• 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?

Ok ya’ll asked for it!

You go high; I go low, with the lowest of scoundrel moves….

I asked ChatGPT if, considering the type of colorations different speakers can place on music played through those speakers, is it reasonable to refer to those differences between loudspeaker colorations as differences in a loudspeaker’s own timber?
Or should the term “ timber” be reserved only for voices and musical instruments?

ChatGPT answers:

While traditionally associated with musical instruments and voices, the concept of timbre—referring to the unique tonal characteristics that distinguish one sound source from another—can also reasonably be extended to other sound-producing or sound-reproducing systems, such as loudspeakers.

It is absolutely reasonable to say that a loudspeaker has its own timbre, especially if it overlays its own unique colorations or linearities onto the sound being reproduced. Just like a musical instrument, a loudspeaker can impart a characteristic “voice” or tonal signature to the audio it reproduces. Here’s why this makes sense:

1. Timbre and Frequency Response


• Timbre is determined by the frequency content and how different frequencies are emphasized or attenuated. If a speaker has deviations from a neutral or flat frequency response, it will impart its own tonal coloration to the sound.


• For example, a speaker with a midrange boost might add warmth or presence to vocals or strings, while one with a treble peak might make music sound brighter or harsher.

2. Resonances and Distortion


• Cabinet resonances or driver imperfections can introduce extra vibrations or distortions that change the sound.


• These resonances act like additional instruments vibrating alongside the music, adding tones or overtones that weren’t present in the original recording. This affects the perceived timbre of the sound.


3. Comparing Loudspeakers


• Just as two violins made from different woods have different timbres, two speakers built with different materials, designs, or tuning philosophies will also have distinct timbres. For example:


• A speaker with a wood or MDF cabinet might have a warmer, softer tone due to subtle resonances in the material.


• A speaker with a metal enclosure might sound cleaner but also potentially “harder” or more clinical.

4. Perceived Timbre of the Speaker


• When we listen to a loudspeaker, we’re effectively hearing a combination of:


1. The original sound source being played.


2. The speaker’s coloration—its unique timbre introduced by its frequency response, distortion, and resonances.

If a speaker consistently modifies the sound in a particular way across different recordings, we naturally attribute those characteristics to the speaker itself, effectively saying, “This speaker has a certain timbre.”


5. Subjective Preferences


• People often describe the “sound” of speakers in terms of timbral qualities:


• “Warm” or “lush” for speakers with a midrange emphasis or soft treble.


• “Bright” or “analytical” for speakers with a pronounced treble.


• “Neutral” or “flat” for speakers that aim to reproduce sound with minimal coloration.

These descriptions mirror how we talk about the timbre of instruments, reinforcing the idea that speakers themselves can have a timbral identity.

Conclusion

Yes, a loudspeaker can be said to have its own timbre because it reliably imparts certain tonal characteristics to the music played through it. These characteristics arise from its frequency response, cabinet resonances, driver materials, and overall design. Different loudspeakers, like different musical instruments, will produce different “colors” of sound, even when playing the same recording.


Take that you brainiacs! :p :)

Haha. I disagree with normal boldface for the prompted outputs of these stochastic parrots. One feature of future 'AI' regulation will be required use of the Dingbats font family.
 
Haha. I disagree with normal boldface for the prompted outputs of these stochastic parrots. One feature of future 'AI' regulation will be required use of the Dingbats font family.

ChatGPT replies should probably be banned from forums.
 
If you take this statement literally, the relative volumes of individual harmonics over time don't affect the character of an instrument's sound, which I don't think you would agree with.
The timbre of instruments do evolve over time, but that period is instrument dependent. For instance, the individual overtones on a piano string decay at various rates. (They also change pitch on a similar time scale.*) Such is not true for wind instruments or for bowed instruments while being bowed. So, the envelope as part of timbre view can only be consistently applied to instruments whose tones are the product on a single momentary excitement, i.e., percussion instruments, which include the piano, and plucked instruments, like the guitar and harpsichord. My model, where timbre and envelope are separate, with each subject to certain parameters, allows for a less convoluted, cleaner model of sound in the physical world.

At some point, one need also to consider orchestration and harmony, which can be thought of (or used) as extensions to timbre. Pairing instrument with different envelope constraints allow composer or orchestrators to create complex timbres (or textures, if you prefer) which are not bound to the envelope constraints of either instrument. (See Bartok Concerto for Orchestra.)

Then we get to the Akai EWI, an electronic wind interface which allows the player/composer/orchestrator to pair timbres with envelopes with which they could not be paired in the physical world.

Timbre and Envelope, while closely related, are quite separate concepts. If you're interested in how envelope might be employed to create timbre, I suggest we at least start that conversation back channel, so as to not bog down this thread any more than we already have.

* Tune enough pianos and you'll hear what I mean.
 
I'm sorry for repeating myself, but this most recent round of exchanges only further confirms that this is a philosophical debate rather than a technical one:

Thanks for that heads up. I've now realised why this thread is pissing me off.

