Login / Register  0 items | $0.00 NewWhat is KVR? Submit News Advertise
User avatar
Nowhk
KVRian
 
668 posts since 2 Oct, 2013

Postby Nowhk; Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:53 am Re: Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

whyterabbyt wrote:Yes they have. Time after time. Your continued refusal to accept the explanations that have been given does not mean people have been able to give them.

Point me out a single post where these explanations happened!

Gamma-UT wrote:They have. You just step over it, come up with some irrelevant question and then pretend that people have misunderstood you.

Point me out a single post where these explanations happened!
dark water
KVRist
 
438 posts since 2 Jun, 2016

Postby dark water; Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:20 am Re: Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

ghettosynth wrote:
dark water wrote:Nowhk - do you ever get the feeling that you've wasted your time?


I get that feeling, I tell you what!


Indeed ghettosynth!
(and Gamma-UT too).


Nowhk - in fairness, your flaw has been to string out this fun over one whole 23-page (and counting) thread.
You need to observe the tactics of others at KVR and split it into many different bitesize pieces next time.

Btw, have you ever suffered from tinnitus?
User avatar
Nowhk
KVRian
 
668 posts since 2 Oct, 2013

Postby Nowhk; Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:27 am Re: Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

dark water wrote:Nowhk - in fairness, your flaw has been to string out this fun over one whole 23-page (and counting) thread.
You need to observe the tactics of others at KVR and split it into many different bitesize pieces next time.

Its funny you are still convinced I'm here for troll you and waste my (and your) time.
Nothing of them. And yes, I'm still convinced few of you heroes (except maybe jancivil and cron) got what I mean :hug:

dark water wrote:Btw, have you ever suffered from tinnitus?

Yeah, since 1 year more or less. But I sleep well :wink:
User avatar
Gamma-UT
KVRAF
 
3768 posts since 8 Jun, 2009, from UK

Postby Gamma-UT; Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:34 am Re: Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

Nowhk wrote:And yes, I'm still convinced few of you heroes (except maybe jancivil and cron) got what I mean :hug:


'K

jancivil wrote:almost like he's f**king with y'all, this is what, page 17 and going around in circles for days
User avatar
Nowhk
KVRian
 
668 posts since 2 Oct, 2013

Postby Nowhk; Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:41 am Re: Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

Gamma-UT wrote:
Nowhk wrote:And yes, I'm still convinced few of you heroes (except maybe jancivil and cron) got what I mean :hug:


'K

jancivil wrote:almost like he's f**king with y'all, this is what, page 17 and going around in circles for days

So you are moving goalpost?
However, don't read only what its convenient for you, read everything:

He insisted that *you* need evidence for whether or not the difference in perception matters *to you*. It's an hilarious statement.

(Then the argument was some violinists answers about old vs new violins didn't prove that older violins were superior, or only really showed they preferred the newer ones, or something. And that went around in circles for a bit.)

I'm still waiting your huge list of "explanations" why different perceptions introduced by mediums shouldn't matter. I'm here with popcorns...
User avatar
Gamma-UT
KVRAF
 
3768 posts since 8 Jun, 2009, from UK

Postby Gamma-UT; Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:44 am Re: Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

Nowhk wrote:So you are moving goalpost?
However, don't read only what its convenient for you, read...


I read that. It had nothing to do with the point.

However, it does seem your short-term memory is shot to pieces as the explanation of why these things don't matter to most people was a few pages back.
User avatar
whyterabbyt
Beware the Quoth
 
25045 posts since 3 Sep, 2001, from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair

Postby whyterabbyt; Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:51 am Re: Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

Nowhk wrote:
whyterabbyt wrote:Yes they have. Time after time. Your continued refusal to accept the explanations that have been given does not mean people have been able to give them.

Point me out a single post where these explanations happened!


No. You'd find them yourself, if you were interested, but you do not appear to be. You seem to prefer disingenuity in the face of any such thing, moving your goalposts, retroactively recasting your alleged context, reiterating fallacious assumptions, conflating circumstances, misrepresenting what has been said to you, all towards the end of negating the validity of explanations given to those queries you have raised, then abandoned. I have no interest in underwriting your constant rinse and repeat of the same basic pattern. Its enough to say that the thing you have clamed is false.
"The bearer of this signature is a genuine and authorised pope."
himalaya
KVRAF
 
4228 posts since 23 Mar, 2006, from pendeLondonmonium

Postby himalaya; Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:59 am Re: Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

And that should be the end of it. But I stupidly wrote another long reply. Argh! :D

Nowhk wrote:
himalaya wrote:Because music is not only about the frequency response, the "timbre" which is what you have focussed on for the most part. It's melody, harmony, orchestration, etc... all of which will come through on all playback systems. Parts of orchestration may be affected by some speakers, see my sub bass example above. But the rest of the 'components' that make the music piece will still work and send the 'message'.

