Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

[ghettosynth]

Is this what you are thinking? If so, then yes...
The original sound + electronic equipment + the acoustic environment (+ how you cognitively process the sensory information coming into your brain) will affect how you listen to a sound. This is also why your listening experiences will be different if any of those variables (and many more which I've probably missed out) change.
Even having a head cold can often give you a different listening experience!

Moreover, how you "cognitively process sounds" is not fixed. It is highly impacted by numerous sources of bias. OP is probably experiencing that to a fairly strong degree in this thread because he want's there to be something significant to this. Double blind tests will reveal this to a large degree.

This is how high end stereo equipment is sold, often subconsciously, even on the part of the seller. "Sir, with this system you will hear the soundstage open up and the orchestra will sound more alive and three dimensional." Yep, depending on how subject you are to suggestibility, that's exactly what you will "hear." That doesn't mean that what you perceive is what is arriving at your ears.

Here you go OP, I mentioned this earlier, it was just a google search away. No matter who you are, or what system you listen to this on, you will experience the effect. This is a fantastic example of how what we hear is not necessarily what is arriving at our ears. Note, I said hear, not "believe that we hear", because this form of bias, like many others, actually impacts what we perceive, that is, what our brain "hears."

In this video, what arrives at your ears is always the same in the examples, but you will not hear the same thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

We all get what you are trying to discuss, the problem isn't with us, the problem is that you don't know what you don't know. You need to read more and gain more experience with audio.

[Russell Grand]

You sure music is the right thing for you?

Yes I am. You sure you get what my dubt is?

Yes, your problem is abundantly clear.

[Nowhk]

I've read a lot about bias and cognition of sound (also, I've read half of The Oxford Handbook of Music Psychology (2 ed.).
Linked to the subject, these "bias" are also quite interesting:

http://auditoryneuroscience.com/topics/ ... undamental
http://auditoryneuroscience.com/continuityIllusion

I know you will hate me even more, but those SUPPORT what I'm saying (or what I think to have understand during my studies)

The original sound + electronic equipment + the acoustic environment (+ how you cognitively process the sensory information coming into your brain) will affect how you listen to a sound. This is also why your listening experiences will be different if any of those variables (and many more which I've probably missed out) change.
Even having a head cold can often give you a different listening experience!

Moreover, how you "cognitively process sounds" is not fixed.

But this is EXACTLY what (I think) I'm sustaining

Again (let me re-re-re-resuming), for a fixed person...
if the whole chain will affect how I listen to a sound (and I realize I'm getting a different listening experience), the perception of it will change (or maybe I feel this, wrongly); as I said on my old post with the youtube video, I can perceive (for example) different transient on listening to that track, thus different "punch" between headphone and club speaker. Thus if the hear change, the perception (how I listen) changes: isn't what dark water have written?

If you agree with this, can you just say "yes, that's true". Because my quesiton grow after this confirm (and I can go ahead).
If you don't agree, maybe the problem (with me) is that I just "hear" instead of "perceive"? Or am I confusing the two? Hear vs perception don't give to me big differences on google...

I don't know... but I also understand your "you don't know what you don't know" after 6 pages of the same things You all are so generous, kind and patient, thanks again!

[ghettosynth]

I've read a lot about bias and cognition of sound (also, I've read half of The Oxford Handbook of Music Psychology (2 ed.).
Linked to the subject, these "bias" are also quite interesting:

http://auditoryneuroscience.com/topics/ ... undamental
http://auditoryneuroscience.com/continuityIllusion

I know you will hate me even more, but those SUPPORT what I'm saying (or what I think to have understand during my studies)

The original sound + electronic equipment + the acoustic environment (+ how you cognitively process the sensory information coming into your brain) will affect how you listen to a sound. This is also why your listening experiences will be different if any of those variables (and many more which I've probably missed out) change.
Even having a head cold can often give you a different listening experience!

Moreover, how you "cognitively process sounds" is not fixed.

