Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

[Nowhk]

A hypothesis IS a claim, by definition.

No its NOT:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/claim
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hypothesis
https://learningcenter.nsta.org/discuss ... PO2g1e7Y_E

If that's your term of "EQUAL" regarding the discussion above, we're done...

You're confused, I'm not really trying to help you any more.

You never did. Bye dude.

[ghettosynth]

A hypothesis IS a claim, by definition.

No its NOT:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/claim
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hypothesis
https://learningcenter.nsta.org/discuss ... PO2g1e7Y_E

If that's your term of "EQUAL" regarding the discussion above, we're done...

You don't have a hypothesis, it hasn't been presented in a sufficiently formal and falsifiable manner. You are basically engaging in pseudoscience.

In fact, that would be a great start, if you have a hypothesis, what exactly is it?

[Gamma-UT]

I'm not making claims at all. Just hypothesis. Aren't permitted?

Your OP is a claim (as you asserted you collected evidence before advancing your claim) and therefore, by your own admission, not a hypothesis.

You are confused.

[Nowhk]

You're confused, I'm not really trying to help you any more.

Please... respect your pact!

Your OP is a claim (as you asserted you collected evidence before advancing your claim) and therefore, by your own admission, not a hypothesis.

My OP was a question. It has been written with the intention to get a confirm about my wrong "hypothesis". Once I realized (and confirmed) it after some replies (the next post, viewtopic.php?f=99&t=485328#p6793433) I exposed my whole perplexity (again, in the follow valuable post): viewtopic.php?f=99&t=485328&start=15#p6795105

"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."

And so I've described my dubt:
"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)."

Later, after lots of replies trying to understand what you are telling me, I've formuled some "hypothesis" about what a "un-preservable timbre" could mean for music:
viewtopic.php?f=99&t=485328&start=90#p6837642

Than you know how things have done, with ghettosynth not understanding my uncertainty, calling me trolling and say nothing other of "you are confused, you don't know, differences make non-sense", and so on.

But please can we stop this "primary school" debats now?
I kindly ask if we can focus only on my perplexity, for the ones who will discuss it.

[ghettosynth]

You're confused, I'm not really trying to help you any more.

Please... respect your pact!

I didn't agree to not post in this thread, I simply stated that my goal for posting isn't to help you. If you want a private forum, feel free to create your own.

[Gamma-UT]

My OP was a question. It has been written with the intention to get a confirm about my wrong "hypothesis".

You phrased it as a rhetorical question, which you later claimed was done to inspire debate. A disingenuous claim is still a claim. I reiterate: you ruled out it being a hypothesis only a few posts above.

[Nowhk]

I didn't agree to not post in this thread, I simply stated that my goal for posting isn't to help you.

This will literally change my day!

You phrased it as a rhetorical question, which you later claimed was done to inspire debate. A disingenuous claim is still a claim. I reiterate: you ruled out it being a hypothesis only a few posts above.

Your contribution really help me! Thank you

[whyterabbyt]

But please can we stop this "primary school" debats now?

That's pretty ironic, given that your response to the sum of the information you've been given is basically to repeat endless variations of 'but why?' in the manner of a 3-year old.

[ghettosynth]

And so I've described my dubt:
"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)."

No, timbre is perfectly "preserved" in any context of interest, performance, playback of a recording, etc., modulo any transfer function or chain of transfer functions, that of a speaker, a microphone, an EQ, an amplifier, a room, etc., applied by any process. We can measure this easily. However, we can only guess at what YOU mean by preserved here.

The point of confusion is that you are making claims, the above is a claim, that betray ignorance and yet you refuse to acknowledge that the problem is with your understanding.

BTW: As written, your "question" is a claim. It is not written as "does EQ change timbre," rather there is an implicit, and incorrect, claim that it doesn't and you're seeking the reason.

[dark water]

Tbh chaps you're wasting your time and energy here.
If the OP doesn't want to listen (ironically) to your fair advice then it's ultimately his lookout and musical struggle.
Not unlike a thread (with a different OP) I've recently visited.
Horse, lead and water...

