Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

[BertKoor]

But the SOUND changes.

Do you disagree?

No, I think we don't disagree.
But you can argue whether it makes any difference, whether it is significant in the message you bring to the listener.

Another example... I play guitar. Like many guitar players I can get obsessed with getting a specific guitar tone (or timbre) for a specific recording. Would a random listener care whether I use a Fender Telecaster or a Les Paul? A real Marshall tube amp or Tech21 SansAmp stompbox? One single 8" speaker or 4x 12" cabinet? Recorded with a SM58 mike or used the DI output of the amp? The differences in timbre are real and significant for me, but the timbres are probably completely interchangeable for the listener.

You can have the same argument for synth patches. A producer can tweak the synth and it's EQ / compression / delay / reverb settings until the cows come home, but would the listener really care for such minor (relative) differences?

Producers today can go on and tweak their mix for days, go back to each and every decision they made in their production. In the days of 4-track tape you just recorded one or two takes and that was it. Is the music itself really better with the ability to go back and tweak everything again, make subtle timbre changes? You can argue... I just record whatever I have right then at that moment, and then I'm done. Good enough is good enough.

You read it nearly daily here on the forum: wannabe producer posts a link to youtube, with question: how is that exact sound at min:sec made? It does not need to be exact, I think the timbre can be slightly different and still have the same function.

[whyterabbyt]

Secondly, you are assuming that your brain responds significantly to any such perceived 'environmental changes' so as to respond them differently, instead of, say, just filtering them out.

For "filtering" do you also mean "balancing" from the environment global spectral envelope?

No, Im still talking about your brain filtering your sensory input perception. You know, like I talked about earlier, including the ability to ignore the other 30 people talking in the same room as the person you actually are listening to.
Or your brain filtering out the blocks of motion-blur that happen as your eyes move constantly from one thing to another.
Or the McGurk illusion.

[Nowhk]

But you can argue whether it makes any difference, whether it is significant in the message you bring to the listener.

This will pilot the thread out of the rail
Those are choices of the producer/artist, I don't argue of this here; that's the "art" of making things, anyone have its own taste and preferences of course, and will do whatever he want.

The differences in timbre are real and significant for me

I hope you listen your music across different setups, right? Do you "listen" the differences of timbre also between setup (minor changes)? And not only between Fender Telecaster and Les Paul (major changes)?
I don't ask you if these differences are relevants, but if you got them.

That's my whole point! Conceptually the definition of "what" a song is (for me) drastically changes. I won't be refering to it anymore as a "unique/defined/concrete" entity, because its not: it changes (even if only a bit) everytime, in functions of many factors, even if you are not catching them.

Of course "I won't" if discussing this with experienced people like you could confirm these aspects. whyterabbyt (and many others) for example seems to be reluctants on what I'm saying, that's why I'm still on this topic hehe.

Am I the only one who analyze and get an idea of what things ARE in this world?

[BertKoor]

I hope you listen your music across different setups, right? Do you "listen" the differences of timbre also between setup (minor changes)?

Sure. And then what to do with it? Often nothing.
But when I hear something totally unexpected and unwanted, I have found an issue in my mix in the category "does not translate well between systems" and I have to think of a solution to fix it, find a compromise so it sounds reasonable across multiple systems.

Is that what you mean?

[cron]

The long and short is that your music will sound different on different systems, and no two people will necessarily hear the same thing when your music is played on the same system. We're basically talking about mastering in a sense, making sure that your music translates well to various systems. This is even more difficult now given that people regularly listen to music through laptop speakers, small bluetooth speakers, or mobile phones.

The evolution of dubstep over about 5 years from 2007 to 2012 provides an interesting case study. It started out emphasising super deep bass that translated well on huge sound systems (particularly the incredible systems the FWD club night had over the years), and ended with screeching mid-range 'bass' that translates well on mobile phones and laptop speakers. Sure there are aesthetic points to consider, but I'm quite sure that evolution was partly driven by the change in the type of device people typically listened on during that time period. The sound in a sense needed to change if it was going to spread any further than the walls of FWD where that kind of sound system isn't available.

It's important to accept that you essentially lose control over how your music is heard the moment you put it out there. Sure, you can try to make sure it sounds good on everything, but is it ever going to sound 'good' on a mobile phone in the same way it sounds 'good' on a pair of speakers? They're different types of 'good'. In the early days of iOS, using the built-in EQ caused clipping, regardless of how low you set the volume. How about someone with a frankly crazy EQ curve on their hi-fi? Again you can't account for that, but the person who set the crazy EQ listens to everything like that so your track isn't going to sound unusually horrible to that person. No amount of mastering can defeat the inherent capabilities of these devices or the sometimes wacky preferences of those who listen on them, and there are some circumstances you simply can't predict. Your music has a life and a sound of its own once it's out there. Do your best then let go.

