Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

[Nowhk]

Whether its recorded on a kids toy into a hissy cassette, or played back from the Abbey Road master tapes, it's still Eleanor Rigby.

So you confirm that "timbre" is not part of a song/music?
From wiki: it seems that Texture and Timbre are part of the game...

A great song and a great recording/performance of that song are very different things.

Of course, but I think they coexist together to "form" a piece of art (the song).

[cron]

Whether its recorded on a kids toy into a hissy cassette, or played back from the Abbey Road master tapes, it's still Eleanor Rigby.

So you confirm that "timbre" is not part of a song/music?
From wiki: it seems that Texture and Timbre are part of the game...

A great song and a great recording/performance of that song are very different things.

Of course, but I think they coexist together to "form" a piece of art (the song).

This is an interesting point. We're getting into musique concrete vs musique abstraite here. Musique concrete is 'fixed' music, the recording is the composition, while musique abstraite exists on the page as notes and rests.

The lines between the two have blurred so much that I'd argue the recording of a lot of modern pop music is itself the composition, with its crazy sound effects, autotune, things that can't be represented on the page. So we're perhaps in a situation today where the sheet music is merely an interpretation of the recorded (de facto) composition, rather than the recording being one of many possible interpretations of the sheet music as was usually the case in the past.

Still, you can 'bend' either the notes on the page (transposition, adding harmonies etc) or the sounds in the recording quite dramatically and still have the essence of the work in its totality come through largely unscathed. As to how far you can take this before you create a completely new work; well, how long is a piece of string?

[slipstick]

It's an interesting point. I've heard some songs played pretty poorly by some odd bands but I was usually in no doubt what song they were trying to play. Hence in my mind it was the same song. But it definitely wasn't the same performance.

In almost the same way there are quite a few top "tribute" bands around who make a really good living by recreating the sound of someone else's recording almost perfectly, often better than the original artists can manage. That certainly tends to make you think that now the official recording is the definitive version of a piece. But then that idea gets difficult to support too because most things are now released in many different forms, so which exactly is the real one. The mono club mix? the over-compressed ITunes version?, the one on CD (while they still exist?) or perhaps the one on vinyl? They all sound different but are all without any doubt the same music.

OTOH we're along way from the effect of EQ on timbre now. But if I play something on my hi-fi and fiddle with the tone controls I may change the overall timbre but I'm definitely going to say that I'll still be listening to the same song.

Steve

[Nowhk]

Yeah, we are on another topic. Step by step guys, internet db space is almost infinite, we can consume It

OTOH we're along way from the effect of EQ on timbre now. But if I play something on my hi-fi and fiddle with the tone controls I may change the overall timbre but I'm definitely going to say that I'll still be listening to the same song.

Yeah, the same song (regards the topic discussed above).

But what about timbre? Is It changed as well or (how Christian Schüler said) we get the same "timbre" color because our brain "multiply" for the environment/global shape?

This is what I don't get (even listening to music on different setup, or stress my EQ). Do I "live" the same "perceived" color or become different due to "shape" naturally introduced by environments/setup?

Because I'm sure that the "sound" I get (as stimoli) is changed, oblivious...

[slipstick]

As we said about 4 pages back...EQ definitely changes the timbre. That's what it's for. Sound has 3 major characteristics, pitch, volume and timbre. EQ doesn't change pitch, it doesn't change volume. So either it does nothing at all or it changes timbre.

One interesting question might be how MUCH can you change timbre and still recognise the sound? How much can you mess with a trumpet or banjo and still have them sound like the same instrument?

Steve

[ghettosynth]

Isn't this contradictory? Or you don't consider timbre part of a sound? If the timbre change, the sound change as well, thus the music "itself" change...

No. E.g. Eleanor Rigby or anything else played by the Beatles, by the BBC Philharmonic Orchestra and by a ukulele group will sound very different but it will still be the same music. And it will still be easily recognisable as the same music. Music transcends instrumentation, arrangement and trivia like timbre with no trouble.

Steve

I see your point, but I'm not really on this kind of "religious" things

If that's really the truth, spending lots of money for hardware and pro audio gears would be stupid and futile. Even a pair of earbuds will transcend to the same music than...

A 20€ bedroom master would be the same by one made at Abbey Road studios.
Also, why use a Steinway piano instead of this?


Sorry, I don't agree with this.
But that's just my point.

You are moving the goalposts and ignoring the important details of what people are telling you. Being able to recognize a song is not the same thing as enjoying its performance. People use better instruments and equipment because they prefer the sound of the result. That preference may be driven by personal choice, marketing concerns, or the physics of human hearing, but it is merely that, a preference.

You don't have a point. I'd suggest that you read and learn more, this is just a futile meander through nonsense. You may consider that EQ changes timbre an axiom, or, if you prefer, a theorem that is easily proven. Understanding that idea hinges on understanding an appropriate definition of timbre. If you disagree, it's because you are working from incorrect definitions of timbre, or, you are trying to express some other idea that you cannot articulate.