But this is EXACTLY what (I think) I'm sustaining

Again (let me re-re-re-resuming), for a fixed person...
if the whole chain will affect how I listen to a sound (and I realize I'm getting a different listening experience), the perception of it will change (or maybe I feel this, wrongly); as I said on my old post with the youtube video, I can perceive (for example) different transient on listening to that track, thus different "punch" between headphone and club speaker. Thus if the hear change, the perception (how I listen) changes: isn't what dark water have written?

If you agree with this, can you just say "yes, that's true". Because my quesiton grow after this confirm (and I can go ahead).
If you don't agree, maybe the problem (with me) is that I just "hear" instead of "perceive"? Or am I confusing the two? Hear vs perception don't give to me big differences on google...

I don't know... but I also understand your "you don't know what you don't know" after 6 pages of the same things

Because your cognitive perception of sound is not fixed does NOT mean that you cannot minimize the impact of bias in a systematic way. Again, this is what you were told pages ago, it's what mixing and mastering in a disciplined manner is all about. Sources of bias are concrete, i.e., the suggestion in the context of a sale, or the visual bias of seeing a speaker's lips.

Experience allows you to minimize this not only across systems, but across individuals as well. There is much less variation across all sources of bias, when controlled, than you imagine. Again, you were told this as well, this is about being "below the noise floor" in terms of what matters.

There are a number of personal factors that matter when you're mixing, i.e., give your ears a rest, keep the volume at a reasonable level, as these things will increase the perception of these variations.

However, sound is sound is sound. We don't need to rely on our perception to be certain that a sound is consistent in particular ways, that's what instruments are for. Instruments, consistent environments, and blind testing keep your perception variance in check. It's not "one or the other", there is ground truth and there is perception. You aren't on to anything exciting or interesting here so much as you're going on about a whole lot of nothing.

What nobody here is really getting from you is why this is such a burning question? You started with a specific, and incorrect, statement and now you're off the deep end trying to make a mountain out of a molehill with respect to music and sound cognition for what purpose exactly?

[Nowhk]

What nobody here is really getting from you is why this is such a burning question? You started with a specific, and incorrect, statement and now you're off the deep end trying to make a mountain out of a molehill with respect to music and sound cognition for what purpose exactly?

I wrote this, maybe you just ignore it.

Here you go... assuming true my last "hiring" (of course if you agree to that point this makes sense; still not really sure if you agree or not):

1 - If the perception change on every playback (as dark water said "The original sound + electronic equipment + the acoustic environment + ecc ecc") this means that (conceptually) I'm listening to different "results" (even if slightly and irrelevant as you said; but that's another point);
2 - thus, If on every playback I got different "result", this means that (again, conceptually) the track/song is not unique/fixed/defined (I don't mean the recordings; of course that's fixed); it manifest itself with infinite "faces" (i.e. the punch of a kick slightly change from setup to setup; <<< this has a damn heavy impact to me), and every "face" depends on the setup used to listening to the song (and the biologic status, bias of each person, ecc ecc);
3 - a producer works on a "potential" product, balancing how it will be "face" in different scenario; not on a fixed sounding result (the recordings is fixed, not the playback). Stupid example: I'm a programmer: when I wrote a software it does EXACTLY the same every time (well, bugs apart ). On music (yeah, an art) the objective is totally different... is not fixed;

If all the above points are true, this means that listener "partecipate" on the final product (the "sounding result", with its chain) of the "song" (as result/product); song is not "finished" at recordings stage (again, conceptually).
This is my concern about this topic.

I started with a "false positive" to trigger opinions, ideas and try to confirm (still in dubt) my thought. Wrong approch evidently.
And I realize right now that this topic (maybe) is more about philosophy rather than technical.
But that's "Music Theory" forum, not "Mixing and Mastering". That's why I posted it here...

[ghettosynth]

What nobody here is really getting from you is why this is such a burning question? You started with a specific, and incorrect, statement and now you're off the deep end trying to make a mountain out of a molehill with respect to music and sound cognition for what purpose exactly?

I wrote this, maybe you just ignore it.

