Nowhk
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by Nowhk on Jul 28, 2017 7:11:18 GMT
Hi all, its my first post here, and I'd like to discuss a uncertainty I have due to (I bet) my lacks of knowledge. I'll try to be short and quick Than... If I go on wiki to see the definition of Timbre, it clearly says "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 (speakers, room, presets by your hifi eq, setup in general) its implicit that physical characteristics of the sound (in particular spectrum; but also its envelope in some minor ways) will be "shaped". If these aspect determine "the perception of timbre", its seems logical that different "spectrum" will cause a different perception of timbre. Yeah, 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. If that's true (and please note: I'm not talking obviously of listening a guitar like a piano, but a "slightly" different perceived guitar's timbre), does this means that you can't preserve a fixed timbre across playback? The perception of a guitar's timbre will be always slightly different? Or the perception of timbre remain the same (i.e. is preserved, due to the power of our brain to balance/filter/add memory to what we hear, so what actually change) and what change is only the "spectrum" (which is a physical thing)? Thanks for participating
|
|
|
Post by rock on Jul 28, 2017 12:22:33 GMT
Right, the timbre is human perception of spectrum and envelope which are objectively measured physical quantities. So if spectrum/envelope remain the same, it's still possible to humanly perceive a difference although under controlled conditions, we could/should/might also perceive the same timbre. If the spectrum/envelope change, IMHO, all bets are off. Same with pitch/frequency and loudness/amplitude etc. Here's a book whose scope goes beyond the question but discusses the relationship between timbre/spectrum, pitch/frequency and loudness/amplitude. The former the these pairs being human perception and the latter being electronic measurement. www.amazon.com/Tuning-Timbre-Spectrum-William-Sethares/dp/1852337974/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1501242672&sr=1-1&keywords=timbre+spectrumI think it's too expensive to buy but you may be able to get it through you library loan system, it will probably be found in a university library if you want to take a look. Cheers, Rock
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Jul 28, 2017 15:04:45 GMT
does this means that you can't preserve a fixed timbre across playback? Most electronic gear is very accurate. Speakers less so, and rooms are even more skewed. But there are still reasonably flat speakers, and with enough acoustic treatment rooms can be within a 10 dB window or even better. This is the "preserve" part. But I want to be clear that preserving timbre is not the same as capturing an event accurately with microphones. I see this all the time in hi-fi forums: someone says "if audio gear is so accurate, why can't my system sound like a live concert in an auditorium?" Of course, that's a totally different issue having nothing to do with the accuracy of a playback system.
|
|
Nowhk
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by Nowhk on Jul 31, 2017 14:32:22 GMT
does this means that you can't preserve a fixed timbre across playback? Most electronic gear is very accurate. Speakers less so, and rooms are even more skewed. But there are still reasonably flat speakers, and with enough acoustic treatment rooms can be within a 10 dB window or even better. This is the "preserve" part. But I want to be clear that preserving timbre is not the same as capturing an event accurately with microphones. I see this all the time in hi-fi forums: someone says "if audio gear is so accurate, why can't my system sound like a live concert in an auditorium?" Of course, that's a totally different issue having nothing to do with the accuracy of a playback system. Yes, I was talking about timbre as perception. Since its derivated from spectrum (physical thing) and we do all know that every playback will change the spectrum (naturally), will it be different every time? Or brain will compensate/extrapolate the same "message/color" on every playback. That's the core of the issue
|
|
Nowhk
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by Nowhk on Aug 1, 2017 7:26:31 GMT
Saying it explicitly: when I sound design an electronic kick for example, I "design" envelope for volume, filter, and so on. On playback, these "curves" won't be preserved at 100%: the attack/release could be smooth as for the speaker's transient (i.e. the dynamic change a bit). Filter can "sweep" between different ranges, add "ringing" freq on top, and some "weird" things could pop out.
So in fact you are not "hearing" the same every time. But maybe you "listening" still the same due to the brain (subconscious) filtering/compensating?
Or do you "feel" like somethings is changed every time?
|
|
|
Post by arnyk on Aug 1, 2017 12:41:03 GMT
Saying it explicitly: when I sound design an electronic kick for example, I "design" envelope for volume, filter, and so on. On playback, these "curves" won't be preserved at 100%: the attack/release could be smooth as for the speaker's transient (i.e. the dynamic change a bit). Filter can "sweep" between different ranges, add "ringing" freq on top, and some "weird" things could pop out. So in fact you are not "hearing" the same every time. But maybe you "listening" still the same due to the brain (subconscious) filtering/compensating? Or do you "feel" like somethings is changed every time? An area of audio that I have way too much experience with is ABX DBT listening tests. The essence of an ABX test is listening to the identical same recording reproduced two different ways, sometimes correctly identified to you, and sometimes with their identities kept secret from you. The task at hand is to match the unknowns with the knowns since they are identical if you match them correctly. Do that enough, and you get a lot of practical experience with hearing the same thing and hearing differences. One consequence of this is verification of Ethan's comments about electronics often being pretty precise, and as I put it, speakers and rooms being all over the place. It turns out that due to even the small standing waves in a room, moving your head slightly can change timbre enough to detect reliably or to make the chore of listening for small differences impossible. Therefore, might I suggest that you download one of the many ABC comparators on the web for your listening environment ( I recommend FOOBAR2000 for Windows) and some of the files on the web that have known differences, and getting some practical experience in this area?