[Nowhk]

You don't have a point.

I have a point, its just hard to espose it to you. Maybe I'm wrong on examples.

Lets restarting...
EQ changes timbre, I agree. Lets go ahead.
As many others said before, listen a piece of music on different environments will affect the resulting sound. Its "similar" to apply an EQ (less or more; spectrum change a bit, reflections of room, and so on).
This means that on every listening, some aspects of the song (i.e. timbre) change.

So when you (and many others; thats basically why I've opened this thread) said:

because they prefer the sound of the result

I hardly understand how correct is this think. Theresn't a fixed "result"!!! It naturally changes due to the environment where you are playing the track.

You don't work on somethings that will be defined and unique, but on a "ranges" of possibile sounding results, whose space around the prefixed setup targets.

I.e. timbre is an element that wont be exactly preserved across playback (considering the perception of a single person, of course).

Is it more clear my perplexity now?

[ghettosynth]

You don't have a point.

I have a point, its just hard to esposte It to you. Maybe I'm wrong on examples.

EQ changes timbre, I agree. Lets go ahead.
As many others said before, listen a piece of music on different environments will affect the resulting sound. Its "similar" to apply an EQ (plus more; spectrum change a bit, reflections of room, and so on).
This means that on every listening, some aspects of the song (i.e. timbre) change.

So when you (and many others; thats basically why I've opened this thread) said:

because they prefer the sound of the result

I hardly understand what do you mean. Theresn't a fixed "result", It naturally changes due to the environment where you are playing the track.

This is a variation of false equivocation. When I change from headphones to earbuds, the change is minor. When the performer changes from a Steinway to a toy piano, the change is major. Your assertion about why choose a Steinway is absurd. You choose a Steinway because you prefer the sound of a Steinway for whatever reason.

On a recording, there is a fixed result. Anything perceived as unfixed by your ears, or the playback equipment, or test instruments is largely below the noise floor of interest so to speak. A choice to use a toy piano will create a completely different fixed result which will be less satisfying in the producer's environment and similarly less satisfying, in a statistical sense, in virtually all other environments. Trying to equate these major differences to the comparatively minor environmental differences is folly.

This is what mixing/mastering aims to achieve. The producer prefers a result and listens to it in an environment where he believes that his vision will translate reliably to everything from a mono radio to the world's best playback system. Yes, each will be slightly different, so what? Those differences are not of interest beyond one's understanding of how certain equipment and environment changes sound in a systematic way.

This entire thread is pseudo-intellectual masturbation. You have no point.

[Nowhk]

This is a variation of false equivocation. When I change from headphones to earbuds, the change is minor. When the performer changes from a Steinway to a toy piano, the change is major. Your assertion about why choose a Steinway is absurd. You choose a Steinway because you prefer the sound of a Steinway for whatever reason.
...
A choice to use a toy piano will create a completely different fixed result which will be less satisfying in the producer's environment and similarly less satisfying, in a statistical sense, in virtually all other environments. Trying to equate these major differences to the comparatively minor environmental differences is folly.

I'm not talking between toy piano or Steinway, come on. That was a example to explain somethings different and not related to my thread. You confuse the two different things. I'm talking for example how the same Steinway piano rec will sound on different setup, not compared to another piano.

On a recording, there is a fixed result. Anything perceived as unfixed by your ears, or the playback equipment, or test instruments is largely below the noise floor of interest so to speak

What do you mean with "largely below the noise floor of interest"? Different but not so important?

Yes, each will be slightly different, so what? Those differences are not of interest beyond one's understanding of how certain equipment and environment changes sound in a systematic way.

Try listen the punch and texture of a kickdrum within a club, or on a NS10 pair, than on akg k240... the differences are irrelevant for you?

[whyterabbyt]

You don't work on somethings that will be defined and unique, but on a "ranges" of possibile sounding results, whose space around the prefixed setup targets.

I.e. timbre is an element that wont be exactly preserved across playback (considering the perception of a single person, of course).

Your perplexity probably results from the fact that you seem to be incapable of grasping the analytic capacity of the human brain as it pertains to the perception of audio.

The human brain is capable of isolating and identifying one single known voice in a crowded room full of dozens of people all talking simultaneously within the same fairly narrow range of frequencies, and tracking and parsing what that one person is saying, right down to inflection and pitch changes.

Compared to that, compensating for the environmental factors when, for example, how much the recording of a grand piano is changed when played back in a slightly different room, is utterly trivial.

Are you perplexed by the fact that we can identify a voice as human, and understand it, despite the fact that it has a different timbre, and rhythm and environment from any specific voice we have heard before?

[Nowhk]

Are you perplexed by the fact that we can identify a voice as human, and understand it, despite the fact that it has a different timbre, and rhythm and environment from any specific voice we have heard before?

