Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

[Gamma-UT]

I doubt anyone would ask themselves: "Is this the same programme material?"

But this is exactly what the OP is asking, and has been asserting.

Fair point. I meant most people and phrased it badly.

[Gamma-UT]

Due to this, I (we) can argue about the impact of mediums about epistemology of "song" for example, or the fact that the listener "shape" (with its setup, in minor ways) what the song is;

As I pointed out some time ago, the postmodernists beat you to it. The end point of all that is either a denial of objective reality in any sense or the acceptance that perception shapes each individual's world view but not by all that much.

Nice question, already proposed by himalaya time ago. I think that what I perceive between the same mediums at different times is not exactly the same; so every time a bit of variations is added (by setup and by my brain). Notice that this (imo) reinforce my "hypothesis" that perception is constantly changing regards time and environments.

That's your hypothesis now? Not just EQ vs timbre? Only a page before, you were treating the idea of perception constantly changing as irrelevant and confusing the issue. My, how those goalposts move. We should harness them as a form of renewable energy. However, your "current" hypothesis that perception is constantly changing does largely agree with what psychologists seem to think, so there's some progress there.

[Nowhk]

That's your hypothesis now? Not just EQ vs timbre? Only a page before, you were treating the idea of perception constantly changing as irrelevant and confusing the issue.

That's my hypothesis since Page 3 dude I never moved the goalpost since there.
Not sure where you saw me said somethings about irrelevance on perception's changing. Maybe I was ironic? It would be totally contrary to my original hypothesis, I dubt you read this from me

However, your "current" hypothesis that perception is constantly changing does largely agree with what psychologists seem to think, so there's some progress there.

Go asking ghettosynth this

However, does this doesn't matter for you? That you are working (producing) on a "base" that conceptually changes constantly? And that you are listening (trivially) somethings different every time?
I accept it, of course, but agreeing you are working on a class of "events" (perceptions), not a singular one. Saying this, you must also agree that the listener's setup also shape the song's final perception. I wouldn't treat this subject with apathy...

[Gamma-UT]

Curious. Here's a post from page 6 with two of the interlocuters who you believe are wrong:

I'd be curious as to what your reference for perceiving the changes is, though. Some expectation that you have a perfect memory of the original, and that your brain is capable of some sort of discriminatory process of comparing one sensory stream against a memory of an incredibly similar sensory stream?

Do you think your brain maintains a perfect memory of every sensory experience you've ever had?

Yes, excellent point. It's usually a problem when you're using the machine that you're trying to measure to do the measuring. Which gets back to that OP is biased in his experiments and looking for change where it may only exist in memory.

Your response was to argue the toss over which brand of speakers sounds harsher.

Am I right in thinking that you now believe that your memory of prior listens is not entirely accurate? Because that is a necessary conclusion of accepting that each listen leads to different outcomes in your perception. If that has been your hypothesis since page 3, why are you still arguing about it?

[Nowhk]

Your response was to argue the toss over which brand of speakers sounds harsher.

Yeah, my reply was to "trying" to show them what I meant with "different sound perception" listening to two different speakers. Than they says that's stupid example, has no meaning since of "long time" period you won't notice the differences in perception (the lemon and lime example), and such.

Am I right in thinking that you now believe that your memory of prior listens is not entirely accurate? Because that is a necessary conclusion of accepting that each listen leads to different outcomes in your perception.

I never sustained it is entirely accurate. I know memory really lacks on audio.
Now you should note that I don't think "each listen leads to different outcomes in your perception" is what our two interlocuters are asserting.
But I may be misunderstand their whole point. I'm ready for retraction.

If that has been your hypothesis since page 3, why are you still arguing about it?

Because for most people is pointless, wrong and "doesn't matter", so I'm still trying to figure it out why it is so stupid and shouldn't matter, since things changes constantly.

[Gamma-UT]

I never sustained it is entirely accurate. I know memory really lacks on audio.
Now you should note that I don't think "each listen leads to different outcomes in your perception" is what our two interlocuters are asserting.
But I may be misunderstand their whole point. I'm ready for retraction.

One follows from the other. If your perception of the same thing is different each time, either you are wrong currently, your memory of the prior event is wrong, or both. Realistically, if you are wrong currently, even if you believe your memory is accurate of that event your next memory will be wrong. So, on average, it's going to be both.

Once you take that into account, you then have to determine if your memory of hearing things on different speakers and liking it more then was due to the sound actually being different or you simply having a different opinion of the sound now and attributing it to the change in environment more than the change in yourself. As you can't rely fully on your memory, how can you be sure that the change in opinion is entirely or primarily due to the change in environment? It may seem and indeed be obvious in some cases (laptop vs studio monitors) but less so in others (similar systems in different rooms).

