Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

[Gamma-UT]

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 have said repeatedly that comparisons made by independent listeners are irrelevant and that you are only concerned with the perception of the same listener to the same material at different times and under different conditions. Why is this example relevant?

[Nowhk]

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 have said repeatedly that comparisons made by independent listeners are irrelevant and that you are only concerned with the perception of the same listener to the same material at different times and under different conditions. Why is this example relevant?

Oh my... are you serious? You can't be...

Its an example to show the logic of the reasoning.
What I mean as perceive different things (here the simplify example is about instrument level) and what I mean as explain if it does/doesn't matter.

Now take this conversation style and wrap/port to differences in timbre of "the same material at different times and under different conditions"...

[Gamma-UT]

Oh my... are you serious? You can't be...

Funny, I was thinking just the same about you.

Its an example to show the logic of the reasoning.
What I mean as perceive different things (here the simplify example is about instrument level) and what I mean as explain if it does/doesn't matter.

Now take this conversation style and wrap/port to differences in timbre of "the same material at different times and under different conditions"...

One moment, you're talking about the timbre of the same source under different circumstances. The next, you're talking about different sources. Why do you see these as equivalent?

[Nowhk]

One moment, you're talking about the timbre of the same source under different circumstances. The next, you're talking about different sources. Why do you see these as equivalent?

Its an EXAMPLE! Take a model and export/apply to another context. How is it called this in english?

The approch on getting the differences is equivalent, only at different levels of amounts.
As you can catch differences between a violin and a guitar (at very base knowledge of music), as well you can catch differences between timbre of the same source under different circumstances (advanced level, when you are trained enough).

[Gamma-UT]

Its an EXAMPLE! Take a model and export/apply to another context. How is it called this in english?

The approch on getting the differences is equivalent, only at different levels of amounts.
As you can catch differences between a violin and a guitar (at very base knowledge of music), as well you can catch differences between timbre of the same source under different circumstances (advanced level, when you are trained enough).

The thing about examples is they should be relevant to the problem at hand. People being able to recognise a violin vs a guitar is a different issue to whether a guitar "has enough bass in it" for your listening enjoyment in a particular scenario.

However, the episode does provide a bit more insight into your thought patterns and their quasi-random nature.

[whyterabbyt]

you didnt provide definitions or measurables. Feel free to quote yourself as evidence to the contrary though.

Here you go:

That means nothing. That's not a definition. Its a picture of the settings of a plugin you used to make frequency modifications to a file.
It is not the definition of anything, nor does it define any measurements pertaining to a definition. At best its an instance of the thing being defined, though that's a stretch.
A proper definition would define the set of all the slightly different modifications that would be useable.

The number 5 is a prime number. When someone asks you for the definition of a prime number, showing a picture of the number 5 is not a valid response.

It seems like you dont understand what a definition is.

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.

No, we've already established that they can still be different, even while you're either not perceiving, or ignoring, the differences that exists.

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.

You've repeatedly replied inconsistently, and with private vocabulary, and moved goalposts, so many times that I have no interest in trying to retrospectively disentangle what you actually mean. That's why Im asking precise questions. It feels very much as though you're trying to avoid giving absolute, precise, unequivocal answers.

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.

Im not asking how you're listening, Im asking if you agree that despite being capable of detecting some differences, you may not actually detect them.

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).

So, you're saying its about whether you can perceive them, not if you do perceive them, is that correct?

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.

Actually its the opposite. Its an either/or choice.

You're now saying its whether you do perceive them, not whether you can. Is that correct?

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.

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that your question applies to some hypothetical person, and that you're expecting us to provide an answer as to why a hypothetical person you've imagined might react the way you think they would?

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.

Ive already explained this, but lets try again. Its your hypothesis that a thing matters. Your challenge to other people to justify it not mattering is implicitly contingent on it mattering. But you have to establish that it matters, first. Its your proposal, so the burden of proof is on you, its not that the burden of disproof is on us.

[Nowhk]

The number 5 is a prime number. When someone asks you for the definition of a prime number, showing a picture of the number 5 is not a valid response.

I made it up that once I'm able to catch a differences with such spectrum edit, as well I could (not always, I agree) catch them once listening to different speakers, which adds color in a similar way.

That's why Im asking precise questions. It feels very much as though you're trying to avoid giving absolute, precise, unequivocal answers.

Ok, I try to engage the game.

Im not asking how you're listening, Im asking if you agree that despite being capable of detecting some differences, you may not actually detect them.

Yes. But the point is the listenings where I actually detect them.

So, you're saying its about whether you can perceive them, not if you do perceive them, is that correct?

Yes, I'm talking about scenarios that introduce sufficient color to be perceived by the listener. I think there are a lot of them on usual music listenings.

