Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

[ghettosynth]

Someone mentionned the Rolling Stones... How come it doesn't matter Keith Richards plays a strat or a tele? It sounds different, right? Yes, but its not significant because this detail is not essential to the message.

What then is the message of the rolling stones? "GET NO sol sol, solati SATISFACTION" is the message and how Charlie Watts kick sounds is NOT part of that but merely noise.

The kick drum you produce, sounds somewhat different on other speakers. Insignificant, because it is not the message. "Aggressive distorted kick" is the message, and slight differences in noise spectrum do not play part in my ability to decode that message. So it is irrelevant, insignificant.

Yes, but, he is talking about music that is largely driven by timbre. I get that, my own music is also almost completely timbre driven. That said, it doesn't change anything. It's your job to mix your music so that the message is received by your customers. Note, this doesn't always mean "the most number of people possible." I regularly joke with people who listen to my music that if they aren't picking up on something that they need better speakers. I often don't much care that it translates to many different kinds of systems really, it's not like it's going to matter.

This is kind of related to cron's point above. I don't think about how you might listen to my music in pure mono, my suggestion to that is, don't, it won't sound good.

However, if you're talking about dramatic differences on similar quality systems then you're almost certainly overthinking things and your perception is probably being affected by your beliefs that such things matter.

[Nowhk]

You are over thinking this. Over analysing it.
...
What else do you propose?
...
What is your solution to what we consider to be a non-issue?

I'm not here for propose somethings, or suggest you to quit music and such (as I've read in some ironic replies)
Sometimes in the life I'd like to make break and do (maybe deep) a point of situation, doing some sort of reflections. That's all... in this case, understand where I'm going and what I'm actually do.

Yes, but, he is talking about music that is largely driven by timbre. I get that, my own music is also almost completely timbre driven. That said, it doesn't change anything.

But if the whole "background" sound/noise is driven by the timbre made by an un-natural, synthesized and "abstracted" experimental synth/instrument, how could be the message if not the sound itself?
What message would you "trasmit" if not "how the sound... SOUND" (which, as confirmed by you lots of time, will changes across setups)?

Its all about recognition some aspect of the "hearing" sound?
But if so, how would people which don't have a clue about music productions and sound design enjoy a synthesized sound if not by (just) how "it sounds" (built in) within your brain?

Here for example:

The kick drum you produce, sounds somewhat different on other speakers. Insignificant, because it is not the message. "Aggressive distorted kick" is the message, and slight differences in noise spectrum do not play part in my ability to decode that message. So it is irrelevant, insignificant.

If the "slight differences in noise spectrum" add bass on the sounding result, the message could become "Even more Aggressive distorted kick". Couldn't the message change in this way?

_____________________________________________________________

Note that I'm still asking things, not claiming. I'm approching this type of communication to show you that I'm not here for impose my think, but to understand what I'm doing. I'm still trying to figure it out what are these "messages" if you consider sound just a container (or at least, that's what I got between your last posts).

[BertKoor]

The kick drum you produce, sounds somewhat different on other speakers. Insignificant, because it is not the message. "Aggressive distorted kick" is the message, and slight differences in noise spectrum do not play part in my ability to decode that message. So it is irrelevant, insignificant.

If the "slight differences in noise spectrum" add bass on the sounding result, the message could become "Even more Aggressive distorted kick". Couldn't the message change in this way?

Sure, and that is completely fine and to be expected.

But you do not have any control over that, other than checking how it sounds on various sound systems (your studio monitors, your headphones, your hifi, your car stereo or boombox) to check it resembles what you intended, given the limitations and capabilities of that system, comparing it to a simular reference song. Then maybe do some small changes in order to fix that.

So you check your mix "translates" well across a variety of sound systems. You can call in the help of a mastering engineer to do that for you.

[Nowhk]

But you do not have any control over that, other than checking how it sounds on various sound systems (your studio monitors, your headphones, your hifi, your car stereo or boombox) to check it resembles what you intended, given the limitations and capabilities of that system, comparing it to a simular reference song. Then maybe do some small changes in order to fix that.

So you check your mix "translates" well across a variety of sound systems.

