Why EQ a sound doesn't change timbre?

[ghettosynth]

"Message" is your word not mine.

Actually, it was me that uttered that word first on page 6 and on page 12 I brought in the generic communication model as a reference or metafore. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_communication for further reading.

Yes, you used it as a metaphor, he has become attached to the word as a factual statement about music.

I don't think that instrumental music generally has a "message" beyond a very vague mood.

That's fine, and on many days I'd share that opinion with you. But I just googled it, and some great papers and studies (plus a lot of vague mumbo jumbo esotheric speculations) on this very subject came up.

Been there, done that. Your search isn't specific enough though. Of course music with lyrics has a message, it's often spelled out for you. With respect to this conversation though, I'm completely unconvinced that instrumental music conveys anything specific in any kind of universal, or frankly, even statistically supported with a very generous alpha level, manner.

Like most of this thread, it comes down to definitions. If you are claiming that your music has a message, then what is it? I'm willing to bet actual cash money that, again, beyond a vague mood, that an audience selected at random will fail to "receive" such messages in a statistically meaningful way.

I'm going to say that I don't even think that most people have really thought about what that message might be. I think that it's usually just a vague assertion that there's something more than an organization of sound. I'm not saying that the creator doesn't perceive an association, after all, he had something in mind when it was created.

Further, to the extent that any particular music does have a predictable response, I'm certain that such response is not generally obscured by variations in playback systems.

[dark water]

Lastly, can your statement answer the thread discussion question about EQ and timbre, if it doesn't mention those?

That specific question was ticked off as answered on page 9

You're right! I must have skimmed that page

[Nowhk]

9 replies in almost 3 hours... it's so hard to quit definitively from this thread... ghghgh

there is a lot in this thread i can relate to and think about.
maybe more than any other forum i can remember on a forum about music (allegedly...

I'm so glad its nice to someone.

Lastly, can your statement answer the thread discussion question about EQ and timbre, if it doesn't mention those?

It does of course. Because its all about "sound". EQ shape is comparable with different "static" frequency response of speaker. That's the reason why I used EQ instead of environments (trying to get rid the audiophile trend, but I failed on this). For the proposed argument it could be a nice example...

Actually, it was me that uttered that word first on page 6 and on page 12 I brought in the generic communication model as a reference or metafore. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_communication for further reading.

As I said, I'm still not sure if there are "message" in (instrumental) music too, especially what I made.
I already give to you this question before: viewtopic.php?f=99&t=485328&start=195#p6856287:

But if the whole "background" sound/noise is driven by the timbre made by an un-natural, synthesized and "abstracted" experimental synth/instrument, how could be the message if not the sound itself?
What message would you "trasmit" if not "how the sound... SOUND" (which, as confirmed by you lots of time, will changes across setups)?

But I didn't get any answer.

Dude, really I think you didn't get what I meant on this thread. You are still assuming I'm claiming that mediums have a HUGE impact on what we hear. It is not. Probably its just a epistemology question.

We have proved there are differences. Ok, as I thought.
We have proved that those differences are really small. Ok. I'm not talking about the amount of differences in the perceived sound.

I'm wondering about the task of a producer like me to make "organized sounds", because (in my ignorant opinion) I'm not doing somethings which fall into absolutism. I'm creating JUST a source, that will sound (translate) in some way when you listen to it. That's what I mean with a "guess" here.
The same phrase "sound in some way" should reflect people about somethings thats not the same every time (so not fixed).

As listener, I know that the sound I listen each time is not the same as the one I listen two days ago. Very similar, yes, but NOT the same. Because (as I learnt) a perception can't manifest exactly 100% twice. By nature.

So this is the general idea I have right now. I'm realizing that I'm not doing nothing absolute. Just a "base". This base will "adapt" to the target mediums, and its your task to make this "adaptation" as good as possible.
But again: the sounding results is not "fixed", its not absolute. It's a creature that will manifest with different "perception" faces (do you remember this post).