Here you go... assuming true my last "hiring" (of course if you agree to that point this makes sense; still not really sure if you agree or not):

1 - If the perception change on every playback (as dark water said "The original sound + electronic equipment + the acoustic environment + ecc ecc") this means that (conceptually) I'm listening to different "results" (even if slightly and irrelevant as you said; but that's another point);
2 - thus, If on every playback I got different "result", this means that (again, conceptually) the track/song is not unique/fixed/defined (I don't mean the recordings; of course that's fixed); it manifest itself with infinite "faces" (i.e. the punch of a kick slightly change from setup to setup; <<< this has a damn heavy impact to me), and every "face" depends on the setup used to listening to the song (and the biologic status, bias of each person, ecc ecc);

If all the above points are true, this means that listener "partecipate" on the final product (the "sounding result", with its chain) of the "song" (as result/product); song is not "finished" at recordings stage (again, conceptually).
This is my all concern about this topic.

I started with a "false positive" to trigger opinions, ideas and try to confirm (still in dubt) my thought. Wrong approch evidently.
And I realize right now that this topic (maybe) is more about philosophy rather than technical.
But that's "Music Theory" forum, not "Mixing and Mastering". That's why I posted it here...

This isn't music theory either, you can call it philosophy, I'd call it something else. However, if you don't have a need to control the experience of how listening changes, then because it does isn't really relevant. It does, FWIW, if you want concrete evidence of this, take drugs and listen to music, end of discussion. That is how you can actively change your own perception of music, that is, participate in what you're hearing in a significant way. I'm not sure how repeatable specific interactions are, but, I suspect that there is something there.

I have it on good authority that the main synth line in Fuse's Theychx off of Dimension Intrusion sounds like plastic tearing while on LSD.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK8fIuadWa0

Your brain is a chemical machine, so of course there exists a possibility to change how you perceive any sense. Have you never had auditory hallucinations? What do you think those are when there is no actual sound? Most forms of tinnitus are essentially a type of hallucination.

Bringing this right back to the original question, simply adjusting the EQ is changing what you hear when you experience a track. I would stop short of calling this "participation" in the same way that actually playing music is participating.

Also, going back to other comments in this thread, NONE of this type of "interaction" is going to make the Fuse track above sound like Justin Beiber, so there is only so much "participation" that one can impose either consciously or subconsciously. So, yes, Eleanor Rigby is always Eleanor Rigby, you're not going to make it another song by perturbing the spectrum in minor ways or doing any of the things that you've been talking about.

Further, the problem with your "infinite faces" is that it's hyperbole. There are an infinite number of numbers between zero and one, or between zero and 0.1, or between zero and 0.001, or between zero and the smallest positive number that you can write down in your lifetime. So talking about "infinite faces" like it means something is really just pseudo-intellectual masturbation. Infinite doesn't matter here, what matters is the magnitude of perceived change from any two perceptions drawn at random. As I said before, it's below the noise floor. It's the cup on the desk all over again. If you think that moving the cup from one side of the desk to the other is "participating", then sure, you're "participating" and we're all musical geniuses.

[BertKoor]

Maybe it helps if I throw in two more anecdotes...

#1: I have the habit of using a clock radio to wake me up in the morning, with the radio tuned in to a pop music station. A couple of times I heard this single that was on the charts, but I had heard it only on my clock radio which had a speaker of only one (or two) inch. I thought nothing special of it, it was just that hit record and I though I knew how it sounded. Then one day I heard the same song in my car. To my surprise there was also a sub-bass (sine wave, no harmonics) on that track! Frequencies below 80Hz just did not play at all on my clock radio, but I could heard them in the car. Since then my brain had an associated memory of what notes were played by the sub-bass, and in my imagination they were filled in when I heard the same song on the clock radio. I called that phenomena "Stealth Bass".

#2: Music can provoke strong emotional reaction. You get goosebumps or you may cry, it's triggered just by listening to music. This has no correlation with the playback system: it can happen with good hifi set, or a lousy laptop or phone speaker (or clock radio.) Different people will have different reactions to the very same music. Even the same person may have different reactions each time they hear the same music through the same sound set. I might have no emotions the first time, cry the second time, and feel nothing again the third time. This is not predictable, it depends on a whole range of unknown factors.

