Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › How is timbre in sound represented electronically or digitally?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How is timbre in sound represented electronically or digitally? - Page 2

post #16 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post

Then what measure would relate to the quality of a notes body, fullness or roundness?  That can't be FR sice I could have w phones w/ flat FR and one could sound thin or dry and the other lush and wet.

 

Give us an example sound and two different headphones (one that reproduces the sound thin or dry and the other one lush or wet). We then can analyze what makes it sound like that, or eq both headphones until the difference is gone. wink.gif


Edited by xnor - 11/6/10 at 11:03am
post #17 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

eq both headphones until the difference is gone. wink.gif


Oh you're one of those koolaid drinkers.    Unless that was sarcasm.  No offense but people that think EQ can turn one set of speakers or phones into another are just deaf and delusional.  I guess the thread has run it's course.    

post #18 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post


Oh you're one of those koolaid drinkers.    Unless that was sarcasm.  No offense but people that think EQ can turn one set of speakers or phones into another are just deaf and delusional.  I guess the thread has run it's course.    

 

If I was dead serious there wouldn't be a smiley, heh.

 

Not so fast, this thread has not run its course!

 

Find a simple sound file that probably just contains a single instrument and lets then compare how different headphones reproduce it differently and why. What do you have to lose?


Edited by xnor - 11/4/10 at 4:02pm
post #19 of 49



Agreed! We would all buy POS phones and speakers then EQ the hell out of them until they sound like GOLD

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post




Oh you're one of those koolaid drinkers.    Unless that was sarcasm.  No offense but people that think EQ can turn one set of speakers or phones into another are just deaf and delusional.  I guess the thread has run it's course.    

post #20 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post




Oh you're one of those koolaid drinkers.    Unless that was sarcasm.  No offense but people that think EQ can turn one set of speakers or phones into another are just deaf and delusional.  I guess the thread has run it's course.    


then anyone having heard the SVS Realizer demos with personalized hrtf, head angle tracking and multi-channel loudspeakers at Ft Lauderdale National meet - or those who bought one and did their calibrations at AIX are delusional?

 

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/418401/long-awaited-smyth-svs-realiser-now-available-for-purchase#post_5585154
 


Edited by jcx - 11/4/10 at 4:31pm
post #21 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcx View Post

then anyone having heard the SVS Realizer demos with personalized hrtf, head angle tracking and multi-channel loudspeakers at Ft Lauderdale National meet - or those who bought one and did their calibrations at AIX are delusional?

 

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/418401/long-awaited-smyth-svs-realiser-now-available-for-purchase#post_5585154
 


Must be a great investment to be able to turn a Koss Portapro into a HD800.  Sign me up.  Headline, "EQ breaks Laws of Physics and ignores Space/Time continuum.  More news at 11!"   

 

@Xnor.  -Deleted-  Too many RL flashbacks on the matter.  I'm still suffering from Post Traumatic Equalization Disorder.  


Edited by Anaxilus - 11/6/10 at 8:44am
post #22 of 49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anaxilus 

 

Anyone?
 Are you saying Timbre is unrelated to Frequency Response?         

 You don't think that's what gives the notes their color?

Anaxilus, 1st off, I'm not trying to be a "know-it all", or "smart ass"..This is a very interesting Topic, for sure...You ask, " Are you Saying Timbre is unrelated to Frequency Response"? Of course not, a given Frequency Response is provided in everything we HEAR, including the spoken word/s, let alone music.. One can measure the Frequency Response of any sound, right!  All I was trying to explain is what timbre really means.... 

 

Timbre has a technical and a non-technical definition. Non-technically it is to do with the 'quality' of a sound, rather than its pitch or loudness. Different musical instruments are said to have a different quality or timbre even for the same musical note: e.g. a trumpet and a flute, or a guitar and a violin. Technically, we can say that a difference in timbre is the name given to our perception of the difference between two sounds which have the same perceived pitch and perceived loudness. There are both spectral and temporal aspects to timbre: this is easy to show by playing a piece of music backwards: the musical notes will be the same loudness, the same pitch and have the same spectral properties, but the instruments will still sound different - this is due to our sensitivity to how a sound builds up and dies away as well as to its spectral content.  So, Am I out in left field?? I've searched everywhere and the word Frequency Response is not mentioned with the term "TIMBRE".......correct me if I'm wrong or all wet....

post #23 of 49

I'm confused. Why do we spend so much money on high quality gear for better "TIMBRE" when all it takes is an EQ to give you what you want out of any phone or speaker. When i was a DJ i use to have a DBX Driverack processor and no matter how much i would use it to tweak my JBL's i could never get them to sound like my Yorkville Unity series which cost about $1100.00 more each. So IMO an EQ is not the answer for what has been posted in this thread to take away differences with it. Unless I'm suffering from placebo.

post #24 of 49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guidostrunk View Post

I'm confused. Why do we spend so much money on high quality gear for better "TIMBRE" when all it takes is an EQ to give you what you want out of any phone or speaker. When i was a DJ i use to have a DBX Driverack processor and no matter how much i would use it to tweak my JBL's i could never get them to sound like my Yorkville Unity series which cost about $1100.00 more each. So IMO an EQ is not the answer for what has been posted in this thread to take away differences with it. Unless I'm suffering from placebo.


