What is timbre and can we measure it?

[DesertHawk]

The various definitions of timbre that I can find fall into three groups - music, general, and other scientific definitions.

The whole thing is, as you may expect, a mess. I've become less certain what is actually meant by timbre as I go along.

Standard texts on music give some quite strict definitions of timbre as the property of an (one) instrument, Then a hundred pages later, orchestras, music of different periods, and so on are described in terms of timbre, in clear violation of the author's own definition. The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Music does a similar thing. If you read articles you find that a group of instruments can have timbre, yet the definition of timbre itself says it is the sound quality of 1 (and the copy we have uses the number) instrument. (Some editions apparently shorten the word instrument to inst. as well).

So, I chose to hang onto the idea of timbre as the quality that allows you to recognise the source of a sound, and the quality of sound. Then timbre is assigned to a "complex event" in other definitions. At this point, unless we are going to hang onto a specific science - acoustics, or phonetics (timbre has a different definition set there as well) - we may as well give up on the definition. I'm clearly using a different definition to others here, while some people are switching definitions to make points.

We can always talk about tone quality (another part of definitions in music), or simply the "sound", since we are clearly concerned beyond just recognisability of the sound when it comes to high fidelity, as your post on loudspeaker choice indicates. Timbre in itself is a poor term to us in this context. Could you rewrite your posts in this thread without using the word timbre and make as much sense? - I'd say yes. I think that proposal probably applies to the majority of posts in this thread.

So we can't simply define timbre, and different working definitions arbitrarily allow or deny the answer to your questions. In informal discussion of music, I think we could say yes to both points, but that doesn't help us with measuring the quality specifically in reproduction.

It seems that timbre is just too confusing a word to use formally and give an answer in the sense that @DesertHawk wants, to be able to measure it.

I continue to propose that standard measurements should cover "timbre" as it is a property of sources that have been recorded, but there may be subjective considerations involved as always.

I would say this thread has been really helpful.

If I'm summarizing what I've gleaned from it.

Essentially, timbre is the "artifacts" that an instrument adds to a note that is played. After reading this, I would say it absolutely can be measured in the sense of we can take a recording of an oboe playing a note and see how faithfully that sound is reproduced.

I never intended to suggest that reproduction equipment "has timbre". I guess you could kind of this that equipment that has a "warm sound" (which is usually distortion though some seem to like like it) as a type of timbre but I, personally, think using the term in that way is just confusing.

When I asked the original question I didn't think it would circle back to this but the conversation has several elements of an argument that's been hashed out on this forum many times. Namely, distortion in instrumentation (e.g. Tubes in a guitar Amp) can be a very good thing. Distortion in reproduction equipment (e.g. Tubes in an Amp) may sound better to some but you are altering what the artist originally recorded.

 

[genesisaudiorack]

I would say this thread has been really helpful.

If I'm summarizing what I've gleaned from it.

Essentially, timbre is the "artifacts" that an instrument adds to a note that is played. After reading this, I would say it absolutely can be measured in the sense of we can take a recording of an oboe playing a note and see how faithfully that sound is reproduced.

I never intended to suggest that reproduction equipment "has timbre". I guess you could kind of this that equipment that has a "warm sound" (which is usually distortion though some seem to like like it) as a type of timbre but I, personally, think using the term in that way is just confusing.

When I asked the original question I didn't think it would circle back to this but the conversation has several elements of an argument that's been hashed out on this forum many times. Namely, distortion in instrumentation (e.g. Tubes in a guitar Amp) can be a very good thing. Distortion in reproduction equipment (e.g. Tubes in an Amp) may sound better to some but you are altering what the artist originally recorded.

when describing musicality or how speakers or amp sound, timbre is a made up fake word used only my pretentious people trying to sound smart.
never take any reviewer serious if they use this term. never take a salesman serious if they use this term. its highly contested in the audio sales and hobby field. some people post fan flared definitions posted on the internet, others dont bother. remember timbre is a non existent directive term, its only a phrase abused by salon salesmen.

the descriptions you mentioned above including distortion in reproduction, distortion in instrumentation. these are the correct terms to use. audio and speakers really only have several effects we can describe and only certain terms are plotted in the history of speaker design, purist reviews and so forth. outside of these professionally descriptive terms, words like timbre have never been used by any engineer or professional in the industry. just salon salesmen trying to confuse you.

 

[Titurel]

when describing musicality or how speakers or amp sound, timbre is a made up fake word used only my pretentious people trying to sound smart.

It's hardly a fake or made up word, nor is it necessarily pretentious when it conveys useful information. What that information is or could be depends on the discipline* in which it is employed. The use of any word could be described as pretentious, depending on who uses it and to what purpose.

* various discipline define it differently.

 

[HalSF]

I found another vintage attempt to offer a concise definition of timbre in the 1957 edition of Harry F. Olson’s book Acoustcal Engineering.