[Gamma-UT]

On the accuracy of memories. This image is doing the rounds at Reddit:


https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments ... ed_by_the/

It's a heavily treated image of the past solar eclipse in the US. People are saying how this reflects what they saw, but it's a HDR composite. What they mean is that the brain was continually processing light and dark from the total eclipse so they could perceive the Mares and large craters on the Moon from Earth's reflected light. But a normal camera shot shows a black disk, much like the heavy shadows you get in a holiday snap. We don't notice the shadows in real life so much because the brain is continually adjusting - they only become apparent when captured by a camera. Your memory of the shadows and their relative darkness is faulty.

[Nowhk]

One follows from the other. If your perception of the same thing is different each time, either you are wrong currently, your memory of the prior event is wrong, or both. Realistically, if you are wrong currently, even if you believe your memory is accurate of that event your next memory will be wrong. So, on average, it's going to be both.

Well... wait! Memory is useful if you want to compare things. Things are build-up not only using memory.

If at time X I perceive A and time Y I perceive B (of the same recorded material), if I want to compare A and B I need to know both A and B. But to "feel" somethings I just need to enjoy A and B when I consume them. Memory is a nice feature if I would make a comparison and "scientific" proof it, here. But having not accurate memory doesn't automatically imply that A and B (when I consume it) werent' different. Just that "you don't know".

But so say: "we can't know". Not that since we don't know, they are not different.
Because at time X and Y brain would build-up different things, due to input, mood, (also) memory and lots of other things. You can't say "they are not different" because theres accurate memory to compare them.

Once you take that into account, you then have to determine if your memory of hearing things on different speakers and liking it more then was due to the sound actually being different or you simply having a different opinion of the sound now and attributing it to the change in environment more than the change in yourself. As you can't rely fully on your memory, how can you be sure that the change in opinion is entirely or primarily due to the change in environment?

I can't know, of course. But I believe that the opinion I have of a sound won't change often around some hours/days.

When I listen to the same kick of a track on my two different headphones (AKG vs Audio Technica pair), I can say that what it transmit to me with AKG is harder (every time) than Audio Technica. And they both are on the same quality. And this always happens, from when I buy them. I know "how they sounds", so I listen how the sound "sound" trought them.

I don't need memory to proof this, I feel every time I listen to it. The only thing that change is environment (headphone in this case).

I'm totally biased? It could be, I can accept it.
But I'd like to proof it, because maybe you are biased on "trying to converge" to the same meaning.

[Gamma-UT]

Well... wait! Memory is useful if you want to compare things. Things are build-up not only using memory.

Memory is all you have. Your perceptions have been filtered by many layers of neurons before you become consciously aware of anything even though you believe it is all happening in real time – it's just that the delay isn't very long. That's how the Necker Cube illusion is believed to work - your brain is swapping between groups of neurons that are processing the same information in different ways. The image and the shape it represents has already been stored by this point.

[jancivil]

This really captures ghettosynth's whole campaign here. You need evidence before the thing, which is subjective to you, matters to you. And a bunch of individual preferences, seen that one day, is evidence. round and round we go.

Again, I feel difficult to catch the meaning of this phrase, translating it Were you ironic? Not sure...

Which kind of evidence you need for starting a discussion? Scientific?

you have no evidence whatsoever that it actually matters to you, let alone anyone else.

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.)

[Nowhk]

Memory is all you have. Your perceptions have been filtered by many layers of neurons before you become consciously aware of anything even though you believe it is all happening in real time – it's just that the delay isn't very long.

Of course, but the perception build up by my brain is not ONLY from memory. I mean: when you first listen to a song with "new" kind of sound (i.e. synthesized vibes) you don't have memory of them, but you are listening music anyway. So brain will also take care of memory, but thats all: only a support (which can "adds" somethings that probably there isn't inside the physical air pressures). Only this should suggest that perception change every time.

You seems cultured about this subject, may I ask a question?
Basically, when you hear some "musical element" within a track, do you conceive them as "whole" or are you just taking care of its characteristics, quickly, of it?
I mean, take a kickdrum for example: do you perceive it as "whole" (what we call a "kick") or you are listening at any moments different aspects of it? Such as one moment the timbre, later the pitch-sweep, than the loudness, and so on? Or brain examine all of these aspect and "build-up" a complex "object" within your mind? (auditory object?!?). Any article I can read that explain/show this easily?

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

I know. His famous "it doesn't matter" claim. I've asked him lots of time to explain what he means and why it shouldn't matter. He never reply.

I also agree that the violins (or lime vs lemon) examples has nothing to do with this, but he just said "you don't have understand the examples" (instead of re-iterate and explain why they should be related each other).

There's nothing else to read though. You have a simple question, and those are the answers. There's no way that you can spin that into a statistically relevant affirmative result that players can predict the age of violins based on sound. These are top players, so how do you think that this will change with lesser players?

I've read the "official" paper about that test. No man, those are not the answers, sorry
It got the same informations about the ones I've read in the past, nothing new.