|
|
Nowhk
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by Nowhk on Aug 1, 2017 12:53:11 GMT
Saying it explicitly: when I sound design an electronic kick for example, I "design" envelope for volume, filter, and so on. On playback, these "curves" won't be preserved at 100%: the attack/release could be smooth as for the speaker's transient (i.e. the dynamic change a bit). Filter can "sweep" between different ranges, add "ringing" freq on top, and some "weird" things could pop out. So in fact you are not "hearing" the same every time. But maybe you "listening" still the same due to the brain (subconscious) filtering/compensating? Or do you "feel" like somethings is changed every time? An area of audio that I have way too much experience with is ABX DBT listening tests. The essence of an ABX test is listening to the identical same recording reproduced two different ways, sometimes correctly identified to you, and sometimes with their identities kept secret from you. The task at hand is to match the unknowns with the knowns since they are identical if you match them correctly. Do that enough, and you get a lot of practical experience with hearing the same thing and hearing differences. One consequence of this is verification of Ethan's comments about electronics often being pretty precise, and as I put it, speakers and rooms being all over the place. It turns out that due to even the small standing waves in a room, moving your head slightly can change timbre enough to detect reliably or to make the chore of listening for small differences impossible. Therefore, might I suggest that you download one of the many ABC comparators on the web for your listening environment ( I recommend FOOBAR2000 for Windows) and some of the files on the web that have known differences, and getting some practical experience in this area? I will do some ot the tests, thanks for point it out My dubt anyway is a bit different. I do reckon that listening on different environment I got differences. Sure I got differences. But if that's true, this means that some of "music" characteristic of a song are always variable and not conserved (preserved). Such as timbre for example. If it "can" change accordly to the room/speakers and such, this means that an artist won't work on somethigs fixed, final and determined; it will always change a bit on every playback systems. Which become part of the actual "face/version" of the song you are listening. I don't know. This for me happens only on music. On Cinema, for example, if its VHS or BluRay it doesn't makes any differences: I always catch who are the actors, how they are dressed ("color" included) and how the dialog each others. Maybe its the same for music too? Not sure... because listening to a kick/bass on different systems gives to me different "sounds", so different "message". This also happens to you? Or do you listen always the same "things"? If I listen to a guitar, of course it won't become a piano on a room with a bit of reverb. I still hear A guitar. But the impacts of the reflections on the guitar sound will affect the whole guitar song. So am I enjoying the guitar with that reverb impact as a whole result (so a perception of guitar + presence introduced by reverb) or the impact of reverb won't affect any perception and my brain just extrapolate the guitar (so the reverb is just a room's vehicle to expose better/worse, depening of each person, the guitar)? I really don't know... Is it more clear my dubt now? Maybe is it more a philosophical question?
|
|
|
Post by arnyk on Aug 2, 2017 10:12:39 GMT
I do reckon that listening on different environment I got differences. Sure I got differences. But if that's true, this means that some of "music" characteristic of a song are always variable and not conserved (preserved). Such as timbre for example. If it "can" change accordly to the room/speakers and such, this means that an artist won't work on something fixed, final and determined; it will always change a bit on every playback systems. Which become part of the actual "face/version" of the song you are listening. Yes, one's perception of musical recordings can be different when listened to on different audio systems. That is one reason to have a high quality audio system - in order to obtain a perception of the music that is stimulated by sounds that are as close as possible as what was heard as the recording was produced. The usual way to productively address that problem is to gather information and try to put it together into a reasonable idea. That is odd. These days most media is mixed. Movies contain songs and other forms of music, for example. Some things are affected more by the quality of the reproduction than others. Nothing unique about that for most people. Dialogue is affected in similar ways. You get to choose. Many people can listen past the performance to some degree to hear the musical score. Many people can listen past the room to some degree to hear the musical performance.
|
|
Nowhk
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by Nowhk on Aug 3, 2017 7:16:48 GMT
I see the concept of "flat" environment setup, which target to get a "clean original" recordings. But the world of music also space on "loudspeakers", which intentionally add colors to the sound. So in a sense, it seems that final listener is the last actor that "shape" the work, variating the perceptions. Does it make sense for you? That's the point. Related to what I've just said above: is really "quality" of music or personal "extensions" (such as more bass, different colors, less reverb, soft transient, huge ringing, and so on)? What do you mean with "Nothing unique"? The fact is that this will revolutionize the way we "define" things. If I "live" the song as it play in the current setup/enrvironment/position where I listen to it, I got different perception of this. If I have to define it, it is not "somethings" perceived definitively anymore, but somethings that vary constantly. I mean, if I have a "red" jacket, I always perceive that "red" even if I see it on sun or within a shop with neon lighting, because my brain compensate for it and extrapolate the same "red" perception/information (its called Subjective constancy). Do you really can say the same with music? Do you still perceive a guitar or a kick in the same way on different environments/setup? I really can't say this... and this makes me really thoughtful! (obviously I'm referring only to some musical elements, such as timbre or dynamic; pitch, harmony, melody and rhythm are differents, because they are preserved and I can perceive the "same" on every playback).
