Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

[incubus]

Never can the quotient to the cosign be diagnosed by the inceptor of the equivalent.

Honestly, the eq only changes under the heading of "my the titans only care about the fundamental of the paradox.

Ymmv

[Nowhk]

Sorry guys, but what triggers emotions when listening a track with clarinet is "recognize its a clarinet" or "feel the color/timbre" of it?

Can't be the first, because one can enjoy the same without knowing the source (a clarinet) of the perceived "color" its listening.

Am I wrong?

[ghettosynth]

Never can the quotient to the cosign be diagnosed by the inceptor of the equivalent.

Honestly, the eq only changes under the heading of "my the titans only care about the fundamental of the paradox.

Ymmv

This has shown not to be true for very large values of one. I have a proof, but it's a bit too long to fit in a KVR post. In any case, I think that someone has had one too many puffs on the flux contabulator.

[whyterabbyt]

Sorry guys, but what triggers emotions when listening a track with clarinet is "recognize its a clarinet" or "feel the color/timbre" of it?

False dichotomy.

Am I wrong?

Yes.

[Nowhk]

Sorry guys, but what triggers emotions when listening a track with clarinet is "recognize its a clarinet" or "feel the color/timbre" of it?

False dichotomy.

Am I wrong?

Yes.

I see. The fact is that what I've read about auditory/psycology perception says this.
Some example:
https://www.amazon.com/Tuning-Timbre-Sp ... 1852337974
https://www.amazon.it/Auditory-Neurosci ... 0262518023

Can you suggest to me please some books which address to what you are claiming?

[whyterabbyt]

Sorry guys, but what triggers emotions when listening a track with clarinet is "recognize its a clarinet" or "feel the color/timbre" of it?

False dichotomy.

Am I wrong?

Yes.

I see. The fact is that what I've read about auditory/psycology perception says this.

I doubt it. They probably avoid that kind of false dichotomy. And, given by your mischaracterisation of the things you've been told here, you seem not to be able to properly parse the information you get without recasting it according to your preexisting theory.

But go ahead, provide one single specific reference that supports the assertion that the 'emotional response' to a piece of music is not grounded in anything except (a) the recognition of the specific instruments, or (b) the timbre of those instruments.

[Nowhk]

Sorry guys, but what triggers emotions when listening a track with clarinet is "recognize its a clarinet" or "feel the color/timbre" of it?

False dichotomy.

Am I wrong?

Yes.

I see. The fact is that what I've read about auditory/psycology perception says this.

I doubt it. They probably avoid that kind of false dichotomy.

But go ahead, provide one single specific reference that supports the assertion that the 'emotional response' to a piece of music is not grounded in anything except (a) the recognition of the specific instruments, or (b) the timbre of those instruments.

So its "both", not only recognize instrument. Also its timbre takes place. I agree with this.

Still not sure that environment doesn't changes in any significant way the timbre I perceive.

I've already provided some example, did you miss them? This one in reply to you: viewtopic.php?f=99&t=485328&start=75#p6837285

Looks at "fancy example" video posted on that reply. There, speaker changes (i.e. one of the factor from different environment) and the "color" I get totally give to me different vibes. The timbre changes are from setup, not instrument.

Same here (with less impact) with those videos: viewtopic.php?f=99&t=485328&start=90#p6838069

Bias? That's why some ABX will confirm my "errors/hallucinations".

[ghettosynth]

I doubt it....And, given by your mischaracterisation of the things you've been told here, you seem not to be able to properly parse the information you get without recasting it according to your preexisting theory.

+1

[whyterabbyt]

[So its "both", not only recognize instrument. Also its timbre takes place. I agree with this.

I dont. Its a


FALSE DICHOTOMY

[Nowhk]

[So its "both", not only recognize instrument. Also its timbre takes place. I agree with this.

I dont. Its a


FALSE DICHOTOMY

Just saying this is not enough. Can be just your opinion (as mine). I provide an example where for me "emotional response" changes accordly to variance of timbre introduced by speakers/environment (which you have ignored for the second time).

Am I wrong? Bias? It could be. But I'd like some scientific proof (not written in any books I've read).

Your "you know nothing" (ghettosynth type of replies) is not enough, I could say the same.

Still I'm not claiming, just hypothesis (but with my english I bet its hard to do this).

[whyterabbyt]

I've already provided some example, did you miss them? This one in reply to you: viewtopic.php?f=99&t=485328&start=75#p6837285

No, I didnt miss it, the stupidity of it was what made me give up replying.

