Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

[Nowhk]

Definitely changes Timbre

Yes, we have plenty accomplished this My main concern was: does it change it even with slight adjustments? Because if so, every time I play back a song on my own setups, which theirs differences are comparables with EQ adjustment (thinking of the frequency response of the speaker; i.e. EQ was the an example) will affect the artist/producer's original timbre.

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.

That's fantastic! Thanks for this explanation!
It will help me to arrive where I want to arrive.

So, when I'm concentrating on "pitch sweep of a kick", my brain take the input signal (physical waves), apply memory of it, adjust by mood, and such other (many) things... and finally it elaborates what I perceive as the "punch/click" perception of that kick.
Since all of what I've already mention (input signal, memory, mood, and so on) will change at the next listening (because of nature of how things works), I hypothesize (I can't be sure, since without any memory there isn't any comparison; that's why hypothesize) that the perception of that "punch/click" will change.

Right? Am I correct with this statement?
If no, why?
If yes, in which terms this change won't matter?

[Nowhk]

@Gamma-UT: don't leave me now, we are near the conclusion

[Nowhk]

Hi there,

I've re-read the whole 21 pages of this topic another 2-3 times in the last days, taking notes with notepad of what I've missed and discovering thing that I had ignored.

I think I get the point of ghettosynth when he said (and some others) "it doesn't matter".
This is a perfect quote I think (from his post):

So, as has been said over and over again, yes, everything that audio passes through has some impact on timbre, so what? That doesn't make it some ridiculously variable experience. In fact, as I've said repeatedly, that variability largely falls under the noise floor of interest when compared to the timbral characteristics of interest.

I believe THIS is what he meant with "it doesn't matter".
Some characteristics of timbre (that seems more important than other) are preserved.
So I ask you: what does this means? My wrong assumption (I think) is that I see the timbre as "whole" thing (as watching a color: I recognize the color with its own shades as whole). That's why I said that if the medium change the spectrum, my "whole" perception of that color will change.

But of course if there are details (which they matters) that are preserved more than other, the whole reasoning makes sense. Is it maybe somethings like "categorize" it as "main class blue" discarding its shades that matter? I don't know.

Let say I'm a novice artist, I know nothing about music production.
What do you care that need to be heard when you create (for example) a synth sound from scratch?
Since its spectrum obviously can't be exactly preserved on targets medium's playback, which are the "elements" of that sound that are important for you?
Heard at least "part of it"? The body? At least heard it and other instruments?
Your personal opinions, reached in your experiences

I could open a new thread about this new "subject", but I think you will fork me
Or maybe is it better?

Thanks

[himalaya]

Let say I'm a novice artist, I know nothing about music production.
What do you care that need to be heard when you create (for example) a synth sound from scratch?
Since its spectrum obviously can't be exactly preserved on targets medium's playback, which are the "elements" of that sound that are important for you?
Heard at least "part of it"? The body? At least heard it and other instruments?
Your personal opinions, reached in your experiences

It always boils down to this: make the synth patch sound as best as you can on YOUR monitoring systems. After that, once shared with the world, the bird is out of the cage and you have no control over it. So, it does not matter which elements of the sound may be important to me, since those elements may be totally missed by the listener.

And again, the playback medium is only half the story, as has been mentioned many times. The 'emotional' side of things has been discussed already but there is another side to this: Say, I have an authentic sounding analog patch, made on a synth that is not known for a good analog tone. So I share the sound with all enthusiasm saying, "this sounds so analogue!", but my listeners say, actually, it doesn't. Yet, I'm convinced it does. What now? How do I make sure that the listeners hear what I do? Is it the speaker that affects this perception? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe it's one of the following:

1. The listener has no real experience of how analogue synths can sound and thus makes an incorrect judgement. Nothing to do with the speakers!

2. There maybe confirmation bias, in that, knowing that the synth is not known for good analog tone, it surely can not make an authentic analogue patch. "it can not be so". Again, nothing to do with the speakers.

So, there are multitude of reasons why your synth patch/song/instrumental will be perceived differently by your listeners. Or how the timbre may vary, or not. This really should be the end of the story ( pages and pages ago), but I bet your purpose is to actually gather many more pages in order to turn them into a TV series. A kind of soap opera: "KVR stole my timbre!"