I'd like to be "pedantic" here with the term translate (avoid further misunderstandings): do you mean that you can translate (preserving) your message across different setups (your target) or that you translate (adapting) your message across different setups (your target)? Because maybe that's the kernel of this conceptual "masturbation" discussion...

It's out of your control how we perceive the same song across different playback systems. Why can't you accept it and understand it?

Its not that I can't accept, its that I find it really (reallyyyy) important to "just" accept without first reflect on it (3 months, are not so much )

If you stipulate that we should stop making music because audio playback systems change a song so much that it is impossible to reproduce it accurately each time, then what about our emotional states which cloud our perception even more than audio speakers? You know this right? What then? What do we do about it?

Nice question. Very nice question.
So I ask you, which are involved in music productions by years, and I consider most of you professionals and experienced people.

How do you see the music process if you should explain it? In both case: producer and listener.
As Producer: what are you making? Just a recordings (physical object) which will produce "some air vibrations" that will produce "some sound" that should evocate a "macrocategories" of emotions?
As Listener: what are you listening? What's a song? A recordings that evocate some "macrocategories" of emotions?

Whatever its for you. Its really a "personal" question, because I'm really curious; I can't answer to it myself, neither as listener right now (f**king overthinking?), even if I listen to music since 20 years.

i.e. give me your reason to make/listen to music, which its seems to be somethings "perceived" differently every time. I'm not sarcastic, I'd really like to read your opinions

[BertKoor]

Whether a piece of music "translates" across different playback systems is all about the preservation of the message you aim to send out. I first heard here at KvrAudio the word "translation" used to describe this specific quality attribute of sound. If you read back this thread, several concrete examples are given of this phenomena.

Since English is not my mother's tongue I'm probably not the best at explaining it. One explanation is that when a producer hears his song outside his own studio for the first time, he's baffled about how bad it sounds there, and jokingly says: "Apparently something is lost in translation."

Some further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_NS-10

the worst speaker he could find

... and thus the perfect speaker to check whether a mix translates well. If it sounds good on NS10 speakers, it sounds good anywhere.

[Nowhk]

Drawing conclusions for this discussion (for what I can, after the "idiot" reputation I own by this thread)...
If I say somethings like:

"Producer works on making a recording (fixed) in a way that will sound within some boundary when I playback it on target mediums (i.e. the discussed "perceived sound variations" across environments), in order to keep and send the intended messages to the listeners (uniques, concretes; i.e. what is preserved across target mediums; which is also the main purpose of making piece of art I guess), which will be interpreted in different manners by people (and probably also different by the same person in different moments)".

Would you say is it a correct statement?

[Gamma-UT]

Congratulations, you have reinvented post-modernism.

[Nowhk]

Congratulations, you have reinvented post-modernism.

Never forget that what it seems so obvious in your life, maybe its not so obvious watching it from another POV, later.

It's like to tell me I'm an idiot/ignorant on this thread, and realizing in some months/years you are even more idiot because you are a "20 cigs per day" smoker.

I don't see why one should accuse somethings other because his "perception" of things (based on my lacks of learning, maybe; it doesn't matter) is not well defined, or its at bit "different".

Your "you are overthinking things" for me means nothing. We are both different, I don't see why "overthinking" would be a bad aspect in the life.

Most of you seems to be irritated because you got (from my messages) that I'm "claiming" somethings against your knowledge and stuff. That's simply a wrong assumption, since I'm here to learn. And probably my approch of "ask stuff like a child" seems embarrassing. I know. But its the only way I know for communicate within a "non-native language" online discussion.

It's your job to mix your music so that the message is received by your customers.

After 3 months of this subject, I'm still not even sure if music's messages (in general) are "what you extrapolate from the perceived sound" or are "the perceived sound itself".

But I guess its impossible to continue and resolve my dilemma here.
Probably I'd go elsewhere

However, thanks to everybody who spent time here for me, especially to BertKoor (what a kind of man), jancivil, slipstick, cron and himalaya: they really help me a lot.

Happy music dudes!!!

[BertKoor]

After 3 months of this subject, I'm still not even sure if music's messages (in general) are "what you extrapolate from the perceived sound" or are "the perceived sound itself".

It depends (as always) so a general answer is impossible to give.