You're now saying its whether you do perceive them, not whether you can. Is that correct?

Yes, when I do perceive them. You got trained during your life, spending time on music. The more you learn and perfect your ear, the more you will be able to catch tiny details. I "can" perceive more details once I train even more (I suppose). Of course till some points. I'm not going into Matrix.
I would say 10 years ago listening the same piece on earbuds or monitor, I would not be able to notice differences in "timbre" (probably my brain just conceptualize the same color on each listening). Once I've started to play with additive synthesis, I've started to fall into even more details. Like notice that your present don't play the same on each (pro) setups. Why it doesn't, if not for the edits on the spectrum (and of course other things)?

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that your question applies to some hypothetical person, and that you're expecting us to provide an answer as to why a hypothetical person you've imagined might react the way you think they would?

No, I'm asking how person (who are able to perceive differences between two different playback) reacts to a non-consistency things like a song. Because if the song is what you are listening (perceiving), than you deal with a non-consistency thing during the listening you have. How do we formalize it? How do we identify it (as "song/identity", not recognize stuff) if it changes every time? Its the one with more bass? Or the one with flat spectrum? The same producer side: I'm building that song with heavy bass? But if I play it on flat, it won't have "heavy" bass anymore, so I'm building somethings that is varying due to the listener preferences? Or listener extrapolate from different audio sources (different environments) the same stuff every time? Or what?

I'm not able myself to do answer my own question, so I don't have "my way" of think. I just place some "I made it up" (which you consider claims). That's why I write here to ask your way of thinking "how things works".

Ive already explained this, but lets try again. Its your hypothesis that a thing matters. Your challenge to other people to justify it not mattering is implicitly contingent on it mattering. But you have to establish that it matters, first. Its your proposal, so the burden of proof is on you, its not that the burden of disproof is on us.

I understand what you are trying to saying. But once you perceive differences (if you do. You do? can you simply say yes/no at this question?), you just ignore them? Or maybe you attribute minor values? Or what? Its how you can avoid differences that I don't understand.

[BertKoor]

I'm asking how person (who are able to perceive differences between two different playback) reacts to a non-consistency things like a song.

The scientific method is to first rule out as many variables as possible, and assert that the studied object / phenomena is measurable with double blind tests, placebo's etc. So in this case I'd start with first asserting variance in reactions when in fact nothing changes in the experiment setup. This is also one of the reasons I pointed you to the optical illusions, to show you this is very tricky. Also the example of watching a movie first time followed by a second & third time: the subject experiences these differently, because it has knowledge of previous times and there are less surprises and other details that get attention.

So rule out even more variables is the answer. Say we make it extremely simple (always a good idea) and expose the test subject to a pure 1000 Hz sine tone at a moderate level of 70 dB SPL and a duration of 5 seconds. You might get a test subject that totally freaks out on that, because he associates this standard test tone with the BBC test card shown when there is no TV program to transmit:

AND this test person happens to be extremely scared of clowns. So your innocent test tone provokes an unanticipated emotional response, due to the fact that the human brain is a complex (in)finite state machine.

OK, next to another test subject without coulrophobia... What should we test? How about this:
1. Expose the subject to pink noise at 68 dB and sine tone at 70 dB. Pause for a minute.
2. Expose the subject to pink noise at 70 dB and sine tone at 72 dB. Pause for a minute.
3. Expose the subject to pink noise at 70 dB and sine tone at 68 dB. Pause for a minute.
4. Expose the subject to pink noise at 72 dB and sine tone at 70 dB. Pause for a minute.
*. Ask the subject to order the four sine tones from soft to loud.

For a solid experiment you maybe have to make it a bit more complex, ask for very different things so the subject does not become aware of what exactly is being researched, because that may alter his answers. I hope you get the drift, it is not evidently simple to prove that the same stimulus renders the same perception, the same experience. Also because previous experiences will influence future ones. You might call that "learning".

Once you (I hope) established that we have a hard time already with reactions to simular stimuli, how then cope with different stimuli? I'm really not sure...

Maybe just go back to the core question, and just take a very simple case: one song to listen to and two professional studio-grade headphones. Would a subject notice any difference? That probably depends on what you ask him/her to pay attention to. And you might have to trick the subject a little bit. Like first let him hear it on phones A, then pretend something's wrong and switch to phones B. And/or say you have two slightly different mastered versions you'd like them to compare. Doing proper tests on perception is really difficult!

So maybe better just simplify it, don't do it truely scientificly, that's beyond my abilities. Take the same audio and two headphones. Listen to A, then to B. I know roughly what happens in my brain. When listening to the second phones I will be aware that these are different cans and do sound different! But after a while I will become accustomed to that, and realise I'm listening to the exact same music again, and won't focus on slight spectral differences, thus ignoring the difference. Though I'm probably easily fooled to make me think it's from a different mastering.