Bottom line: you cannot control it. So better forget about it. Just understand there are differences because there are differences.
Does that sound philosophical? Maybe that's because it is a philosophical question that technicians like us cannot answer

[whyterabbyt]

I
Again (let me re-re-re-resuming), for a fixed person...
if the whole chain will affect how I listen to a sound (and I realize I'm getting a different listening experience), the perception of it will change

No, the whole chain will affect what you hear. Once again, hearing and listening are not the same thing.

However it appears you are still making two fundamental assumptions about the 'perception of it'

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

Secondly, you are assuming that your brain responds significantly to any such perceived 'environmental changes' so as to respond them differently, instead of, say, just filtering them out.

I'd be curious as to what your reference for perceiving the changes is, though. Some expectation that you have a perfect memory of the original, and that your brain is capable of some sort of discriminatory process of comparing one sensory stream against a memory of an incredibly similar sensory stream?

Do you think your brain maintains a perfect memory of every sensory experience you've ever had?

[ghettosynth]

I'd be curious as to what your reference for perceiving the changes is, though. Some expectation that you have a perfect memory of the original, and that your brain is capable of some sort of discriminatory process of comparing one sensory stream against a memory of an incredibly similar sensory stream?

Do you think your brain maintains a perfect memory of every sensory experience you've ever had?

Yes, excellent point. It's usually a problem when you're using the machine that you're trying to measure to do the measuring. Which gets back to that OP is biased in his experiments and looking for change where it may only exist in memory.

[Nowhk]

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

Of course it does Just the reverb from speakers or headphones are easily noticeable. In a non-treaty room you can lost masked frequencies that can also change pitch of some semitones.

Secondly, you are assuming that your brain responds significantly to any such perceived 'environmental changes' so as to respond them differently, instead of, say, just filtering them out.

For "filtering" do you also mean "balancing" from the environment global spectral envelope?

I'd be curious as to what your reference for perceiving the changes is, though. Some expectation that you have a perfect memory of the original, and that your brain is capable of some sort of discriminatory process of comparing one sensory stream against a memory of an incredibly similar sensory stream?

Do you think your brain maintains a perfect memory of every sensory experience you've ever had?

Here you go, fancy example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWK0sa7tlfI
Really do you "listen" the same "sound" across these multiple speakers? Really?
Seventy 80 makes the sound really harsh compared to Greenback, for example. Timbre is different (of course, is harsh), the waterfall of each frequencies is less masked because the rapid ramp which makes them disappear. And many other factors make the "result" sound different.

Men, SOUND changes!!! Of course the melody is the same, the harmony as well, the riff... and so on. But as I said, I'm not talking about these aspects.

Do you disagree?

[BertKoor]

But the SOUND changes.

Do you disagree?

No, I think we don't disagree.
But you can argue whether it makes any difference, whether it is significant in the message you bring to the listener.

Another example... I play guitar. Like many guitar players I can get obsessed with getting a specific guitar tone (or timbre) for a specific recording. Would a random listener care whether I use a Fender Telecaster or a Les Paul? A real Marshall tube amp or Tech21 SansAmp stompbox? One single 8" speaker or 4x 12" cabinet? Recorded with a SM58 mike or used the DI output of the amp? The differences in timbre are real and significant for me, but the timbres are probably completely interchangeable for the listener.

You can have the same argument for synth patches. A producer can tweak the synth and it's EQ / compression / delay / reverb settings until the cows come home, but would the listener really care for such minor (relative) differences?

Producers today can go on and tweak their mix for days, go back to each and every decision they made in their production. In the days of 4-track tape you just recorded one or two takes and that was it. Is the music itself really better with the ability to go back and tweak everything again, make subtle timbre changes? You can argue... I just record whatever I have right then at that moment, and then I'm done. Good enough is good enough.

You read it nearly daily here on the forum: wannabe producer posts a link to youtube, with question: how is that exact sound at min:sec made? It does not need to be exact, I think the timbre can be slightly different and still have the same function.

