What is timbre and can we measure it?

[Chr1]

Indeed. Perhaps this is all very pointless. WTF.

I wonder if there is a nerdy food blog (FSR?) somewhere bickering endlessly about how to define "taste" or "flavour"

Online nerd groundhog day. It's a thing.

 

[solderdude]

Now, at least, we can get on with our lives

 

[Titurel]

Timbre is a silly and ill defined word.

That depends on the domain in which it is used. (And who uses it.)

Timbre is very complex so might require a very complex definition.

Very true.

So.. people just use the word in a way that makes sense to them.

Excellent idea, even if it does little to resolve irrational argument about it.

 

[MattHooper]

So, if Trilok Gurtu is using a frying pan to induce the timbre that I perceive, is the frying pan, by definition now considered a musical instrument, having/inducing timbre?
Ergo, anything making sound can be considered to have /induce timbre.

Yes

 

[Duke]

the speakers sound in no way alters the sound sufficiently that the timbre of instruments and voices becomes unrecognisable. Not even enough to make the recognition more challenging. Which suggests the sound differences between speakers is orders of magnitude less significant than that of instruments, even instruments which are very similar in construction (eg classical acoustic guitar vs steel string acoustic) are trivially distinguishable.

I understand that the word "timbre" refers to the difference in sound between an acoustic guitar and a trumpet. Do you think timbre can also refer to more subtle differences in sound, like the difference between a Gibson and a Taylor? I think so, but if I'm mistaken, then the next paragraph is moot.

Suppose one speaker system allows us to clearly distinguish between a Gibson and a Taylor, and another does not. Would the first be "conveying natural timbre", and the second one not? I understand that one might say the first loudspeaker "has better sound quality", but imo that's more general terminology which doesn't communicate exactly the same thing without an accompanying explanation. Imo the word "timbre" implies tonal balance in detail, harmonic patterns/harmonic complexity, attack and decay, clarity, and maybe more.

so much of a speakers sound quality comes from its dispersion characteristics - and hence from its interaction with the listening space. Two speakers in room may sound very different, but anechoic (or near field) a lot of that difference will disappear.

I definitely agree that a speaker's dispersion characteristics impact its sound quality out in the real world.

This is distinct from the example discussed above of instruments in a concert hall or gym - where the instruments timbre is not dependent on the room/reflections, and can be easily differentiatied through the rooms transfer function. Get close in and the difference betwee instruments does not reduce.

I would have said that the timbre is more enjoyable in the concert hall than in the gym. Is this an incorrect usage of the term? If so, what would be the correct term?

For example we can easily hear the difference between the roar of a lion, and the bleating of a sheep, and identify them as such. Most animals in fact have sufficiently different "vocalisations" that we cen tell species apart. Even to the extent that we can tell what species of bird is singing from the sound of its song.

But most people will not be able to identify a particular lion from other lions (etc) based on how it sounds.

I'm trying to understand where you draw the line on usage of the term "timbre". Is there a timbral difference in the roar of two different lions? Does that change if one person can tell them apart but another cannot?

Here is a Berklee School of Music YouTube explanation of timbre, using the small differences between apples as an analogy. The clip is cued up to the section on timbre:

Thanks!

 

[tinnitus]

What about the missing fundamental?

The fundamental frequency of A0 is 27.5Hz. This is correct. That means the first harmonic is 55Hz. Again correct.

But A0 on a concert piano--the string and the soundboard--does not actually produce these frequencies. Only the 3rd harmonic (110Hz) and above are produced by the piano, but your brain makes up the fundamental (27.5Hz) in your head. Again, this phenomenon is called the "Missing Fundamental", as I noted above.

Here is a demonstration video, which you can try playing this on a laptop speaker which likely has no ability to produce sounds below 80Hz. You'll hear the "notes" perfectly fine.

There is no reason for your speaker to reproduce frequencies that does not exist in the recording nor live. That's what the science says. But people believe all kinds of strange things about audio / sound reproduction (see my signature).

 

[Titurel]

I understand that the word "timbre" refers to the difference in sound between an acoustic guitar and a trumpet. Do you think timbre can also refer to more subtle differences in sound, like the difference between a Gibson and a Taylor? I think so, but if I'm mistaken, then the next paragraph is moot.

Sure. All over things equal, as long as the difference isn't confined to pitch (e.g., Fender Jazz Bass vs a Les Paul) or intensity, the difference is timbral

I definitely agree that a speaker's dispersion characteristics impact its sound quality out in the real world.

I would even go so far as to suggest that how an instruments "loads the room" could be part of its timbral signature.

I would have said that the timbre is more enjoyable in the concert hall than in the gym. Is this an incorrect usage of the term? If so, what would be the correct term?

