• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Consideration about Timbre

OP
Nowhk

Nowhk

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2017
Messages
99
Likes
15
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.
I think I wouldn't consider "speech" as "musical element". I mean, speech enclose a "message". I don't have any need to listen it on pro gears to be understood. Any kind of realistic and decent speakers will bring to me a sounds that can be easily decoded and interpreted, using native language, getting the desidered message.

If you consider "timbre", well... timbre itself is the message. Not somethings that its decoded by analysing soundwave. So, soundwave become the message.
Or, once again, if its so, even here I don't need any necessity to select gears to get it: whatever system I'll use will transfer the "message" encoded across different soundwave (i.e. different timbre) shaped by natural distortion.

Same question, afterall: will different soundwave (shaped by natural distortion) converge to the same perception/message or each of them will broadcast somethings different due to its imposed presentation?

Most of you seems to be on first paradigm, others on seconds. I feel to be on the second road; but the ones on the first group need to explain why they use the setup they are using instead of (at parity of money) another one. Because if you sustain that, any similar setups won't impact what you are hearing, in the end.
 

fas42

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,818
Likes
191
Location
Australia
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?
The listening experience is obviously different, in that the headphones "isolates" you from the world - something that I dislike intensely - when using them. But the "musical message" should be the same.

FR variations become irrelevant when a certain level of competence is reached, for me at least - so, "bass" is never an issue. I get intensely irritated with the "fake" bass of many setups - and which is useless for making the sound 'right'. As an example, most rigs are pretty hopeless at delivering pipe organ with the grandeur of the instrument intact - a simple first test of competence.
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,204
Likes
16,985
Location
Riverview FL
The listening experience is obviously different, in that the headphones "isolates" you from the world

Mine don't. Verifying that right now.

Not plugged in, listening to TV over the speakers.

There's a slight "listening to a sea-shell" aberration, but the level of the TV (and the conversation going on in the other room) are essentially unaffected.

Isolation value: nil.

They do eliminate the room reflections, when using them, though.
 

fas42

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,818
Likes
191
Location
Australia
Mine don't. Verifying that right now.

Not plugged in, listening to TV over the speakers.

There's a slight "listening to a sea-shell" aberration, but the level of the TV (and the conversation going on in the other room) are essentially unaffected.

Isolation value: nil.

They do eliminate the room reflections, when using them, though.
Yes, there are designs that allow the outside world to come in, to a fair degree. I haven't tried any of these, but just the sensation of the headphones sitting on my skull is enough to make me feel uncomfortable in a short period of time. Perhaps one day I will come across a configuration that changes my mind - but, I sorta doubt it ...
 

fas42

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,818
Likes
191
Location
Australia
I think I wouldn't consider "speech" as "musical element". I mean, speech enclose a "message". I don't have any need to listen it on pro gears to be understood. Any kind of realistic and decent speakers will bring to me a sounds that can be easily decoded and interpreted, using native language, getting the desidered message.
The human voice is an excellent test, whether speaking, or preferably singing - is the "timbre" convincing, or not? Pop recordings loaded up with synthesized sounds, dense, and heavily processed, with a clear vocal over the top are excellent for this - is that singing voice convincing - fool you stuff, or is there a tinge of PA artificiality about it?
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,204
Likes
16,985
Location
Riverview FL
or is there a tinge of PA artificiality about it?

Having run a pop band PA, and experienced the "unrestrained" quality of a mic'd vocal (without any compressor in the chain), that "tinge of PA artificiality" is something I want to be reproduced (though, with the ultimate SPL scaled to my room).
 

fas42

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,818
Likes
191
Location
Australia
Having run a pop band PA, and experienced the "unrestrained" quality of a mic'd vocal (without any compressor in the chain), that "tinge of PA artificiality" is something I want to be reproduced (though, with the ultimate SPL scaled to my room).
Yes, but is that "PA artificiality" actually what is encoded on the recording? IME this is not the case - the vocal line is most often very clean - and shows as a clear contrast to the classic qualities of the guitar amps, synthesizer sound, etc. This is what I look for when optimising the system capabilities - have the vocals become "human" - or not?

The recording may then lose its pop band PA sound - but such was never what was actually captured ....
 

tomelex

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
990
Likes
572
Location
So called Midwest, USA
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, :D !! - 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.


I have never heard stereo how you do my friend. For you, every song seems to sound like this, this stuff is serious stereo manipulation, holographic, etc.