Timbre (Tone quality) — In general, it is said that the three characteristics which describe a tone are loudness, pitch, and timbre or quality. These quantities are not sufficient to describe a tone. Three more are required, as follows: vibrato, duration, and growth and decay. Loudness, pitch, vibrato, duration, and growth and decay are defined in other sections. It is the purpose of this section to describe timbre. Timbre is that characteristic of a tone which depends upon its harmonic structure as modified by the other physical factors that describe a tone. The harmonic structure of a tone is expressed in the number, intensity, distribution, and phase relations of its components. Timbre, then, may be said to be the instantaneous cross section of the tone. It ranges from a pure tone through an infinite number of variations in complexity up to a pitchless sound such as thermal noise. Work has been carried out on the subjective measurements of timbre. However, the subject of timbre is more complex than that of loudness and pitch, because it is an interrelated function of the intensity, pitch, duration, growth, and decay.

 

[genesisaudiorack]

It's hardly a fake or made up word, nor is it necessarily pretentious when it conveys useful information. What that information is or could be depends on the discipline* in which it is employed. The use of any word could be described as pretentious, depending on who uses it and to what purpose.

* various discipline define it differently.

theres nothing useful by using a term like timbre. except to the person trying visualize its use when using that term.

look at eh quasi definition @HalSF just posted in his response. those terms used to describe all those noticeable effects from speakers and amps are the exact terms used when engineering or describing a speaker or amp. timbre itself is a quasi non definable term made up by really weird dudes trying to sound smart. even the bogus semi definition he posted admits there is no actual use for the word and cannot be measured or in any objective sense- its subjective quasi word terminology. the things people are claiming to describe in the use of timbre are all various and different hings that cannot land in the same shoe.

 

[MattHooper]

when describing musicality or how speakers or amp sound, timbre is a made up fake word used only my pretentious people trying to sound smart.
never take any reviewer serious if they use this term. never take a salesman serious if they use this term. its highly contested in the audio sales and hobby field. some people post fan flared definitions posted on the internet, others dont bother. remember timbre is a non existent directive term, its only a phrase abused by salon salesmen.

LOL.

Well, you certainly have opinions.

Timbre matching of loudspeakers for surround sound has been a concept in long use in the Home Theatre and surround industry and among enthusiasts as well as experts. You want all your loudspeakers to reproduce the same material with the same timbral qualities, so a voice panning along your L/C/R speakers does not go through timbral changes. If your centre speaker reliably produces sounds with a different timber vs your left and right, it is said to not be timbrally matched. We talk in terms of timber because timber is what is being altered by the speaker among other things.

Here is KEF (who we know to be one of the most competent speaker companies in the world) on speaker timber:

Timbre: A Brief Tutorial​

Timbre: A Brief Tutorial

Timbre (TAM-bra) is one of those audio words that gets thrown around without a lot of understanding on exactly what it is and why it's so important. Simply put, timbre is what makes something sound like what it is. Here's a quick tutorial on why it matters.

ca.kef.com

and if you’re going to still maintain your claim that nobody of any credibility uses timbre in reference to loudspeakers and it’s only a “made up fake word used only my pretentious people trying to sound smart.”

….Dr. Floyd Toole may want to word with you…

Dr. Toole, post:

Room Reflections & Human Adaptation for Small Room Acoustics

Dealing with acoustics in small rooms is no trivial matter. The quest for the “perfect” room all depends on your expectations, why you are listening (business or pleasure), what program you are listening to, and the condition of the ears you are listening through. This article focuses on the...

forums.audioholics.com

These days it is possible to have a multichannel home theater that can do it all, and do it at levels of excellence that would satisfy the fussiest of listeners. Just replace the crummy surround speakers with good ones (not dipoles, please!) and try it. All loudspeakers in a surround system need to be comparably good from a timbral perspective, and, if it is affordable, all the same.

 

[HalSF]

theres nothing useful by using a term like timbre. except to the person trying visualize its use when using that term.

look at eh quasi definition @HalSF just posted in his response. those terms used to describe all those noticeable effects from speakers and amps are the exact terms used when engineering or describing a speaker or amp. timbre itself is a quasi non definable term made up by really weird dudes trying to sound smart. even the bogus semi definition he posted admits there is no actual use for the word and cannot be measured or in any objective sense- its subjective quasi word terminology. the things people are claiming to describe in the use of timbre are all various and different hings that cannot land in the same shoe.

This is some primo Get Off My Lawn Extremely Online Birds Aren’t Real cantankerous discourse! I’m almost afraid to ask what goes in the timbre-shaped hole in reality once you’ve banished the term from the acoustic engineering lexicon.

 

[genesisaudiorack]

LOL.

Well, you certainly have opinions.

