What is timbre and can we measure it?

[DesertHawk]

My understanding is timbre is describing the differences in sound of different instruments playing the same note.

My understanding is also that this site effectively evaluates musical equipment by passing a set frequency (a note) and evaluating how faithfully the equipment reproduced that sound.

So here are my questions. First, what is timbre? Or maybe I should say what causes timbre? I have an extremely rudimentary understanding of how ears work but if ears just pick up vibrations in sound waves and if notes have the same sound wave, how can they sound different? What's the physical phenomenon that allows this?

Secondly, is this picked up on our "normal set" of measurements? Is there something in a FFT that would represent the "timbre" of the sound? And if not, is this a potential area that measurements are lacking?

Thanks.

 

[Waxx]

Timbre is not an objective factor, so hard to describe, but i guess they mean detail in the sound of the instrument, so how the speaker colours the sound or not. What is a good timbre is also not clear, it seems that this is personal, but a clean even detailed sound with low distortion is probally a good thing to have the timbre in general.

But as said, it's a subjective term, that can mean a lot, and when people are talking about timbre they don't always mean the same. So it's hard to set objective standards for that. Some even mean high 2nd and/or 3th distortion on a low general noise floor (the timbre of a tube or class A amp).

So to answer your question, we need to know what you mean exact with timbre.

 

[boxerfan88]

It's like how we can so quickly identify between person A talking vs. person B.

ChatGPT got a pretty good description:

Timbre (pronounced "tam-ber") refers to the quality or character of a sound that distinguishes it from other sounds, even when they have the same pitch and loudness. It is what makes different instruments, voices, or sounds sound distinct from each other. For example, a piano and a violin playing the same note at the same volume sound different due to their unique timbres.

Key Characteristics of Timbre:​

1. Harmonic Content: Timbre is largely determined by the harmonic structure of the sound. This includes the combination of fundamental frequencies and overtones (or harmonics) produced by a sound source. Each instrument or voice produces a unique set of overtones that gives it its specific sound.
2. Attack and Decay: The way a sound starts (attack) and fades away (decay) also affects its timbre. For example, a sound with a sharp attack (like a snare drum) will have a different timbre compared to something with a softer attack (like a flute).
3. Envelope: The envelopeof the sound describes how the sound evolves over time, typically divided into four stages:
   • Attack: How the sound begins.
   • Decay: How it decreases after the initial attack.
   • Sustain: How the sound maintains itself.
   • Release: How the sound fades when it stops.
     The way these phases unfold can drastically alter the perceived timbre of a sound.
4. Resonance: The resonating properties of the sound source (such as the body of a guitar, the vocal cords, or the shape of a bell) contribute to the timbre. Different materials and shapes produce different resonances, adding unique tonal qualities to each sound.
5. Pitch and Loudness Independence: Timbre is independent of pitch (the frequency of the sound) and loudness (how loud or soft the sound is). It’s the reason why two instruments playing the same note at the same volume still sound different.

Why is Timbre Important?​

Timbre allows us to identify and differentiate between sounds. For instance, it’s how we can tell a guitar from a piano, even if both are playing the same note at the same volume. In music, timbre adds color and texture to the sound, contributing to the emotional and aesthetic quality of the music. It also plays a crucial role in speech recognition, allowing us to distinguish between different voices or tones.

Example:​

Imagine hearing the same note played by:

• A flute: The sound is smooth, light, and airy.
• A trumpet: The sound is bold, brassy, and more piercing.
• A guitar: The sound may be warm, resonant, and full of texture.

All these instruments can produce the same pitch, but their timbres are distinctly different, which is why we can tell them apart.


In summary, timbre is the characteristic quality of a sound that allows us to identify and distinguish between different sources or instruments, even when the pitch and loudness are the same. It is influenced by factors like harmonic content, attack, decay, and resonance.