There's a track of mine I took to about 3 friends' houses but none had speakers capable of cleanly reproducing the lowest note. If you haven't got a sub, it sounds like a fart. I tried adding harmonics (too cheesy), ducking compression to emphasise something was happening there... There was just no way to make this thing sound good on all systems without compromising the essence of the track. So I just stopped trying to account for everyone and let it be 'sound system music', because that's what it is. It wouldn't be the same track if you could hear the bottom end on a bluetooth speaker. Just as I can't predict what people will think of my tracks, I can't predict what kind of gear people will listen to them on. And that's fine. https://soundcloud.com/charityqueen/lacuna

[Nowhk]

I hope you listen your music across different setups, right? Do you "listen" the differences of timbre also between setup (minor changes)?

Sure. And then what to do with it? Often nothing.
But when I hear something totally unexpected and unwanted, I have found an issue in my mix in the category "does not translate well between systems" and I have to think of a solution to fix it, find a compromise so it sounds reasonable across multiple systems.

Is that what you mean?

Yes, exactly! "Find a compromise" here means to make somethings "variable"
Still not sure if the others people here agree with this, anyway

It's important to accept that you essentially lose control over how your music is heard the moment you put it out there.

Sure I accept this. But I'm realizing that what I do is just the "base" of a project (the song). The "variable" factor is added by listener, intentionally or not. Even if you are experienced and trained, its conceptually a guess!!!

And the funny thing is that if in a future I play my own song on different setups, sounding result is (for some aspects) unexpected (yeah, still similar, but different anyway), even if its about somethings made by me I find it bizzare...

The game seems to be "learn as best as possible how to translate what you consider important on different systems and just enjoy the sounding results on every playback".

[ghettosynth]

I hope you listen your music across different setups, right? Do you "listen" the differences of timbre also between setup (minor changes)?

Sure. And then what to do with it? Often nothing.
But when I hear something totally unexpected and unwanted, I have found an issue in my mix in the category "does not translate well between systems" and I have to think of a solution to fix it, find a compromise so it sounds reasonable across multiple systems.

Is that what you mean?

Yes, exactly! "Find a compromise" here means to make somethings "variable"
Still not sure if the others people here agree with this, anyway

Seriously? What do you think that you're discovering here? We all know what speakers do to spectrum and that they're not all the same. You seem to be elevating these differences to some sort of religion.

It's important to accept that you essentially lose control over how your music is heard the moment you put it out there.

Sure I accept this. But I'm realizing that what I do is just the "base" of a project (the song). The "variable" factor is added by listener, intentionally or not. Even if you are experienced and trained, its conceptually a guess!!!

The experienced and trained know how to reduce the variability much more than the inexperienced. Your language seems to be trying to express this as something that has much more variability than it does. I know that when someone plays a track with deep bass on their laptop that they're going to lose the bass, if they like that kind of music, SO DO THEY! It's not a guess, one can reasonably predict how different playback systems will impact a sound. Of course there's variance. Of course there's some inherent unpredictability, so what?

However, this concept of a base + variability is silly and virtually useless. You target particular playback systems based on your intended audience.

And the funny thing is that if in a future I play my own song on different setups, sounding result is (for some aspects) unexpected (yeah, still similar, but different anyway), even if its about somethings made by me I find it bizzare...

No, it's neither funny nor bizarre, it is, however, f**king obvious.

The game seems to be "learn as best as possible how to translate what you consider important on different systems and just enjoy the sounding results on every playback".

Really? You don't say?

[Nowhk]

You seem to be elevating these differences to some sort of religion.

Your language seems to be trying to express this as something that has much more variability than it does.

Did you hear the sounding result from the previous video about spekars I've posted? Really do you get "small" differences? For me they are very huge, sorry

It's not a guess, one can reasonably predict how different playback systems will impact a sound.

So when you "design" some sort of "guitar+distortion" chain as shown in the video above, you have in mind the different timbre/impact/ecc this chain will "sound" (as the whole) across those speakers? Aren't some "colors" not-considerated as result and somethings manifest such as "surprire" when you hear it? Are all the variances well know in your work-intent? If so, for me you are a real god dude.

Of course there's variance. Of course there's some inherent unpredictability, so what?

So nothing. For you maybe was "obvious", for me it wasn't. Can you blame me?

