Consideration about Timbre

[Nowhk]

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 ... .

But its the same puzzlement so Are you sure you are able to catch the tonality of that string section? Or are you catching a momentary one shaped by that actual system?

If its true the former, you don't need at all any kind of expensive pro audio. As for the Kii Three cited above. Your brain is power to extrapolate/compensate for things, so who care about? Let the brain do the hard work...
If its true the latter, the environments/setup you are using in that moment are a part essential of what you are experiencing, so matter a lot.

A further question: take a recorded piano on your DAW and EQ it a bit wherever you want: do you define it "the same timbre dumped on some frequencies" or "a similar timbre, but obviously not the same since some partials has been changed"?

Here I'm not talking about systems that are not able to reproduce some things. Such as being in a room where reflections will shadow low-level sounds that are integral part of piece. No. I'm talking about systems that are able to reproduce any kind of stuff you are able to catch (for your experience), but not linearly, so they of course would change. Timbre is the most basic example. Stupid example? Also the Kii Three have a built-in customizable EQ :O Why do they need it if they are flat as hell? They are able to reproduce any kind of hz. Editing the curve seems a "listener choice" for operate on existing material. I can't describe it alternately

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! ...

But it the same of asking to my girlfriend why she listen to music on laptop (without bass for example): she just don't care about "bass", but lyrics and such. She focus on other details. And that's ok. And it seems its able to preserve the "content she get" across different listening (lyrics come out everywhere, in the same way).

What when you focus on details that you realize can't be preserved across different listening? (i.e. timbre?) Do you just ignore them? Do you accept they will always be different?

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.

Music is my first passion, I just can't stay on the sidelines Even because more I learn DSP and audio reproduction, more this question become oppressive, on what I do and on what I get

EDIT: what "reference" exactly means when, in the end, you will always get distortion? Is that "less distortion" is more pleasant?
The whole concept of EQ on HiFi/pro system should be denied in this view...

 

[DonH56]

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?

I am not sure which two things -- system and room? Those are two different things.

If you prefer to follow fas42's paradigm that is fine. I am not sure exactly what you are arguing.

 

[Nowhk]

I am not sure which two things -- system and room? Those are two different things.

The two things I meant was the two different "paradigms", your and the fas42's one Sorry, my crappy english...

If you prefer to follow fas42's paradigm that is fine. I am not sure exactly what you are arguing.

Honestly I'm thinking your paradigm fit better with my general sense of seeing the whole thing. But I can't ignore that maybe I'm wrong and fas42 on long-time perception win over "our". Can't be both...

 

[fas42]

But its the same puzzlement so Are you sure you are able to catch the tonality of that string section? Or are you catching a momentary one shaped by that actual system?

If its true the former, you don't need at all any kind of expensive pro audio. As for the Kii Three cited above. Your brain is power to extrapolate/compensate for things, so who care about? Let the brain do the hard work..

Here's a key point. You may not need expensive or pro equipment, but it may help a great deal! It's the competence of the playback chain that's critical - and that's just a simple word to emphasise that the brain should not be forced to work hard to compensate, extrapolate, etc. Having otherwise means the dreaded listener fatigue will set in quickly - and the pleasure of hearing music turns into a drag ...

If its true the latter, the environments/setup you are using in that moment are a part essential of what you are experiencing, so matter a lot.

A further question: take a recorded piano on your DAW and EQ it a bit wherever you want: do you define it "the same timbre dumped on some frequencies" or "a similar timbre, but obviously not the same since some partials has been changed"?

...

EDIT: what "reference" exactly means when, in the end, you will always get distortion? Is that "less distortion" is more pleasant?
The whole concept of EQ on HiFi/pro system should be denied in this view...

In the world from where I view audio, EQ'ng is nothing; and distortion, non-linear distortion is everything. Get rid of the latter, and everything falls into place ... effortlessly, as far as the ear/brain is concerned.

 

[tomelex]

But its the same puzzlement so Are you sure you are able to catch the tonality of that string section? Or are you catching a momentary one shaped by that actual system?