Just about anyone can do an immediate side-by-side comparison of several timbral variations on a short single isolated sound through apparatus predominantly designed to impart non-neutral changes.
But (even given the many twists, turns and pivots your 'argument' has taken on itself) your example proves absolutely nothing about anything being talked about because we're were not talking about situations that involves immediate side-by-side comparisons of timbral variations of short isolated sounds through apparatus predominantly designed to impart non-neutral changes, we were talking about situations that involved staggered, non-contiguous, time-separated comparisons of long complex mixed musical compositions through apparatus predominanely designed to maintain neutrality.

On other words, being able to recognise that there's a difference between a lemon and a lime three seconds apart is not even close to being proof of whether you can tell which of the two versions of a curry in front of you right now tastes different from the version you had a month ago, when one is identical and the other has lemon substituted for lime.

[whyterabbyt]

[So its "both", not only recognize instrument. Also its timbre takes place. I agree with this.

I dont. Its a


FALSE DICHOTOMY

Just saying this is not enough.

Not enough for what, exactly?

Have you actually checked what a false dichotomy is?

Its not me who has to do something else; you need to rethink your assumptions, and your question.

[ghettosynth]

Your "you know nothing" (ghettosynth type of replies) is not enough, I could say the same.

Difference being, you'd be wrong.

[cron]

My hypothesis is that if you play a random listener an entirely synthetic sound and alter the EQ they will likely perceive a change in timbre much more quickly than if it a sound from a recognisable object, such as a bell or guitar string.

I love working with voice for exactly this reason. Every aspect of our auditory biology and psychology is optimised to receive and process voice. Check out the Fletcher-Munson curve as just one example - the portion of the curve covering voice frequencies is most sensitive with an extra boost around 3 KHz to help us distinguish those tricky unvoiced consonants.

As such, voice has the unique quality of being near-impossible to process beyond recognition while also being difficult to process invisibly. You can chuck layer after layer of effects and edits at it but the end result is almost always identifiable as having started life as a voice recording. The timbre can be absolutely destroyed with frequency shifting or something equally gnarly, but some aspect of it will always survive. Even if you can't understand the words anymore, there might still be inflection, prosody, the contrast of vowels against consonants... or any combination thereof. Meanwhile at the other end of the scale, the mildest auto-tune blip or sloppy comp on an otherwise unprocessed voice jars us into creepy uncanny valley territory.

I haven't read through the last few pages of the thread so I'm not sure where we are in the conversation, but maybe voice offers an interesting counterexample to a lot of assumptions about timbre and perception. The slightest timbral variation (even static EQ!) can radically alter our perception of who (or even what) is speaking, yet radical timbral destruction is almost never enough to destroy its essence and render voice unrecognisable.

[Nowhk]

we were talking about situations that involved staggered, non-contiguous, time-separated comparisons of long complex mixed musical compositions through apparatus predominanely designed to maintain neutrality.

NO dude. I'm not talking about setups that "maintain neutrality": flat is not the discussion. Because the major of (pro) listeners playback systems (even audiophiles ones) are loudspeakers. Or setup that implicitly add colorations.

On other words, being able to recognise that there's a difference between a lemon and a lime three seconds apart is not even close to being proof of whether you can tell which of the two versions of a curry in front of you right now tastes different from the version you had a month ago, when one is identical and the other has lemon substituted for lime.

As you "kindly" says to me many post above, "don't be stupid". Ask the same to experienced people like Gordon Ramsay, and he will catch from which country that "lime" is coming from, on your curry plate. And he will enjoy that lime on the plate, not "compensating" for it.

Have you ever been to a tasting wine event? Expert sommeliers will catch different air oxidation due to different glasses where the wine is served. And note: they will enjoy the final "taste" with that oxidation "coloration".

Perceptual constancy is a vague definition: if you pay close enough attention, things aren't going to be perceptually constant. And I'm obviously not talking about a different cup of tea over a desk. Come on...
When someone falls into details (because they are able to catch them), I suppose things change. So it doesn't means that "if 90% of people don't catch details" is equivalent to "details don't makes differences".

Not enough for what, exactly?

When you asked to me:

Firstly, you are assuming that the 'environmental changes' are significant enough to be perceived in the first place.

I said "yes it does", because I can easily catch (for example) two different tone color balances, emphasized on treble or bass between two (pro) different setups, which impact perceived timbre. The same with transients, ringing and such. And thus my "emotional response".
The same if I listen now or tomorrow. If you say to me "no, you are wrong"... well... THIS is not enough, as response. That's why I also ask for fancy ABX tests.

However, the only ones who seems to agree with this are BertKoor and cron, reading from here (or at least, I think so).
But before (re) explain my dubt with this "hypothesis", I'd like to know why skilled people such as whyterabbyt can't agree with this.
(regard ghettosynth arrogance and opinion, I don't give a fXXk).

The slightest timbral variation (even static EQ!) can radically alter our perception of who (or even what) is speaking

Wow!!! I support exactly this, but talking about "synthesized" sound in my case. However, target doesn't care; what care is the concept.