Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

[jancivil]

There seems to be a corollary here [in Whyte's argument] to the notion that emotion is located in timbre and the recognition of an instrument. I don't really study perception or any specifics in psychology, so I really don't know what to do with that.

However, if it's a given that everybody recognizes specific individual instruments from the orchestra, even, let alone the effect of combinations which may even disguise what it is/let alone effects in orchestration that color the instrument significantly (bowing the stringed instrument behind the bridge, for instance), that is not really a good premise to embark from, I don't think. I've encountered people with sophisticated tastes or leanings in music recently where a flugelhorn was called 'cornet' and soprano sax was called 'clarinet'. Now, a flugelhorn may be more similar to and difficult to distinguish from a cornet than a soprano sax is vs a clarinet, but it isn't at all surprising to me to see either confusion.

So for me perception as a determining principle is kind of up in the air. Yes, most dictionary definitions of 'timbre' state it's in the perception before we can say anything, essentially but then we have to note what *determines* a timbre, which is physical.

To sum, I wonder if the actual original question can be definitively answered. If you don't notice the timbre change, is there one? But I might notice it so it's subjective.

[BertKoor]

Sorry, do I agree? To what exactly? I think my final answer was "it depends"...

EQ is like a knife. You can use it to heal or to destroy. Subtle colouration, change timbre, or just some correction in mastering. Its just a creative tool with endless possibilities.

Audiophiles and wine tasters are proven to be fools. Coat hangers used instead of speaker cable came out better in the test. Cheap mass produced wine better than that rare year from a chateau. We cannot trust our senses to produce the same reaction (emotion) on the very same repeated stimulus. And we judge different ones to be the same.

We all have caught ourselves twisting a knob searching for the best position, finding that sweet spot, but finding out later it was on bypass.

Never trust your senses. Your brain is constantly fooling you.

[jancivil]

We all have caught ourselves twisting a knob searching for the best position, and finding out later it was on bypass.

Never trust your senses. Your brain is constantly fooling you.

very true. as I said, I once did some fairly significant changes to a track and it didn't seem radical, in two days I knew I had to pretty much lose that whole approach (scooping out so much in the middle of the field along with dramatic EQing).

[Nowhk]

To sum, I wonder if the actual original question can be definitively answered. If you don't notice the timbre change, is there one? But I might notice it so it's subjective.

The fact is: if I notice this every time, there's nothing "concrete" in music, and the song change every time I listen to it (even if slightly). That's my puzzlement. Can you blame me?

Sorry, do I agree? To what exactly?

That you listen "subtle" differences from setup to setup. You also said "find a compromise" and so on. I agree

We cannot trust our senses to produce the same reaction (emotion) on the very same repeated stimulus. And we judge different ones to be the same.
...
Your brain is constantly fooling you.

Exactly. If you think to this in a different way, this means that you can't trust on your (fixed) recording. Same stimulus can send different message, different stimulus can send the same message, but "sometimes" different stimulus can also send different message. And so on. It happens without your control (because everything is constantly changing).

So... what's the purpose of making music? The message you would send, for a single person, depends by how the brain "fool it", in that "listening" moment. How can you send a "fixed" message in this way? Different parts of it are always changeables...

I'm a programmer: when I wrote a function that returns A, it returns A (bug asides). Concreteness!!
Not "variations" of A, depending on how brain fool me based on the current environment.

[slipstick]

Congratulations. You've worked out why it is people who make, listen to and enjoy music and not computers.

BTW you could write a function that prints "Timbre is fixed", that's concrete enough. It will always print "Timbre is fixed". But, as the last many pages have proved, you still won't have any idea what the person reading it understands by those words or if the next person who sees them will understand something completely different or simply disagree with them. As soon as people are involved it always gets messy.

Steve

[whyterabbyt]

NO dude. I'm not talking about setups that "maintain neutrality": flat is not the discussion.

That's just not true. It has actually been part of the discussion. Its been a contextual reference given to you several times, one that you've seemingly grasped at straws to miss the point of. Which is why I said 'we were talking about' not 'you were talking about'

But that's not particularly important. The important bit is how little that back-to-back short-burst speaker colouration examples are completely irrelevant to the discussion that was actually being had, which dealt with a rather different listening scenario, whether that's completely opposite in every way to the example, or just almost completely opposite.

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.

Well of course that's easy to claim and harder to prove. However, once again, you're fundamentally missing the point. Reread it, its a statement about logical reasoning, not food.

Although I guess you're now trying to pretend you have Gordon Ramsey class ears, yes?

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".

Wait, are you now pretending to be the guy who understands how people cope with perceptual inconsistencies?

Because all along, its looked like you've been the guy endlessly repeating 'how can people cope with perceptual inconsistencies'

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.

So this part of your post, in the middle of a reply to something I posted today, was actually responding to something I said 3 weeks ago?

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.

How would you know, you clearly dont know what I agree with or not, and given the number of times you've gone round in circles, moving goalposts, Im not even convinced that you know what you agree with or not.

And your false dichotomy (the one from today in case you think Im talking about something from three weeks ago for some reason) still is one.

[VariKusBrainZ]

This reminds me of my experience/love of Autechre, some of their tunes constantly but subtly morph through changing EQ, bringing out by enhancing and dulling different 'riffs and licks' as it happens, so each time you listen to a tune it will sound slightly different, depending on which EQ range your brain has decided to latch on to

[Nowhk]

BTW you could write a function that prints "Timbre is fixed", that's concrete enough. It will always print "Timbre is fixed". But, as the last many pages have proved, you still won't have any idea what the person reading it understands by those words or if the next person who sees them will understand something completely different or simply disagree with them. As soon as people are involved it always gets messy.