Timbre matching of loudspeakers for surround sound has been a concept in long use in the Home Theatre and surround industry and among enthusiasts as well as experts. You want all your loudspeakers to reproduce the same material with the same timbral qualities, so a voice panning along your L/C/R speakers does not go through timbral changes. If your centre speaker reliably produces sounds with a different timber vs your left and right, it is said to not be timbrally matched. We talk in terms of timber because timber is what is being altered by the speaker among other things.

Here is KEF (who we know to be one of the most competent speaker companies in the world) on speaker timber:

Timbre: A Brief Tutorial​

Timbre: A Brief Tutorial

Timbre (TAM-bra) is one of those audio words that gets thrown around without a lot of understanding on exactly what it is and why it's so important. Simply put, timbre is what makes something sound like what it is. Here's a quick tutorial on why it matters.

ca.kef.com

and if you’re going to still maintain your claim that nobody of any credibility uses timbre in reference to loudspeakers and it’s only a “made up fake word used only my pretentious people trying to sound smart.”

….Dr. Floyd Toole may want to word with you…

Dr. Toole, post:

Room Reflections & Human Adaptation for Small Room Acoustics

Dealing with acoustics in small rooms is no trivial matter. The quest for the “perfect” room all depends on your expectations, why you are listening (business or pleasure), what program you are listening to, and the condition of the ears you are listening through. This article focuses on the...

forums.audioholics.com

These days it is possible to have a multichannel home theater that can do it all, and do it at levels of excellence that would satisfy the fussiest of listeners. Just replace the crummy surround speakers with good ones (not dipoles, please!) and try it. All loudspeakers in a surround system need to be comparably good from a timbral perspective, and, if it is affordable, all the same.

my opinion?

salon salesmen using visually stimulating terms to sound smarter. i stand behind this.

it would be more professional and intelligent to use terms related to a direct description or effect like neutral, colored, brittle, crisp, warm, etc....

timbre is just a bogus term used by salon salesmen and people who want to sound smart.

timbre means near to nothing. i quoted @HalSF responce where it definitively explains how timbre has no real meaning other than a bogus term, with the definition itself hurting the usage base for the word. it means nothing. use regular and professional terms when describing speakers. im not a fan of KEF so whatever opinion they spit about timbre is also a opinion. most of the kef(not all) speakers ive encountered sound dull and neutered.

 

[genesisaudiorack]

This is some primo Get Off My Lawn Extremely Online Birds Aren’t Real cantankerous discourse! I’m almost afraid to ask what goes in the timbre-shaped hole in reality once you’ve banished the term from the acoustic engineering lexicon.

timbre isnt acoustic engineering lexicon or part of it. its like a phrase people use. engineers who make power amps and speakers dont talk to each other in descriptive fashion using timbre. its not a engineering term. it means nothing.

 

[MattHooper]

timbre is just a bogus term used by salon salesmen and people who want to sound smart.

Does that apply to Floyd Toole as well?

Did you see the quote I supplied?

Do you know who he is?

 

[genesisaudiorack]

Does that apply to Floyd Toole as well?

Did you see the quote I supplied?

Do you know who he is?

i did, and i read it, did you actually read it?

 

[MattHooper]

i did, and i read it, did you actually read it?

Why are you avoiding directly answering the question? is it sort of inconvenient for your rant?

So you don’t miss it, here it is again:

Floyd Toole:

All loudspeakers in a surround system need to be comparably good from a timbral perspective

 

[genesisaudiorack]

Why are you avoiding directly answering the question? is it sort of inconvenient for your rant?

im not avoiding it i answered your question. i clicked on both links and i read it and i comprehended it. but i was asking if you read it, and now im questioning if you comprehended what was in those posts, as they are not related to real world, descriptive or engineering terms.

the posts you made, with those links demonstrates quasi, pseudo-un-scientific forms of explaining and demonstrating something with a quasi useless term.....like kinda what salon salesmen do. posting a link from KEF that has a entirely fabricated and non empirically connected opinion on the word timbre doesn't help your point you are or arent trying to make. in fact its wild how in their explanation of the use of timbre they actually do use correct terminology that engineers and designers would use in creating or improving a product like a amp or speaker for instance. wild right?

 

[genesisaudiorack]

Why are you avoiding directly answering the question? is it sort of inconvenient for your rant?

So you don’t miss it, here it is again:

Floyd Toole:

All loudspeakers in a surround system need to be comparably good from a timbral perspective

here ill correct you, you made a typo....

