(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.