Its embarassing that after 11 pages, people still don't get what I'm talking about. Damn, my english is really so crap

Again Steve, I'm not talking here what people got from my works, but if it will be repeteable and so "concrete" for a single human when he will make us of it.

Using the above example, you said "It will always print "Timbre is fixed".". No It won't, thats the mess.
If one setup will print "TIMBRE is fixed" (simulating some kind of emphasis), the message, for the same human, can change a lot: it can be interpreted as "screaming" timbre (uppercase).
Tomorrow my brain can fool me, ignore uppercase and catch the "not screaming" message.

Thats the messing which are out of control...

This reminds me of my experience/love of Autechre, some of their tunes constantly but subtly morph through changing EQ, bringing out by enhancing and dulling different 'riffs and licks' as it happens, so each time you listen to a tune it will sound slightly different, depending on which EQ range your brain has decided to latch on to

Man I'm experiencing this on every track these days

[whyterabbyt]

I'm a programmer: when I wrote a function that returns A, it returns A (bug asides). Concreteness!!
Not "variations" of A, depending on how brain fool me based on the current environment.

So when you see the letter 'A' on a screen, or printed on a page, do you recognise it as an 'A' and continue reading all the other letters that make up the sentences?

Or do you spend 3 weeks spaffing silly over whether its inherent deviation from the original font representation, by anti-aliased rasterisation, or ink bleed or whatever, changes the emotion of the sentence its used in?

[Nowhk]

I'm a programmer: when I wrote a function that returns A, it returns A (bug asides). Concreteness!!
Not "variations" of A, depending on how brain fool me based on the current environment.

So when you see the letter 'A' on a screen, or printed on a page, do you recognise it as an 'A' and continue reading all the other letters that make up the sentences?

Or do you spend 3 weeks spaffing silly over whether its inherent deviation from the original font representation, by anti-aliased rasterisation, or ink bleed or whatever, changes the emotion of the sentence its used in?

Not sure about your example.
On a forum text I don't care about these details (I just ignore them).
If I read a novel on a PDF or by original "hand-made" text perception CHANGE! Even the message from the author... seeing how author write letters and such.

[whyterabbyt]

Its embarassing that after 11 pages, people still don't get what I'm talking about. Damn, my english is really so crap

Funny, to me it seems like everyone gets what you're talking about. Its just that noone seems to agree that its as reductio-ad-absurdum-ly pivotal an interference to the process of creating music as you seem to want them to.

[whyterabbyt]

Not sure about your example.
On a forum text I don't care about these details (I just ignore them).
If I read a novel on a PDF or by original "hand-made" text perception CHANGE! Even the message from the author... seeing how author write letters and such.

So even the slightest change in the letters, from the change in rasterisation as text is scrolled, to variations in ambient lighting, that's what affects your emotional response to the writing?

And the words themselves, the sentences, they're not nearly as important.

Hmmm.

[ghettosynth]

Its embarassing that after 11 pages, people still don't get what I'm talking about. Damn, my english is really so crap

Funny, to me it seems like everyone gets what you're talking about. Its just that noone seems to agree that its as reductio-ad-absurdum-ly pivotal an interference to the process of creating music as you seem to want them to.

+1

Moreover, and I think that I mentioned this already, the understanding (really the lack of) of this is something that experience will mitigate. OP sounds like a beginner guitar player who can't quite get the knack of the Chuck Berry riff and is complaining that there must be some biophysical explanation that once understood, will somehow make a difference in the experience. There might be an explanation, but understanding it is rather pointless, practicing OTOH, not so much.

[Nowhk]

So even the slightest change in the letters, from the change in rasterisation as text is scrolled, to variations in ambient lighting, that's what affects your emotional response to the writing?

Thats "also", not "what". Are part of words/sentences (which can assume subtle different meaning in the context).

But hey, I respect your things if you don't notice and/or it doesn't make differences for you. I don't say your claims are stupid/silly things.
Can you proof they are senseless? If no, my opinion count as your.

Also, "I want them to" nothing. I'm just doing a personal consideration, discussing on it, not pretending.

Moreover, and I think that I mentioned this already, the understanding (really the lack of) of this is something that experience will mitigate. OP sounds like a beginner guitar player who can't quite get the knack of the Chuck Berry riff and is complaining that there must be some biophysical explanation that once understood, will somehow make a difference in the experience. There might be an explanation, but understanding it is rather pointless, practicing OTOH, not so much.

Or you are just so superficial in listening to music. Who knows...
Your awareness to have the right answers make me smile every time

[BertKoor]

Well, maybe the process needs to be explained.

The music producer / musician sits in his studio, making artistical choices about synth patches, guitar tones, effects etc including EQ. Record something. Due to listening fatigue or different playback system you may be surprised the next day it sounds different.

When finished, the product is handed over to a mastering engineer that tries to make it loud as f#ck but enjoyable on most systems, or rejects the crappy mix. Now EQ is not used artisticly but correctively. Like contrast & brightness corrections when printing photos.

Then it is handed over to the public. Totally out of anyones control what the playback system or the reaction is. Today I may cry for the same song on the same radio which left me stone cold yesterday.

Go figure...