If you listen to this clip below on any mid level system (this can be a home theatre in a box) you will hear holographics, but you will also hear how the stereo image is played with, stuff bouncing between channels and all that. That is not true sound at a concert, but if you want effects, Master and Commander is hard to beat.

 

tomelex

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
990
Likes
572
Location
So called Midwest, USA
Thank you all for the partecipation guys! I really appreciate it. And happy new year :cool:


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?

Sorry, I really have no idea at this point what your question is? Music always sounds different on different systems and different ears and that is true, there is no reference except the recording, no system is totally accurate. Use the word Timbre all day, it does not matter what you call it. My system and your system plays the same song to the power amp and speakers but sounds different in your room and mine, is that not obvious...
 

fas42

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,818
Likes
191
Location
Australia
I have never heard stereo how you do my friend. For you, every song seems to sound like this, this stuff is serious stereo manipulation, holographic, etc.

If you listen to this clip below on any mid level system (this can be a home theatre in a box) you will hear holographics, but you will also hear how the stereo image is played with, stuff bouncing between channels and all that. That is not true sound at a concert, but if you want effects, Master and Commander is hard to beat.
Foolin' around with phase, channels is not the point - hearing what the microphone did is. Even when it's studio manipulated it still makes sense, the cues in the low level information tell one what the soundstaging was, or is meant to represent. You "hear the spaces" that the sound elements were recorded in - I've used the concept of an N ring circus presentation, which is how many pop productions come across.
 
OP
Nowhk

Nowhk

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2017
Messages
99
Likes
15
The listening experience is obviously different, in that the headphones "isolates" you from the world - something that I dislike intensely - when using them. But the "musical message" should be the same.
What really the musical message when music is driven by timbre? Isn't the timbre the "message" itself? What else could it be otherwise?

Sorry, I really have no idea at this point what your question is? Music always sounds different on different systems and different ears and that is true, there is no reference except the recording, no system is totally accurate.
...
My system and your system plays the same song to the power amp and speakers but sounds different in your room and mine, is that not obvious...
This is the question. How can the music/song be the same if it sounds different?

Most aspect of music strictly by the sound; so if sound changes, I find obvious that also part of the music change.

Play Song A on Setup X. Than Play Song A on Setup Y.
You are able to catch they sound different, ok.

Some aspects of music are the same, indifferently if the sound has been changed (as said above: pitch, harmony, melody, rhythm, and such). But since the overall sound is changed, some others need to be changed as well, to "fit" the differences between two playback (else, I'll get the same sound). I identify this change in the timbre (maybe I'm wrong, I don't know; that's why this topic). So, my questions/dubts are...

If you claim that sounds change but every kind of musical elements keep intact (i.e. ALSO TIMBRE) than my question to you is (again): why do you listen on a kind of speakers instead of another? In any case you will be able to catch the same, so what's the choice? (because most of us has been made a choice)

OR

If you claim that sounds change, and so parts of musical elements (such as timbre), but that's irrelevant because in the ends the message pass to the listener (not even sure what this phrase means yet; read some lines above), what's the purpose of "adjust levels" controls within HiFi components (such as build-in EQ)? It seems they are there to build up "how you prefer" it sounds. But if so, you are than changing the message... it won't keep the same with minor adjustments (else you won't do those minor adjustments in first place; there should be a purpose).

OR

Every time you play the song, sounds changes, and inevitably part of the song will be changed accordly. Every listener adjust these changes as it prefers, making "your own vision" of the piece. Which means that he partecipates to his own illusion of how the piece "should be". So the work of the artist is the base, than the listener adjust as he prefer. But many of you seems to say "NOPE, the song I hear its always the same"; so my question now become: how could it be? (refering to the 2 questions above).

Its a multidimensional question :)
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
What really the musical message when music is driven by timbre? Isn't the timbre the "message" itself? What else could it be otherwise?


This is the question. How can the music/song be the same if it sounds different?

Most aspect of music strictly by the sound; so if sound changes, I find obvious that also part of the music change.

Play Song A on Setup X. Than Play Song A on Setup Y.
You are able to catch they sound different, ok.

Some aspects of music are the same, indifferently if the sound has been changed (as said above: pitch, harmony, melody, rhythm, and such). But since the overall sound is changed, some others need to be changed as well, to "fit" the differences between two playback (else, I'll get the same sound). I identify this change in the timbre (maybe I'm wrong, I don't know; that's why this topic). So, my questions/dubts are...

