Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

Chords, scales, harmony, melody, etc.
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

jancivil wrote:
Nowhk wrote:
BertKoor wrote:One part of this chordian knot
Not sure what a "chordian knot" is :D
GORDIAN knot is a difficult and involved problem.
... that usually has a simple and straight solution (Alexander) :wink:
Fernando (FMR)

Post

Nowhk wrote:I'm a programmer: when I wrote a software it does EXACTLY the same every time (well, bugs apart :P). On music (yeah, an art) the objective is totally different... is not fixed;
OK, so you are a programmer. Good, because then you should be familiar with a couple of programming paradigms.

In Functional programming you avoid having state in your programs. You only write functions that take input and produce output. It's very deterministic: same input always returns the same output, no side effects ever. You can still have state in pure functional programming, as demonstrated in this video by two of my colleagues, but that's not very straight forward.

The opposite paradigm is imperative where all kinds of side effects caused by the program's state are allowed, and even part of the correct functioning of the program. Typically these programs are harder to set up unit tests for, because first the program needs to be put in a certain state before the for the test expected behaviour is shown.

Guess what model best describes your brain...
We are the KVR collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. Image
My MusicCalc is served over https!!

Post

Nowhk wrote:
dark water wrote:Btw, have you ever suffered from tinnitus?
Yeah, since 1 year more or less. But I sleep well :wink:
Talking about medical conditions... A tiny bit of ASD too maybe? It's an invaluable asset for a programmer 8)
We are the KVR collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. Image
My MusicCalc is served over https!!

Post

BertKoor wrote:Sorry about that.. I meant this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_Knot
Fascinating :wink:
BertKoor wrote:But the real question is: why are differences not relevant to the listener (including the producer himself) ?
After understanding first point, i.e. that those differences are "perceived" and I'm not biased, well... that's the question I've ask to you :D This is exactly what I'd like to understand.

But the reply was "it doens't matter because it doesn't matter", which I don't consider an explanation. If "interess" is sound, and sound will change anytime, I see obvious that all of these differences should matter.
That concept of "noise floor of interest" make no sense for me. Once you have comparison (i.e. you understand the differences in the two experiences), it seems naturally for me that you respond differently. How much differently? Even if a little bit, you does. Sound is sound, and I agree 100% with VariKusBrainZ when he/she said about Autechre.

If I listen that bass I've posted on heavy-bass speakers, it give to me from starter a more aggressiveness, due to how "deep" (boosted bass) the bass raise. That's not about "quality" and "Zen and the art of motorcycle": it seems you decide "how" you would morph the brain. If I want a calm listening, I'll going to flat. If I'm angry and I want it to scratch my soul violently, I go with heavy bass.
BertKoor wrote:If you make a sound where an imperfection of the reproduction system plays an integral part in its perception, then you have failed and thus found yourself in the 'does not translate' class. Simple as that.
I agree 100% with this. But I'm not talking about mastering fail. But mastering as "state of art" (if it makes sense).

If I can hear the "kick" aspects on every target mediums, I success as mastering, but since these aspects appairs with "sub" variations (i.e. balance of a timbre for example), can I conclude I made a final product? I don't feel to can assert this. It seems that listener will choice "how to morph" my work into theirs desired ways. But you have already reject this point of view, so I'm still asking which point of view can be the right.
BertKoor wrote:Guess what model best describes your brain...
That easy answer I guess :)
So, I ask you again (as listener who listen other people's music for example): since the result/perception of what you are listening is not deterministic (due to the environments, your mood, your brain, and such), how do you define the whole concept of the song you are listening? I'd says somethings that it can give to you a range of different vibes.

When you go to a concert and you listen to that song with the reverb of your favourite singer's voice added by the arena, winding up around you, do you ignore it? I don't of course, I "enjoy" it as well. Its like an FX at the end, not added by the mixdown but on playback.
The song seems to be ALSO this, "reverbered" by that arena. Do you disagree?
BertKoor wrote:Talking about medical conditions... A tiny bit of ASD too maybe? It's an invaluable asset for a programmer
Lol :D Not at all, luckily! I could seems a "dorky nerd" in this forum, with deviant mind; I've an active and huge social life, with a beautiful girlfriend and lots of trips around the world 8)
I'm just a reflexive boy, always been so.
I still got tinnitus, mostly about daily stress they said...