For those of you who want to use "Timbre" for reproduction gear (or rooms FFS), fine, that is up to you. I'm not interested in the debate, and I'm not interested in a terminology used in a way that muddies the water about what high fidelity audio reproduction is about. Which is what happens when we call "distortion" "timbre".


I'll check back periodically to see if the thread drifts back on topic.
 
Ok ya’ll asked for it!

You go high; I go low, with the lowest of scoundrel moves….

I asked ChatGPT if, considering the type of colorations different speakers can place on music played through those speakers, is it reasonable to refer to those differences between loudspeaker colorations as differences in a loudspeaker’s own timber?
Or should the term “ timber” be reserved only for voices and musical instruments?

ChatGPT answers:

While traditionally associated with musical instruments and voices, the concept of timbre—referring to the unique tonal characteristics that distinguish one sound source from another—can also reasonably be extended to other sound-producing or sound-reproducing systems, such as loudspeakers.

It is absolutely reasonable to say that a loudspeaker has its own timbre, especially if it overlays its own unique colorations or linearities onto the sound being reproduced. Just like a musical instrument, a loudspeaker can impart a characteristic “voice” or tonal signature to the audio it reproduces. Here’s why this makes sense:

1. Timbre and Frequency Response


• Timbre is determined by the frequency content and how different frequencies are emphasized or attenuated. If a speaker has deviations from a neutral or flat frequency response, it will impart its own tonal coloration to the sound.


• For example, a speaker with a midrange boost might add warmth or presence to vocals or strings, while one with a treble peak might make music sound brighter or harsher.

2. Resonances and Distortion


• Cabinet resonances or driver imperfections can introduce extra vibrations or distortions that change the sound.


• These resonances act like additional instruments vibrating alongside the music, adding tones or overtones that weren’t present in the original recording. This affects the perceived timbre of the sound.


3. Comparing Loudspeakers


• Just as two violins made from different woods have different timbres, two speakers built with different materials, designs, or tuning philosophies will also have distinct timbres. For example:


• A speaker with a wood or MDF cabinet might have a warmer, softer tone due to subtle resonances in the material.


• A speaker with a metal enclosure might sound cleaner but also potentially “harder” or more clinical.

4. Perceived Timbre of the Speaker


• When we listen to a loudspeaker, we’re effectively hearing a combination of:


1. The original sound source being played.


2. The speaker’s coloration—its unique timbre introduced by its frequency response, distortion, and resonances.

If a speaker consistently modifies the sound in a particular way across different recordings, we naturally attribute those characteristics to the speaker itself, effectively saying, “This speaker has a certain timbre.”


5. Subjective Preferences


• People often describe the “sound” of speakers in terms of timbral qualities:


• “Warm” or “lush” for speakers with a midrange emphasis or soft treble.


• “Bright” or “analytical” for speakers with a pronounced treble.


• “Neutral” or “flat” for speakers that aim to reproduce sound with minimal coloration.

These descriptions mirror how we talk about the timbre of instruments, reinforcing the idea that speakers themselves can have a timbral identity.

Conclusion

Yes, a loudspeaker can be said to have its own timbre because it reliably imparts certain tonal characteristics to the music played through it. These characteristics arise from its frequency response, cabinet resonances, driver materials, and overall design. Different loudspeakers, like different musical instruments, will produce different “colors” of sound, even when playing the same recording.


Take that you brainiacs! :p :)

Here we go. More Active Incomprehension generator BS. :p
 
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.

I'm certainly not in favour of the Humpty-Dumpty dictionary/thesaurus:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

But the dictionary I have at hand certainly allows broad application:

timbre | ˈtambə | noun the character or quality of a musical sound or voice as distinct from its pitch and intensity: trumpet mutes with different timbres | [mass noun] : a voice high in pitch but rich in timbre. • [mass noun] the distinctive quality or character of someone or something: you must demonstrate your moral timbre as a human being.

If we can apply it to people in that way, we can certainly apply it to loudspeakers or rooms.

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.

I understand your pedagogical intent, but don't agree this circumscribes all proper applications of a word.
 
I would go so far as to say that "timbre is the characteristic sound of an instrument independent of its envelope." That very tidily sequesters structural consideration (acoustical physics) from execution (playing the darned things).

I understand your pedagogical intent, but don't agree this circumscribes all proper applications of a word.

Most definitions/descriptions of timbre (applied to musical instruments and sounds) include frequency spectrum and envelope.
 
From:
View attachment 420004

That is quite interesting (the main piece, not Bregman or Martin's quoted counterpoints, which are nonsense). When you are undertaking perceptual studies, timbre poses many complexities.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry for repeating myself, but this most recent round of exchanges only further confirms that this is a philosophical debate rather than a technical one: the Google definition Matt Hooper cited above clearly references the playing of notes - timbre is the quality of a sound that differentiates it from another sound, "even when they're playing the same note."

So there's a clear presumption that with timbre we're talking about machines - musical instruments and voices - that can play a note.