If you claim that sounds change but every kind of musical elements keep intact (i.e. ALSO TIMBRE) than my question to you is (again): why do you listen on a kind of speakers instead of another? In any case you will be able to catch the same, so what's the choice? (because most of us has been made a choice)

OR

If you claim that sounds change, and so parts of musical elements (such as timbre), but that's irrelevant because in the ends the message pass to the listener (not even sure what this phrase means yet; read some lines above), what's the purpose of "adjust levels" controls within HiFi components (such as build-in EQ)? It seems they are there to build up "how you prefer" it sounds. But if so, you are than changing the message... it won't keep the same with minor adjustments (else you won't do those minor adjustments in first place; there should be a purpose).

OR

Every time you play the song, sounds changes, and inevitably part of the song will be changed accordly. Every listener adjust these changes as it prefers, making "your own vision" of the piece. Which means that he partecipates to his own illusion of how the piece "should be". So the work of the artist is the base, than the listener adjust as he prefer. But many of you seems to say "NOPE, the song I hear its always the same"; so my question now become: how could it be? (refering to the 2 questions above).

Its a multidimensional question :)
It doesn't seem all that mysterious to me (except on the level of 'why do we exist, why are we conscious?, etc.!).

Music has intellectual and physical appeal. The intellectual part can make it through some pretty bad distortion until at some level it breaks down; the physical appeal begins to degrade sooner as the distortion increases.
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,204
Likes
16,985
Location
Riverview FL

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
7,835
Likes
16,497
Location
Monument, CO
I've decided I have no idea what this thread is about.

If you listen to the same musicians on successive nights, will the timbre change? Why, or why not? What if some seats are filled one time and not the next, won't there be tiny changes to the timbre? What if they perform in two different venues, then what is your reference? What if your mood changes or you are just slightly physically different from one time to the next? How high is up, and does the answer change day-to-day?
 
OP
Nowhk

Nowhk

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2017
Messages
99
Likes
15
I've decided I have no idea what this thread is about.

If you listen to the same musicians on successive nights, will the timbre change? Why, or why not? What if some seats are filled one time and not the next, won't there be tiny changes to the timbre? What if they perform in two different venues, then what is your reference? What if your mood changes or you are just slightly physically different from one time to the next? How high is up, and does the answer change day-to-day?
IMO you got what's the thread is about, but just you find it "common". Not sure how its possible. You said in a past reply:

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.
This imply you reckon that timbre change on every listening (with the "don't completely trash the timbre" seems you reckon the changement, which is not trash).

Saying this, you are aware that every time you play somethings different. Is it that normal? Do you take it as obvious? And also the artist take this as obvious? What if the artist would encapsulate a "message" using timbre? Can do it only partially (since it can't be preserved at 100%)?

I was listening some know tracks on my MusicBee players today, switching different EQ sometimes.
The impact of a "fixed" recorded track changed. Artist does nothing for change that impact. They wrote them years ago :)
"I" have changed it. That's made me worry about: I'm biased by the impact OR I have the rights to shape it :)
 

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
7,835
Likes
16,497
Location
Monument, CO
As a musician I know every performance is a little different so perhaps it doesn't bother me as much if there are minor differences in playback. If you were to hear a recording of one of the groups in which I played and decided to tweak the EQ I have no problem with that; I consider that your prerogative (assuming you paid for the recording, of course). I really doubt you would change it so much that I find it objectionable or unlistenable unless you have some sort of hearing issue, but even if you did, it's your choice to play it as you like it. And if you asked me about a recording made a year or ten ago I doubt I could tell you exactly what it sounded like then. For that matter, the sound behind the mic or at the back of the band/orchestra is completely different than what you hear in the audience, so I couldn't tell you what I sounded like out front from a gig last night.
 

fas42

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,818
Likes
191
Location
Australia
I've decided I have no idea what this thread is about.

If you listen to the same musicians on successive nights, will the timbre change? Why, or why not? What if some seats are filled one time and not the next, won't there be tiny changes to the timbre? What if they perform in two different venues, then what is your reference? What if your mood changes or you are just slightly physically different from one time to the next? How high is up, and does the answer change day-to-day?
This reply says it all ... if by some miracle the musicians could play exactly the same way, down to the last detail, on successive occasions; but everything else varies, as implied by Don ... "would the music be different?"

Your answer to that dictates your take on the significance of system variations ... of course, most systems add too much of their own distortion, that additive is so strong that it effectively becomes part of the performance ... which is not helpful for answering the question in this thread.
 
OP
Nowhk

Nowhk

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2017
Messages
99
Likes
15
Thanks for all replies, your time and your patience, again!