[Nowhk]

Tbh chaps you're wasting your time and energy here.
If the OP doesn't want to listen (ironically) to your fair advice then it's ultimately his lookout and musical struggle.
Not unlike a thread (with a different OP) I've recently visited.
Horse, lead and water...

I'm the first who want to learn, in general. It's the first time in my life that I'm treaty like pathetic idiot this way (on both real and "virtual" life). I'm quite demoralized, it hurts me; I don't understand where I'm wrong, and I'm really thinking you all are just trolling me

No, timbre is perfectly "preserved" in any context of interest, performance, playback of a recording, etc., modulo any transfer function or chain of transfer functions, that of a speaker, a microphone, an EQ, an amplifier, a room, etc., applied by any process. We can measure this easily. However, we can only guess at what YOU mean by preserved here.

Is maybe the term "preserved" that makes confusion? Conserve is better? Maintain unaltered?
I think you confuse "change is timbre" as passing from guitar to piano. Of course I'll reckon a "guitar" listening to it under the water and recorded on a 6-bit hissy tapes. But as I said lots of times, I'm not refering to this. That's not my point of the whole discussion. Can you go "over" this for a moment?

the problem is with your understanding.

Ok, lets esamine my understanding of timbre.
Timbre on Wikipedia: The physical characteristics of sound that determine the perception of timbre include spectrum and envelope.

You know better than me that physically an event can't occurs equal twice; if you also change the way a signal will propagate to the air, that's implicit that physical characteristics of a sound (in particular spectrum; but also its envelope will be shaped) will be "shaped". If these aspect determine "the perception of timbre", its logical that different spectrum create a different perception. It also depends on bias, memory, and other stuff. But the physical characteristics are the triggering stimuli, and are being included as part of the perception task.

What's wrong with this reasoning? Is Wiki wrong? Am I confusiong right now orange with banana?
Please explain this if that's the problem; don't say "you know nothing, this have non-sense, etc".

Thus, I'd like to list some replies by partecipants of this discussion:

When I EQ a sound the timbre definitely changes.

But attributes of a timbre are altered.

Try this: a 5-band graphical EQ where you can change the five band levels on the fly.
...
Now you tell me EQ does not change timbre?

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.
...
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.

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

But if I play something on my hi-fi and fiddle with the tone controls I may change the overall timbre

As we said about 4 pages back...EQ definitely changes the timbre. That's what it's for.

Many of these "claims" mean that timbre "change" under EQ (as well it will on different environments).
How could you sustain that it will be "maintain unaltered" between playback on setup A and B. Some differences will be added naturally. There's a bit of alteration. Its not "preserved". What's the part I don't understand? What I don't know that I don't know here?

Reply with a valid answer, please!
I borders the ridiculous now

[BertKoor]

OK, I got a spare hour so let's give it a final try.

First off, the thread title:

• Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

This is formulated as a question and implying the fact (or personal observation) that EQ does not change timbre. Later on we have established that EQ can change the timbre.

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.
[...]
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.
[...]

I agree with everything you have written. [...]

So do you agree that on Tue May 30, 2017 22:23 you have admitted you understand EQ can change the timbre. Right?

Although the implied fact is proven to be wrong, the observation might still be true in some cases. Let's put this besides us and get this out of the discussion. It is dealt with, OK?


So there is an observation: there are cases where EQ does not change timbre. I happen to own a graphical EQ: the Behringer UltraGraph Pro. It has volume sliders for 31 frequency bands ranging from 20Hz to 20kHz.

Maybe you have something simular, they are basically all the same. Let's do an experiment with it. Start with putting all the knobs at neutral position, so sound passes straight through it and it is not filtered. The timbre of the sound thus stays the same. Correct?

Other experiments have already shown that the human hearing cannot reliably discriminate volume differences smaller than 1dB. So if I take the 20kHz slider (highest frequency) and put it down by 0.5 dB, I am fairly sure that you and I cannot really notice the difference. So there's a tiny bit of EQ applied, but timbre did not change.

