• 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!

What is timbre and can we measure it?

Of course they would, or how else would we hear the difference the instruments' tone? Musical instruments provide the timbre, not the playback equipment, which merely reproduces what the musical instruments do. If playback equipment were to produce timbre, then I would call that distortion, not timbre.

I agree, and I suspect that is what @Titurel is labeling as "timbre". He seems to be using words differently than we do rather than using ideas differently than we do. However, until he clarifies further, I can't be certain. Quite confusing.
 
I agree, and I suspect that is what @Titurel is labeling as "timbre". He seems to be using words differently than we do rather than using ideas differently than we do. However, until he clarifies further, I can't be certain. Quite confusing.
A correct idea is forever trapped in its owner's mind if the owner can't put it into words properly.
 
I think you're overcomplicating it. Timbre is only thought to apply to stereo equipment because writers in the space have misused the term for some time. The dictionary definition, and the definition used everywhere except the audiophile media-sphere, only applies to instruments and voice. Stereo systems don't have timbre because that's not what the word means, any more than a cello has a frequency response.

The concepts are similar, but not so similar people should actually be confused once it's explained to them.

I agree, and that's what I was trying to get at (obviously not clearly enough!) - in my first comment in this thread I referred to the audiophile practice of calling system coloration "timbre" in order to endow it with the idea of "musicality" rather than nonlinearity and distortion. I agree 100% that timbre belongs to musical instruments and not stereo equipment - hence my attempt to distinguish between the creation/production of music on the one hand, and its reproduction on the other.
 
I agree, and that's what I was trying to get at (obviously not clearly enough!) - in my first comment in this thread I referred to the audiophile practice of calling system coloration "timbre" in order to endow it with the idea of "musicality" rather than nonlinearity and distortion. I agree 100% that timbre belongs to musical instruments and not stereo equipment - hence my attempt to distinguish between the creation/production of music on the one hand, and its reproduction on the other.
OK, we're totally on the same page then, apologies!
somehow, people began to think it was more than a rhetorical flourish to say the equipment itself had timbre.
I think you nailed it...
 
Yeah sure it’s ok to ask, no problem at all.

It’s more like a mental image, I mainly visualise spherical shapes and wavy lines in various colours. For me the most common colours are red, purple, blue, yellow, grey and white. It probably sounds very strange to someone who doesn’t experience it themselves. It’s completely involuntary, I have no control over it.
Very interesting... doesn't sound that strange to me. Like I guess I could come up with shapes and colors that seem to embody a given sound if I try and think about it, so I can kind of imagine what it would be like, but they certainly don't appear to me on their own.
 
That's confusing, since you said ...



So you continue to refer to timbre, but you don't tell us what you believe the source of the timbre is if it's not the instruments themselves. Also, how do you identify timbre? Specifically, how do you tell which sound waves are timbre and which are not?
And again, what are the "components" to which you refer?
I thought the source of timbre was pretty much self-evident. I guess I was wrong, at least in that.

Timbre is the characteristic sound of an instrument or voice in situ. I, like many pro musicians, don't believe you can divorce the timbre of an instrument or a voice from the environment in which it is employed. I would not sing the same way in Grace Cathedral as I would in the Red Dog Saloon (sans mike), because the hall characteristics (I might say their timbres) require I modify my technique and thus my "native" (local) timbre to achieve similar "received" (more global) timbres.

Consider the humble Fender Telecaster. There are a number of ways in which it can be integrated into a recording, A DI, is one possibility. Another popular method is close miking of it plugged into a standard guitar amp, like the Twin Reverb. Alternatively, the amp output could be captured along with the rest of the ensemble. Or some combination of the two. Thus, the timbre of final signal will vary depending on how close the mike is to the amp (and whether there is an addition signal path). One might say, and I believe quite sensibly, that the recording engineer (or producer) get to control how much of the studio's (or live venue's) characteristic sound (timbre?) gets captured.

Finally, the answer to your question "which components..." My answer is "any component that lies between the original signal source and the listener's ear." These components could be said to have a characteristic sound, even if that sound is nil or zero. (I hear in my imagination a Simon and Garfunkel lyric.)

I would concede timbre may not a perfect term, but it is convenient for sorting out things found in the stew pot containing psycho-acoustics and acoustical physics.
 