 

[DesertHawk]

Timbre is not an objective factor, so hard to describe, but i guess they mean detail in the sound of the instrument, so how the speaker colours the sound or not. What is a good timbre is also not clear, it seems that this is personal, but a clean even detailed sound with low distortion is probally a good thing to have the timbre in general.

But as said, it's a subjective term, that can mean a lot, and when people are talking about timbre they don't always mean the same. So it's hard to set objective standards for that. Some even mean high 2nd and/or 3th distortion on a low general noise floor (the timbre of a tube or class A amp).

So to answer your question, we need to know what you mean exact with timbre.

Is it subjective? I don't mean to be combative but a bugle horn playing e flat and an electric guitar playing e flat are objectively different sounding (at least I think you can say that's objective). Yet, both should be around 311hz.

So, if the frequency is the same, what's causing them to sound "different"? Is it some other sound aside from the note? Is it something to do with the rate of change on the frequency (admittedly this makes less sense to me if you are holding the note)?

 

[Waxx]

It's the harmonics of the instrument itself. There is always a groundtone (in this case 311Hz) but also a lot of harmonic tones that create the specific sound. But that has nothing to do with the reproduction device, all with the instrument and how it is recorded.

The reproduction device can only reproduce it, and how more precise the reproduction is, how more real the timbre will sound. So you want a very low distortion, a clean even response (preferable following the Harman curve) and constant directivity (even spread of the sound over the frequency range). So basicly a good clean cardioid studio monitor will be best, not a coloured speaker. A coloured speaker will mask those "timbres" in it's colouration (that is a form of distortion of the original signal.

What sometimes happens is that people think the coloured speaker is giving better timbre because they want the coloured sound, and think that is how it sounded, therefor this is subjective in reality, and therefor i ask what do you mean with timbre. There is no clear objective definition of that in the hifi world (in reality). But for what you define as that, you want a clean neutral "as close as possible to the original signal" speaker.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Timbre is not a domestic sound REproduction aspect at all. No HiFi equipment exhibits timbre.

Timbre is exclusively the function of a musical instrument when creating sound. All musical instruments have timbre and it's usually a feature of construction (less so with electronic keyboards etc.). It's characterized by a combination of harmonics and ADSR envelope (Attack, Decay, Sustain Release).

Transparent domestic REproduction equipment reproduces all audible harmonics and the full complexity of ADSR where these are captured in the recording.

Domestic REproduction components are NOT musical instruments and should not create timbre nor change the timbre of recorded musical instruments.

 

[Waxx]

Domestic REproduction components are NOT musical instruments and should not create timbre nor change the timbre of recorded musical instruments.

At least not without intention. And most won't like that intention, they will like the exact reproduction.

 

[egellings]

To me, timbre is a musical quality, not an equipment one.

 

[Mean & Green]

I’m pretty sure if we made a recording of two or three different instruments playing the same note individually and looked at the waveforms of each one they’d be different. So yes timbre will be measurable.

Other than variances in transducer accuracy, electronics should not be having any impact in reproducing timbre unless bad enough to have audible harmonic distortion. It would have to be really bad to make instruments unrecognisable.

 

[kemmler3D]

My understanding is timbre is describing the differences in sound of different instruments playing the same note.

My understanding is also that this site effectively evaluates musical equipment by passing a set frequency (a note) and evaluating how faithfully the equipment reproduced that sound.

So here are my questions. First, what is timbre? Or maybe I should say what causes timbre? I have an extremely rudimentary understanding of how ears work but if ears just pick up vibrations in sound waves and if notes have the same sound wave, how can they sound different? What's the physical phenomenon that allows this?

Secondly, is this picked up on our "normal set" of measurements? Is there something in a FFT that would represent the "timbre" of the sound? And if not, is this a potential area that measurements are lacking?

Thanks.

Timbre is caused by the harmonics and how they evolve over time in an instrument's sound. The change over time is key. Playing a synth with trumpet or violin harmonics in a static relationship doesn't sound even remotely real.

