Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

[Gamma-UT]

I miss the old Nowhk.

[whyterabbyt]

Its not shifted. It wrap into my logic.

Your logic of what? Some conclusion or premise that you've been concealing from us?

Because you certainly havent stated your notion clearly and unambiguously, and delineated the terms and constraints of it. And its really quite odd that every time someone addresses a thing you have said, then the terms and constraints seem to be the thing you rely on to dismiss what they have said.
If those terms and constraints werent shifting, constantly, then that's somewhat unlikely to have happened. I guess, though, if your notion was clearly stated, and unambiguous, then someone might provide an explanation you couldnt wriggle out of accepting.

And where exactly did you ever define the scope of the target for discussion ?

I used to believe it was implicit in my beginning post; I were talking about harmonics, partials, additive synthesis, with links to ecoustics.com speakers. I was talking about some "levels" of details. Sorry if I'm been superficial, my fault. Later anyway during the conversation I've specify many times the mediums targets (flat, loudspeakers, headphones).

Why are you responding with references to technology to a question that's specifically about people?

Are you claiming that all those devices have the exact same specification?

If not, that doesn't really seem like proof that different specifications matter.

Those devices of course haven't the same specification. I just "notice" that there be some reason of why there are a vast list of all different devices. In the end you use it for playback the sound. If the differences on the same gamma of a set of speakers are meaningless, is really only marketing? Why should you buy a quality speaker instead of another, having similar price? Not for the way they sound? I "ask", not claiming.

I beieve its implicit in your question that you are claiming.

Here is where you are:
"I am aware that a phenomena is observable. I am attributing importance to the reaction to the observation of that phenomena. I expect an explanation of why the importance I have attributed might not be important. I will not accept any explanation given which does not fit a particular set of undisclosed criteria, and I will adapt those criteria dynamically."

Here is where we all are:

"We dont care. Blue looks blue because it looks blue."

You want your explanation? You need to provide evidence it requires one.

Note: I think you all misunderstand the way I use the term "believe". I use it as "I guess, but I'm not sure". How would is the correct term in english?

'I made it up'

Why you are so heavy reluctant on reply to this question?

Because you keep avoiding answering mine. Ive asked you time and time again to consider certain things and give me an answer that would allow me to direct you at your explanation, and you consistently avoid doing so.

Because it seems I can catch differences, and these differences seems to influence my perception.

So your question to us, is for us to explain why it matters to you?

Seriously?

So I ask you: do you also notice these differences? If nobody would notice them, ok its my problem (I'm biased). If someone notice them (and this has been confirmed), how do you conceive the whole task of making somethings constantly variable?
I'm just repeating myself again

Yes you are. And you've been told how other people conceive it for themselves, you've been told how other people believe people in general might concieve it (right down to basic human neurological responses to stimuli) , and yet you've rejected all of that as not fitting your criteria.

So it doesnt matter who notices these differences. You reject an explanation by the individual

" I can listen on headphones or on my small monitors and know how that's going to translate. So, no, the differences are NOT important beyond how I understand how they change sound in a systematic way. That's EXACTLY what I told you above. Learning that takes experience with YOUR equipment."

You reject an explanation for people in general

The human brain is capable of isolating and identifying one single known voice in a crowded room full of dozens of people all talking simultaneously within the same fairly narrow range of frequencies, and tracking and parsing what that one person is saying, right down to inflection and pitch changes.

Compared to that, compensating for the environmental factors when, for example, how much the recording of a grand piano is changed when played back in a slightly different room, is utterly trivial.

Two explanations, one personal, one general, both on page 4 of this 20+ page thread, and you pretend you've never had an explanation.

I repeat; you've had explanations, you rejected them as not fitting some random, concealed, moving-target criteria. From this point it is not up to any of us provide any further explanation. You have failed to delineate the 'hypothesis', so you need to prove the 'hypothesis' is valid in the first place.

It doesnt matter because it doesnt matter. If you think it matters, then its up to you to prove it.

[Nowhk]

'I made it up'

Thanks

Your logic of what? Some conclusion or premise that you've been concealing from us?