. . . I would not sing the same way in Grace Cathedral as I would in the Red Dog Saloon (sans mike), because the hall characteristics . . .
I wouldn't sing at all in Grace Cathedral if I can help it - by the time the sound reaches the seats it's overwhelmed by the room's reverberation.

However, speaking from experience, it's a real nice place to make a recording of classical vocals as long as the microphones are close enough.
 
I wouldn't sing at all in Grace Cathedral if I can help it - by the time the sound reaches the seats it's overwhelmed by the room's reverberation.

However, speaking from experience, it's a real nice place to make a recording of classical vocals as long as the microphones are close enough.
"Just as their first Warner Brothers LP, In a Wild Sanctuary had differed from their earlier records, so did its follow-up Gandharva reach into new directions. Jazz, blues, rock, and gospel all played their part on a recorded divided between studio tracks and an entire LP side cut live at San Francisco's magnificent Grace Cathedral. "Basically, we just wanted to jam and have a great musical time - bringing music from a point of noise to a place very much quieter and more contemplative," explains Bernie Krause today."
 
Transducers and EQ can change the timbre of instruments of reproduced music but does not have a timbre by itself.
The room itself also can influence the timbre by modification of frequency response, phase changes and reverb but we don't say a room has a timbre.
You might not say it, But I would. During just one year in the '80s, I spent nine months on the road, doing bus and truck shows through 29 states - mostly one nighters. The first thing I did when I arrived at a new venue was walk into the hall, clap my hands a few times (at various place on the stage) the sing a few notes. I captured the empty hall's "timbre" in my mind, which I "recalibrated" after the hall filled up. I could then adjust my vocal timbre to fit.

The mindset that works exceedingly well in service of a 4 seat sweet-spot, doesn't always address the needs of the performer (san mike) who must address the needs of 2000 (or more) highly expectant ticket holders.
 
Some poorly designed components of the electronic part of the domestic audio REproduction chain (HiFi) can add audible distortion and noise or change the frequency response of the signal. This is NOT timbre, which can only be ascribed to musical instruments and voice, which are part of the production chain.

Production tools such as vocoders, reverb, compressors / limiters, fuzz boxes, overdrive etc. can alter timbre because they are being deliberately used by the producers and musicians in the production chain.

Domestic REproduction (HiFi) loudspeakers that have standing waves, resonances and other distortions are merely corrupting the original source in a repeatable measure (i.e. they always resonate at 127.2 Hz). This is NOT timbre, because it is not coming from a musical instrument or voice. It is an imposition of resonance onto the original instrumental timbre and so MASKS timbre, corrupting the fine instrumental detail captured in the production chain.

HiFI components do not create timbre. If flawed, they corrupt and hide the timbre created by the musical instruments and voices captured in the production chain.
Brief aside question: I notice in your posts here that you’re using the word REproduction with the first two letters capitalized, and I’m curious why. Thanks!
 
Brief aside question: I notice in your posts here that you’re using the word REproduction with the first two letters capitalized, and I’m curious why. Thanks!
There is content production and there is content re-production. The latter is what we have at home because the music is already baked and there's nothing we can do to change it. There are some people who are under the misapprehension that what they use at home is part of the creative process but it is not. The best any of us can hope to do is re-create the baked-in content with the smallest amount of corruption that we can achieve with the rooms we have and the budget we have.
 
Brief aside question: I notice in your posts here that you’re using the word REproduction with the first two letters capitalized, and I’m curious why. Thanks!

I think @MaxwellsEq does that to visually emphasize the meaning so that people who quickly scan the post don't miss that emphasis. I frequently do the same thing. If you follow posts in various threads, you'll notice that there are quite a few people who misconstrue a post or don't quite catch a critical meaning. I think they scan a post too quickly. This visual emphasis reduces that, kinda like a speed bump. :p
 
You might not say it, But I would. During just one year in the '80s, I spent nine months on the road, doing bus and truck shows through 29 states - mostly one nighters. The first thing I did when I arrived at a new venue was walk into the hall, clap my hands a few times (at various place on the stage) the sing a few notes. I captured the empty hall's "timbre" in my mind, which I "recalibrated" after the hall filled up. I could then adjust my vocal timbre to fit.