I think that our brain will try to decode the original message, and strip off distortions due to the medium as much as possible. So in the brain I build up an abstract image of what the original non-distorted sound would be like. Like if I hear a bird sing on a village square, I might first be aware of echoes from the buildings and the distance to the bird is twenty meters, but at the same time there's this perception of just purely the bird singing right in front of me, outside of the environment, as an abstract image of what I'm hearing.

[Harry_HH]

BTW, as a spin off, the above BBC TV test card is the same which inspired Hendrix to write following first two lines in one of his most famous songs:

After all the jacks are in their boxes
And the clowns have all gone to bed
You can hear happiness staggering...

[whyterabbyt]

Ok, I try to engage the game.

If this is all a game to you, you can f**k off. People have spent a lot of time and effort trying to discern what you're talking about, and help you understand accordingly. Im not wasting any more of my time on this shite for your entertainment.

[Nowhk]

I think that our brain will try to decode the original message, and strip off distortions due to the medium as much as possible. So in the brain I build up an abstract image of what the original non-distorted sound would be like.

This is the other part of the medal; what whyterabbyt sustain since the beginning. And many of us already said this, such as Christian Schüler or yellowmix .
And I could agree with this, that our brain during a "musical listening" (and not adapting to the mediums, where differences are noticeable) trying to extrapolate a "common" message.

But so:
1 - what's the purpose of use/make tons of different and expencives/similar (in quality) setups in the world when, in the end, you extrapolate the same after a bit of "listening adaptation"? Just a single MODEL of a speaker would be enough Why a speaker with marked bass or high-midrange headphones? You adapt to it (the medium), and than your brain decode. And you enjoy the message. End of question! No?
You suggest to read about that Zen book, for this. I did, but it doens't explain this. It explains the needs for anyone (such as why your mother choose a different car) to get different stuff. But because it gives to her "different things". Not trying to decode to "the same things".
2 - why you should enjoy more/less a song with the reverb of the concert example of above if (in the end) you again extrapolate the same "message/abstract image"? The colors it adds seems to be relevant, not only a thing I will just "adapting" in the time...

I can't find myself a reply to these questions. Do you?
I'm still interessed in read a reply to the question I've written to you some post ago; it could be a wrong valutation about "what a song is" by me.

If this is all a game to you, you can f**k off. People have spent a lot of time and effort trying to discern what you're talking about, and help you understand accordingly. Im not wasting any more of my time on this shite for your entertainment.

Oh no dude, you have misinterpreted my phrase, I'm sorry!
I meant: I'm happy to follow your "new line of question/reply" style to your precise questions, in this kind of "lengthy messages". What have you understood?

I know you are spending lot of time and effort, and I'm so happy of your precious kindness. Don't misunderstand my words, please.

[jancivil]

I think that our brain will try to decode the original message, and strip off distortions due to the medium as much as possible. So in the brain I build up an abstract image of what the original non-distorted sound would be like.

This is true generally of the brain, it tries to make sense of things per expectation.

Yesterday I heard something of mine I hadn't heard for a while. I know every last bit of this composition, there is nothing unexpected in the content, I hadn't forgot. BUT I seem to have had my ears accustomed to basic A=440 tuning or somewhat. This, I felt at the time was best flatter, the mode I went with. I think it was A=437 or 8. And yesterday it sounded not really in tune. Once I got a firm sense of the tonic, it's modal and static, it's in tune. And this is true of me as a whole.
I have to adjust. Some people may be slower to. So here the brain went with not a real memory of how this sounds but where my ear was 'located' at the moment. The brain itself is kind of suspect here. Tricky.

[Nowhk]

I think that our brain will try to decode the original message, and strip off distortions due to the medium as much as possible. So in the brain I build up an abstract image of what the original non-distorted sound would be like.

This is true generally of the brain, it tries to make sense of things per expectation.

Yesterday I heard something of mine I hadn't heard for a while. I know every last bit of this composition, there is nothing unexpected in the content, I hadn't forgot. BUT I seem to have had my ears accustomed to basic A=440 tuning or somewhat. This, I felt at the time was best flatter, the mode I went with. I think it was A=437 or 8. And yesterday it sounded not really in tune. Once I got a firm sense of the tonic, it's modal and static, it's in tune. And this is true of me as a whole.
I have to adjust. Some people may be slower to. So here the brain went with not a real memory of how this sounds but where my ear was 'located' at the moment. The brain itself is kind of suspect here. Tricky.