Your answer to that dictates your take on the significance of system variations ... of course, most systems add too much of their own distortion, that additive is so strong that it effectively becomes part of the performance ... which is not helpful for answering the question in this thread.
My question is about "why the concept of built-in eq" or "wanted color added to that speaker by the manufacturers" exist primarily?

Why do they/we need the authority of adjusting and listening music in different way, distancing ourself "as we want" from the original idea/work?

Any decent flat systems will reproduce a levels of details sufficient for any listener, even experienced.
Why the need to "shape" the sound as we want with tons of front-end equalizer presets or choose a speaker that paint its own color? (i.e. the whole concept of loudspeakers and HiFi, generalizing)

That's what I don't get. Can't be only marketing...
 

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
7,835
Likes
16,497
Location
Monument, CO
I do not want my speakers or other components to color my sound; I like to start with a flat system and adjust from there. But, some people like e.g. speakers that have particular frequency response, maybe due to the acoustics of their room, or maybe they just prefer that sound (preference). It certainly does not bother me unless they begin asserting some "rightness" about their preference without basis. Even then I will usually just walk away; if they like a different sound than I why should it bother me? Or vice-versa my sound may not be to their taste, what's wrong with that?

I disagree with the premise we are "distancing" ourselves from the original. In many cases it is to get closer to what (we think) is the original sound. In other cases it is preference and there is nothing wrong with that. A short and incomplete list:
  • Recordings reflect the taste of the people who mixed and mastered the recording. That may or may not match your taste.
  • Your room and system are different than where the recording was made, whether a concert hall or a studio, so you may need to tweak settings to recreate the original sound, or what you think is the original sound. Everybody has a little different idea of what it "should" sound like.
  • On the room, your room may emphasis highs and lows by being very reflective, or suck them out due to absorption and bass modes/SBIR effects, so you need to compensate for that. Flat speakers in an anechoic chamber will not be in your room (assuming it is not an anechoic chamber).
  • If you do not play it at the same volume as the original then you will need to tweak bass and treble to account for perceived loudness (Google Fletcher-Munson).
  • As you age your hearing rolls off and you may need to boost the highs to compensate.
  • Preference is real; you may desire sound with more bass, more treble, boosted midrange, or whatever. Nothing says you cannot EQ to make it sound more pleasing to you the listener.
Etc. etc. etc.

My speakers are highly regarded as being flat, but my room is very dead, my personal HF rolloff is around 10~12 kHz (age and youthful ear abuse), and I tend to listen at fairly low levels, so I have implemented a target curve that rises a little in the bass and is flat through the midrange and treble (no HF rolloff). My pre/pro implements loudness fairly decently and so (horror!) I use that at times as well.

FWIWFM - Don
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
Thanks for all replies, your time and your patience, again!


My question is about "why the concept of built-in eq" or "wanted color added to that speaker by the manufacturers" exist primarily?

Why do they/we need the authority of adjusting and listening music in different way, distancing ourself "as we want" from the original idea/work?

Any decent flat systems will reproduce a levels of details sufficient for any listener, even experienced.
Why the need to "shape" the sound as we want with tons of front-end equalizer presets or choose a speaker that paint its own color? (i.e. the whole concept of loudspeakers and HiFi, generalizing)

That's what I don't get. Can't be only marketing...
Suppose 99% of audio systems had a flaw that meant that even though they might be very expensive and measured flawlessly in all conventional measurements, they were subtly blurring together the musical ingredients into a 'soup'. Individual ingredients no longer had their own satisfying textures and flavours that contrasted exquisitely against others because the system was liquidising them all together at some level. The only thing you could do would be to season the soup to the best average taste you could - hence tone controls, EQ and the use of 'room correction' ("It's definitely not a tone control, honest").

Perhaps there is such a flaw, and people can't imagine how it could be any different.
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Attributes_Of_Linear_Phase_Loudspeakers.pdf

The alternative - when the system maintains the true separation of the ingredients - would be that you wouldn't even think about tone controls because each individual sound was fully-formed and self-contained.

Then, you might find yourself saying things like this (2 x Kii Three and 1 x Meridian review):
...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.

I found myself groping for explanations that apply more to conventional speakers: What happened to the warmth? Isn't it a bit bright? Is there a midrange suckout?...

...There was none of that. The Kii Three didn't just lift a veil away from the music—it removed a heavy cloak.

...any thoughts about colorations, response errors et al paled into insignificance. It was fascinating to hear a speaker which so well commanded one’s emotional responses that any debate over objective criticisms now seemed nonsensical and irrelevant
 
Top Bottom