I would say it sounds better in one vs the other, and be done with it. Casually, one might think of venues as having timbres or being conducive to certain timbres, but unpacking those impressions into useful data would be onerous.

Is there a timbral difference in the roar of two different lions? Does that change if one person can tell them apart but another cannot?

Call one lion Luciano and the other Placido and you've got your answer. Your last question falls into the same category with "if Helen Keller fell down in a forest..."

 

[antcollinet]

Do you think timbre can also refer to more subtle differences in sound, like the difference between a Gibson and a Taylor?

I think the key part of the definition is "...that allows us to distinguish between instruments"

Is there a timbral difference in the roar of two different lions? Does that change if one person can tell them apart but another cannot?

So if you can listen to a guitar and reliably say "That is a gibson" or "that is a Taylor" (without having to A/B compare) then that would count as a Timbral difference IMO.

What this says is what counts as a Timbral difference might be subjective. Because I know I couldn't tell that difference, but an experienced guitarist might be able to.

Similarly - in my discussion above, I can't tell one lion from another from its roar - but a zookeeper might be able to.

EDIT :

I would have said that the timbre is more enjoyable in the concert hall than in the gym. Is this an incorrect usage of the term? If so, what would be the correct term?

I'd be talking about the room/hall/gym acoustics.

 

[solderdude]

Suppose one speaker system allows us to clearly distinguish between a Gibson and a Taylor, and another does not.

Why would a speaker do that ?
A speaker can certainly change the tone so would change the level of harmonics belonging to that note. The thing is that for every different note the harmonics are at different frequencies where the speaker only modifies the frequency response so when it changes an A note in a certain way a B or C note would be affected differently.
This means that 2 different 'timbres' of guitars playing different notes and played back through a transducer with wonky FR it will never change different notes in such a way that the harmonics would sound similar and be of equal amplitude.
Decay and attack of speakers is much, much shorter than that of music instruments so cannot 'change' that aspect of 'timbre'.

 

[antcollinet]

Suppose one speaker system allows us to clearly distinguish between a Gibson and a Taylor, and another does not

Sorry - missed that part of your question. If that were the case I'd consider the speaker that sufficiently damaged the timbre of an instrument to render it unrecognisable to be broken. Not to have timbre.

 

[kemmler3D]

I'm glad someone else has spotted this.

I think that's a bit hyperbolic.

Pitch is purely perceived, but we don't give up on measuring frequency because of that fact.

 

[kemmler3D]

Then the question is : can you expand this to : anything used to make sound.

It's just part of the definition that it has to do with musical instruments.

Cars have unique sounds that would qualify, but when not being used for music, we do not say cars have timbre. It's just a convention, there's no physical / technical way to easily draw a line between timbre and "just making sound".

 

[MattHooper]

I think the key part of the definition is "...that allows us to distinguish between instruments"

If timbre is based on a real world phenomenon, then that distinction seems arbitrary.

What is it that allows us to distinguish between the sound of a drum cymbal and a wood block struck by a drummer?

Timbre. The characteristics of the allow us to distinguish between two different sources of sound even if they have the same pitch and loudness.

Now take two things that nobody happens to be using as a musical instrument: a metal pan and a wood object. Strike both of those with a hard object, and what different differentiates their sound even if they happen to have the same pitch and loudness?

If it isn’t timbre… then what is it?

And if it’s the very same phenomenon timbre is describing…. Why wouldn’t we be using the same word to refer to the same phenomenon?

As I say, it seems arbitrary just because somebody happens to not be using that thing as an instrument.

It seems reasonable to point out: Timbre applies to the unique audible qualities of any sound-producing object, not just musical instruments. Timbre is what allows us to distinguish between different sources of sound, even if they have the same pitch and loudness. It’s a fundamental characteristic of all sounds we hear in the world.

When I’m doing sound editing, I am very often either modifying the timber of a sound, or modifying the timber the sound to more closely match the timber of another sound, or I am searching for sounds that have the same general timbral quality to play together such that they are not easily distinguished and sound more like one thing being struck.
(that might be combining different metallic object hits to augment a metallic impact, or a different hits of wood to augment a wood impact… if I was not paying attention to the type of timbral qualities that differentiate wood from metal, I’d be doing a terrible job).

I have a scene where somebody is throwing some wood logs into another pile of wood logs. I’m going to be searching in my library for just those type of wood impacts, and often combine them.

If the question is asked why I’m not using instead something like metallic impacts, any full and accurate answer to that question would have to include the timbral qualities of wood logs versus metallic objects, which factor into how the audience would distinguish wood from metallic sounds.