This is very contradictory for me, I've already said this.
If that's true, than take any piece of music and switch its instrument with another ones, and you get the same music. I can't absolutely agree with this. Timbre is an integral part of the piece (or at least, the pieces I've in mind).


What don't you agree with? That we can use different instruments, re-arrange a song for different instruments, and still get the same music?

This of course depends.

For example, take a pop song. Most have a very strong melodic content. Change the instrumentation. Do you loose the music? Is it not recognisable any more? No. We can still hear that it is the same song due to the same melodic content. So, no, there are examples where 'timbre' does not constitute an integral part of a music piece.
But there are examples where timbre is all there is. It's mostly in some electronic music styles, where for example, melody can be absent, harmony can be absent and the main recognisable aspect is a sound or several sounds. Maybe it's all about complex production techniques which create a deep tapestry of sounds with a minimal or no melody and/or harmony...so here changing the 'instrumentation', the sounds, may render the music piece unrecognisable.


Why hearing a Gibson guitar instead of a guitar toy MATTER, while the differences between a Gibson guitar playback on different speakers/environments SHOULDN'T? You discard it only because the differences are tiny?


I don't discard anything. You are projecting your incorrect conclusions here.

If you play 'All you need is Love" on the Gibson and the toy guitar IT IS STILL THE SAME MUSIC PIECE. Different sounds, different timbre but the same music.

A.
"All you need is Love" played on Gibson vs toy guitar = same music, different sounds/timbres.

Do I discard the fact that here we have different instruments playing the same music piece? Discarding or accepting this has nothing to do with the fact that it is how it is: two different instruments with a different timbre play the same music. And? What now?

B.
"All you need is Love" played on a Gibson via different speakers = same music, maybe same timbre, maybe not. Depends on the speakers

Here, we have no control of how the Gibson will sound on numerous speakers. Every speaker will play exactly the same music piece and we will recognise it to be so, but the timbre of the Gibson guitar may or may not change from speaker to speaker. I supplied the laptop vs pro speaker examples before for clarity of illustration. But if you only focus on pro speakers, as you wish to do, then we won't experience such huge differences in tone as there are between a laptop and a pro studio monitor. Are you saying that Pro Speaker A adds more mid-to-low end, and Pro Speaker B exaggerates the top end, and this is such a huge difference between those two speaker sets that it changes the song itself on both and we can not recognise it any more? This is silly and totally wrong. The speakers will not affect the melody, which is the very first thing that will allow you to recognise the song. So...music is not just about 'timbre'. Not in all cases.



Along these 22 boring pages nobody of us (NOBODY) has been able to explain why these differences "don't matter".
[/quote]

Oh yes people have explained it to you. One very simple explanation why none of this matters is because you have no control over it. And it has been explained numerous times why and how. Print this thread. Read it. Study it. Do it in total silence. Do not play anything through any speaker system. No sounds allowed for you for the next 12 months.
Last edited by himalaya on Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.electric-himalaya.com
VSTi and hardware synth sound design
User avatar
Nowhk
KVRian
 
668 posts since 2 Oct, 2013

Postby Nowhk; Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:01 am Re: Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

Gamma-UT wrote:However, it does seem your short-term memory is shot to pieces as the explanation of why these things don't matter to most people was a few pages back.

No, we have just agree that we can't rely on memory to make an accurate comparison. This means just this: you can't make an accurate comparison.

This automatically doesn't mean that I can't confirm I got different perceptions on different mediums.
You all have confirmed we got different perceptions across different setups.

The unanswered question is "why" this doesn't matter.

whyterabbyt wrote:No. You'd find them yourself, if you were interested, but you do not appear to be. You seem to prefer disingenuity in the face of any such thing, moving your goalposts, retroactively recasting your alleged context, reiterating fallacious assumptions, conflating circumstances, misrepresenting what has been said to you, all towards the end of negating the validity of explanations given to those queries you have raised, then abandoned. I have no interest in underwriting your constant rinse and repeat of the same basic pattern. Its enough to say that the thing you have clamed is false.