Notes on different instruments (or even successive notes from the same instrument) don't have the same sound wave. The fundamental frequency (which is the frequency of the note being played) might be the same, but there is something happening at dozens or more frequencies at the same time, on top of that. The layers of additional frequencies and how they evolve from millisecond to millisecond are what make guitars sound different from pianos or flutes - that's what we call timbre.

Stereo equipment should not have timbre because it's not supposed to have extra frequencies on top of the one being played, especially not to the point that it would have a distinct sound.

 

[-Matt-]

I agree with those above who say that a sound reproduction should aim to be neutral and not impart any timbre of its own. Instruments with different timbre may be selected for artistic effect in music creation but when you play back a recording you want that timbre to be reproduced as accurately as possible.

However, I have seen timbre mentioned in relation to playback equipment. For example it is often recommended to use matching speakers in a multichannel system to ensure that the timbre doesn't change when sounds are panned.

So for a speaker any deviation from ideal response could be described as its timbre. (You want as little as possible). But if you have multiple non-ideal speakers it is probably preferable that they all deviate from the ideal response in a similar way.

 

[kemmler3D]

It's actually easier to show than explain in words. In these images, color = volume, frequency is the vertical axis, time is the horizontal axis.

Here's a guitar playing a single note at A4 ~ 440hz:

Here is a pure tone (sine wave) playing the same note:

They are playing the same note, but the guitar has a lot more going on. All the extra lines happening above the line at 440hz comprises what you'd call the timbre of the guitar. So as you can see, it's the same note but not the same sound waves. The bottom or "fundamental" frequency here is what determines the pitch of the note.

 

[DVDdoug]

Is it subjective? I don't mean to be combative but a bugle horn playing e flat and an electric guitar playing e flat are objectively different sounding (at least I think you can say that's objective). Yet, both should be around 311hz.

It's terminology.. "Timbre" can be analyzed quantitatively but there are no regular units of measure. It's somewhat similar to pitch which is the perception of audio frequency, except there is a direct one-to-one relationship between the fundamental frequency and pitch.

 

[ahofer]

Entirely measurable in frequency and amplitude over time, but complex to define using those ingredients.

 

[kemmler3D]

So for a speaker any deviation from ideal response could be described as its timbre.

While the concepts are similar, I'm going to argue "no" on this point.

Timbre is a property of musical instruments that audiophile types have appropriated to describe the frequency response of speakers, but they're totally different acoustic phenomena, only superficially similar. Timbre ~ harmonic structure, frequency response is not that.

I think we should say "tonality" or "frequency response" in these situations, "timbre" is confusing in that context, this thread is evidence of that.

As others have said, timbre refers to the subjectively unique sound of an instrument - speakers don't produce a unique sound of their own regardless of their input, at least they don't if they are working right.

 

[genesisaudiorack]

timbre is also a quasi term and isnt direct but only subjective. timbre is different from listener to listener. ive had speaker demos done and people made claims of timbre and attack so to speak but they were listening to dull azz muzik. listened to some of my preferred test tracks and it was lifeless, dull and basic at best as i claimed it was a loss of timbre. some of those dudes were confused and not so happy.

 

[DVDdoug]

Entirely measurable in frequency and amplitude over time,

Yes, you can measure & quantify the characteristics of timbre.

 

[MattHooper]

Timbre to me has long been my number one priority in terms of what I’m looking for in a Soundsystem.

I’ve always conceived timbre in terms of the type of sonic signature is a distinguish one material from another when excited to produce sound. All the particular harmonics, etc. so it’s what helps distinguish one sound source from another even if they are played at the same pitch and loudness.

An example would be tapping a block of wood versus tapping a piece of metal. You’re exciting both materials audibly, but they’re going to sound different.

When I listen to a Soundsystem one thing I am listening for is “ optimal timbral variation.”
That is that metal instruments (e.g. chimes and cymbals, horns ) sound maximally “ metallic” and wood instruments (e.g. a woodblock) sound maximally “ of wood” and if something has a resonating wood body that it also has that timber very distinctly. Along with the rest of the timbers one hears in real life sounds. And if those difference are maximized, then the different timbers of all the synthesizers and drum machines and everything else in the electronic music I love more nuance and maximized.