Because you certainly havent stated your notion clearly and unambiguously, and delineated the terms and constraints of it. And its really quite odd that every time someone addresses a thing you have said, then the terms and constraints seem to be the thing you rely on to dismiss what they have said.
If those terms and constraints werent shifting, constantly, then that's somewhat unlikely to have happened. I guess, though, if your notion was clearly stated, and unambiguous, then someone might provide an explanation you couldnt wriggle out of accepting.

As said, I've not a degree in logic. So I'm loosing in such a term.
But is simply (as I've already did):

- input is processed and trigger "somethings".
- if input doesn't change, the "somethings"'s changes (if any) are not related by input
- if input change, the "somethings"'s change (if any) COULD be related by input

Right? I just talking about that COULD. I've defined the "input" constraints. Isn't this clearly? Isn't this unambiguously? What else do you need?

Why are you responding with references to technology to a question that's specifically about people?

Because is the input that trigger, and input is shaped by technology. Here the actors are both: technology who reproduce the output and people who receive and elaborate the input.
We have found that output (mediums) change (physically).
Isn't expected that the input (perception) change as well by a different input?
I see it so obvious as reasoning. I don't have the answer, its what I've ask you (assuming it changes, since I see it "so obvious").

I am aware that a phenomena is observable

Yes, are you? You have not answered to this question after 25 pages. Just talk about lemon and lime.

I am attributing importance to the reaction to the observation of that phenomena.

Yes, from my point of view, hearing a electronic bass with a speaker dump on low seems to make me dirty.
I "made it up", I'm not sure. That's a confront with experienced people like you, not a manifest, not claims at all. Don't you attribute importance? Why? Is it a bias?

I expect an explanation of why the importance I have attributed might not be important.

Exactly. Explanations. Not "it doesn't matter because for me it doesn't matter".

I will not accept any explanation given which does not fit a particular set of undisclosed criteria, and I will adapt those criteria dynamically."

Still waiting those explanations.

Here is where we all are:

"We dont care. Blue looks blue because it looks blue."

That's not an explanations If "Blue looks blue" this means that "phenomena is not observable" for you. Once you observe it, really can you assume it doesn't matter?

You want your explanation? You need to provide evidence it requires one.

If "phenomena is observable", its an evidence (for me). If it isn't for you, ok, so the deep level is the Bieber example. Or am I wrong and "phenomena is not observable" also for me, I'm biased, but so YOU need to prove to me that I'm biased, else is my evidence vs your evidence.

So your question to us, is for us to explain why it matters to you

Seriously?

First question is to catch if I'm biased, or there are also people who feel like me (it seems there are).
If SO, why it doesn't matter. In details.

For example: do you aware you are listening two different timbre, but you are simple looking at some aspects of the sound that won't change your feeling? Or you just enjoy (in different way) different playback of that sound (even if similar)? Just this make HUGE difference in trying to understand how me (confronting with you) make and listen (later) to a sound. Converging/refering/recogniting to some common and preserved aspects, or let it consume their variations as whole?

" I can listen on headphones or on my small monitors and know how that's going to translate. So, no, the differences are NOT important beyond how I understand how they change sound in a systematic way. That's EXACTLY what I told you above. Learning that takes experience with YOUR equipment."

You reject an explanation for people in general[/quote]
And that for you its an explanation to my question? He told me that people learn your equipment and how to translate sound between systems. Wow, what a discovery. I know myself since I fall down in music production. The famous claim "best gear in your arsenal? know your monitor". So what? I'm talking about totally different stuff. Its all about "translate" as concept rather than understand "how to translate".

The human brain is capable of isolating and identifying one single known voice in a crowded room full of dozens of people all talking simultaneously within the same fairly narrow range of frequencies, and tracking and parsing what that one person is saying, right down to inflection and pitch changes.

Compared to that, compensating for the environmental factors when, for example, how much the recording of a grand piano is changed when played back in a slightly different room, is utterly trivial.

Two explanations, one personal, one general, both on page 4 of this 20+ page thread, and you pretend you've never had an explanation.[/quote]
Again: that for you its an explanation to my question? For me they aren't at all.
The former is about "recognize" stuff (people, which one, what he said, etc).
The latter is just your conclusion that "since brain is advanced, its able to get rid of colors added by environment". Or at least I read it in this way. If so, I would deduce than "phenomena is not observable" for you (but is just a merely deduction). i.e. you "recognize" the same given different spectrum.