If its true the former, you don't need at all any kind of expensive pro audio. As for the Kii Three cited above. Your brain is power to extrapolate/compensate for things, so who care about? Let the brain do the hard work...
If its true the latter, the environments/setup you are using in that moment are a part essential of what you are experiencing, so matter a lot.

A further question: take a recorded piano on your DAW and EQ it a bit wherever you want: do you define it "the same timbre dumped on some frequencies" or "a similar timbre, but obviously not the same since some partials has been changed"?

Here I'm not talking about systems that are not able to reproduce some things. Such as being in a room where reflections will shadow low-level sounds that are integral part of piece. No. I'm talking about systems that are able to reproduce any kind of stuff you are able to catch (for your experience), but not linearly, so they of course would change. Timbre is the most basic example. Stupid example? Also the Kii Three have a built-in customizable EQ :O Why do they need it if they are flat as hell? They are able to reproduce any kind of hz. Editing the curve seems a "listener choice" for operate on existing material. I can't describe it alternately


But it the same of asking to my girlfriend why she listen to music on laptop (without bass for example): she just don't care about "bass", but lyrics and such. She focus on other details. And that's ok. And it seems its able to preserve the "content she get" across different listening (lyrics come out everywhere, in the same way).

What when you focus on details that you realize can't be preserved across different listening? (i.e. timbre?) Do you just ignore them? Do you accept they will always be different?


Music is my first passion, I just can't stay on the sidelines Even because more I learn DSP and audio reproduction, more this question become oppressive, on what I do and on what I get

EDIT: what "reference" exactly means when, in the end, you will always get distortion? Is that "less distortion" is more pleasant?
The whole concept of EQ on HiFi/pro system should be denied in this view...

OK, since you are on a search, let me tell you what I learned when I was in my late teenage years and audio and electronics was almost as powerful as thinking of girls all the time!

When I bring a recording of a song (soundwaves) to your house ( lp, tape, cd..) and I ask you to play it, at this point, this recording I gave you is the reference. What is on that recording is what your system has to extract. The information on the recording is the reference. You may not like it, you might think it sounds bad, but IT is the reference. If you do not understand this, then you are on the road to audio hell. The only logical choice ( i did bring you my favorite song by favorite producer and if your system makes it sound bad I am not coming back to your house ) at this point is an accurate system that replicates the soundwaves entering your ears the same as the sound waves on the recording I gave to you. An accurate system does not re-interpret these soundwaves to coincide with your preconceptions of how the soundwaves SHOULD sound.

Yes, no system is perfect and neither are your senses. Yes, if you want those soundwaves to sound according to your preconceived ideas then you will put together a system that meets your requirements, but your system paints every soundwave with the same brush and color. If you have an accurate sound system, then each mix and master engineers idea of what he thinks you should hear you will hear. You will never hear the original live event, you will only ever hear the information that was put on the recording media. Your stereo is a replicator of the recording, not ANYTHING else.

That is why many of us strive for the most accurate reproduction system we can afford, and then we may add by tone controls or any other way we prefer "color" the system to meet our preconceived ideas. It is natural to make your system do what you want, but the goal is always first among objectivists an accurate system to start with. An accurate system extracts all the details that each recording has in it, and if we love the mastering and the song, then we are getting all we can get from it.

For example, I listen sometimes to my SET amplifier, sometimes to different headphones depending on what I want to hear, digital or vinyl or tape, and I listen near filed, sometimes normal distance, it is always a choice, but I am not on the road to audio hell, because I know the reality of electronic reproduction systems, in fact, I just enjoy my music. I am listening now at my desk, with near field speakers at ear level, playing recordings from my 24/96 digital recorder, and I am perfectly happy with this combination, even though it does sound different than my other "rigs".

When you get off the road to audio hell, you start listening to music, not systems and theories.

There are technical things you must do of course, you must have enough power to replicate music peaks, for example, my mono amps are each 450 watts, and I listen mostly at about 1 to 3 watts power. These are the fun technical things that many objectivists enjoy. We love music, and we also love gear, and we know what it is about our gear that we love.