Post

Nowhk wrote:But the reply was "it doens't matter because it doesn't matter", which I don't consider an explanation. If "interess" is sound, and sound will change anytime, I see obvious that all of these differences should matter.
I think you've got there with "If interes(t) is sound". I suspect the difference is that you are concentrating on listening to "sound" while most of us are listening to "music".

In music the melodies, harmonies, structure, lyrics etc are important. Small changes like the sound in the hall isn't identical to that on the recording or the sound in the car is different from in the studio don't matter. And they don't matter, they aren't important, because they don't materially change any of the things that are really important to the music they just change the sound a little and I don't care.

And it's not just tiny sound changes, I've just been listening to a familiar Bach piece played by a brass ensemble rather than the normal string orchestra. Extremely different sound but that doesn't matter. It's still the same great piece of music and I still like it in all of it's varieties.

Steve

Post

Nowhk wrote:But the reply was "it doens't matter because it doesn't matter", which I don't consider an explanation. If "interess" is sound, and sound will change anytime, I see obvious that all of these differences should matter.
That concept of "noise floor of interest" make no sense for me.
Without evidence, I dont consider that an explanation that it does matter.

No two listening experiences can ever be identical. There will be deviation, even if that's just the sound of your own breathing, or the difference in room reflactions due to the clothing you are wearing.

Given that no two listening experiences can ever be identical, there will always be differences between them.

Are you claiming that there are no differences at all on any scale which you would consider too small to make a difference to a comparison?

Because if you are claiming that, then (a) you are ignoring all known evidence about human perception and (b) your question is moot; if there is never any consistency, then the issue of not achieving consistency is irrelevant.

If you accept that there are differences that are not perceived, then you are accepting the premise that there is a 'noise floor of interest', a level of difference below which differences are irrelevant.

Which is it? Are you denying that some differences do not matter?
If you are actually accepting that some differences do not matter, then you need to detail exactly which differences matter, and why. In other words, as Ive asked you to repeatedly; prove that differences matter.

Or are you claiming that all differences matter?
my other modular synth is a bugbrand

Post

slipstick wrote:I think you've got there with "If interes(t) is sound". I suspect the difference is that you are concentrating on listening to "sound" while most of us are listening to "music".

In music the melodies, harmonies, structure, lyrics etc are important. Small changes like the sound in the hall isn't identical to that on the recording or the sound in the car is different from in the studio don't matter. And they don't matter, they aren't important, because they don't materially change any of the things that are really important to the music they just change the sound a little and I don't care.
So this means that the piece of "sound" I've posted above (which doesn't contains melodies, harmonies, lyrics etc) is not music at all? And I'm not making/listening "music" but just "sound"? Uhm... I can't agree dude, sorry :ud:
whyterabbyt wrote:No two listening experiences can ever be identical. There will be deviation, even if that's just the sound of your own breathing, or the difference in room reflactions due to the clothing you are wearing.

Given that no two listening experiences can ever be identical, there will always be differences between them.
I agree 100% with this.
whyterabbyt wrote:Are you claiming that there are no differences at all on any scale which you would consider too small to make a difference to a comparison?
Of course NO. There are differences... and differences.
For example I'm able to catch differences in db within 0.5db (and some are wrong, sometimes). I fail most of the 0.2db.

So if we talk about systems that don't introduce "heavy" differences, I won't just perceive them. And you are right: this discussion is meaningless.
BUT the major targets which I'm talking here DOES introduce heavy differences. A single not treaty room introduce valley of dB. The speakers as well adds very noticeable colors, even the expensive and pro ones. Some are especially made this way. So I'm talking about these systems (I believe 60-70% of usual playback systems), where differences are perceived.
whyterabbyt wrote:If you accept that there are differences that are not perceived, then you are accepting the premise that there is a 'noise floor of interest', a level of difference below which differences are irrelevant.
I accept there are differences that are not perceived, but "I made it up" this happens (i.e. I don't get the differences) only on treaty room with expensive flat speakers, or headphones (i.e. producer side).
On real world, this IS NOT the usual way to listening to music. I'm talking about usual ways, which include for example loudspeakers, living room, and so on. Also of people that specifically "choose the way" to color the sound. Me too. Opera houses are built in a "certain way", to emphasize sounds.
And there, the differences are noticeable.
Are you listening only on flat? And claim that's the only way to consume music?
whyterabbyt wrote:Are you denying that some differences do not matter?
No. See above.
whyterabbyt wrote:Or are you claiming that all differences matter?
No. See above again.

