn't happen with a lot of hifi - the full detail of the content struggles to get through, and you spend a lot of the time being aware of the differences in the presentation - sometimes, it's almost impossible to recognise the album!!

Competent rigs get rid of that dilemma - it's always "the same movie"; and that's how it should be. Which makes it easy to pick a setup that's working well ...

 

[Nowhk]

To understand if we are on the same boat...

Yes, the system and room affect the playback, but given you'll never know exactly the original sound why not adjust for a sound you like and enjoy? The idea of a reference sound is slippery; maybe you know exactly what the hall and orchestra sounded like that day or not, maybe you know exactly what was in the artist's mind at the time of the recording, but in the end I think the goal is to achieve a sound pleasing to the listener -- his/her system, speakers, and room.

And that's how I want the sound recordings to work. In the visual medium, the content takes over, almost immediately - the mind adjusts to subtle tonal variations - and, it's the "same" movie!

Aren't those two things counterposed? Can't be both I think.

Either or I'm able to get the same content (fas42) or I choose to shape it as I prefer (DonH56).
Brain will work one way I think.

Even if I believe on DonH56 vision, I find fas42 one entangling and, in some case, true: movie example above, but also if I read a book with artificial light or in a sunny days, nothing change.
But I'm also aware that if I place more "salt" in the meal I change it and I enjoy it more due to my tastes (again, DonH56's approch).

I need to understand if maybe I'm just biased about this process.

Shoul be one of these, shouldn't?

 

[fas42]

To understand if we are on the same boat...




Aren't those two things counterposed? Can't be both I think.

Either or I'm able to get the same content (fas42) or I choose to shape it as I prefer (DonH56).
Brain will work one way I think.

Even if I believe on DonH56 vision, I find fas42 one entangling and, in some case, true: movie example above, but also if I read a book with artificial light or in a sunny days, nothing change.
But I'm also aware that if I place more "salt" in the meal I change it and I enjoy it more due to my tastes (again, DonH56's approch).

I need to understand if maybe I'm just biased about this process.

Shoul be one of these, shouldn't?

At least part of it is that different people listen with different ears - two people experiencing, in adjacent seats, a live orchestral performance; one will be reacting to the reverberation of that hall, and not liking it; the other will be enthralled by the tonality of the string section - I'm in the latter camp, if you couldn't guess ... .

I find that if I get in a playback setup in good enough shape, then I never need "salt" - I have zero desire to experience what that does to the "taste" - it would be an annoyance to be asked to contemplate whether varying the seasoning "makes it better". And part of that is that the "palpability" of the sound becomes of uppermost importance, the main satisfaction derived from the listening - if I'm driving a Ferrari very enthusiastically, and someone asks which seat cover do you prefer while driving like that, I would think he's bonkers! ...

 

[Cosmik]

I find that if I get in a playback setup in good enough shape, then I never need "salt" - I have zero desire to experience what that does to the "taste"

Same here. And I think the same sentiment is being expressed in this review of the Kii Three:

...the traditional kind of subjective analysis we speaker reviewers default to — describing the tonal balance and making a judgement about the competence of a monitor’s basic frequency response — is somehow rendered a little pointless with the Kii Three. It sounds so transparent and creates such fundamentally believable audio that thoughts of ‘dull’ or ‘bright’ seem somehow superfluous.

If it's "believable" then you don't have any desire to change it. And the only way it gets to be so believable is if it is neutral in all respects (including phase, timing, etc.).

Perhaps the role the room plays in recorded music is the same as it is for video. You don't want to watch in pitch black because the screen then becomes sole focus of your attention, and its static nature is emphasised; it is much better for the screen to blend with a little bit of reality. It is not, however, being changed by the room.

The risk is that the room distracts attention, is unpleasantly coloured, or reflects off the screen. In which case, what can 'DSP' do to help? The answer is: very little. If you have a terrible room, you need to change the room, and there is a very wide latitude in the decor and lighting where it is just fine and doesn't distract from the video. But it needs to be there all the same.

 

[tomelex]

In my case I've both Monitor, Loudspeaker and Headphones that all of them sound very nice on some tracks, just DIFFERENT (well, a little bit).
I feel like choosing a different playback medium change the piece itself (well, part of it)... and I found it deceitful, not sure why

I don't experience the same watching a movie: whatever Monitor I'll use (which have tone color balance as well) is the same. Maybe because there I don't care about the infinite amount of possible shades I could see... i.e. I consider a "red" as "red", whatever shades it would got due color balance (even if I'm aware I actually perceive different "red" every time).

It seems that the more you go/analyse deep the details, the more they are impossible to preserve across different listening. Which makes things a bit unpredictable...


So, also you...
Really do you find this discussion ridiculous? Or is my way of asking questions that is vexing?[/QUOTE]


Enjoy your discussion about no standards in audio as opposed to video. No standards mean we have the wild west. No reference other than the recorded material on the tape, cd, digital stream, LP, etc. No reference in your own ear/brain interface from one day to the next. I do not find your discussion ridiculous, however, having this discussion when I was seventeen and understanding the world of audio reproduction, I have nothing to add to the wild west of audio along your line of question, so I am watching on the sidelines. Everyone should have this discussion and come to their conclusions or they will be going down the audio road to hell IMO.