If you love the "sound" of vinyl storage, then it makes sense your system is accurate to reproduce that sound, with all the distortions that vinyl has that make it sound good, get it?

So, now, back to my popcorn.

 

[fas42]

If you love the "sound" of vinyl storage, then it makes sense your system is accurate to reproduce that sound, with all the distortions that vinyl has that make it sound good, get it?

So, now, back to my popcorn.

This is one thing that never makes sense to me, "vinyl has all these distortions that make it sound good ... "

Ummm, one of these days I might understand what people are talking about - LP playback has a set of distortions that go with the medium, which can be irritating, depending upon everything - they are often obvious, like clicks and pops, tracking error, and badly aligned cartridges. But the medium gets a lot of the key things right, when it's working well. CD replay, in contrast, brings a whole, different set of artifacts on board - which may be more subtle, but degrade the SQ just as effectively - improving a digital rig moves the quality into the arena of what vinyl relatively easily does well - without ditching any of the conventional CD benefits. A competent LP system will sound identical to a competent CD setup - in the areas that matter.

I have yet to hear any of this supposed "LP magic", which is really distortion - which digital just won't do.

 

[tomelex]

This is one thing that never makes sense to me, "vinyl has all these distortions that make it sound good ... "

Ummm, one of these days I might understand what people are talking about - LP playback has a set of distortions that go with the medium, which can be irritating, depending upon everything - they are often obvious, like clicks and pops, tracking error, and badly aligned cartridges. But the medium gets a lot of the key things right, when it's working well. CD replay, in contrast, brings a whole, different set of artifacts on board - which may be more subtle, but degrade the SQ just as effectively - improving a digital rig moves the quality into the arena of what vinyl relatively easily does well - without ditching any of the conventional CD benefits. A competent LP system will sound identical to a competent CD setup - in the areas that matter.

I have yet to hear any of this supposed "LP magic", which is really distortion - which digital just won't do.

Frank, first off, I enjoy vinyls distortions, and SET distortions and whatever other ones I enjoy. The point is, digital nowadays, for example if I record a vinyl song onto my 24/96 digital recorder (which stores and plays back direct at 24/96, no down converting etc) I can not distinguish that recording from the vinyl playback. So, I have no issues with 24/96 having exact enough ability to fool me and I consider it transparent and whatever distortions it brings I do not hear them.

So, digital gets everything right in my book.

Preference for the loudness, the compression, the limited bandwidth, the phasiness, the cross talk and all that vinyl does to make plain old stereo sound better often enough, is just that, a preference, but there is no argument about fidelity. I have always said that a perfect two channel stereo rig may not actually sound better than one that "distorts" in a certain manner. Stereo is a funny sounding thing to start with, as you have agreed before with me.

The euphonic distortions of vinyl can and do sound good to many folks, and that is a happy accident, not by design. And the fact that it is so easy to tune to personal preference, as in I select cartridge X because I like the sound of it, well, how could you not like the sound of vinyl if you tuned it by cartridge selection to sound the way you want.

 

[Sal1950]

The euphonic distortions of vinyl can and do sound good to many folks, and that is a happy accident, not by design.

Maybe not "design" for SQ, but could be that some of the euphonicness might be a result of the alterations made to the masters to ease the problems the cutters have doing their jobs at both frequency extremes?

 

[Frank Dernie]

Maybe not "design" for SQ, but could be that some of the euphonicness might be a result of the alterations made to the masters to ease the problems the cutters have doing their jobs at both frequency extremes?

Absolutely, that is part of the the "accident" about it IMO!
It is not only the euphony added by the record player itself but also the manufacturing essentials.

 

[Cosmik]

Preference for the loudness, the compression, the limited bandwidth, the phasiness, the cross talk and all that vinyl does to make plain old stereo sound better often enough, is just that, a preference, but there is no argument about fidelity. I have always said that a perfect two channel stereo rig may not actually sound better than one that "distorts" in a certain manner. Stereo is a funny sounding thing to start with, as you have agreed before with me.