Do your best in your studio. Then, after releasing your creation to the world, let go. ... and don't forget to breathe!

[Nowhk]

So, it does not matter which elements of the sound may be important to me, since those elements may be totally missed by the listener.
...
So, there are multitude of reasons why your synth patch/song/instrumental will be perceived differently by your listeners. Or how the timbre may vary, or not.

Why are you still speaking about me (or you) vs listeners? How many times I have to told you "I don't give a fXXk about listeners"?

Music is not always be made for audience.
Let see it as I make my own music for enjoy (later, on listening) myself.
Or put it simply, listening to others music: which elements do you reckon "preserved" when you hear theirs fancy sound from scratch across different mediums? (youself, not comparing to how other listeners will listen to it)

See this question as "what do you listen" from music? Because if you all admit that you got the same (i.e. what matter) across mediums, this means that the spectrum's changes won't impact "what" you hear (which is preserved, what matter). So, what is that "what"?

I'm probably biased on "how to listen"
Because learning about spectrum/physics/timbre and such, if I follow the paper, it seems EVIDENT that you always listen somethings different and NOTHING should be really preserved.

So the options seems to be (for YOU single listener, let alone anybody else):
- you listen somethings different everytime BUT all these tiny differences (that you listen and take place on the perception) won't make any significative effects;
- or you listen somethings different BUT you are listening/focus only on some factors that are preserved, and you just discard these tiny differences

For the sake of "how things works", this difference is huge IMO.
False dichotomy? It could be... I'm just reasoning...

[slipstick]

If you are only interested in what YOU hear/perceive/listen to, as you keep on saying, then why are you bothering us? You're the only one who can hear what you are hearing. So you are the only one who can decide "how it works" for you. I can't know what's going on inside your head and I really, really don't care.

Steve

[Nowhk]

If you are only interested in what YOU hear/perceive/listen to, as you keep on saying, then why are you bothering us? You're the only one who can hear what you are hearing. So you are the only one who can decide "how it works" for you. I can't know what's going on inside your head and I really, really don't care.

Oh my god... but have you read my last post?

Or put it simply, listening to others music: which elements do you reckon "preserved" when you hear theirs fancy sound from scratch across different mediums? (youself, not comparing to how other listeners will listen to it)

See this question as "what do you listen" from music? Because if you all admit that you got the same (i.e. what matter) across mediums, this means that the spectrum's changes won't impact "what" you hear (which is preserved, what matter). So, what is that "what"?

[Gamma-UT]

Why are you still speaking about me (or you) vs listeners? How many times I have to told you "I don't give a fXXk about listeners"?

Music is not always be made for audience.
Let see it as I make my own music for enjoy (later, on listening) myself.

Do you read your own posts? Or is troll mode back on?

[Nowhk]

Why are you still speaking about me (or you) vs listeners? How many times I have to told you "I don't give a fXXk about listeners"?

Music is not always be made for audience.
Let see it as I make my own music for enjoy (later, on listening) myself.

Do you read your own posts? Or is troll mode back on?

Yes, and so what's wrong with that?
Do you see so strange create and record your own Modular Synth patch and listen to it later, enjoying it on your studio or headphones while you are going to work?

Are you all making music for climbing the charts here?

[himalaya]

Why are you still speaking about me (or you) vs listeners? How many times I have to told you "I don't give a fXXk about listeners"?

You are one seriously confused individual.

Read, you wrote:

Since its spectrum obviously can't be exactly preserved on targets medium's playback, which are the "elements" of that sound that are important for you?

Emphasis of the word 'target' mine....this word implies an audience. OTHER people. Listeners. You talk about an artist...artists release music for other people to listen...that is 'listeners' - it's all over your question. Really. You don't even know what you are asking?

Let see it as I make my own music for enjoy (later, on listening) myself.

Then it doesn't matter even more! If you make music for yourself, at home, so that you can listen to it at home, then you will know what speakers you have and you will mix the music to sound good on those speakers...where is the issue here? You will hear your music the same every time! (or not! since you will perceive even your own music differently when you listen to it when angry or when happy, or when the tax office in your country sends you a letter that says that you owe them 10,000 Euro ).