************************************************

For the purpose of my "mental illness", I'm making a VST in C++ for an "A/B timbre test".
I've selected two different (synthetic) sounds: one "original" and one "slightly" eq on bass.
The seed of listening order is randomly choosed once you load the plugin first time.
20 try available. Each of them will work (play) only after 1 day has been passed (so I can't crack myself).
The preview of the sound is just at try 0 (before init the test). Than later you won't be able to re listen them (avoid comparison side-by-side).

When it will be finish, I'll test it for 20 days and than see the result.
This will be able to tell me if the "phenomena is observable" on (using your terms) "staggered, non-contiguous, time-separated comparisons of" sound or isn't.

Any advice you can give to me to improve the test?

[whyterabbyt]

As said, I've not a degree in logic. So I'm loosing in such a term.
But is simply (as I've already did):

- input is processed and trigger "somethings".
- if input doesn't change, the "somethings"'s changes (if any) are not related by input
- if input change, the "somethings"'s change (if any) COULD be related by input

Right? I just talking about that COULD. I've defined the "input" constraints. Isn't this clearly? Isn't this unambiguously? What else do you need?

Why do you think not specifying anything at all is unambiguous?

Why are you responding with references to technology to a question that's specifically about people?

Because is the input that trigger, and input is shaped by technology. Here the actors are both: technology who reproduce the output and people who receive and elaborate the input.
We have found that output (mediums) change (physically).
Isn't expected that the input (perception) change as well by a different input?
I see it so obvious as reasoning. I don't have the answer, its what I've ask you (assuming it changes, since I see it "so obvious").

If you continue to conflate two different sets of criteria and treat them as a single factor you introduce ambiguity.

You're not asking 'how or why does technology Q causes deviations in signal X', you are asking 'why do deviations in signal X not matter,' remember?

And the response you're giving is to my question about your process of you excluding group of people Y for one reason, group of people Z for another, etc, where the technology is irrelevant.

Explain why technology is relevant to claiming to why youget to restrict the group of people for whom you'll accept an answer.

I expect an explanation of why the importance I have attributed might not be important.

Exactly. Explanations. Not "it doesn't matter because for me it doesn't matter".[/quote]

That is an explanation. And again its one you refuse to accept. Your refusal to accept an explanation does not render it invalid; it merely underlines the disingenuity with which you are behaving.
In short, you do not appear to be capable of accepting any explanation; you have rejected, dismissed, ignored and misrepresented every single one. That is your fault, your flaw. And noone is interested in continuing trying to make you understand a thing you refuse to understand.

Still waiting those explanations.

No you're not. We're still waiting for you to acknowledge the ones youve been given.

That's not an explanations

Yes it is.

If "phenomena is observable", its an evidence (for me). If it isn't for you, ok, so the deep level is the Bieber example. Or am I wrong and "phenomena is not observable" also for me, I'm biased, but so YOU need to prove to me that I'm biased, else is my evidence vs your evidence.

That's not how it works. You are claiming something is evidence as part of your refusal to state precisely what its evidence of, and that, basically, is nonsense.

All you have is an observation. Its up to noone else except you to assert why that observation has importance. The burden of proof lies with you, the burden of disproof does not lie with us.

So your question to us, is for us to explain why it matters to you

Seriously?

First question is to catch if I'm biased, or there are also people who feel like me (it seems there are).
If SO, why it doesn't matter. In details.

You've had that, you've created dishonest excuses for not accepting it. Now its your turn to explain why it matters that we spend any more effort telling you why it doesnt matter.

In detail.

" I can listen on headphones or on my small monitors and know how that's going to translate. So, no, the differences are NOT important beyond how I understand how they change sound in a systematic way. That's EXACTLY what I told you above. Learning that takes experience with YOUR equipment."

