Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

[jancivil]

the formants are basically the same for all notes.

The term 'formant' derives from studying how {the harmonic content of} vocal sounds change according to the size and shape of the mouth opening/closing. It follows that formants of instruments are not going to be static per se "for all notes". If there is marked consistency, why not. But we need to be cognizant of envelope and behavior. A guitar in itself is going to be pretty static in this regard, your wind instrumentalist has some range to work with.

[incubus]

Well, to me timbre is far different than a tonal. Not sure I can sound anything expert about it but I always thought timbre was "body" vs anything else.

[BertKoor]

Try this: a 5-band graphical EQ where you can change the five band levels on the fly.


This is one half of what you need for a vocoder. Now you tell me EQ does not change timbre?

[ZentralmassivSound]

BTW whether partials are time dependent or not doesnt change their role for the timbre, imho.

Why do people care to manipulate transients, then?

I meant that the partial structure always makes up the timbre, BOTH the time invariant and time variant parts.

the formants are basically the same for all notes.

The term 'formant' derives from studying how {the harmonic content of} vocal sounds change according to the size and shape of the mouth opening/closing. It follows that formants of instruments are not going to be static per se "for all notes". If there is marked consistency, why not. But we need to be cognizant of envelope and behavior. A guitar in itself is going to be pretty static in this regard, your wind instrumentalist has some range to work with.

Yes, and thus a sung vocal "a" has a different timbre than an "o". But if you sing an "a" on different notes, the formants stay more or less the same.

And yes, I agree there are instruments that can change timbre fluently. Picking a guitar slightly or heavily changes timbre a lot I'd say.

[jancivil]

Yes, of course if 'notes' = 'pitches' that is a definite truism. I'm sorry, I thought I had said more. But evidently not, and so my post was woefully poor. Difference in sound production over time can shift formant (I was thinking of throat singing when this came up but I failed to say anything) and this follows for a wind instrument. Or in 'normal' singing, a property such as 'covering' may be done (a 'darker' tone is effected) and here is a shift.

[jancivil]

Well, to me timbre is far different than a tonal.

If you mean a fundamental (or first partial) by itself, there isn't a lot to note regarding timbre. Timbre is tone color, a tuning fork is 'colorless' in order to not confuse the issue.

[jancivil]

I agree there are instruments that can change timbre fluently. Picking a guitar slightly or heavily changes timbre a lot I'd say.

I was only talking about formant when I said guitar (by itself) is rather static. Pluck or bow or attack a string in whatever fashion up by the neck vs at the bridge produce very different timbres. Not a lot of formant action on an instrument that doesn't sustain much.

[Nowhk]

Sorry guys for the delay, and thanks everybody for the partecipation
I was out for the weekend, now I'm back

You are expecting EQ to change something that it cannot change. The relative change in partials over time is, in part, what you perceive as timbre. It's why the timbre of a guitar is not the same as the timbre of a piano. They are both vibrating strings, why don't they sound the same? It's not just pickups and wood, how you strike the string has a huge impact on what you perceive as timbre.

Of course they will play different: the harmonic contents is totally different. I'm not argue about different timbre for different instruments.

Try this: a 5-band graphical EQ where you can change the five band levels on the fly.

This is one half of what you need for a vocoder. Now you tell me EQ does not change timbre?

Than you confirm to me that apply a EQ to a fixed instruments change the timbre (example):



At this point, here's my uncertainty about "preservation" in music production.
There's stuff (musical elements) that are preserved during the playback of the tracks I made: rhythm for example, and also the pitch. Well, there can be little variations on playback introduced by speakers and such, but not really percepible by humans (like delay a midi note of 1 sample, somethings really hard to catch). I would call them "absolute" musical elements, preservables. I made them, and I'm happy to hear them when I play-back my track in different environments.

When I talk about timbre... well... this is totally "ambiguous".
Let me explain my perplexity. From wiki: The relative amplitudes (strengths) of the various harmonics primarily determine the timbre of different instruments and sounds... Rather than perceiving the individual partials–harmonic and inharmonic, of a musical tone, humans perceive them together as a tone color or timbre

This means that every time we hear a combination of levels/harmonic, brain mix-up a fixed color within your mind.
Now, let me go to my laboratory to create (using additive synthesis in Sytrus) my own sound (this is just a basic sound example; of course I'm referring to a complex/real one) with these partials:



following this envelope:



When I'll output this recorded "sound" via different speakers, the harmonic contents I "draw" will be preserved (well, there will be a little bit of harmonic distortion, of course; but that's another stuff), but levels will ALWAYS change (a bit), resulting in different mix-up color wihin my mind, because the requency response of every speaker is different (which is basically "the same" if I take a sound and I "static" EQ it; that's why I place the EQ example).

It looks like timbre is a "un-preservable" musical element, and I'm not able to deal with this thing (or, at least, get it conceptually for a music producer).

How do you see the whole concept of "color"?
A stuff that will works in function of each speaker/environments I'll use? Accepting that everytime I will get a "different" tone mix-up?