As you did in the past, you label this concept as "silly" and "useless". It could be, but if I'm totally wrong, you need to give to me where I'm wrong, not saying its mentual masturbation.

What I don't get from you, experienced and learned guy, is: what you perceive (the sound) from your own song, is the same every time you listen to it from your different environments? That's an easy question to reply I guess, for you. Let start by this...

[dark water]

@Nowhk - you skipped my question.
It's clear you like to reflect on things deeply, so I ask again in all seriousness: given your statement on the previous page which I referred to, how is this appropriate to a remixing producer operating within/against people's prior assumptions about a song?

[Nowhk]

@Nowhk - you skipped my question.
It's clear you like to reflect on things deeply, so I ask again in all seriousness: given your statement on the previous page which I referred to, how is this appropriate to a remixing producer operating within/against people's prior assumptions about a song?

Maybe I don't get the question, but I don't see the point of this One remix for the same reason of "original" producer, except it will keep some aspects of it, getting clear which "parts" are preserved and mutated.

But I can do the same reasoning also on remix: its "organized sounds" as well, the only differences is that it follow some aspects.

But conceptually, also these "aspects" seems not "absolutely" fixed across environments, thus neither the remix-aspects. Not sure if I got your quesiton though

[ghettosynth]

As you did in the past, you label this concept as "silly" and "useless". It could be, but if I'm totally wrong, you need to give to me where I'm wrong, not saying its mentual masturbation.

No, there's no obligation for us to do anything. You have yet to meaningfully quantify and demonstrate that this variance that you wish to elevate has any significant meaning to music production beyond typical mastering.

Sorry mate, you are engaging in bona-fide mental masturbation. If you want to get out of that, then stop pontificating about nonsense and start quantifying your understanding.

You're asking leading questions that are, frankly, dumb. They reflect that you have yet to understand what has been presented so far.

[Nowhk]

No, there's no obligation for us to do anything. You have yet to meaningfully quantify and demonstrate that this variance that you wish to elevate has any significant meaning to music production beyond typical mastering.

No, there's no obligation for me to do anything If you see from this point, we are all just speaking about personal opinions. You are not god on which I have to demostrate somethings. You also have to demostrate that there are no significant meaning.

However, you are still not understanding my point. You are conflating "there are variances" with "variances makes any significant differences".

You are perceiving "recordings+setup colors" every time you listen to music. You have confirmed this.
This differs on every listening. You have confirmed this.

Song is what you perceive, right? Well... isn't so banal where I want to end? "art is the eye of the beholder"...

[ghettosynth]

And thank you for your stubbornness in asking again and again. Keep on doing that! Because I genuinely believe that if a student does not understand something, it's probably the fault of the teacher, assuming that the explanation was clear enough for everybody to understand.

Not always. OP expresses a particular pattern in that he's overconfident in his position yet lacks the understanding and necessary prerequisites for moving forward. You can only explain so much by analogy. There's a reason university courses have prerequisite courses and generally won't allow you to enroll in a more advanced course without the prerequisite or permission from the instructor.

Would it be the calculus instructor's fault if he couldn't explain integration by parts to the average five year old? I don't think so and I don't think that you do either. I think that your comment is a bit of a platitude.

I don't think that the OP has any understanding whatsoever of thinking about what metric of difference that he would want to apply or even where to begin to think about such a metric or why one would be necessary to even begin to quantify his silliness. I don't think that he's ever in his life studied probability or understood the idea of statistical significance, nor why that is important here. I don't that that he's ever cracked a neuroscience book at any level, let alone one specifically related to music cognition. I don't even think that he's read a single academic paper on the subject or any subject related to this.

Sorry, this is that point in your first algebra class when your instructor tells you that you can't divide by zero because it's undefined. You aren't ready to understand the why yet and you'll just have to accept that so that the instructor can help the other kids rather than entertain your dumb questions. Curiosity is fine, but you have to be able to accept that it will take some work to get past the point that you're at and you don't do that work by getting stuck in your own head. You do that work by reading and engaging the works of others who have come before you.