Agree 100% Guidostrunk!  It reminds me of "Quadraphonic" sound in the 70's and later the so called "5.1/7.1 Surround Sound" of Today....FAKE, FAKE, FAKE. also JMO.......Give me a natural 2 ch. stereo mix from a tube/analog board recording any day, hell I'll take a real mono mix/recording over the new "Whistles and bells of recordings today........JMO, again.....
 

post #25 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post

@Xnor.  Sorry, that's a topic that just gets under my skin.  Apologies man.  Too many RL flashbacks on the matter.  I'm still suffering from Post Traumatic Equalization Disorder.  


The topic gets under your skin, yet you were the one who asked?

 

Post traumatic eq disorder? biggrin.gif Certainly a strange way to chicken out.

 

 

@Guidostrunk: The answer is obvious. There's more to it than just frequency response.


Edited by xnor - 11/5/10 at 5:17am
post #26 of 49

Well just my 2 cent ...

 

If two speaker would emit the same waves (pressurizing the air in the same way) it would sound exactly the same.

 

But even with as far as possible sophisticated EQ you could not bring a comb to sound like a saxophone.

 

Neither may one speaker or phone never sound like the other because it is simply technically not able to reproduce the frequencies in the same way like the first one ... and no EQ can change that.

 

Just by telling the speaker to play this frequency with that amplitude does not mean that it is able to do that.


Edited by xabu - 11/5/10 at 6:19am
post #27 of 49

subscribed

post #28 of 49

From http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/timbre.html

 

Timbre

Sounds may be generally characterized by pitch, loudness, and quality. Sound "quality" or "timbre" describes those characteristics of sound which allow the ear to distinguish sounds which have the same pitch and loudness. Timbre is then a general term for the distinguishable characteristics of a tone. Timbre is mainly determined by the harmonic content of a sound and the dynamic characteristics of the sound such as vibrato and the attack-decay envelope of the sound.

Some investigators report that it takes a duration of about 60 ms to recognize the timbre of a tone, and that any tone shorter than about 4 ms is perceived as an atonal click. It is suggested that it takes about a 4 dB change in mid or high harmonics to be perceived as a change in timbre, whereas about 10 dB of change in one of the lower harmonics is required.

 

Harmonic Content

The primary contributers to the quality or timbre of the sound of a musical instrument are harmonic content, attack and decay, and vibrato. For sustained tones, the most important of these is the harmonic content, the number and relative intensity of the upper harmonics present in the sound.

Some musical sound sources have overtones which are not harmonics of the fundamental. While there is some efficiency in characterizing such sources in terms of their overtones, it is always possible to characterize a periodic waveform in terms of harmonics - such an analysis is called Fourier analysis. It is common practice to characterize a sound waveform by the spectrum of harmonics necessary to reproduce the observed waveform.

harcon.gif

The recognition of different vowel sounds of the human voice is largely accomplished by analysis of the harmonic content by the inner ear. Their distinctly different quality is attributed to vocal formants, frequency ranges where the harmonics are enhanced.

 

Attack and Decay

The primary contributers to the quality or timbre of the sound of a musical instrument are harmonic content, attack and decay, and vibrato.

guitat.gif

The illustration above shows the attack and decay of a plucked guitar string. The plucking action gives it a sudden attack characterized by a rapid rise to its peak amplitude. The decay is long and gradual by comparison. The ear is sensitive to these attack and decay rates and may be able to use them to identify the instrument producing the sound.

cymsti.gif

This shows the sound envelope of striking a cymbal with a stick. The attack is almost instantaneous, but the decay envelope is very long. The time period shown is about half a second. The interval shown with the guitar string above is also about half a second, but since its frequency is much lower, you can resolve the individual periods in that sound envelope.

 

Vibrato/Tremolo

The primary contributers to the quality or timbre of the sound of a musical instrument are harmonic content, attack and decay, and vibrato. The ordinary definition of vibrato is "periodic changes in the pitch of the tone", and the term tremolo is used to indicate periodic changes in the amplitude or loudness of the tone. So vibrato could be called FM (frequency modulation) and tremolo could be called AM (amplitude modulation) of the tone. Actually, in the voice or the sound of a musical instrument both are usually present to some extent.

Vibrato is considered to be a desirable characteristic of the human voice if it is not excessive. It can be used for expression and adds a richness to the voice. If the harmonic content of a sustained sound from a voice or wind instrument is reproduced precisely, the ear can readily detect the difference in timbre because of the absence of vibrato. More realistic synthesized tones will add some type of vibrato and/or tremolo to produce a more realistic tone.

tremolo.gif

Above is an amplitude plot of a sustained "ee" vowel sound produced by a female voice. The periodic amplitude change would be described as tremolo by the ordinary definition of it. You could also hear pitch variation along with it, so vibrato was present as well. That is commonly the case. The period of the amplitude modulation is about 0.17 seconds, or a modulation frequency of about 5.8 Hz superimposed on a tone of frequency centered at about 395 Hz. Rough frequency measurements gave frequencies of 392 Hz when the amplitude was high and 399 Hz when the amplitude was low. It is not known whether or not this kind of variation is typical. Scaling the amplitude variation gives a range of about 7 dB in intensity associated with the amplitude modulation.

 

post #29 of 49



It doesn't matter if there's more to it than FR. The point is an EQ is not the solve all that your insinuating. JMO

Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post


The topic gets under your skin, yet you were the one who asked?

 

Post traumatic eq disorder? biggrin.gif Certainly a strange way to chicken out.

 

 

@Guidostrunk: The answer is obvious. There's more to it than just frequency response.

post #30 of 49

If you can get an EQ i don't care which you choose to get a pair of Skull candy whatevers to sound like the LCD-2's , send a PM and I'm on the bandwagon. IMO it's not possible.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › How is timbre in sound represented electronically or digitally?