The euphonic distortions of vinyl can and do sound good to many folks, and that is a happy accident, not by design. And the fact that it is so easy to tune to personal preference, as in I select cartridge X because I like the sound of it, well, how could you not like the sound of vinyl if you tuned it by cartridge selection to sound the way you want.

What if two channels always 'sound funny' unless certain conditions are met? And what if those conditions are rarely met? Mr. Linkwitz talks about that sort of thing here:
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/The_Magic/The_Magic.htm

You could imagine a situation where audiophiles spend a lifetime 'seasoning to taste' while never realising that stereo can, for example, produce a rock solid 'holographic' image over a wide range of listening positions - not a fragile thing, but dependent on certain attributes in the speakers (and the source) that result in accurate correlation between them. As in the Kii Three quote earlier on, it is at that moment that the listener would realise that the sound should not be 'seasoned'. All previous advice regarding the necessity for target frequency responses, euphonic distortion etc. would be null and void, being based on systems that weren't stereo to start with.

It is a many-dimensioned problem. Who can say what the combined effect of, say, poor damping of the bass drivers, phase distortion of the crossover, break-up of the bass driver at mid frequencies, inaccuracy of the crossover that varies with power, distortion of an over-stretched tweeter because of shallow crossover slope, etc. will be?

And supposing all these things are almost fixed by using DSP, active speakers, an extra 'way' and so on, but the DSP is flawed in some way that leads to another sonic problem. Again, true stereo will not be achieved and the listener may go away thinking "I have heard the sound of DSP and I don't like it.". They will be wrong, but they will swear they are right, and on that basis will happily give out audiophile advice in forums forever more.

I, personally, have heard DSP setups that were simply 'wrong', but the people running the demonstrations 'talked the talk' as though (to an unsuspecting audiophile) they knew what they were doing. And I recently went to a show where a person giving out advice on speaker design had failed to notice that the speakers in his demo were wired out of phase.

 

[tomelex]

Cosmik,

I think with stereo, one has to first divorce themselves from ever thinking we are replicating a real world event (you know that of course, just trying to follow aline of reasoning here). It can only try to do (you pick the percentage, I say 5%) of what actually happened there.

Then, with only two channels that are point sources, it is even more less than the real world. Then we apply stereo technique and that gets us (in our ear/brains) some width across the speakers, and that works pretty well for most people.

Then, even though there is encoded depth information also in the mix, the speakers are the primary things to bring that out in most cases. Some put everything forward, some everything back, some squash it forward but dominant middle, others do the opposite, and some try to get it about right.

Then, along comes vinyl distortions, and they tend to take away some of the point source, they splash the instruments widely and merge them (a poor way of describing less pinpoint), they paint a more interesting picture, a different take of course, not what was on the tape, but their effect appeals.

In fact, of course, we have all the rest involved, not just the storage medium, but the speakers we choose and their interface to the room, and that is where most of us just move the speakers around a bit or maybe move the couch or something, but that is where we fall down, and that's where DSP comes into the game, where we get the final tuning factor done. Then, if we keep our head in the same spot we get repeatable and as accurate a sound as can from the whole system.

Or, you can just pop on some headphones that you like the sound of, and Bobs your Uncle.

 

[fas42]

It is a many-dimensioned problem. Who can say what the combined effect of, say, poor damping of the bass drivers, phase distortion of the crossover, break-up of the bass driver at mid frequencies, inaccuracy of the crossover that varies with power, distortion of an over-stretched tweeter because of shallow crossover slope, etc. will be?

And supposing all these things are almost fixed by using DSP, active speakers, an extra 'way' and so on, but the DSP is flawed in some way that leads to another sonic problem. Again, true stereo will not be achieved and the listener may go away thinking "I have heard the sound of DSP and I don't like it.". They will be wrong, but they will swear they are right, and on that basis will happily give out audiophile advice in forums forever more.

I, personally, have heard DSP setups that were simply 'wrong', but the people running the demonstrations 'talked the talk' as though (to an unsuspecting audiophile) they knew what they were doing. And I recently went to a show where a person giving out advice on speaker design had failed to notice that the speakers in his demo were wired out of phase.