Which leads to another myth, "there's no such thing as a dumb question." Why yes, yes there is. Not the first time you ask it, for the most part, although there are some doozies there, but when you don't understand that it's a dumb question because you don't know what you don't know and rather than trying to learn what you don't know, you keep rephrasing the question into ever dumber forms.

I'm never unwilling to help the engaged student, I get quickly annoyed at the lazy student. Do the work!

[ghettosynth]

No, there's no obligation for us to do anything. You have yet to meaningfully quantify and demonstrate that this variance that you wish to elevate has any significant meaning to music production beyond typical mastering.

No, there's no obligation for me to do anything If you see from this point, we are all just speaking about personal opinions. You are not god on which I have to demostrate somethings.

Again, you demonstrate your ignorance. The burden is always on the claimant to prove his claims. It isn't just about words on the screen, there is meaning behind those words. Nobody here wants your help. You are still asserting nonsense implicitly in your dumb questions and you are too ignorant to understand that those assumptions come with a burden of evidence.

This is far beyond your ability at the moment I'm afraid.

[Nowhk]

No, there's no obligation for us to do anything. You have yet to meaningfully quantify and demonstrate that this variance that you wish to elevate has any significant meaning to music production beyond typical mastering.

No, there's no obligation for me to do anything If you see from this point, we are all just speaking about personal opinions. You are not god on which I have to demostrate somethings.

Again, you demonstrate your ignorance. The burden is always on the claimant to prove his claims. It isn't just about words on the screen, there is meaning behind those words. Nobody here wants your help. You are still asserting nonsense implicitly in your dumb questions and you are too ignorant to understand that those assumptions come with a burden of evidence.

This is far beyond your ability at the moment I'm afraid.

Do you realize you said nothing "scientific" or "class-related" in this topic, right? Only somethings about HRTF, which has nothing to do with what is being discussing.
You haven't put any constructive comments in 15 pages. Only "you don't know and blablabla" kind of stuff.

I'm not helping to anybody, I'm trying to get help. You take this discussion too much personally, its pathetic.
And you seem too certain of your thinking. That's could be a rookie error.

A bit of uncertain is always appreciate in life. At the end we are discussing "art", not algebra (and I'm an engineer in the "real life"). I would do a step behind, champion

p.s. I did lot of statistic exams at University, and so? I also have a driving licenses if you are interessed.

[yellowmix]

...

[ghettosynth]

No, there's no obligation for us to do anything. You have yet to meaningfully quantify and demonstrate that this variance that you wish to elevate has any significant meaning to music production beyond typical mastering.

No, there's no obligation for me to do anything If you see from this point, we are all just speaking about personal opinions. You are not god on which I have to demostrate somethings.

Again, you demonstrate your ignorance. The burden is always on the claimant to prove his claims. It isn't just about words on the screen, there is meaning behind those words. Nobody here wants your help. You are still asserting nonsense implicitly in your dumb questions and you are too ignorant to understand that those assumptions come with a burden of evidence.

This is far beyond your ability at the moment I'm afraid.

Do you realize you said nothing "scientific" or "class-related" in this topic, right?

Like I said, this is beyond your ability. You don't recognize the points that are being made because you are ignorant of the topics at hand. That fact that you don't see anything constructive just reinforces my point. You are so stuck in your own head and your bad ideas that you refuse to learn from others.

You're just fundamentally wrong. You don't understand that you are just biasing yourself into believing that this matters. You don't realize that you've shown absolutely nothing of substance and you fail to grok that, by making claims, that it's absolutely your responsibility to do so.

You still fail to grok that there is an entire planet full of producing musicians who are quite able to create music and an army of fans who are able to achieve some consensus in terms of the nature of the music that they listen to. Yet, you continue blabbing on about a difference that you are completely incompetent to quantify, have demonstrated no evidence whatsoever that it even exists for you in any meaningful way but keep insisting that you have a point.