You reject an explanation for people in general

And that for you its an explanation to my question? He told me that people learn your equipment and how to translate sound between systems. Wow, what a discovery. I know myself since I fall down in music production. The famous claim "best gear in your arsenal? know your monitor". So what? I'm talking about totally different stuff. Its all about "translate" as concept rather than understand "how to translate".[/quote]

Your failure to accept an explanation is not a rebuttal of its status as an explanation.

Again: that for you its an explanation to my question?

Yes. Prove that its not an explanation.

For me they aren't at all.

Yes, that's exactly what Im saying. You will not accept explanations.

The former is about "recognize" stuff (people, which one, what he said, etc).
The latter is just your conclusion that "since brain is advanced, its able to get rid of colors added by environment". Or at least I read it in this way.

What a surprise; you've failed to provide any coherent rationale for rejecting this as an explanation.

If so, I would deduce than "phenomena is not observable" for you (but is just a merely deduction). i.e. you "recognize" the same given different spectrum.

And how many times more are you going to try this 'you're probably not capable of observing this like what I am is so your argument doesnt count' line?
Its pretty pathetic.

For the purpose of my "mental illness", I'm making a VST in C++ for an "A/B timbre test".
I've selected two different (synthetic) sounds: one "original" and one "slightly" eq on bass.
The seed of listening order is randomly choosed once you load the plugin first time.
20 try available. Each of them will work (play) only after 1 day has been passed (so I can't crack myself).
The preview of the sound is just at try 0 (before init the test). Than later you won't be able to re listen them (avoid comparison side-by-side).

When it will be finish, I'll test it for 20 days and than see the result.
This will be able to tell me if the "phenomena is observable" on (using your terms) "staggered, non-contiguous, time-separated comparisons of" sound or isn't.

First, tell me what you think that proves. You do remember that this was because I said you cant logically assert that one set of perception tests in one set of circumstances somehow proved something about a completely different set of circumstances? I bet you dont.

Your test isnt going to make that logic suddenly change. The results of your tests will not change what your test is relevant to. Carrying the test out is just a repetition of an unproven assertion. You need to prove the relevance of your test.

So once again, state your proposition unambigously, with all constraints and terms made explicit, and state exactly what an 'explanation' would constitute. Then prove that your proposition matters enough that anyone should bother engaging with it any further.
Then once you've done that, you can wait and see if anyone thinks that it matters to them enough to bother engaging with you further.

[ghettosynth]

As said, I've not a degree in logic. So I'm loosing in such a term.
But is simply (as I've already did):

As I told you many pages ago, you need to take a class in logic, it is a prerequisite to understanding many of these ideas in a proper context.

And that for you its an explanation to my question? He told me that people learn your equipment and how to translate sound between systems. Wow, what a discovery. I know myself since I fall down in music production. The famous claim "best gear in your arsenal? know your monitor". So what? I'm talking about totally different stuff. Its all about "translate" as concept rather than understand "how to translate".

Because at that point we were still under the impression that you had a practical need for understanding this and we were trying to help you get past your omnipresent confusion about the subject. You were given an explanation that suited your, initially disingenuous, presentation of the subject based on assumptions that you had practical goals for understanding why this DOESN'T matter, not that you were trying to incompetently lead people down a primrose path.

However, I not only explained to you that the differences fall under the noise floor of interest, I also challenged you in a later post to quantify the differences that you believed mattered.

The evidence is not on your side. There is a commonality of experience that transcends minute differences in playback systems for the vast majority of people. That suggests that the idea of translation and knowing your systems, combined with the notion that the brain adapts, supports my conclusion that minute differences fall under the "noise floor of interest" for, not only most people, but most engineers as well, people who we can reasonably conclude "listen deeply." This is why it "doesn't matter." Now, if you want to convince us that it "does matter", you need more than just your own opinion that it does, you need to provide evidence that transcends your experience.

You have yet to provide any evidence of the importance of these differences or even any understanding that one must demonstrate human sensitivity to a particular quantification that statistically demonstrates that people aren't just guessing. Here is where you would cite someone else's research, or even your own PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH. Your claim that it matters to you is not evidence of anything. That is almost certainly your own bias. This has been explained to you numerous times.