|
|
|
Post by rock on Aug 3, 2017 12:04:41 GMT
Your red jacket is a good analogy. I think the answer to your questions is yes, it is possible that one can perceive music in the same way. I believe if one is familiar with a specific instrument timbre, one can "look" past the differences in acoustic or electronic playback environment to identify that which is previously know as the same. Cheers, Rock
|
|
Nowhk
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by Nowhk on Aug 3, 2017 15:58:56 GMT
Your red jacket is a good analogy. I think the answer to your questions is yes, it is possible that one can perceive music in the same way. I believe if one is familiar with a specific instrument timbre, one can "look" past the differences in acoustic or electronic playback environment to identify that which is previously know as the same. Cheers, Rock So a "musical element" added on the recordings is extrapolated as "musical element"; instead one added by room isn't? Example: a "reverb" added at mixing stage will be extrapolated and perceived, instead the "reverb" added by environment won't?
|
|
|
Post by rock on Aug 3, 2017 20:39:23 GMT
As far as reverb goes, I would imagine if on recording was exactly the same as the room you were listening in, you might not be able to tell the difference. But if a large hall reverb was recorded, you could easily tell it could not be produced by a small listening room.
But going back the identifying instruments, I suggested it was possible to look or hear past things like acoustics and EQ... but I did not quantify with how much precision. I know what an acoustic guitar sounds like but I might not be able to tell the difference between two similar models.
So what is it that you think? Are your experiences different than mine?
Cheers, Rock
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Aug 4, 2017 7:17:52 GMT
You know it's a red jacket but it still looks different in all those lights.
You might even ask the person if it's the same jacket.
It might be a white jacket under black light and appear purple.
The jacket might get the sleeves torn off and dyed another color.
A recording will sound different on different configurations yet it will be recognizable.
Is this what's being discussed?
Thanks.
|
|
Nowhk
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by Nowhk on Aug 4, 2017 9:19:22 GMT
A recording will sound different on different configurations yet it will be recognizable. But is this the main concept of music? Just recognize the "recordings"? Of course I can get "its a guitar", but what trigger to me "emotions" is (in part) "the way" that guitar is sounding, by the information that I'm extracting on that moment. Am I right? So the perception I "made" in that moment, with the current reverb, timbre, dynamics, bias, temporaney memory, and so on. That's my first dubt: am I correct with this? Because the options are 2: 1. Do I (you?) got different perception? 2. Or rather, in the end, my brain compensate all of those "hearing variations" (introduced by setup/room) and I get the same "perception" every time? This is very unclear also on what I'm experiencing every days listening to music. For me its the first point, and you got different "perception". Because you "feel" how it sounds (in a different way) on different halls (for example, in a club, with heavy bass and punch). Let me make a stupid example, check this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-CyqVay2ToOn studio, you "add" somethings to the kickdrum, the "presence", by reverb. So you are not hearing even more only a kick. But kick + reverb. Now if you play on a room, you got kick + reverb + room's reverb. So if it counts at mixing stage (because on headphones you get/feel/enjoy that reverb effect applied to the kick), logically on a room you got a different "effect" due to room's reverb. Everything in the chain will sculpt the final perception. But if that's true (option 1), artist/producer have not really "control" of the delivered message (again, I'm talking of a single person, not comparing perception of the mass), because that message will be sculpt every time. Rather, if the perception is the same (option 2), what's the purpose (as first) of adding fx like reverb? I'll got the kick with or without it. What the purpose of mixing/mastering? My brain will still extrapolate the informations from the recorings. My dubts first is "what" we perceive; due to this answer, I've a puzzlement for both
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Aug 4, 2017 14:25:29 GMT
Reading through this, Hexspa beat me to what I was thinking, about colored lights being able to make a huge change to what you see. So in the same way a room or speaker can change what you hear. Now, rooms and speakers might be "all over the place," but they're mostly repeatable. So if you play the same track ten times in a row, the same sound will exist in the room all ten times. But if you move your head even an inch or two, the sound reaching your ears will vary. So if your kick sound is based on a 70 Hz gated sine wave, and the person listening is in a deep null for 70 Hz, the kick might sound very different. I say "might" because room nulls are so highly localized that a null in one ear usually doesn't exist in the other ear. So some 70 Hz content is likely to get through.
|
|