You don't.

I'm not helping to anybody, I'm trying to get help.

That's what I said, we know you want our help and yet you refuse to acknowledge your own responsibility in achieving that help.

[ghettosynth]

But... why if I EQ that particular sound I can feel the same timbre? In fact I'm editing amplitudes of some partials. So timbre should change.

Timbre is the perceived character of a sound independent of pitch.

This is context dependent. If you're talking about timbre in a music class, sure. If you're talking about timbre in the context of music information retrieval, no.

http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~ich/classes ... imilar.pdf

Here timbre is used in terms of distinguishing, or really, quantifying similarity of spectrum over time.

Moreover, the essence of the OPs argument doesn't change because he misuses or misunderstands a definition or applies it in a different context from where it is commonly used.

He means timbre as in information retrieval throughout this thread. It's been explained to him numerous times that it is almost never the case that any two listening experiences deliver the same timbre to the ears even given the same source material. We've also discussed how timbre is often understood, as you described to be that property that allows us to distinguish between instruments, that is, it's related to our perception.

However, that isn't relevant when you are talking about the same material being different across two different playback systems. There you are talking about timbre differences imposed by the speakers, consequently, the timbre, in fact, of the speakers when driven by a common source.

Timbre as applied to simply an instrument type, is an insufficient description or definition. Do two distinct violins share the same timbre? I'm not sure that everyone would agree that they do or they don't. There comes a point where even that distinction is not a matter of skill, but bias and noise floor. I'm not going to look it up but there is research on this with respect to vintage violins and bias.

The answer has been there for the OP all along it's just that his ego prevents him from acknowledging it. The differences between systems are almost universally statistically smaller than the differences in long term perception. The curry example presented many pages ago answered his question and he still hasn't accepted that his understanding is the limiting factor.

[Nowhk]

Do two distinct violins share the same timbre?

No they don't! Its easily to catch differences for trained violinist.

The answer has been there for the OP all along it's just that his ego prevents him from acknowledging it. The differences between systems are almost universally statistically smaller than the differences in long term perception. The curry example presented many pages ago answered his question and he still hasn't accepted that his understanding is the limiting factor.

The curry example is meaningless. Put yourself ahead a covered speakers: you are easily able to catch if what you are listening is played back by monitor or loudspeaker (listened 4 years ago). Because sounds impact change a lot. Thats what I'm talking about. Setup targets are wider than lime or lemon.
Bias in your opinion, right?

[ghettosynth]

Do two distinct violins share the same timbre?

No they don't! Its easily to catch differences for trained violinist.

A perfect example of how you are overconfident in your knowledge. This is partly true and partly a myth. As I said, there is research on this. Further you clearly miss the point. Whether they share the same timbre or not depends completely on how we measure timbre.

You will get a lot further if you stop assuming that you know the answers to the questions that you're wasting everyone else's time with.

As I said, the perceived difference among experts is often simply an indicator of bias and/or below the noise floor. That is, it has been shown that, in fact, your trained violinists often cannot tell the difference but are merely biased towards the more vintage instruments.

So, if trained violinists can't tell the difference do you really think that the vast majority of listeners, or even you, can actually perceive a difference in an appropriate test?

Here you go, I did your homework for you:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notro ... -new-ones/

The curry example is meaningless.

Not if you actually understand it.

Put yourself ahead a covered speakers:

And we need read no further, because this conveys that you do not. You don't understand what is an appropriate test, nor do you understand that it's pointless.

How many times do you have to be told, we all understand that every system sounds different, slightly, we all understand that everything in your environment impacts what you hear. You don't seem to understand that it is EXACTLY lime vs lemon in terms of any long term repeatability. Even for you! Asking us if we can hear two different speakers is just a stupid question, of course we can. It still doesn't matter and you have no evidence whatsoever that it actually matters to you, let alone anyone else.