You are after the same goal, but are looking towards the speaker, very strongly, to "fix things". Because of how I achieved a step improvement in SQ, those decades ago, I see the speakers as being just one part of the package that gets the job done - yes, they have to have no obvious issues, but if certain keys aspects are dealt with then they are "good enough", I find.

 

[fas42]

I think with stereo, one has to first divorce themselves from ever thinking we are replicating a real world event (you know that of course, just trying to follow aline of reasoning here). It can only try to do (you pick the percentage, I say 5%) of what actually happened there.

Then, with only two channels that are point sources, it is even more less than the real world. Then we apply stereo technique and that gets us (in our ear/brains) some width across the speakers, and that works pretty well for most people.

Then, even though there is encoded depth information also in the mix, the speakers are the primary things to bring that out in most cases. Some put everything forward, some everything back, some squash it forward but dominant middle, others do the opposite, and some try to get it about right.

Tom, it's pretty clear that you've never heard a simple stereo setup project an intense, "holographic", rock solid illusion - if you had, you would been bowled over by what you heard - I know I was when I first heard this happen, !! - or if you have, you dismissed it as "being a distortion" ... well, sorry, it ain't; it's the natural order of things, in fact. What happens, for a particular recording, is always the same, irrespective of the equipment being - provided they are all competent, !

It's a powerful listening experience, and always makes it worthwhile chasing this as a goal.

 

[Sal1950]

There are two paths that can be taken.
One is to pursue absolute accuracy to the source creators sonic goal. Mostly this is easily and relatively inexpensive to achieve, accept for the speakers, that part gets sticky.
The second is to just build a kit that sounds best to you, whatever your taste and preferences dictate.
Either one is equally "right", you pay for the ride.
Only problems that constantly arise is when the folks that build the "sounds good" rigs then attempt to proclaim their preferences as the most accurate one.

 

[Nowhk]

Thank you all for the partecipation guys! I really appreciate it. And happy new year

but I am not on the road to audio hell, because I know the reality of electronic reproduction systems, in fact, I just enjoy my music. I am listening now at my desk, with near field speakers at ear level, playing recordings from my 24/96 digital recorder, and I am perfectly happy with this combination, even though it does sound different than my other "rigs".

When you get off the road to audio hell, you start listening to music, not systems and theories.

That's somethings I really cannot understand; maybe because due to the kind of music I'm listening?

How can you divide/separate/differentiate audio and music at this level?
I mean: of course elements such as pitch, melody, harmony or rhythm will go through by almost any kind of "decent" equipments/environments.

But what if that kind of music is driven by i.e. timbre?
That's an element that's pretty tied by audio itself. Just looks at the definition: mainly relative partials amplitude and its envelope. ANY systems will play back these two things differently. And damn that's not BIAS I hope: I can hear the differences between listening the same piece by two different systems. Again: pitch, melody, harmony or rhythm are the same, but are not the only parts that matter.

What I made and listen is basically 4/4 glitched patterns with lots of FM synthesised sounds, smashed each others by filter automations and such. i.e. timbres that brings and mutate during the time. But the same come with any kind of instruments, I believe.

Its hard for me to define "quality" when I'm talking about elements that (probably) I can't have controls.
Take timbre, again. Yes, I could say my system is able to reproduce all frequencies of the recorded chunk from 10hz to 23Khz (go beyond humans limits), but HOW these frequencies are play back will always change a bit, when considering also their levels. In this case, it seems to me that quality parameter "ends" once it reproduces them at their correct freq; when you start consider their levels (and your brain DO IT making the overall perception), it seems that the whole will constantly differs, and you fall into the "use what you prefer" standard, because nothing here can be replicate exactly. That's my huge concern! Hope you got it.

I'm not really sure I can separate audio from "music", when audio are the basis of what I'll translate as perception. Am I wrong? What would you say considering this?

 

[RayDunzl]

But what if that kind of music is driven by i.e. timbre?