As to timber being applied to the sound of a system itself or to loudspeakers, I understand that others have some good points on disagreeing with the idea.

But I personally view sound systems in timbral terms. It seems something I can’t help noticing or at least thinking I perceive.

Every Soundsystem I’ve ever heard has some level of a homogenizing effect on the sound.
Even the most neutral speakers… once I’ve heard various drum symbols voices or acoustic guitars reproduced through that speaker, I’m no longer surprised at how those instruments will sound from then on. “ that’s what drum symbols sound like through the speakers” - they don’t come close to the level of richness and variety I hear in real life and so the system itself, seems to need to be imposing its own “ sonic colour” or timber on the sound.


One of the reasons I started doing live versus reproduced tests in My Home with different loudspeakers was that many loudspeakers seemed “ not right” to my ears in terms of the timber. It was like the timber of instruments were reduced either to black-and-white or like a TV it was like the colour was off and everything was purple. And if the timber was off, none of it could truly sound believable to me. I would notice that when I listened to an acoustic guitar and especially if I played my own my mind “ saw” certain total characteristics or colours. I often didn’t hear through speakers.

So I used recordings of my guitar and I would play them through different speakers, and some speakers would sound off in the timbre of the guitar, while a few sounded “ right” evoking the same mental colours in images and reactions as when I played my own guitar. And those are the systems I’ve always found the most engaging and satisfying.

I certainly can’t vote for that is some scientific certainty. Only relating how the perception of timber plays into my own evaluations of sound systems.

Also, it seems to me that colorations can evoke or mimic some timbre qualities that are either more like the real thing or that I like.
For instance, certain audible residences in a loudspeaker cabinet may increase the sense of a resident, woody body for instruments like piano or cello or guitar, which in that way sound a bit more realistic. Even if those residences end up, perhaps working against the reproduction of other instruments.

 

[Mean & Green]

Timbre to me has long been my number one priority in terms of what I’m looking for in a Soundsystem.

I’ve always conceived timbre in terms of the type of sonic signature is a distinguish one material from another when excited to produce sound. All the particular harmonics, etc. so it’s what helps distinguish one sound source from another even if they are played at the same pitch and loudness.

An example would be tapping a block of wood versus tapping a piece of metal. You’re exciting both materials audibly, but they’re going to sound different.

When I listen to a Soundsystem one thing I am listening for is “ optimal timbral variation.”
That is that metal instruments (e.g. chimes and cymbals, horns ) sound maximally “ metallic” and wood instruments (e.g. a woodblock) sound maximally “ of wood” and if something has a resonating wood body that it also has that timber very distinctly. Along with the rest of the timbers one hears in real life sounds. And if those difference are maximized, then the different timbers of all the synthesizers and drum machines and everything else in the electronic music I love more nuance and maximized.

As to timber being applied to the sound of a system itself or to loudspeakers, I understand that others have some good points on disagreeing with the idea.

But I personally view sound systems in timbral terms. It seems something I can’t help noticing or at least thinking I perceive.

Every Soundsystem I’ve ever heard has some level of a homogenizing effect on the sound.
Even the most neutral speakers… once I’ve heard various drum symbols voices or acoustic guitars reproduced through that speaker, I’m no longer surprised at how those instruments will sound from then on. “ that’s what drum symbols sound like through the speakers” - they don’t come close to the level of richness and variety I hear in real life and so the system itself, seems to need to be imposing its own “ sonic colour” or timber on the sound.


One of the reasons I started doing live versus reproduced tests in My Home with different loudspeakers was that many loudspeakers seemed “ not right” to my ears in terms of the timber. It was like the timber of instruments were reduced either to black-and-white or like a TV it was like the colour was off and everything was purple. And if the timber was off, none of it could truly sound believable to me. I would notice that when I listened to an acoustic guitar and especially if I played my own my mind “ saw” certain total characteristics or colours. I often didn’t hear through speakers.