Post

Nowhk wrote:So this means that the piece of "sound" I've posted above (which doesn't contains melodies, harmonies, lyrics etc) is not music at all? And I'm not making/listening "music" but just "sound"? Uhm... I can't agree dude, sorry :ud:
That's fine. You're entitled to your own opinions even when they are rubbish, as you've been proving for many pages now.

Steve

Post

Nowhk wrote:Of course NO. There are differences... and differences.
I presume what you mean is 'there are differences Nowhk is discounting and differences Nowhk is not discounting'

Except that you're not providing any definition for either, nor any means of measurement, nor any method of discrimination between the two.

So, in essence, you're basically moving goalposts here. You are aware that there is a 'noise floor of interest', but you've refuted that there is a 'noise floor of interest' as an explanation. So you're justifying this by artificially arbitrarily separating the noise floor you can't refute from the noise floor you dont want to accept.
So where's your definition of this cutoff?

So if we talk about systems that don't introduce "heavy" differences, I won't just perceive them. BUT the major target which I'm talking here DOES introduce heavy differences.
"Heavy" means nothing to anyone else. You need to provide definitions and measurables, otherwise you might as well call them 'pink differences' or 'sweaty differences'.

Until you define your terms, your observations mean nothing to anyone else, and you're basically using a private vocabulary, terms and definitions that only you are privy to. You're not communicating anything.

What's somewhat disconcerting about that is that you're seemingly using that as an excuse to avoid accepting valid information that is being given in terms of the more global use of those terms and definitions.
whyterabbyt wrote:If you accept that there are differences that are not perceived, then you are accepting the premise that there is a 'noise floor of interest', a level of difference below which differences are irrelevant.
I accept there are differences that are not perceived
And what about things that can be perceived, but only very slightly, or very briefly, or in specific circumstances, or by someone that isnt you? Differences which may not be perceived, even though they could be.
Do you accept that they exist?
my other modular synth is a bugbrand

Post

Nowhk wrote:If I want a calm listening, I'll going to flat. If I'm angry and I want it to scratch my soul violently, I go with heavy bass.
Really?? :shock: My hifi systems have their tone controls set in just one way, and that's flat. I used to have graphical EQ's inserted (with smiley curve ofcourse) until I got much better speakers that simply sounded best without any EQ. Or in fact, I found out the EQ added noise, hiss & distortion, thus only made things worse. So out it went. So I guess this is a matter of personal taste and it depends on what you're used to, and personal taste develops with the years.
Nowhk wrote:I'm not talking about mastering fail. But mastering as "state of art" (if it makes sense).
Sorry, I don't quite understand, but presume you were talking about sound / patch design. It won't hurt to check out the wikipedia page for the (or 'a') definition of mastering, just to make sure you're understanding it the same way as others do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering_engineer
Nowhk wrote:If I can hear the "kick" aspects on every target mediums, I success as mastering, but since these aspects appairs with "sub" variations (i.e. balance of a timbre for example), can I conclude I made a final product? I don't feel to can assert this.
The product is then final indeed. That is, it's out of your control and you have put it in the world to live a life of its own. Read a book or watch a movie for instance. Read or watch it again, and you will notice different details, never have the exact same experience again. With music (or sound) it's the same.

Watching a movie in a theatre is a different experience than watching it on TV, but the same story is being told. Is the difference between old-fashionned 525 analog lines on TV (or even make it black&white) and 4k super HD IMAX significant enough to give you a total different experience of the same movie? Sorry, this is like comparing laptop sound with hifi, so yes: we agree that is significant. See, you have to compare simular reproduction systems for them to be comparable for the users experience. An open door, no surprise I hope...
Nowhk wrote:It seems that listener will choice "how to morph" my work into theirs desired ways. But you have already reject this point of view, so I'm still asking which point of view can be the right.
Please show me what I have refuted, and how I formulated that, and in which context, because I don't recall that. I do refute that a listener actively makes a choice on what type of playback system is used, other than the usual practical concerns: earbuds in the train, hifi at home, PA in the club. Maybe earbuds for Justin Bieber and Sennheiser headphones for Pink Floyd, but usually people don't have that much choice at hand.
Nowhk wrote:When you go to a concert and you listen to that song with the reverb of your favourite singer's voice added by the arena, winding up around you, do you ignore it? I don't of course, I "enjoy" it as well. Its like an FX at the end, not added by the mixdown but on playback.
The song seems to be ALSO this, "reverbered" by that arena. Do you disagree?
Me thinks not many people disagree with that.
We are the KVR collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. Image
My MusicCalc is served over https!!