[whyterabbyt]

Secondly, you are assuming that your brain responds significantly to any such perceived 'environmental changes' so as to respond them differently, instead of, say, just filtering them out.

For "filtering" do you also mean "balancing" from the environment global spectral envelope?

No, Im still talking about your brain filtering your sensory input perception. You know, like I talked about earlier, including the ability to ignore the other 30 people talking in the same room as the person you actually are listening to.
Or your brain filtering out the blocks of motion-blur that happen as your eyes move constantly from one thing to another.
Or the McGurk illusion.

[Nowhk]

But you can argue whether it makes any difference, whether it is significant in the message you bring to the listener.

This will pilot the thread out of the rail
Those are choices of the producer/artist, I don't argue of this here; that's the "art" of making things, anyone have its own taste and preferences of course, and will do whatever he want.

The differences in timbre are real and significant for me

I hope you listen your music across different setups, right? Do you "listen" the differences of timbre also between setup (minor changes)? And not only between Fender Telecaster and Les Paul (major changes)?
I don't ask you if these differences are relevants, but if you got them.

That's my whole point! Conceptually the definition of "what" a song is (for me) drastically changes. I won't be refering to it anymore as a "unique/defined/concrete" entity, because its not: it changes (even if only a bit) everytime, in functions of many factors, even if you are not catching them.

Of course "I won't" if discussing this with experienced people like you could confirm these aspects. whyterabbyt (and many others) for example seems to be reluctants on what I'm saying, that's why I'm still on this topic hehe.

Am I the only one who analyze and get an idea of what things ARE in this world?

[BertKoor]

I hope you listen your music across different setups, right? Do you "listen" the differences of timbre also between setup (minor changes)?

Sure. And then what to do with it? Often nothing.
But when I hear something totally unexpected and unwanted, I have found an issue in my mix in the category "does not translate well between systems" and I have to think of a solution to fix it, find a compromise so it sounds reasonable across multiple systems.

Is that what you mean?

[cron]

The long and short is that your music will sound different on different systems, and no two people will necessarily hear the same thing when your music is played on the same system. We're basically talking about mastering in a sense, making sure that your music translates well to various systems. This is even more difficult now given that people regularly listen to music through laptop speakers, small bluetooth speakers, or mobile phones.

The evolution of dubstep over about 5 years from 2007 to 2012 provides an interesting case study. It started out emphasising super deep bass that translated well on huge sound systems (particularly the incredible systems the FWD club night had over the years), and ended with screeching mid-range 'bass' that translates well on mobile phones and laptop speakers. Sure there are aesthetic points to consider, but I'm quite sure that evolution was partly driven by the change in the type of device people typically listened on during that time period. The sound in a sense needed to change if it was going to spread any further than the walls of FWD where that kind of sound system isn't available.

It's important to accept that you essentially lose control over how your music is heard the moment you put it out there. Sure, you can try to make sure it sounds good on everything, but is it ever going to sound 'good' on a mobile phone in the same way it sounds 'good' on a pair of speakers? They're different types of 'good'. In the early days of iOS, using the built-in EQ caused clipping, regardless of how low you set the volume. How about someone with a frankly crazy EQ curve on their hi-fi? Again you can't account for that, but the person who set the crazy EQ listens to everything like that so your track isn't going to sound unusually horrible to that person. No amount of mastering can defeat the inherent capabilities of these devices or the sometimes wacky preferences of those who listen on them, and there are some circumstances you simply can't predict. Your music has a life and a sound of its own once it's out there. Do your best then let go.

There's a track of mine I took to about 3 friends' houses but none had speakers capable of cleanly reproducing the lowest note. If you haven't got a sub, it sounds like a fart. I tried adding harmonics (too cheesy), ducking compression to emphasise something was happening there... There was just no way to make this thing sound good on all systems without compromising the essence of the track. So I just stopped trying to account for everyone and let it be 'sound system music', because that's what it is. It wouldn't be the same track if you could hear the bottom end on a bluetooth speaker. Just as I can't predict what people will think of my tracks, I can't predict what kind of gear people will listen to them on. And that's fine. https://soundcloud.com/charityqueen/lacuna