The same introduction and conclusion (on the official paper) are not what you are saying:
Note, however, that our experiment was designed to test not the objective qualities of the instruments but rather the subjective preferences of the subjects under a specific set of conditions.

Subjects seemed not to distinguish between new violins and old but rather to choose instruments whose playing qualities best fit their individual tastes.

Simply take its result: "7 said they had no idea, 7 guessed wrongly (i.e., that a new violin was old or vice-versa), and just 3 guessed correctly"
Are you concluding that since only 3 "guess" correct they are lying? Only the major results count? What if they are really able to catch them?

Its like to says Justin Bieber is a great singer because the percentage of listeners is higher than any singer pressing on a independent label. Statistics are just that: statistics! Should I don't trust my ear because 3 is lower than 14?

How many people do you think are listening to song's arrangement instead of only the popstair's voice? 1%? So the instruments aren't playing?

Note also this: we never talked about loudness. Simply adjust/increment it could change the perception of a song, since some elements at lower level that we are not able to physically catch will pop up at some point.
As correctly stated and confirmed, we haven't such a great memory to remember accurately all of details comparing it in a further (low volume) listening. So just this suggest that perception will change in any case. (having no memory, brain won't "add" somethings that there isn't).

Really doesn't matter listening to such additional details? Please explain! An answer such as "it doesn't matter because the major of the people won't catch it" is not a valid one.

[slipstick]

Really doesn't matter listening to such additional details? Please explain! An answer such as "it doesn't matter because the major of the people won't catch it" is not a valid one.

Nice try but an entirely valid answer is "It doesn't matter to most people because most people will either not notice the tiny differences or will not care about them". If you're saying that you care about them then, since that's a statement about your personal feelings, no-one can really disagree with you. But if I, and many others here, say that they don't matter to us even if we do notice them then why do you think you can disagree with that?

Basically, among this entire group of musically inclined and experienced people, we have so far found only one person to whom these tiny differences in perceived sound are in any way upsetting...and that's you. You're talking about and mainly to yourself. I'm not convinced that this sort of psychoanalysis by forum is going to be a very effective treatment for your problem.

Steve

[Nowhk]

"It doesn't matter to most people because most people will either not notice the tiny differences or will not care about them"

Knowing that I CAN notice them (even if you will discard them later) is a LOT for me, because dealing with concreteness it reveals that things is not uniquely defined and perceived (and that answer to my first part of the question).

But if I, and many others here, say that they don't matter to us even if we do notice them then why do you think you can disagree with that?

This is my second part of the question following the above. How can doesn't matter for you?
NOTE: I'm not criticize you, I really just "ask" why. You simply linger on a higher level of abstraction when concretize things? I'm really curious, that's why I'm asking your personal opinions. Given a bass for example, which aspects do you consider of it? About timbre (since this is the main subject): for you is it important that the body is still present (even if you realize its differents between listening)? Or what?
You stated you can notice it slightly different every time, but if you don't care of these differences, what do you care if not that perception of the whole?

Basically I'm asking what are your "point of focus" that must be preserved. Since you don't care on "deep-level" details, which are the "higher-level" aspects you consider fundamentals (and you perceive so "the same" across mediums)?

Basically, among this entire group of musically inclined and experienced people, we have so far found only one person to whom these tiny differences in perceived sound are in any way upsetting...and that's you. You're talking about and mainly to yourself. I'm not convinced that this sort of psychoanalysis by forum is going to be a very effective treatment for your problem.

Honestely I don't know myself if I really consider these tiny differences or not. I'm quite sure I don't, and I'm sure I will agree with you. But following the paper and theory, I can't answer to myself why these tiny differences (which I can humanly and physically catch and elaborate, i.e. notice) don't matters if what I perceive its also established by them.

[Gamma-UT]

Of course, but the perception build up by my brain is not ONLY from memory. I mean: when you first listen to a song with "new" kind of sound (i.e. synthesized vibes) you don't have memory of them, but you are listening music anyway. So brain will also take care of memory, but thats all: only a support (which can "adds" somethings that probably there isn't inside the physical air pressures). Only this should suggest that perception change every time.

You're assuming memory only means long-term memory. When you perceive something "in real time", the current science argues it's already in a kind of buffer and you're cycling through it gradually adding in new details as you focus on them. This is how misdirection illusions work for magicians or stunts where people swap places while you're looking somewhere else – and the brain tells you nothing has changed when you look back. You're pulling things from memory and overriding what the eyes see because neurons haven't flagged up an obvious change that needs some concentration on it.

That buffer lets you focus on different elements, so you can concentrate on the pitch sweep of a kick while still hearing other elements in the background. Your attention is constantly shifting and adding new information and discarding other bits. This is how people wind up EQing things, thinking it's getting better and suddenly realise it's on bypass or they get the Best Kick Drum Evah, flip over to a reference track and discover it's horrible.

[Jimi1127]

Definitely changes Timbre