Yes, it could be that the whole discussion is about our brain which adapts to the medium, and make sense of the "message". Christian Schüler privately point to me very nice related arguments about this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepstrum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independe ... t_analysis

But I still don't understand WHY, if that's true and its what happening, once I get used to a particular setup that can express the content I'm looking for (i.e. a setup that is able to reproduce the human/mine percepible hearing range), I would take benefit of other "similar" setups.
Take a pro flat vs a pro loudspeakers: they have got both the requisites to reproduce the whole spectrum; just one is "cold" and the other "warm" (using standard/marketing workds).

Why I should prefer one instead of another if what I get (the message, extrapolate by our brain, compensating environments and such, once I get used to it) is the same?
Its the message that count. Once I got it, I shouldn't feel different "intensity".
I could say the same of volume. Listen to music with higher volume give to me more intense emotions.
The same, our brain should adapt the volume and get the same "message".

That's why I mess with the option that "I made it up" that perhaps we don't get the same message every time, but a different (tiny) one, due to how we listen to it.

[BertKoor]

what's the purpose of use/make tons of different and expencives/similar (in quality) setups in the world when, in the end, you extrapolate the same after a bit of "listening adaptation"? Just a single MODEL of a speaker would be enough

What about making this decoding/extrapolation easier to ourselves? If you find the colouration of a reproduction system annoying, only then there is an incentive to do something about it and scratch that itch. Otherwise you just live with it and apparently ignore it. Or you're just ignorant: not being aware there is an issue with colouration and something (other speakers, relocation, acoustical treatment of the room) can be done about it at reasonable cost / effort. Now you're in the realm of motivation, not perception.

And since there is not one ideal speaker that suits all of our needs (in a very broad sense) and fits any budget, we chose whatever we see fit for our own purposes given the budget we're prepared to spend.

You suggest to read about that Zen book, for this. I did, but it doens't explain this. It explains the needs for anyone (such as why your mother choose a different car) to get different stuff. But because it gives to her "different things".

But EXACTLY THAT IS the explanation! We all have personal, individual, subjective, maybe even irrational needs, and no single speaker fits that to the extend it completely takes over the market.

why you should enjoy more/less a song with the reverb of the concert example of above if (in the end) you again extrapolate the same "message/abstract image"?

Since you are in a different environment, the whole experience is different. Even with the same music, it's a totally different experience,

Go to youtube and compare some album tracks with their live renditions. Tell me what is the same and what is different. Then look up on youtube a video of a concert you have been to, and tell me what is the same and what is different in actually being there (nearly touch the artist, smell the beer) and the video recording.

Its the message that count. Once I got it, I shouldn't feel different "intensity".
I could say the same of volume. Listen to music with higher volume give to me more intense emotions.
The same, our brain should adapt the volume and get the same "message".

Don't be silly. It's well known that volume messes up your whole perception. High volumes tend to distort that for this exact reason: increased intensity which then masks your ability to take it for what it really is.

[jancivil]

about our brain which adapts to the medium, and make sense of the "message". ... related arguments about this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepstrum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independe ... t_analysis

But I still don't understand WHY, if that's true and its what happening, once I get used to a particular setup that can express the content I'm looking for (i.e. a setup that is able to reproduce the human/mine percepible hearing range), I would take benefit of other "similar" setups.
Take a pro flat vs a pro loudspeakers: they have got both the requisites to reproduce the whole spectrum; just one is "cold" and the other "warm" (using standard/marketing words).

Why I should prefer one instead of another if what I get (the message, extrapolate by our brain, compensating environments and such, once I get used to it) is the same?
It's the message that counts. Once I got it, I shouldn't feel different "intensity".
I could say the same of volume. Listen to music with higher volume give to me more intense emotions.
The same, our brain should adapt the volume and get the same "message".

That's why I mess with the option that "I made it up" that perhaps we don't get the same message every time, but a different (tiny) one, due to how we listen to it.

I can be the most objective about the degree of 'spectrum' that is apparent in 'different setups' regarding my own music.

I like a reference like a pretty flat setup because of very little added, so I know what is there, particularly in highs, lows and the harmonics from the lows, so when I hear it more normally, when most everybody will hear it, the highs are not lacking and the bass is not 'wrong' and so forth.

I prefer to experience it on something in between quite flat (Sennheiser 280s or Yamaha NS10) and totally consumer big bass big presence jobs. I'm using Shure SRH440 phones, which give me more of the space I fought so hard for mixing (I suppose they've done something to emulate an 'ideal speakers in a room' setup in the phones). I don't know what ''the message" means for me tbh. If it's music I know, I'm not confused by the audio setup. I see 'mix at both loud and soft levels' which is fine, and I'm shooting for 'average' but chances are you'll *feel* it more cranked up.