Or put it simply, listening to others music: which elements do you reckon "preserved" when you hear theirs fancy sound from scratch across different mediums? (youself, not comparing to how other listeners will listen to it)

I have no way of knowing what will be preserved or not. Maybe the original music contains some super low sub-bass and was made on speakers that could reproduce that low sub bass, but my speakers maybe can't handle that sound and will not reproduce it. How will I know that there is this sub-bass if my speakers can't play it back?
So the original music is not "preserved", as you put it, in this situation. So what? That's how it is. We've established this on every page.

In situations like this, listening to other's music on my speakers, all I can do is to use my own judgement and decide if what I hear on my speakers is balanced, pleasing, and as true a reproduction as possible. But I also need to be aware of any technical shortcomings in my speakers which may affect the output (ie: will they play back that sub bass, as an example).

Then, I can play this music on two different speakers, side by side, and hear how the music differs on both (that's why you will find mix engineers using several different monitors, in order to have a contrasting 'picture' of the music). In this situation I am able to make a judgement on how both sets of speakers colour the sound and go from there.

See this question as "what do you listen" from music?

Me? As a listener? To enjoy music? I look for emotion in music. Something that will move me. And like I tried to illustrate to you pages ago, I can be moved by the theme from Gladiator when I hear it on tiny laptop speakers and super duper pro monitors. Both playback systems will affect the perceived spectral balance, the overall 'song' timbre, in different ways. The frequency response will differ vastly! But I still get the same kick out of hearing the theme, regardless. Why is this? Magic?

Because if you all admit that you got the same (i.e. what matter) across mediums, this means that the spectrum's changes won't impact "what" you hear (which is preserved, what matter). So, what is that "what"?

That "what" is you. It's me. It's the listener. And it's how you absorb this information and make sense of it in your head. That's why I can be emotionally affected by the theme from Gladiator listening to it on a laptop and pro speakers, therefore I 'get' the 'message' the composer may have intended, but at the same time, if I choose to, I may be aware of the vastly different frequency spectrum on both, the laptop an the pro monitors. How can I "get" the message despite such differences in overall 'timbre'? Magic?

So the options are (for YOU single listener, let alone anybody else):
- you listen somethings different everytime BUT all these tiny differences (that you listen and take place on the perception) won't make any significative effects;
- or you listen somethings different BUT you are listening/focus only on some factors that are preserved, and you just discard these tiny differences

For the sake of "how things works", this difference is huge IMO.

It's huge, you say, and so what to do about it? I'm asking again. What do you do about it? Nothing, right? We know there are differences, or not. And?

(I now want to add to the page count so that we can make the TV series more exciting! Just teasing! )

[himalaya]

Do you see so strange create and record your own Modular Synth patch and listen to it later, enjoying it on your studio or headphones while you are going to work?

Are you all making music for climbing the charts here?

Personally, I like to make music for climbing trees, but don't tell anyone!

[dark water]

Do you see so strange create and record your own Modular Synth patch and listen to it later, enjoying it on your studio or headphones while you are going to work?

Are you all making music for climbing the charts here?

Personally, I like to make music for climbing trees, but don't tell anyone!

That comment is more suited to the, ahem, ''Why EQ a sound doesn't change TIMBER'' thread instead.

I like to make music for climbing the stairs. I find the genre of disco good for helping with this. '1-2-3-4-1-2-3-4'.

[himalaya]

Aha! But I can change the timber in my garden with a nice sharp saw(tooth) wave.

'1-2-3-4-1-2-3-4'.

You're not gonna go up the stairs, every time you go down to step one from step four!

[dark water]

Aha! But I can change the timber in my garden with a nice sharp saw(tooth) wave.

'1-2-3-4-1-2-3-4'.

You're not gonna go up the stairs, every time you go down to step one from step four!

You're right! This is why I am still a struggling disco music producer within the lucrative stair crossover industry.

[Gamma-UT]

You're not gonna go up the stairs, every time you go down to step one from step four!

You gotta get up to get down.