Again, if you consider lime vs limon (or font/size reading) as explanations, you really don't catch my point.
What's the purpose of recasting and refuse your advices? I'm here for that.
Evidently I don't understand the point, or you don't understand the point. You can surrender to this, I can't (since I'm the TS, the one really interested).
User avatar
Gamma-UT
KVRAF
 
3768 posts since 8 Jun, 2009, from UK

Postby Gamma-UT; Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:11 am Re: Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

Nowhk wrote:No, we have just agree that we can't rely on memory to make an accurate comparison. This means just this: you can't make an accurate comparison.

This automatically doesn't mean that I can't confirm I got different perceptions on different mediums.
You all have confirmed we got different perceptions across different setups.


Logic fail. If you can't make an accurate comparison under any circumstances you have no way to decide that the reason for any difference under different media is due to those differences. You can only make an assumption.

Nowhk wrote:The unanswered question is "why" this doesn't matter.


Answered many times - for most people. As you feel under no obligation to provide reasons for why it matters to you, why should anyone try to explain those reasons?
User avatar
Nowhk
KVRian
 
668 posts since 2 Oct, 2013

Postby Nowhk; Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:57 am Re: Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

himalaya wrote:But there are examples where timbre is all there is. It's mostly in some electronic music styles, where for example, melody can be absent, harmony can be absent and the main recognisable aspect is a sound or several sounds. Maybe it's all about complex production techniques which create a deep tapestry of sounds with a minimal or no melody and/or harmony...so here changing the 'instrumentation', the sounds, may render the music piece unrecognisable.

I'm talking from the beginning about music that is driven by timbre. Yes, I'm making pure electronic music. Its all about timbre there. But as you can see, I'm not talking about "recognize" things. Never talked about this, and (again) specified many time by now.

When you hear a song you are not enjoying it because you recognize it. You don't like Eleanor Rigby becuase you recognize its Eleanor Rigby, but for what it can trasmit to you. And as for electronic track, it also trasmit color/timbre. You don't care about timbre? Ok, but I wouldn't elevate this to be common in music.

himalaya wrote:If you play 'All you need is Love" on the Gibson and the toy guitar IT IS STILL THE SAME MUSIC PIECE. Different sounds, different timbre but the same music.

That's subjective, I'm not on this topic. Is again just recognition.

himalaya wrote:Are you saying that Pro Speaker A adds more mid-to-low end, and Pro Speaker B exaggerates the top end, and this is such a huge difference between those two speaker sets that it changes the song itself on both and we can not recognise it any more? This is silly and totally wrong. The speakers will not affect the melody, which is the very first thing that will allow you to recognise the song.

Take this statement, avoid the concept of "recognition" and swap it with "enjoying" the song, thinking on a piece of electronic music (i.e. what I'm talking about since page 3): am I still totally wrong?
The "exaggerates the top end" can't give to me a perception of the track elements I'm listening (i.e. what I perceive as pad or kick) "harsher" than the one with "mid-to-low end"?

Of course I recognize it as "the same song" (whatever this phrase would mean), but won't it trasmit to me different emotions since the elements of it (that pad or kick) play in different ways/shades? This is that "don't matter" you all sustain (without any explanations) and I'm really not able to digest.
Please note: I'm not able to digest that this "doesn't matter" (because for me it could), not that this doesn't happens.

himalaya wrote:One very simple explanation why none of this matters is because you have no control over it.

So one explanation that "it doesn't matter" is because you don't have control over it? It doesn't makes ANY sense.
So the world hunger doesn't matter because I can't resolve it? Come one!! It seems "it matters", but you can't do anything for it, so you can only ACCEPT it. But don't say "it doesn't matter": totally different think, approach and awareness.

Gamma-UT wrote:Logic fail. If you can't make an accurate comparison under any circumstances you have no way to decide that the reason for any difference under different media is due to those differences. You can only make an assumption.

I said "accurate", read well. Of course I can't catch if there are differences between two setups of about 0.8db at 2khz. But I'm not here for catching subatomic things. Really do you perceive the same between your headphone and your loudspeakers? You don't, you all confirmed this. The question is why it doesn't matter (again...).