Post

fmr wrote:
jancivil wrote:
Nowhk wrote:
BertKoor wrote:One part of this chordian knot
Not sure what a "chordian knot" is :D
GORDIAN knot is a difficult and involved problem.
... that usually has a simple and straight solution (Alexander) :wink:
Heh. yeah, rather than 'unravel' the knot, he said f**k this and sliced through it with his sword.
Or so the more popular version of the myth goes.

Post

whyterabbyt wrote:Except that you're not providing any definition for either, nor any means of measurement, nor any method of discrimination between the two.
I did. Read again. I've made that ABX test for a purpose.
20/20 catch varying the sound max of +-2.4db, with 7-band. Where also a NS-10 will impact the sound "heavy". (i.e. more than 2.4db).
If a<b and b<c, a<c. No?
whyterabbyt wrote:"Heavy" means nothing to anyone else. You need to provide definitions and measurables, otherwise you might as well call them 'pink differences' or 'sweaty differences'.
Read above.
whyterabbyt wrote:And what about things that can be perceived, but only very slightly, or very briefly, or in specific circumstances, or by someone that isnt you? Differences which may not be perceived, even though they could be.
Do you accept that they exist?
'I made it up' that if I can't perceive them, these are out of equation (from my point of listening). So I just ignore them (my brain). Simply as that.
But in fact I'm talking about things "that can be perceived, but only very slightly, or very briefly, or in specific circumstances". These will make inconsistency about two playback. The non-concreteness. See the reverb example above.

Are you saying there aren't those "tiny" differences? I don't think. I think you are saying that their don't matter, right? (again).

And again, I don't care about "or by someone that isnt you", I'm talking about a individual approch to music (how hard is this to understand? damn, harder than my thread).

You are asking the same things, I'm answering the same things, every time :)
BertKoor wrote:I used to have graphical EQ's inserted (with smiley curve ofcourse) until I got much better speakers that simply sounded best without any EQ.
Well, do you see? Its exactly what I'm talking about. I really can't understand how hard is for you all get this. It seems that this happens and you just ignore it.
You CHANGE speakers, which CHANGE sound for you (in best).

So actually from my point of view you have proof that (a) 'the 'environmental changes' are significant enough to be perceived in the first place' (ABX test I've did) and (b) 'that your brain responds significantly to any such perceived 'environmental changes'.

Basically, changing environment, you have changed how the song IS (i.e. "sound").
BertKoor wrote:Sorry, I don't quite understand, but presume you were talking about sound / patch design. It won't hurt to check out the wikipedia page for the (or 'a') definition of mastering, just to make sure you're understanding it the same way as others do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering_engineer
I meant when you make a song and some elements won't appear at all in some target (your old example of friend's bass unrecognizable, for example).
BertKoor wrote:The product is then final indeed.
BertKoor wrote:Read a book or watch a movie for instance. Read or watch it again, and you will notice different details, never have the exact same experience again. With music (or sound) it's the same.
Isn't this totally contradictory? That's the point. How can a product (the song) be FINAL if it will change every time you consume it (details)? That's a paradox! We are talking about preservation since the beginning.
BertKoor wrote:so yes: we agree that is significant.

Yes, but that's significant also between "different" pro reproduction systems (pro monitor vs pro loudspeakers vs pro headphones) and also between "same" pro reproduction systems (pro monitor vs pro monitor, for example). An Adam S3X-H sound different than a Neumann KH 420, or vs the already cited NS-10.

So the point is: its always going to be different, ever (even if many of little).
BertKoor wrote:Please show me what I have refuted, and how I formulated that, and in which context, because I don't recall that.

This was about the two main opponents :P
Anyway, if you read from this (the so called "infinite faces" concept I've said) I've got many reject by this.
BertKoor wrote:Me thinks not many people disagree with that.