 

[fas42]

But what if that kind of music is driven by i.e. timbre?
That's an element that's pretty tied by audio itself. Just looks at the definition: mainly relative partials amplitude and its envelope. ANY systems will play back these two things differently. And damn that's not BIAS I hope: I can hear the differences between listening the same piece by two different systems. Again: pitch, melody, harmony or rhythm are the same, but are not the only parts that matter.

What I made and listen is basically 4/4 glitched patterns with lots of FM synthesised sounds, smashed each others by filter automations and such. i.e. timbres that brings and mutate during the time. But the same come with any kind of instruments, I believe.

Its hard for me to define "quality" when I'm talking about elements that (probably) I can't have controls.
Take timbre, again. Yes, I could say my system is able to reproduce all frequencies of the recorded chunk from 10hz to 23Khz (go beyond humans limits), but HOW these frequencies are play back will always change a bit, when considering also their levels. In this case, it seems to me that quality parameter "ends" once it reproduces them at their correct freq; when you start consider their levels (and your brain DO IT making the overall perception), it seems that the whole will constantly differs, and you fall into the "use what you prefer" standard, because nothing here can be replicate exactly. That's my huge concern! Hope you got it.

I'm not really sure I can separate audio from "music", when audio are the basis of what I'll translate as perception. Am I wrong? What would you say considering this?

By my standards, that's incompetent playback. I find it laughable how "weird" many fancy systems make recordings I know well sound - and that's because my focus is now drawn to the sound of the system; the recording itself is merely a means for exposing the character of the playback rig; the latter takes centre stage, and is the "true performer" in the situation.

When the distortions of the playback tend to dominate the subjective impressions, then it ain't "high fidelity" - what happens as a system is taken to an optimum is that its characteristics - the audible distortions of such, IOW - completely vanish ... and only the recording is left. And the latter is pretty bloody amazing stuff - and, is ... always ... the ... same ...

 

[Nowhk]

@RayDunzl: the first is awesome. Yeah, kind of music

By my standards, that's incompetent playback. I find it laughable how "weird" many fancy systems make recordings I know well sound - and that's because my focus is now drawn to the sound of the system; the recording itself is merely a means for exposing the character of the playback rig; the latter takes centre stage, and is the "true performer" in the situation.

When the distortions of the playback tend to dominate the subjective impressions, then it ain't "high fidelity" - what happens as a system is taken to an optimum is that its characteristics - the audible distortions of such, IOW - completely vanish ... and only the recording is left. And the latter is pretty bloody amazing stuff - and, is ... always ... the ... same ...

Are saying that given an headphone and a loudspeaker that you consider both competents, you won't notice any differences between them? Or that the differences you get by the distortion of the two are irrelevant and you will enjoy both the same?

And what if you notice that the playing piece has not enough "bass"? You won't listen to it due to the lacks by the mastering or do you "adjust it" by the integrated EQ of your pro system?

 

[Cosmik]

What if we consider plain speech? I would say it's highly likely that we would all understand what was being said through some pretty horrendous distortion. Not only that, we would probably be able to recognise the person speaking if they were already familiar to us. This is because speech is not dependent on static accuracy of frequency response, but is all about the dynamic changes of 'timbre'.

We could easily laugh at humour or be inspired by speech over a pretty distorted channel. But there would come a point where we would probably not be able to understand what was being said or who was saying it.

In between, it seems to me entirely possible that we begin to make false judgements about how things are being said. A satellite delay can make a person seem shifty and hesitant. Certain types of speech compression over a phone line can make a person sound as though they have a tremor in their voice i.e. nervous. And supposing the whole thrust of a recording of speech is dependent on part of a conversation that simply doesn't make it through the distortion? Most of the 'event' is coming through intact, but has been rendered meaningless.

An example of a recording where the distortion attracts more attention than the content. Go to 5.44 and keep listening!:

 

[Sal1950]

An example of a recording where the distortion attracts more attention than the content. Go to 5.44 and keep listening!:

More fake news by Edision haters at the BBC.