However, this concept of a base + variability is silly and virtually useless. You target particular playback systems based on your intended audience.

You target a "macro-categories" of playback systems (laptop? headphone? club? flat? hifi?), not every single components situations (which add your own colors), come on...

No, it's neither funny nor bizarre, it is, however, f**king obvious.

Really? You don't say?

Again, for me it wasn't. "I know that I know nothing".
I'm pretty sure that people like whyterabbyt still don't agree with this, and "listen" to the same things through the different speakers used in the posted video posted.
So "maybe" it's not so "f**king obvious" as you think.

I still don't know what you think about, since you never reply to that question: do you "listen" the same "sound" across those video's different speakers?

[ghettosynth]

....snip...bunch of nonsense....

Really? You don't say?

Again, for me it wasn't. "I know that I know nothing".
I'm pretty sure that people like whyterabbyt still don't agree with this, and "listen" to the same things through the different speakers used in the posted video posted.
So "maybe" it's not so "f**king obvious" as you think...

It is, he gets it just fine, it's you who is trying to make something out of nothing because you don't understand it. You're comparing apples to oranges without the experience to understand what's going on in the things that you are comparing.

[Nowhk]

It is, he gets it just fine, it's you who is trying to make something out of nothing because you don't understand it. You're comparing apples to oranges without the experience to understand what's going on in the things that you are comparing.

I'll put it on another way so...

If all of this is "silly" and irrelevant, why lots of people "listening" to a speaker comparison:



says things like "that sound the best for me", "that one is better", "that has unbelievable sound" and so on? Isn't because it "adds" somethings pleasant?

[BertKoor]

Because:

Why does your mother drive another type of car than you do? It's the same question in essence. And the same answer: Because we are individuals with different experience and different expectations.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Read that novel. It deals with Quality. We all find different things important.

[slipstick]

Why are people listening to comparisons of full range monitor speakers on YOUTUBE (not exactly well known for delivering high quality sound) and probably through their laptop speakers?

Errr...because they're idiots, maybe? That's like recording the best hi-fi in the world on an ancient cassette recorder through its internal mic and then playing the tape to all your friends saying "Hear how good my hi-fi sounds" .

Steve

[ghettosynth]

It is, he gets it just fine, it's you who is trying to make something out of nothing because you don't understand it. You're comparing apples to oranges without the experience to understand what's going on in the things that you are comparing.

I'll put it on another way so...

If all of this is "silly" and irrelevant, why lots of people "listening" to a speaker comparison:

You still don't know what you don't know. You're just wasting a whole lot of time trying to convince everyone that you're on to something when there's nothing there. We all understand that speakers are different, we also understand that playback systems have tone controls. None of this matters in any significant sense. Speakers having different response curves does not elevate the experience of listening to some significant notion of participation in music.

Again, what exactly is the goal of this stupid thread? You've already admitted to essentially trolling your audience with something that you knew was false?

Frankly, I think that this is off topic and should be moved to HPC where it can die the death that it deserves.

[Nowhk]

None of this matters in any significant sense. Speakers having different response curves does not elevate the experience of listening to some significant notion of participation in music.

Lol Go to say this to the dozen of thousand people (audiophiles?!?!) who spend bilions on setups which add "fancy" colors to the sound.

Relax, and quit discussion if you don't follow it anymore.

Because:

Why does your mother drive another type of car than you do? It's the same question in essence. And the same answer: Because we are individuals with different experience and different expectations.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Read that novel. It deals with Quality. We all find different things important.

Yep, that's a nice example. My mom choose a different car because it gives to her somethings "confortable". "It gives" somethings. So the experience of driving from German to France is better for her!

If the car is the speaker and the trip is the song, you agree with me that it "adds" somethings at the trip...

[ghettosynth]

None of this matters in any significant sense. Speakers having different response curves does not elevate the experience of listening to some significant notion of participation in music.

Lol Go to say this to the dozen of thousand people (audiophiles?!?!) who spend bilions on setups which add "fancy" colors to the sound.

This has already been discussed. There are many reasons why audiophiles spend money, some part of that is real, much of it is just bias.

Because:

Why does your mother drive another type of car than you do? It's the same question in essence. And the same answer: Because we are individuals with different experience and different expectations.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Read that novel. It deals with Quality. We all find different things important.

Yep, that's a nice example. My mom choose a different car because it gives to her somethings "confortable". "It gives" somethings. So the experience of driving from German to France is better for her!

If the car is the speaker and the trip is the song, you agree with me that it "adds" somethings at the trip...

[/quote]

You are exaggerating his response. He's telling you that it's preference, he's also telling you that you still don't get it.