Gamma-UT wrote:Answered many times - for most people.

Still waiting those explanations.

Gamma-UT wrote:As you feel under no obligation to provide reasons for why it matters to you, why should anyone try to explain those reasons?

I'm the one who ask, so if you provide a reply, you should also provide the motivation.
I provide a reason for why it could matters for me (just read some lines above).
As well you should provide why it shouldn't matter, if you say "it doesn't matter".
Said "you are biased" is just (as jancivil said) an hilarious statement.
User avatar
Gamma-UT
KVRAF
 
3768 posts since 8 Jun, 2009, from UK

Postby Gamma-UT; Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:05 am Re: Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

And this is where we get to play Nowhk refutes Nowhk:

Nowhk wrote:
himalaya wrote:I have no way of knowing what will be preserved or not. Maybe the original music contains some super low sub-bass and was made on speakers that could reproduce that low sub bass, but my speakers maybe can't handle that sound and will not reproduce it. How will I know that there is this sub-bass if my speakers can't play it back?
So the original music is not "preserved", as you put it, in this situation. So what? That's how it is. We've established this on every page.

You are repeating what I've never treated. I never talking about High vs Low setups. As I'm not talking only about flat system. Its easy to catch "lacks" from laptop speakers and pro flat monitor when you hear it.
That's just that, I just miss it, and its ok: I will just enjoying "part" of that work.
But here I'm talking of mediums that have solid attributes to correctly reproduce the song, just in a "different". Such as pronounced bass or different transients.


So, which is it dude, systems that are very different (eg headphone vs speakers) or those that differ only in terms of speaker construction? Or do you want to change your mind again?
User avatar
Nowhk
KVRian
 
668 posts since 2 Oct, 2013

Postby Nowhk; Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:18 am Re: Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

Gamma-UT wrote:And this is where we get to play Nowhk refutes Nowhk:

Nowhk wrote:
himalaya wrote:I have no way of knowing what will be preserved or not. Maybe the original music contains some super low sub-bass and was made on speakers that could reproduce that low sub bass, but my speakers maybe can't handle that sound and will not reproduce it. How will I know that there is this sub-bass if my speakers can't play it back?
So the original music is not "preserved", as you put it, in this situation. So what? That's how it is. We've established this on every page.

You are repeating what I've never treated. I never talking about High vs Low setups. As I'm not talking only about flat system. Its easy to catch "lacks" from laptop speakers and pro flat monitor when you hear it.
That's just that, I just miss it, and its ok: I will just enjoying "part" of that work.
But here I'm talking of mediums that have solid attributes to correctly reproduce the song, just in a "different". Such as pronounced bass or different transients.


So, which is it dude, systems that are very different (eg headphone vs speakers) or those that differ only in terms of speaker construction? Or do you want to change your mind again?

No change in mind at all (you are now obsessed by this). Just read: "But here I'm talking of mediums that have solid attributes to correctly reproduce the song, just in a different". Both speakers and headphones are valid. As pro speakers vs pro speakers. Or flat vs pro loudspeakers. Of course laptop haven't the right requirements.
User avatar
whyterabbyt
Beware the Quoth
 
25045 posts since 3 Sep, 2001, from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair

Postby whyterabbyt; Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:34 am Re: Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

Nowhk wrote:Again, if you consider lime vs limon (or font/size reading) as explanations, you really don't catch my point.



Neither was an explanation. They were both used in pointing out fallacious logic you were trying to use. (The fact that you decided to respond to them literally was neither here nor there, your logic was not somehow rendered coherent for doing so)

But, as I say, you're not trying to 'catch' any explanations at all, quite the reverse.
"The bearer of this signature is a genuine and authorised pope."
User avatar
whyterabbyt
Beware the Quoth
 
25045 posts since 3 Sep, 2001, from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair

Postby whyterabbyt; Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:44 am Re: Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

Nowhk wrote:The unanswered question is "why" this doesn't matter.


Multiple answers have been given.

But since you cant accept that, here is the final, absolute, singular answer.

It doesnt matter because it doesnt matter.

If you wish to try and refute that answer, your only valid starting point is to prove that it does matter. And you cannot prove that.
"The bearer of this signature is a genuine and authorised pope."
PreviousNext

Moderator: Moderators (Main)

Return to Music Theory

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MoodleBot [Bot]