"All loudspeakers in a surround system need to be comparably good from a timbral perspective"
i think what you meant was
"All loudspeakers in a surround system need to be comparably good from a accuracy and performance perspective"

 

[MattHooper]

im not avoiding it i answered your question. i clicked on both links and i read it and i comprehended it. but i was asking if you read it, and now im questioning if you comprehended what was in those posts, as they are not related to real world, descriptive or engineering terms.

the posts you made, with those links demonstrates quasi, pseudo-un-scientific forms of explaining and demonstrating something with a quasi useless term.....like kinda what salon salesmen do. posting a link from KEF that has a entirely fabricated and non empirically connected opinion on the word timbre doesn't help your point you are or arent trying to make. in fact its wild how in their explanation of the use of timbre they actually do use correct terminology that engineers and designers would use in creating or improving a product like a amp or speaker for instance. wild right?

This is like trying to ask a politician to say something direct or truthful.

One last time so you can’t miss it.

You say that timber is a bogus made up word used by salesman or people just trying to sound smart.

And jet, the preeminent expert on sound reproduction, Dr. Floyd Toole here uses timbre in reference to loudspeaker quality in terms of timbre (just the way I had explained it’s used ):

Dr. Toole:

Floyd Toole:

All loudspeakers in a surround system need to be comparably good from a timbral perspective

So is Toole “ just using a bogus made up term to sound smart?”

He doesn’t know what he’s talking about?

Yes, or no?

 

[MattHooper]

here ill correct you, you made a typo....

"All loudspeakers in a surround system need to be comparably good from a timbral perspective"
i think what you meant was
"All loudspeakers in a surround system need to be comparably good from a accuracy and performance perspective"

Ah, so you are correcting Floyd Toole’s own statement?

Do you think maybe Floyd Toole is aware of the type of performance features he’s talking about? And yet, for some reason he felt the term timbre was appropriate.

Is it possible you might be the one who hasn’t comprehend why?

Look, it’s been shown vividly that your claim timbre is used in reference to sound reproduction only by people “ trying to sound smart” is incorrect. Truly smart and informed people like Dr. Toole apply the term. Dance around this all you want. It’s only going to look more awkward for you.

 

[HalSF]

More Floyd:

Music composition and arrangement involves voicing to combine various instruments, notes and chords to achieve specific timbres. Musical instruments are voiced to produce timbres that distinguish the makers. Pianos and organs are voiced in the process of tuning, to achieve a tonal quality that appeals to the tuner or that is more appropriate to the musical repertoire. This is all very well, but what has it to do with loudspeakers that are expected to accurately reproduce those tones and timbres?

It shouldn’t be necessary if the circle of confusion did not exist, and all monitor and reproducing loudspeakers were “neutral” in their timbres. However that is not the case, and so the final stage in loudspeaker development often involves a “voicing” session in which the tonal balance is manipulated to achieve what is hoped to be a satisfactory compromise for a selection of recordings expected to be played by the target audience. There are the “everybody loves (too much) bass” voices, the time-tested boom and tizz “happy-face” voices, the “slightly depressed upper-midrange voices” (compensating for overly bright close-miked recordings, and strident string tone in some classical recordings), the daringly honest “tell it as it is” neutral voices, and so on. It is a guessing game, and some people are better at it than others. It is these spectral/timbral tendencies that, consciously or unconsciously, become the signature sounds of certain brands. Until the circle of confusion is eliminated, the guessing game will continue, to the everlasting gratitude of product reviewers, and to the frustration of critical listeners. It is important for consumers to realize that it is not a crime to use tone controls. Instead, it is an intelligent and practical way to compensate for inevitable variations in recordings, i.e. to “revoice” the reproduction if and when necessary. At the present time no loudspeaker can sound perfectly balanced for all recordings.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Gentlemen:

As far as the term "timbre" being used in scientific circles, please read the last paragraph of this paper ... dated 1974, no less.

https://pearl-hifi.com/06_Lit_Archive/14_Books_Tech_Papers/Bauer_Benjamin/Audibility%20of%20Phase%20Distortiona.pdf

 

[Robin L]

Just my 2¢ here; timbre is a real word. As far as I'm concerned it has more to do with the different sounds of instruments and voices than of electronics. To others, it applies just as much to electronics. But, and in any case, it is a real word.

On the other hand:

 

[genesisaudiorack]

This is like trying to ask a politician to say something direct or truthful.

One last time so you can’t miss it.

You say that timber is a bogus made up word used by salesman or people just trying to sound smart.

And jet, the preeminent expert on sound reproduction, Dr. Floyd Toole here uses timbre in reference to loudspeaker quality in terms of timbre (just the way I had explained it’s used ):

Dr. Toole:

Floyd Toole:

All loudspeakers in a surround system need to be comparably good from a timbral perspective

So is Toole “ just using a bogus made up term to sound smart?”

He doesn’t know what he’s talking about?

Yes, or no?

yes, you caught the red pill. thank you for demonstrating that you understand ive heard alot of really smart people misuse words. i in fact have 60 patents, work as a engineer...but my autism has demonstrated using improper terms before.