Really? We were talking about exactly this 26 pages, the results seems not you are agree with this :)
I've the impression that for most of you (you too at the time) sustain that this "doesn't matter" because brain comprensate and discard these differences. Now it seems that you accept your perception change every time (reverb example). There's confusion 8)

Post

Nowhk wrote:Basically, changing environment, you have changed how the song IS (i.e. "sound")
No, the song itself (the payload being sent) remained the same. I have only influenced the medium it travels through to reach me, maybe also influence any extra noise added to the signal, and thus my perception of it changes.

Image
For audio step 1 is set in stone burnt on CD-ROM, but steps 2 & 3 will be different each and every time. I don't even need to change anything in the environment for my perception to become different, because my brain will constantly focus on different details each time. But my brain is also smart enough to recognise I'm listening to the same thing again, but picking up different details from it.

When we say "the song does not change", we refer to step 1.
When you say "the song is different", you refer to step 3.

Again the example of reading a book.
Step 1: the book is published and each print (step 2) is not getting changed.
Step 3: you read it, and every read will be a different experience, even though the same sequence of words is on paper.

This is how it is, and we all agree that we have read the same book (maybe again), but yet had a (slightly or completely) different experience reading it.
Last edited by BertKoor on Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:49 am, edited 3 times in total.
We are the KVR collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. Image
My MusicCalc is served over https!!

Post

Nowhk wrote:
whyterabbyt wrote:Except that you're not providing any definition for either, nor any means of measurement, nor any method of discrimination between the two.
I did. Read again. I've made that ABX test for a purpose.
20/20 catch varying the sound max of +-2.4db, with 7-band. Where also a NS-10 will impact the sound "heavy". (i.e. more than 2.4db).
If a<b and b<c, a<c. No?
No, the parameters you set in your own private ABX test are not you providing a definitions of anything, nor did you indicate that they were supposed to relate to anything other than an instance of a test.

You said 'I did this ABX test, with differences between two samples' and later you indicated the changes were within a 2.4db range, but you didnt state what that 2.4dB applied to, in terms of frequency band or anything else, nor did you say that this value was your threshold.

You did not give anything like a definition.
whyterabbyt wrote:"Heavy" means nothing to anyone else. You need to provide definitions and measurables, otherwise you might as well call them 'pink differences' or 'sweaty differences'.
Read above.
Yes, where you didnt provide definitions or measurables. Feel free to quote yourself as evidence to the contrary though.
whyterabbyt wrote:And what about things that can be perceived, but only very slightly, or very briefly, or in specific circumstances, or by someone that isnt you? Differences which may not be perceived, even though they could be.
Do you accept that they exist?
'I made it up' that if I can't perceive them, these are out of equation (from my point of listening). So I just ignore them (my brain). Simply as that.
So you state that they dont matter because they dont matter. But refute 'they dont matter because they dont matter'. Ironic.

But actually I asked about the case where they can be perceived, although they might not be.
Or are you claiming that you can perceive all differences at any level, simultaneously?

If you have to listen very carefully, focussing attention to perceive a minimal difference, but it is not obvious until you do so, then the rest of the time you are not perceiving it yet it is still perceivable.
If there are two such differences and concentrating on one precludes concentrating on the other, then both differences exist but you can never perceive them both.

If perceiving such differences requires active discriminatory listening, then are you claiming the difference does not exist unless you have perceived it?

Or, instead, would you accept that there's actually a difference between 'can be perceived' and 'is perceived' and that if you dont perceive it, then you'd be ignoring information that can be perceived?
And again, I don't care about "or by someone that isnt you", I'm talking about a individual approch to music (how hard is this to understand? damn, harder than my thread).
Let me get this straight; are you saying that you're excluding anyone else's perception or approach from this, and that you're expecting us to provide an answer why you and only you react the way you and only you do based on your own individual cognition of perception and your own individual perception capabilities?
You are asking the same things, I'm answering the same things, every time :)
No, Im asking a series of different things, and one repeated thing, specifically because you have not answered the one repeated thing.

And what is being repeated is a request for proof that this matters, where what matters, and how it matters, is properly defined.
my other modular synth is a bugbrand

Post

BertKoor wrote: No, the song itself (the payload being sent) remained the same.
...
When we say "the song does not change", we refer to step 1.
When you say "the song is different", you refer to step 3.

Again the example of reading a book.
Step 1: the book is published and each print (step 2) is not getting changed.
Step 3: you read it, and every read will be a different experience, even though the same sequence of words is on paper.