As I've said, this is beyond your pay grade. You still don't know what you don't know and you aren't going to learn it by shouting at us. You are not competent to evaluate this question in any sort of meaningful manner. A competent scientist would immediately seek to quantify the dimensions of the input phenomena that he believed important. It's completely insufficient to talk about this in vague terms and expect anyone to take you seriously.

That's just how you get started. Beyond that you would need to demonstrate why this is relevant to other people in the same way that you "believe" that it's relevant to you. You may use your own experience as motivation for new science, many scientists do, but you may not use your own direct experience as evidence in and of itself. This is particularly true when it comes to measuring human perception. It's even frowned upon to have research team members doing the only evaluation of simple subjective tasks and when that does happen it almost always has to be done by multiple members with great care and sensitivity given to independence and agreement. This can NEVER be primary evidence in a result, only supporting evidence for some piece of data, for example, classification of a set of documents.

Your failure to accept an explanation is not a rebuttal of its status as an explanation.

Indeed! Moreover, you continually refuse to state the context in which this matters in a way that it can be studied and evaluated. I pressed you for this very early in this thread, what is the exact nature of your "hypothesis?" Your lack of ability as a scientist is self-evident in your ability to succinctly state your proposition in precise terms that can be evaluated.

When you do that, and I don't think at the moment that you actually understand the point itself, let alone have sufficient education in the domain of interest to complete the task, you might succeed in driving further conversation.

[dark water]

I'm surprised you saner chaps are still engaging in lengthy messages with a thread that really isn't going anywhere.
You can't win with someone who swears that pink is green.

I would wish to join you further but I have some rather tasty cheese (and lava bread) to consume:
https://www.clawson.co.uk/our-cheese/

[ghettosynth]

I'm surprised you saner chaps are still engaging in lengthy messages with a thread that really isn't going anywhere.
You can't win with someone who swears that pink is green.

It's only illusion that the responses are for the OP's benefit.

[Nowhk]

First, tell me what you think that proves. You do remember that this was because I said you cant logically assert that one set of perception tests in one set of circumstances somehow proved something about a completely different set of circumstances? I bet you dont.

Your test isnt going to make that logic suddenly change. The results of your tests will not change what your test is relevant to. Carrying the test out is just a repetition of an unproven assertion. You need to prove the relevance of your test.

I made it up it will prove to me (and to everyone who will try it, of course not to the whole humanity; thats not my interess) that "the 'environmental changes' are significant enough to be perceived in the first place." (so the first part of my "assumption" you have asked to me).
I don't know, I just "try", as for ask this kind of question.

But it seems the whole is "under my pay grade", so I can't do anything. Or at least not with so sophisticated people.
I waste my time, your, and all is going to be futile.

Thanks to everybody, sorry if I hurt someone.
Have a nice spritz!

[Nowhk]

Hi there, whyterabbyt.
Well, I'm working a little more on this subject this weekend I'm so stubborn, sorry!

I made a first "beta" of that ABXTimbral VST; I "faster" the test, getting the availability to try a new A/B comparision after 1 hour instead of 1 day, which is also a typical time-term on listening to music, where I could switch between different systems during the day, such as car, train/work (headphones), studio (flat speakers) or my living room (loudspeakers).

These are the two A/B recordings I've used, from a preset I'm working with.
One is "pure" (A), the other with a very little EQing applied (B), which try to emulate a tiny different frequency response (tweaked a bit, following common frequency response graph, which you can find around the web). i.e. a little "boosted" (common in many speakers).

You can hear them here:
A: https://clyp.it/vht1ud1n
B: https://clyp.it/txmipr1a

Note: I'm not dealing with "filtering out" frequency content, just slightly emphatize some band (so, a comparison between two qualitative setups; I'm not talking about laptop speakers and such).

After 20 try, I got them 20/20, a result of 100%.
So, when you discussed to me with Firstly, you are assuming that the 'environmental changes' are significant enough to be perceived in the first place., I would says "yes, I do".

This test should prove that (first) assumption, right?
If I'm wrong, where am I wrong?

Note: this is not THE question of the discussion, just a first part of it. I'm trying to go step by step, else it will be a mashup of confusion.