 

[Duke]

Why would a speaker do that ?

One speaker could have resonances or other deficiencies which perceptually dominate over subtle differences, and the other not. Here's another example: Is that a solo violin, or two playing the same note? I can perceive that there's two of them on this speaker but not on that one.

Sorry - missed that part of your question. If that were the case I'd consider the speaker that sufficiently damaged the timbre of an instrument to render it unrecognisable to be broken. Not to have timbre.

I'm not saying the speaker "has timbre," and if I did, I was speaking imprecisely. I'm saying that a speaker can convey timbre, accurately or not. And to the extent that timbre is a perception, the playback room has influence on it.

 

[Titurel]

Sorry - missed that part of your question. If that were the case I'd consider the speaker that sufficiently damaged the timbre of an instrument to render it unrecognisable to be broken. Not to have timbre.

What about a fuzz box? How do we class or describe those? By the way, limited or impaired is not broken. Insufficient, possibly, broken, not necessarily. Your "broken' speaker might be perfect for something else.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

In the old days of analogue tape editing, we would spool forwards and backwards through the tape at variable speed, but much faster than real time and then "rock" slowly through the edit point to get it exactly correct. Despite the variable speed it was always easy to spot different instruments.

I suspect that if I recorded back-to-back a Bösendorfer and Steinway playing the same piece, then played it at 0.8 or 1.2 speed, the timbre differences would be clear.

 

[Axo1989]

I think that's a bit hyperbolic.

Pitch is purely perceived, but we don't give up on measuring frequency because of that fact.

Sensible, yes.

Otherwise, over-reacting to perceived transgressions against audio fundamentals leads to all sorts of straw-clutching and premise torture.

I think @antcollinet and @solderdude here are making way too much of the specific wording of a chosen brief definition. For example, my dictionary (Oxford instead of Webster I think) says "the character or quality of a musical sound or voice as distinct from its pitch and intensity". So not the instrument any more, but the sound. Is that distinction meaningful? Well, it's interesting. Is that difference definitive? Not necessarily. Plucking concise definitions from different dictionaries and building elaborate rule-logic based on specific wording leads to questionable conclusions, of course. I'm somewhat surprised by these posts.

Taking just the "instrument" vs "sound" difference in two of the proffered definitions, consider that definitions usually have an historic logic, and reflect the world as we understand it at the time. The earliest origins of music presumably began with found objects, led to specialised instrument-making which largely satisfied until mid last century when musique concrète (re)emerged. So "instrument" was sufficiently comprehensive until then (qua music) but now it isn't. Using that to qualify/disqualify applying the word timbre leaves us with inclusions/exclusions within the same piece of music. Or arbitrary/capricious/conditional/tortured definitions of "instrument" or "musical" (qua sound). Which would be nonsense.

Fortunately we don't have to worry too much if electrical engineers sometimes struggle with definitions. If they do their job properly, the re-production devices will neither effect nor affect timbre in an audible fashion. And if we don't perceive it, it isn't timbre, right?

Calling our next two cats Luciano and Placido has a certain appeal though. I expect we'll recognise their different voices after a time.

 

[antcollinet]

"the character or quality of a musical sound or voice as distinct from its pitch and intensity"

Whereas dictionary.com has:

1. Acoustics, Phonetics. the characteristic quality of a sound, independent of pitch and loudness, from which its source or manner of production can be inferred. Timbre depends on the relative strengths of the components of different frequencies, which are determined by resonance.
2. Music. the characteristic quality of sound produced by a particular instrument or voice; tone color.

I think @antcollinet and @solderdude here are making way too much of the specific wording of a chosen brief definition.

And you'll note that as I've stated above I'm quite happy to accept the word applying to things other than instruments. I just think it is more commonly applied to muscal situations.

Do you feel my understanding of the term is too narrow? In what way?

 

[kemmler3D]

What about a fuzz box? How do we class or describe those?

I would say a fuzz box (or any audio processing device / effect) affects timbre, otherwise why use it? Saying it "has" a timbre would be overbroad per standard definitions.

 

[Theta]

I think the key part of the definition is "...that allows us to distinguish between instruments"



So if you can listen to a guitar and reliably say "That is a gibson" or "that is a Taylor" (without having to A/B compare) then that would count as a Timbral difference IMO.

What this says is what counts as a Timbral difference might be subjective. Because I know I couldn't tell that difference, but an experienced guitarist might be able to.

Similarly - in my discussion above, I can't tell one lion from another from its roar - but a zookeeper might be able to.

EDIT :

I'd be talking about the room/hall/gym acoustics.

Anybody who has ever played in a band can immediately tell if a Gibson or a Fender is playing.