This is how it is, and we all agree that we have read the same book (maybe again), but yet had a (slightly or completely) different experience reading it.
This is really slapping me :idea:

Wait wait wait...
Are you so saying that the song IS the recording? (which of course doesn't change, at least, within digital domain; keep on here for the moment).
And what change every time IS the experience of it?

I see the song as "what I perceive", what you seem to call experience?
whyterabbyt wrote:You said 'I did this ABX test, with differences between two samples' and later you indicated the changes were within a 2.4db range, but you didnt state what that 2.4dB applied to, in terms of frequency band or anything else, nor did you say that this value was your threshold.

Yes, where you didnt provide definitions or measurables. Feel free to quote yourself as evidence to the contrary though.
Here you go:
Nowhk wrote:Yes, its higher than 1db. I'm within +-2.4db range:

Image
whyterabbyt wrote:So you state that they dont matter because they dont matter. But refute 'they dont matter because they dont matter'. Ironic.
No I state that they don't matter because I can't perceive the differences- The differences between A and B matter if I can realize (perceive) that A and B are different. If I got A and B as be the same, of course they are the same. Maybe I don't understand what you mean with "it doesn't matter because it doesn't matter", really.
whyterabbyt wrote:But actually I asked about the case where they can be perceived, although they might not be.
I know, is what I've said:
But in fact I'm talking about things "that can be perceived, but only very slightly, or very briefly, or in specific circumstances".
whyterabbyt wrote:Or are you claiming that you can perceive all differences at any level, simultaneously?
Again, no. We have already discussed this, and I've already replied to this.
whyterabbyt wrote:If you have to listen very carefully, focussing attention to perceive a minimal difference, but it is not obvious until you do so, then the rest of the time you are not perceiving it yet it is still perceivable.
If there are two such differences and concentrating on one precludes concentrating on the other, then both differences exist but you can never perceive them both.
But you are not comparing in real time with a previous listening. I made it up that you are building perception when you focus attention on such a details. So as for the example of ABX I've uploaded, you just perceive a bass with marked low freq instead of perceive a bass with less low freq.
whyterabbyt wrote:If perceiving such differences requires active discriminatory listening, then are you claiming the difference does not exist unless you have perceived it?
The differences exists if I can perceive them. If I can't perceive them, I judge two listening the same (even if "physically" they aren't).
whyterabbyt wrote:Or, instead, would you accept that there's actually a difference between 'can be perceived' and 'is perceived' and that if you dont perceive it, then you'd be ignoring information that can be perceived?
It looks like the same question above. Yes I accept this, of course.
whyterabbyt wrote:Let me get this straight; are you saying that you're excluding anyone else's perception or approach from this, and that you're expecting us to provide an answer why you and only you react the way you and only you do based on your own individual cognition of perception and your own individual perception capabilities?
I'm not talking about Nowhk in the specific :)
I'm not talking about whyterabbyt in the specific :)
I'm talking about a general/single individual that approch to music. And with time he get experienced with it. And start to notice many details during its life.
whyterabbyt wrote:No, Im asking a series of different things, and one repeated thing, specifically because you have not answered the one repeated thing.
I was alluding to that, of course.
whyterabbyt wrote:And what is being repeated is a request for proof that this matters, where what matters, and how it matters, is properly defined.
At first instance, ABX proof that you can perceive differences.
For the second part, "proof that this matters", I really don't see why I should proof somethings like this.

##################################################

This is how I see the whole from my point of view
Once there's difference, and once you can perceive it, the GAME is started. There's nothing to proof if it matters or not. Just ask "why" it matters/doesn't matters for you, personal tastes (I did this; you no yet). Its subjective. So as I explained for me why it matters (not proofed), you should explain why it doesn't for you.

Let me do a fancy and similar example.
I told you I perceive that a violin sound different from a guitar, and I prefer violin because of the timbre.
Than I ask you if you can perceive the differences (in first instance); if you can't, you are out of the equation for this discussion (Bieber's fans example, which I really dubt are listening the arrangement of a Bieber song).
If you can perceive the difference, than you should explain (as I did; I prefer the timbre) why these difference does/doesnt matter. As slipstick did (or tried): he is concentring mainly on harmony, melodies, and such, so change in timbre change nothing.

You are simply reply to this question with "it doesn't matter because doesn't matter".

##################################################

I accept that my point of view can be totally wrong, full of rubbish and bullshit. But its time to say "where my reasoning is wrong", else we are really just iterate ourself.

Post Reply

Return to “Music Theory”