I understand that a loudspeaker also "plays notes" in that its drivers move to make sound waves in the air, which by a legitimate reckoning is no different than a singer or guitarist moving their vocal cords and mouth, or arm and hand, to make sound waves in the air.

But to me the key difference is still that the loudspeaker is reproducing - and/or changing - the timbre of a sound that has already been created, whereas the singer or the guitarist (or the trombonist, or the drummer or pianist) is creating a sound with the manufactured or organic machine that is their instrument.

When a guitarist or producer decides to pull the plug from the recording desk and instead plug the guitar into an amp and then mic the amp and feed the mic pickup into the desk, you can argue that the guitar amp and mic each have a timbre if you really want to - but the point is that the amp and mic are being inserted into the recording chain for the effects they have on altering the timbre of the guitar.

Ditto for the room: the room alters the timbre of the instrument you play it in. Again, if you want to, you can argue that instruments always get played in a room or environment of one kind or another so in reality the instrument and environment are a compound unit that has a timbre. But even then, it would require a bit of conceptual gymnastics to use that idea to then re-separate the instrument and the room so you could argue that the room has a timbre.

Of course different rooms/spaces sound very different from each other. I just don't quite get the point of describing a room's acoustic properties in terms of timbre - and I get even less the point of describing a music playback system's audible distortions as timbre. IMHO describing a speaker with a 3kHz peak as having a "brassy" timbre is just as counterproductive as describing brass instruments as "having major lower treble peaks." The speaker's sonic characteristic is distortion; the brass instrument's sonic characteristic is timbre.

At least that's how I see it and what I find makes the most sense.

I think requiring some sort of direct human agency for it to be timbre is a kind of conceptual anthropomorphism. That distinction has nothing to do with the sonics. Depending on context, timbre is either a complex attribute of the sound as it exists, or as it is perceived.
 
Looked in on this thread. I can certainly agree with the article comment on the "wastebasket" of timbre. I have never ever seen it cause anything except trouble in audio forums going back as long as there have been such forums. I'd even venture the rule should be no politics, religion or timbre discussed in audio forums.
 
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 generally agree with you on the subject, but I quite like this definition you reject.

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.

:)
 
"Timbre Controls" :p

1736500437853.jpeg
 
I think requiring some sort of direct human agency for it to be timbre is a kind of conceptual anthropomorphism. That distinction has nothing to do with the sonics. Depending on context, timbre is either a complex attribute of the sound as it exists, or as it is perceived.

Totally reasonable point, and I should not have restricted my examples to human-created musical sounds. However, I think the same principle applies if we expand timbre to include sounds created by an autonomous computer, or by animals, or by the sound of rushing water, or by something falling or running into something else. In all such cases, I don't see the point of using "timbre" to describe the inherent sound characteristics of a transducer recording or reproducing those sounds, or of an amplifier or processor in the recording or playback chain.

Better?
 
Totally reasonable point, and I should not have restricted my examples to human-created musical sounds. However, I think the same principle applies if we expand timbre to include sounds created by an autonomous computer, or by animals, or by the sound of rushing water, or by something falling or running into something else. In all such cases, I don't see the point of using "timbre" to describe the inherent sound characteristics of a transducer recording or reproducing those sounds, or of an amplifier or processor in the recording or playback chain.

Better?
Exactly - it is the difference between sounds created, as they are, fully formed from the insturment, person, animal, wind - whatever - and those sounds being changed (IE distorted) by a recording or reproduction device. The latter case is distortion - because that is what it is doing.

Damn-it the thread has sucked me back in again.
 
Looked in on this thread. I can certainly agree with the article comment on the "wastebasket" of timbre. I have never ever seen it cause anything except trouble in audio forums going back as long as there have been such forums. I'd even venture the rule should be no politics, religion or timbre discussed in audio forums.

Uppity timbres?
 
ChatGPT replies should probably be banned from forums.
chat gpt, and all ai models outside of research mathematics and similar should be banned, removed and taken down.
 
Looked in on this thread. I can certainly agree with the article comment on the "wastebasket" of timbre. I have never ever seen it cause anything except trouble in audio forums going back as long as there have been such forums. I'd even venture the rule should be no politics, religion or timbre discussed in audio forums.
Out of the crooked timbre of audiophilia, no linear thing was ever made

Apologies to Kant.
 
Sometimes a headphone/iem too will have a certain timbre sound signature (or tonal balance), right? For example moondrop starfield has a dark/warm yet detailed timbre sound signature (or tonal balance) while a moondrop chu has a shouty/bright and analytical timbre sound signature (or tonal balance) :oops: at least to me.
Fixed the word choice ... timbre also suggests a specific attack, sustain and decay along with a spectrum of (harmonic) frequencies.
A transducer only has has a deviating frequency response and the attack and decay are frequency dependent and in general much, much shorter than any music instrument. The harmonics also differ from those of music instruments and in general are so low in amplitude that they do not alter the 'timbre' of an instrument.
The frequency response is mostly to blame.
Amps/DACs only can have a deviating frequency response.
 
Back
Top Bottom