So I used recordings of my guitar and I would play them through different speakers, and some speakers would sound off in the timbre of the guitar, while a few sounded “ right” evoking the same mental colours in images and reactions as when I played my own guitar. And those are the systems I’ve always found the most engaging and satisfying.

I certainly can’t vote for that is some scientific certainty. Only relating how the perception of timber plays into my own evaluations of sound systems.

Also, it seems to me that colorations can evoke or mimic some timbre qualities that are either more like the real thing or that I like.
For instance, certain audible residences in a loudspeaker cabinet may increase the sense of a resident, woody body for instruments like piano or cello or guitar, which in that way sound a bit more realistic. Even if those residences end up, perhaps working against the reproduction of other instruments.

Matt do you have synesthesia by any chance?

 

[MattHooper]

Matt do you have synesthesia by any chance?

Very perceptive!

I’ve wondered about the role of synaesthesia and I brought that issue up here before.

I remember doing a thread on it.

One reason being that I tend to associate colours with sound, and also that more broadly speaking you often see many audio files associating colours with sound.
For instance, there’s something of a trope among some tube fans of associating old Conrad Johnson tube amplifiers as having something of a “ golden” or “ bronze” like tonality or timber. My point and bring that up isn’t to say that it’s true or justifiable. Only that, for whatever reason, i’ve seen many audiophiles adducing certain colours sometimes and trying to describe how they are perceiving something.

When I play my acoustic guitar And I’m closing my eyes I get a sensation of the “ Woody warmth” of the resonating body, and a sort of sparkly golden tonality to the metal strings. I don’t know why, but that’s how those sounds show up in my brain. And when hear a recording of my guitar or similar acoustic guitars through a loudspeaker and it does not ignite those colours in my brain - maybe something more like silver or black-and-white - it feels kind of wrong, like a photograph of my mother’s face where the colour has been green, shifted or something.
As long as I get the right tonal colours occurring in my mind in front of a Soundsystem, then I’m happy and I can enjoy that system for hours on end. I can’t seem to just force this by will, changing the colours I perceive. I’ve owned some loudspeakers that were essentially my dream loudspeakers and terms of aesthetics and what I wanted to work in my system. But they sounded “tmbrally off” and it didn’t matter how many months I tried to stick with those speakers, hoping I would adjust, it never changed. They still produced the same different different timbre/colours in my perception.
So I would sadly sell them.

This is of course, not something I propose objective or translatable to everyone else.

However I HAVE found that when another audiophile or reviewer seems to be describing sound in ways similar to how I hear it, and not similar types of timber colorations as he or she perceives it, then it’s often the case when I hear the same loudspeakers, they seem to be doing the same thing for my perception. Likewise, on other forms when I describe the sound of different speakers, I get some audiophiles saying “ I hear exactly the same things you did with those speakers, you describing the exact impressions they invoked in my perception.” And in those cases, sometimes they have gone on to buy loudspeakers they heard me describe, and I’ve been very happy that they experience the same thing I did.

I don’t know what to make of all that. of course it could be any number of biases going on that happened to be merging or influencing one another. But I still find it interesting. For instance even my perception at my old Conrad Johnson tube amplifiers place a slight upper mid range, lower trouble “ glow” on the sound that seems to be sort of gold and yellow in my mind, has been a very consistent perception, not having faded in the over 20 years I’ve used the amplifiers.

But back to synaesthesia.

From what I’ve read about the phenomenon, I don’t think I have synaesthesia proper. It doesn’t seem to be as overriding and pronounced as what I read about it.

But it’s my hunch that this comes in a range, maybe like autism, and that’s why even people not diagnosed with it may talk in terms of timbral colours. Possibly I am a bit more on the “ spectrum” towards synaesthesia but I wouldn’t know.

I wonder how many other people here have any colours evoked when listening to music and whether it seems reliable.