I can drop the 20kHz slider again by 0.5 dB, and we all should not notice the difference with the previous situation.

Question: how many times can I drop the volume of the 20kHz band by 0.5 dB before any one of us will say: Hey, this timbre is different!

I can give an answer: it depends! For me personally it can be dropped all the way down and I won't notice. I'm now 50 years old and my hearing is limited to about 15kHz. But my son with young ears will notice. He will hear it transforming from clear HiFi towards as if it were transmitted through FM radio. Still pretty good, but no content above 15kHz.

Question: would you say the timbre has changed when the 20kHz band has been removed?

We can continue with the slider before (16kHz) and do the same thing. And the next band (12.5kHz) and the next (10kHz) and the next (8kHz). Now it sounds like the audio is travelling through a telephone line. You did admit previously that now the timbre has changed.

So is it the question: where do we draw the line? At what point is it the same, or is it slightly simular, or is it different? With each tiny step it sounds very simular to the previous step. Yet when adding all the tiny steps added together, somewhere there is a point where both you and I will agree the timbre is different.

My point proven: whether timbre changes depends on how much EQ and which listener you ask.

[BertKoor]

Try listen the punch and texture of a kickdrum within a club, or on a NS10 pair, than on akg k240... the differences are irrelevant for you?

Differences are there, but that should not be relevant.

It is the task of the mixing engineer and the mastering engineer (two different persons with different tools & skills) to produce a product that is equally enjoyable in almost every possible listening environment. There are no separate versions of "Dark side of the moon" especially mixed for speakers or for headphones. Take either speakers or headphones and enjoy the same music.

Here's an example of an amateur mixing engineer that made a serious mistake:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv3frvHIwRY

I received this first as a video on my Facebook, and the first time I heard it on my phone. It happens that a friend of mine is the bass player of this band. And I asked myself: when does he start playing? After two minutes I concluded he's not on the recording at all!

So I wrote a comment: where's the base? Answer: he's there, but listen on a better hifi instead of laptop or phone. I checked and indeed.

Mistake he made: on the base track he rolled off all frequencies above about 160Hz. If he left them there, I would have heard the base on any device. Because he was stubborn and did not want to admit his error he did not want to fix it.

So there are very big differences between speakers and headphones. It is widely known that while mixing on headphones you tend to put in not enough reverb and not enough stereo spread. It is also known that while mixing on speakers you will hear more reverb and more stereo spread when you check it on headphones.

You deal with it: find a compromise that works well in any situation.

[liv]

I believe timbre is a somewhat subjective term.

Lets say you have a piece of wood and piece of metal.
When you hit them you hear what is what. If you EQ them you will still hear what is what, although the frequencies are altered. Depending on the amount of EQ I would call it a change on timbre aswell, but the "origin" of the sound and so the differences between wood and metal would still be distinguishable (to a certain point perhaps).

2 cent.

[BertKoor]

Next issue is why do people chose differently, esp. speakers and such? Because whatever you buy is not perfect and will be a compromise.

In the case of speakers (or headphones) I can think of three separate quality attributes:

• Audio quality. Say if the frequency spectrum is off less than 1db between 50Hz-20kHz, then audio quality is good.
• Price. You have cheap and expensive. Draw that line anywhere.
• Manufacturer reputation. Say DynAudio is good and Behringer is bad.

Pick the two points you find most important, at the cost of the third point. There is no product on the market which fits all three.

• You can have good audio quality for cheap, but not from DynAudio. So the compromise is you have ugly Behringer logo on the front.
• You can have good audio quality from DynAudio, but not cheap. So the compromise is your budget.
• You can have the cheapest product from DynAudio, but not with good audio quality. Wait.. does that even exist?

This is a simple example, on purpose. In reality the choices are even more overwhelming. And each and every time I buy something, after some time I find it is not perfect and lacking something. Buy something else, only to find out something is wrong at which I did not pay attention to when shopping.

Nothing is perfect, it's always a compromise.

Then there's personal choice, taste and marketing ofcourse trying to influence your choices.