[BertKoor]

I see you've made some "progress" during my holidays

One part of this chordian knot:

Q: Can you (or anyone) tell the difference?
A: Sure, but (as always) it depends

This is also demonstrated in the recent analog modelling thread:

You can have substantial differences in measurements, does not necessarily prove or disprove anything about the sound. You can even play back the same sound twice, and some people may hear two different sounds - especially if you tell them the second sound is "analog" or something

So if people cannot even tell whether a sound is the same or different in a direct A/B test of the same sound, that makes me wonder how well a difference can be perceived.

This is what I tried to show you with those optical illusions: if we perceive the same grey value as different (depending on what's surrounding it) then there's also different grey values which we perceive as simular.


About that A/B thing you have built, how does the experiment work in practice? Imho you should present just ONE of both samples to the test victim, let him guess which is which, then do not experiment for a day, then present again just ONE of them.

If you let the test victim hear it side by side, then the difference will always stand out. Also I did not listen to your examples, don't know how subtle the EQ difference is. If you score 100% right, I guess that the difference is not really that subtle (more than 1 dB)

[Nowhk]

I see you've made some "progress" during my holidays

Nothing at all, I'm worse than before! Welcome back, hope you did enjoy your trip

One part of this chordian knot

Not sure what a "chordian knot" is

About that A/B thing you have built, how does the experiment work in practice? Imho you should present just ONE of both samples to the test victim, let him guess which is which, then do not experiment for a day, then present again just ONE of them.

If you let the test victim hear it side by side, then the difference will always stand out.

Of course no How I said:

The preview of the sound is just at try 0 (before init the test). Than later you won't be able to re listen them (avoid comparison side-by-side).

You hear the two sound at the beginning of the test (first try). Than, later you can select A or B clicking on the "?" button, which will play A or B. So no preview on each try. This is make for understand if you can catch the perceived sound being different due to "environment" (boosted on some band, such as famous "tits" graph).

Also I did not listen to your examples, don't know how subtle the EQ difference is. If you score 100% right, I guess that the difference is not really that subtle (more than 1 dB)

Yes, its higher than 1db. I'm within +-2.4db range:



It should be less than NS-10 anyway: "It has a +5 dB boost in the midrange at around 2 kHz, and the bottom end starts rolling off at 200 Hz.". But I'm not sure about these values, probably different dB scales...

[BertKoor]

One part of this chordian knot

Not sure what a "chordian knot" is

Sorry about that.. I meant this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_Knot

[BertKoor]

While I encourage your endeavour to figure out whether you can perceive a difference, I could have prredicted you probably can. All speakers are different, rooms are different, headphones are different. Should be no surprise nothing is perfect.

But the real question is: why are differences not relevant to the listener (including the producer himself) ?

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.

[jancivil]

Where we are now is in the realm of philosophy

Here is where we all are:

"We dont care. Blue looks blue because it looks blue."

That's not an explanations If "Blue looks blue" this means that

qualia

if you provided all the knowledge about the color blue to a person that has not experienced blue in her life, how does she know if this blue we'd all [all color able persons] agree is blue is blue when experienced the first time?
Mary the color scientist
cf., The Knowledge Argument.

Arguments for the existence of qualia
See also: Hard problem of consciousness
Since it is by definition impossible to convey qualia verbally, it is also impossible to demonstrate them directly in an argument; so a more tangential approach is needed. Arguments for qualia generally come in the form of thought experiments designed to lead one to the conclusion that qualia exist.

"What's it like to be?" argument
Nagel argues that consciousness has an essentially subjective character, a what-it-is-like aspect. He states that "an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism—something it is like for the organism."
[5] - What is it like to be a bat?
Nagel also suggests that the subjective aspect of the mind may not ever be sufficiently accounted for by the objective methods of reductionistic science. He claims that "if we acknowledge that a physical theory of mind must account for the subjective character of experience, we must admit that no presently available conception gives us a clue how this could be done." Furthermore, he states that "it seems unlikely that any physical theory of mind can be contemplated until more thought has been given to the general problem of subjective and objective."

Also there is the indeterminancy issue: for instance see Nietzsche's critique of Kant's epistemology.

[jancivil]

One part of this chordian knot

Not sure what a "chordian knot" is

GORDIAN knot is a difficult and involved problem.