Its somethings like "calculate" the future

[Christian Schüler]

Why does white-balancing a picture doesn't change color?

EQ'ing a sound is very much like white-balancing a picture. Although the color balance has shifted a bit, the sky is still blue and the grass is still green.

Both EQ for sound and white-balance for pictures usually introduce very gentle and gradual changes to the spectral content. (A +12 dB EQ can be seen as "gradual" when compared to the fact that, for example, a musical instrument has some 60 or 90 dB contrast between spectral bands).

Factor in the adaptation of human hearing. The ear has an auto "white-balance" built in where it adapts to the global spectral envelope. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to recognize a voice, say, when muffled through a door. This will further lessen the perceived impact of an EQ.

If however the white-balance would be so severe as to basically remove a color (comparable to an EQ completely removing a frequency band) then the nature of the source material would be changed. A quantity when changed over orders of magnitude acquires a new quality.

[jancivil]

How do you see the whole concept of "color"?
A stuff that will works in function of each speaker/environments I'll use? Accepting that everytime I will get a "different" tone mix-up?

People mix for average, I mean one tests on things which color spectra in particular ways and finds a happy middle.
It's not easy to make bass seem like anything on laptop speakers or a phone and then it isn't stupid on a big system.
There is no magic formula.

[slipstick]

I'm not sure where we got to here...if you EQ a sound the sound will change. If you only apply very gentle, subtle EQ you will only get a small change in the sound. You might not even notice it but someone else might.

That's like if you play a recording on two different really good monitors they may sound slightly different (if your hearing is good enough) but if you play it on good monitors then switch over to play it on your phone it will sound different enough that almost anyone will hear it.

So really we're worrying about fact vs perception. If you EQ a sound it changes. Fact. Any spectrum analyser will show you that. But how MUCH change is needed for it to be audible? Different from person to person. How much change is needed for the sound to change character so much that it is unrecognisable as the original sound? Well it will be more but will still differ from person to person.

Steve

[Nowhk]

How much change is needed for the sound to change character so much that it is unrecognisable as the original sound?

Well... but what is the "original sound"? Even the track I'm making in my studio is not "original". Since, if I switch speakers/rooms, it changes. It seems that timbre depends (i.e. works in function of) by the system is playing it.

It seems there's nothing "absolute" (i.e. original) on making timbre. Just a sort of "calibration" (and guessing by experience) that should work/sound "good enough" on different speakers/environments when you will playback. Nothing really "fixed". Or at least, just the "body", i.e. the harmonic content; but since the timbre is a summing-up components within our brain (with their levels), it hasn't a huge relevance in term of final result and preservation (which is what, in the end, we hear).

I'm still stuck with this

[slipstick]

If you have an acoustic guitar or a violin or even a human voice you can listen to it without any intervening technology. That's mostly what I was thinking of as an "original" sound. And yes I recognise that even then it won't sound exactly the same in different environments but in the middle of a field or in a stone church with all that reverb it will still sound like voice or a violin etc. But I'm old enough to remember when our ambition with recording/playback was to get something that was as near as possible indistinguishable from being in the gig/concert hall/pub and hearing the "original" sound. But you could only achieve that with a good playback system.

OTOH if you're thinking only of electronic/synthesised sounds then in my view any EQ or FX are simply part of the sound. And you do have to recognise that hardly anyone will ever hear it exactly the same as you do. But isn't that why many of us will check final mixes on various different systems (e.g. monitors/car stereo/phone) in the hope that we can get a mix that sounds at least reasonable on most?

Steve

[BertKoor]

but what is the "original sound"? Even the track I'm making in my studio is not "original". Since, if I switch speakers/rooms, it changes. It seems that timbre depends (i.e. works in function of) by the system is playing it.

Yes, everything inbetween the source (stream of bits in your DAW) and target (your ears) have influence. This is a given fact you just have to deal with.

Say we are together in a room and you play the piano. I then hear the piano nearly the same as you do, but not exactly the same because I am not at your seat but a few foot away. On my listening position I get different reflections from the walls, different standing waves. Does that matter? Probably not.

Say I walk out of the room and close the door. I can still hear the same piano playing. The notes are exactly the same but the timbre has changed. There are significantly less high frequencies coming through that closed door. This is very simular to applying EQ. You can use EQ to simulate the sound as if it were you'd walked out of the room by cutting the high (and some mid) frequencies to get that muffled sound of the neighbour playing the piano.

Because I have knowledge of how a piano sounds close by, and I have experience with walking around the house, my brain might do some compensation uncounciously.

Another example: a telephone line does not transport the full audio spectrum, but is limited to about 8 kHz bandwidth. You can simulate that with EQ, and the timbre changes. But not the music itself.

The same applies if I listen to music. To some extent it doesn't matter whether I use a good hifi set or the dinky speakers on my laptop or through a telephone line, I can still enjoy the music even if the playback medium cannot reproduce certain frequency bands. Again, my brain might do some compensation uncounciously.

[VariKusBrainZ]

Surprised no one has mentioned that most Eq just like reflective / absorbent materials also change phase relationships, which can potentially change timbre