No. I'm still trying to catch if my brain perceive a different timbre (color of the sound) on different playback system (what the major of the topic's participants support till now) or it perceive always the same because our power brain compensate the environment and such (what you and Christian Schüler support instead).

I dont care about "recognize the same Guitar" even if the timbre change a bit (of course I reckon It), but "listen and enjoy" the Guitar how It "plays" on my brain. Do I listen and enjoy somethings different every time (i.e. elements change, such as timbre) or the same?

Once I definetely understand this, I can go ahead with my perplexity (which has some dubts on both side).

Can we together resolve this please?

[ghettosynth]

This is a variation of false equivocation. When I change from headphones to earbuds, the change is minor. When the performer changes from a Steinway to a toy piano, the change is major. Your assertion about why choose a Steinway is absurd. You choose a Steinway because you prefer the sound of a Steinway for whatever reason.
...
A choice to use a toy piano will create a completely different fixed result which will be less satisfying in the producer's environment and similarly less satisfying, in a statistical sense, in virtually all other environments. Trying to equate these major differences to the comparatively minor environmental differences is folly.

I'm not talking between toy piano or Steinway, come on. That was a example to explain somethings different and not related to my thread. You confuse the two different things. I'm talking for example how the same Steinway piano rec will sound on different setup, not compared to another piano.

These are your words, from a few posts ago.

Also, why use a Steinway piano instead of this?
<picture of toy>

This question makes no sense. You use different pianos because they sound different, end of discussion. You seem to be hopelessly lost in som idea that one can't mentally compensate for different listening environments.

Yes, each will be slightly different, so what? Those differences are not of interest beyond one's understanding of how certain equipment and environment changes sound in a systematic way.

Try listen the punch and texture of a kickdrum within a club, or on a NS10 pair, than on akg k240... the differences are irrelevant for you?

Again, you are missing what people are telling you. You need to listen more. Each of those devices has a predictable and understandable transfer function that can be compensated for by the producer. I, in fact, regularly listen to kick drums on speakers very similar to the NS10 and specifically K240s with the intent that they be played back on a club system, but also, so that they can be played back in earbuds. That's the job of mixing and mastering, but, what's on the tape is fixed, period, end of discussion.

Your failure to grok this doesn't transfer to other people. I can listen on headphones or on my small monitors and know how that's going to translate. So, no, the differences are NOT important beyond how I understand how they change sound in a systematic way. That's EXACTLY what I told you above. Learning that takes experience with YOUR equipment.

[ghettosynth]

Are you perplexed by the fact that we can identify a voice as human, and understand it, despite the fact that it has a different timbre, and rhythm and environment from any specific voice we have heard before?

No. I'm still trying to catch if my brain perceive a different timbre (color of the sound) on different playback system (what the major of the topic's participants support till now) or it perceive always the same because our power brain compensate the environment and such (what you and Christian Schüler support instead).

There is no precise answer to this question. Your brain will create frequencies that aren't actually there, Waves MaxxBass relies on this as do your laptop speakers. Your brain creates the subharmonic when it hears the timbre of higher harmonics in specific relation to each other. This is for a simple signal. There's no way of precisely determining what the brain perceives on all complex signals.

Beyond that bias plays a huge role in what you hear and this is an ongoing active area of research. Look up the McGurk effect which shows clearly how vision impacts what we actually hear. This is just one example, there are MANY forms of bias and many psychoacoustic phenomenon that impact what the brain perceives as opposed to what is actually being played.

[whyterabbyt]

I dont care about "recognize the same Guitar"

In the context of this thread, you should. What your brain is doing is recognising. Your ear is a mechanism for feeding sensory input to the brain, but its the brain that listens and listening is recognition.

[ghettosynth]

You don't work on somethings that will be defined and unique, but on a "ranges" of possibile sounding results, whose space around the prefixed setup targets.

No, you work on something that is defined by whatever recordings and instruments that you are playing. Timbre is always well defined and constant modulo the existence of random elements within your instruments, if it's recorded, this is largely moot. Minor perturbations from playback equipment will impact how you hear that timbre, but that variation isn't important with respect to what you've been talking about. You seem to think that this is some big deal, it isn't.

I.e. timbre is an element that wont be exactly preserved across playback (considering the perception of a single person, of course).

Again, why do you care about this variation in a constant environment? The timbre that is recorded is the same. What you hear will vary in a minor way based on your playback system.

Is it more clear my perplexity now?

No, you're rambling on about shit that doesn't matter in any meaningful way. Nobody understands what you are actually confused about. EQ impacts timbre, your speakers impact timbre, your amplifier impacts timbre, the cup on your desk can impact the timbre, move it to the other side and the timbre will be different, however, you won't be able to tell that it is, so why are you worried about it?

Seriously, ask the question that you're interested in, or give it a rest.