The mindset that works exceedingly well in service of a 4 seat sweet-spot, doesn't always address the needs of the performer (san mike) who must address the needs of 2000 (or more) highly expectant ticket holders.
This is understandable to use it that way, but technically you should use a different word for the tonality of a room's reverberation. I know this is just semantics, but that seems to be the topic of the thread now. :)
 
Ideally, that's absolutely true. BUT, to the extent that components are imperfectly controlled in the domains you list, they will exhibit a characteristic timbre, just like musical instruments. Which explains the common use of terms typically applied to musical sounds to label deficits in the reproduction chain - honky, woody, reedy, etc. We may not want timbre in our Hi-Fi equipment, but it's inevitable that will have some - hopefully very little.

I suppose it's a matter of semantics largely, you've seen a lot of disagreement with that post/argument (and others). Loudspeakers especially and other components in certain cases will impose colourations/distortions that can be characterised as timbre or not depending how you want to line up your words and concepts. After all, those strange assemblages of timber and strings are just historical failures to produce a properly pitched sine wave. Solved thankfully now that we can organise silicon and electrons.

I jest, obviously. And appreciate the near-purity of @RayDunzl's Grolsch bottle. Which reminds me of the large collection of Grolsch bottles I accumulated with the intention of filling with home-brewed beer. Which never happened. We got microbreweries instead that rendered effort on my part futile/redundant.

So I wonder back in the days when crafting loudspeakers with character, did those people foresee how technology and culture would deliver much-vaunted near-transparency, rendering their efforts if not futile, increasingly idiosyncratic? Just play, record and mix properly then reproduce same is the counter-argument.

Back on the first page @kemmler3D posted the helpful spectrogram of an instrument's timbre. Which is also the way I see/understand it. Certain reviewers (Germans iirc, with typical teutonic efficiency) post spectrograms of loudspeakers reproducing test signals. That is the loudspeaker's timbre. Of course they make no sound until excited by an input. But traditional instruments also require input, they also make no sound at rest.

So-called transparent reproduction postulates that we minimise timbre (or superimpositions of timbre, which we can call distortion in this context) in the reproduction system for maximum clarity of the original instrumental timbres. Which is conceptually straightforward I think. some will continue to enjoy certain euphonic colourations, others will continue to decry same.

As for the room, yes this has an effect not only on reproduction (as we are familiar) but also on production. A human instrumentalist (or group) will often play to the performance space, adjusting attack, intensity (elements of timbre) along with tempo and rhythm, in a subtle symbiosis.
 
Last edited:
You might not say it, But I would. During just one year in the '80s, I spent nine months on the road, doing bus and truck shows through 29 states - mostly one nighters. The first thing I did when I arrived at a new venue was walk into the hall, clap my hands a few times (at various place on the stage) the sing a few notes. I captured the empty hall's "timbre" in my mind, which I "recalibrated" after the hall filled up. I could then adjust my vocal timbre to fit.

The mindset that works exceedingly well in service of a 4 seat sweet-spot, doesn't always address the needs of the performer (san mike) who must address the needs of 2000 (or more) highly expectant ticket holders.

I think we understand your use of the word "timbre" now.
However, for the purposes of posting in a thread on the internet, it is important that communications are made using commonly understood definitions. If the manner in which you use a word or phrase is not in common with the other posters, then misunderstandings arise on all sides. That is what happened here.

What you describe is part of room acoustics. Reverberation time (RT60) is the most obvious characteristic that you gauge with your handclap in various buildings.
I would suppose that the reason you associate the word "timbre" with the results of the handclap is that different environments will have different degrees of absorption, and these degrees of absorption will vary with frequency in different buildings. The resulting differences in echoic energy resemble the differences in instrumental timbre.

Totally understandable ... but does not lend itself to clarity in conversations with other people. :):)
 
That is the loudspeaker's timbre. Of course they make no sound until excited by an input. But traditional instruments also require input, they also make no sound at rest.
True, on a physical level the phenomena have real similarities. But I would argue that just like animals have "pelts" or "skins" and a couch has "material" or "a covering", even if they are made of the same leather, a speaker has tonality and instruments have timbre.

You can say a speaker's tonality is LIKE a timbre if it happens to have a ton of distortion, but it's technically incorrect to say it HAS a timbre.

Now we can get into that whole "dictionary definitions don't matter because language evolves" side-track here if we want.

But I have already stated I think it's a bad idea to apply "timbre" to stereo equipment, because a lot of audiophiles are profoundly confused about how audio / electronics / speakers work and this misuse of terminology seems to be actively exacerbating the problem.
 