I think it depends on your own motivation, that is: what is your intention of the created piece of art. The ambition can be to induce an emotion such as joy, sadness, being moved by the beauty of music. Or the ambition can be to produce a hit in the charts, get popular and rich, but no emotional effect on the public other than affection for the artist. Or there can be no ambition at all: just produce because it is fun to do.

This in itself (intention, motivation and ambition) is a can of worms, and can be a daily difficult struggle for any artist.

But I guess its impossible to continue and resolve my dilemma here.
Probably I'd go elsewhere

Following Gamma-UT's brilliantly observed clue might bring you some insights in this field of philosophy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_philosophy

Postmodernists deny that an objective reality exists, and deny that there are objective moral values.

The benefit of Wikipedia is that you can read the article in your own language (and fingers crossed it has enough and simular content)

However, thanks to everybody who spent time here for me

You're welcome, I'm glad we were able to help you one step forward.

And thank you for your stubbornness in asking again and again. Keep on doing that! Because I genuinely believe that if a student does not understand something, it's probably the fault of the teacher, assuming that the explanation was clear enough for everybody to understand.

[inkwarp]

i hope i can move people with my music, at least as much as how it makes me feel. which on a good day is pretty damn fine ( musically speaking, ignoring all my other failings)
i can no longer hope against hope that i can be quincy jones or trevor horn. so best to just direct all my energy into the music and everything else will be secondary. you will never please all the people, so just forget it. make what you make with love, make it as if you are your audience and this is the stuff you cannot see or hear anywhere else. if you aim to please everyone you will please no one ( entirely)..
there is a lot in this thread i can relate to and think about.
maybe more than any other forum i can remember on a forum about music (allegedly... :)

[inkwarp]

Congratulations, you have reinvented post-modernism.

isn't that just soooo postmodern?

[dark water]

Drawing conclusions for this discussion (for what I can, after the "idiot" reputation I own by this thread)...
If I say somethings like:

"Producer works on making a recording (fixed) in a way that will sound within some boundary when I playback it on target mediums (i.e. the discussed "perceived sound variations" across environments), in order to keep and send the intended messages to the listeners (uniques, concretes; i.e. what is preserved across target mediums; which is also the main purpose of making piece of art I guess), which will be interpreted in different manners by people (and probably also different by the same person in different moments)".

Would you say is it a correct statement?

It might be a correct statement for you, but many of us here may well give a much simpler answer.

More to the point, how does your statement answer the processes by which someone, for example Scratch Perry, remixes a publicly well known track, for example "To be a lover"? What pre-existing assumptions is the remixing producer then working with/against?

Lastly, can your statement answer the thread discussion question about EQ and timbre, if it doesn't mention those?

[BertKoor]

Lastly, can your statement answer the thread discussion question about EQ and timbre, if it doesn't mention those?

That specific question was ticked off as answered on page 9

[ghettosynth]

It's like to tell me I'm an idiot/ignorant on this thread

I'm pretty well bored with this thread, but, there is a clear distinction between referring to someone as lacking intelligence and being ignorant. You are ignorant of many things that doesn't mean that you lack intelligence. The word has a specific meaning to those of us who use it correctly. Do not conflate it with an insult, per se. It is an assertion that you lack specific knowledge. For example, I am completely ignorant of the techniques for open heart surgery and somewhat ignorant of the techniques of furniture refinishing. We are ALL ignorant of many things, just different things.

It's your job to mix your music so that the message is received by your customers.

After 3 months of this subject, I'm still not even sure if music's messages (in general) are "what you extrapolate from the perceived sound" or are "the perceived sound itself".

"Message" is your word not mine. I don't think that instrumental music generally has a "message" beyond a very vague mood.

But I guess its impossible to continue and resolve my dilemma here.
Probably I'd go elsewhere

Well, don't let us stop you. Onward to bigger and better things.

[BertKoor]

"Message" is your word not mine.

Actually, it was me that uttered that word first on page 6 and on page 12 I brought in the generic communication model as a reference or metafore. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_communication for further reading.

I don't think that instrumental music generally has a "message" beyond a very vague mood.

That's fine, and on many days I'd share that opinion with you. But I just googled it, and some great papers and studies (plus a lot of vague mumbo jumbo esotheric speculations) on this very subject came up.