This is understandable to use it that way, but technically you should use a different word for the tonality of a room's reverberation. I know this is just semantics, but that seems to be the topic of the thread now. :)
Why should we (musicians) surrender this word from our line of work just because some here are bothered by our use of it? Timbre is central to my field (music) and, by the admission of some here, a bit of a problem in yours. Tonality is a technical term in (Western) music, with a very specific meaning, but we (musicians) would never think of denying you the use of it.

Timbre - room signature, potato - potato - Let's call the whole thing Orf.

As I did with Jim, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the way music instrument actually produce sound. Then, perhaps, you might understand why the distinctions you and others wish to draw don't hold up in the wider world.
 
Why should we (musicians) surrender this word from our line of work just because some here are bothered by our use of it?
Well, I am sort of suggesting the opposite, it's being applied to speakers and all manner of other things beyond instruments and voices, when up until yesterday I thought (and the dictionary thought) it only applied to the making of music.

As I did with Jim, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the way music instrument actually produce sound. Then, perhaps, you might understand why the distinctions you and others wish to draw don't hold up in the wider world.
I took a minor in music technology, (lots of synthesis and "physics of sound" and such) so I'm well-acquainted enough with the concepts to have an opinion... which is why I don't think it's proper to say "timbre" every time we encounter an acoustic transfer function coloring the sound we hear. I think the bare minimum for having a timbre is actively producing sound. Just resonating or filtering isn't enough. One man's opinion, but one that I think isn't out of line with standard definitions.

I guess I'm not that upset if you want to say a room "has a timbre" but can we at least agree speakers, amps, and (shudder) cables should not carry the label? :)

Anyway, the nice thing about arguments over semantics in audio is the stakes are usually pretty low, but you can still make passionate arguments about it.
 
200.gif
:cool:


JSmith
 
(Edited out response I didn’t mean to post.)


Yes, but affecting timbre of something else is not the same thing as having one. I see what you're saying, I just think using the term that way should be avoided because:

1) the actual definition of the word only applies to instruments and voices,

2) we have plenty of correct terminology to use in audio to describe the sound of a stereo system, "tonality" is perfectly good most of the time

3) I think "timbre" is used in the audiophile reviewing arena disingenuously to imply stereo components have more of an effect on sound than they have (cable timbre strike anyone as an appropriate use of the term?) and a different type of effect on sound than they actually have.

So for reason #3 in particular, I think we should take a stand against the abuse of the word. People are getting confused on a conceptual, fundamental level about how audio equipment works.

In the case of cables especially, I don't think you can say "timbre". Timbre fundamentally has to do with producing harmonics, not just filtering them! I will die on this hill. :)

Yes, I can certainly see that being a reasonable case for that position. As I mentioned, I don’t think I am “ right” about this, just positing a possible case for why somebody might use term “timbre” for some gear.

I think you’re right that “ tonality” does most of the work for us there.

Still, personally, I can just say that the differences in some gear, especially loudspeakers do register to me as
“ differences in timber.” If a speaker is reliably altering the timber of instruments in a regular way, then I start to associate that particular characteristic as the general “ timber” of that speaker.

It’s sort of like taking an electric guitar, and just listening to the strings played cleanly.
Then you start playing that “ original source, taking the original sounds of those strings” and playing them through different distortion boxes, you are playing it through something that is introducing certain non-linearities, and those can result in a different timbre to the final sound, depending on which box you’re using.

Similarly, if you Introduce a certain tube amp - maybe some SET design - and principal it could introduce nonlineariries including adding harmonics which, well, of course, not to the level of a fuzz box, is nonetheless introducing a new timber to the original source. And so far as that is pretty consistent and overlaid on everything, one could talk about the specific timber of that tube amp.

And perhaps this could also apply to a speaker that produces Identifiable nonlinearities - if it is the speaker that is producing a certain character with most of the music it plays, it seems reasonable to associate that character with the speaker and not the source. And if the speaker is changing, the timber of the sounds and a reliable direction, then the change in timber you keep hearing is associated with the speaker and not the music, and it seems somewhat reasonable to me to think of the speaker in parting different timbre qualities.
Just like the distortion box reliably changes the timber of the guitar by adding its own non-linearities.

Again, not trying to convince anybody I don’t know that it all works. But personally, when I audition different equipment, sometimes the differences between them strike me as “tonal” and other times it strikes me as “tibrel.” Such as a speaker that generally seems to impart a more “ woody” quality, versus another speaker that might strike me as imparting a more “ metallic” quality to the sound in general.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom