"Each sound wave has a characteristic shape, which depends on the material that produced the sound. This is what defines the timbre of the sound.
Timbre (tone color or tone quality) is what differentiates two sounds of the same frequency (same note). For example, the C note played on the guitar sounds very different from the C note played on the piano or flute. This means that these instruments have different timbres."
"Each sound wave has a characteristic shape, which depends on the material that produced the sound. This is what defines the timbre of the sound.
Timbre (tone color or tone quality) is what differentiates two sounds of the same frequency (same note). For example, the C note played on the guitar sounds very different from the C note played on the piano or flute. This means that these instruments have different timbres."
So, just for grins and giggles, let me take the other side of the argument and try to explain what I think could potentially be wrong with the definitions you posted above, from backdrifter's standpoint.
"Each sound wave has a characteristic shape, which depends on the material that produced the sound. This is what defines the timbre of the sound."
In this first definition, it is fairly clear that the quality or property of timbre is in the "sound" or "sound wave", as opposed to the "material that produced" it.
The 2nd definition is more ambiguous...
"Timbre (tone color or tone quality) is what differentiates two sounds of the same frequency (same note). For example, the C note played on the guitar sounds very different from the C note played on the piano or flute. This means that these instruments have different timbres."
You can read this definition either way. The first part of the definition states that timbre is what differentiates two sounds of the same frequency. The implication being that it is a property of the sounds that the instruments make, rather than a property of the instruments themselves.
The last sentence though says that this means that the instruments have different timbres. Implying that timbre is a property of the instruments, rather than the sounds they produce.
The key word in that phrase is have. Instruments have different timbres.
To be more consistent with the first part of the definition, the word have should be probably be replaced with produce. So instruments produce different timbres. That puts the quality or property of timbre back into the sounds they make, rather than the instruments themselves.
The 2nd definition above is trying to have it both ways though. And suggesting that timbre can be either a property of sound, or a property of the instrument or source used to produce the sound. Backdrifter seems to be arguing that you cannot or should not try to conflate the two in this way.
It's a subtle distinction. But one which is obviously important to some folks here.
If you agree with the above, that timbre or tone is solely a property of an instrument, or headphone, or speaker's sound, then it would not be correct to say that one headphone is brighter, darker, warmer or cooler than some other headphone. To be totally correct, you would have to say that one headphone sounds brighter, darker, etc. than another headphone.
In the first instance it's implied that the timbral or tonal properties of brightness, darkness, warmness or coolness is in the headphones. In the second instance, it's in the headphone's sound. In everyday headphone-related parlance though, I think it's generally understood that both mean the same thing. And you are not referring to the headphone's appearance or temperature in the first case. It's implicitly understood that you're referring to the headphone's sound quality rather than these other things, even if it's not explicitly stated.
If you agree with the above, that timbre or tone is solely a property of an instrument, or headphone, or speaker's sound, then it would not be correct to say that one headphone is brighter, darker, warmer or cooler than some other headphone. To be totally correct, you would have to say that one headphone sounds brighter, darker, etc. than another headphone.
In the first instance it's implied that the timbral or tonal properties of brightness, darkness, warmness or coolness is in the headphones. In the second instance, it's in the headphone's sound. In everyday parlance though, I think it's generally understood that both mean the same thing. And you are not referring to the headphone's appearance or temperature in the first case. It's implicitly understood that you're referring to the headphone's sound quality rather than these other things, even if it's not explicitly stated.
The webpage goes more in depth. Giving examples otoh. A flute middle c vs guitar middle will make a different sound wave iirc, though nonetheless would create the same note.
As for headphones, that's a separate topic it seems. I was just sharing my thoughts as a musician. Not sure how hps have "timbre". Who knows? It's either a trait by nature or by accident perhaps.
I digress, I'm gonna go some enjoy me some music along with some delicious sun. Haha. The other arguments I'll leave it to you folks. Got no skin on wordplay. Lol. Enjoy kind sirs.
Well, I'm still a bit stumped as to how you would describe the subjectively-perceived differences in sound quality, coloration, FR, etc. between different headphones if not through the use of timbral or tonal descriptions. (??) What other alternative is there?
I'm gonna go some enjoy me some music along with some delicious sun. Haha. The other arguments I'll leave it to you folks. Got no skin on wordplay. Lol. Enjoy kind sirs.
Well, I'm still a bit stumped as to how you would describe the subjectively-perceived differences in sound quality, coloration, FR, etc. between different headphones if not through the use of timbral or tonal descriptions. (??) What other alternative is there?
I mean let's look at it, the hp/iem put lots of research and marketing to it. Not gonna get into the complexity of the wood housing vs other types. I can subjectivity tell the quality between open vs closed backs, as well as to how hybrid dd & ba drivers compliment each other for iems. Tonality too can be affected by frequency tuning as well. At the end of the day, it's my trial and error and see where it lands in the consensus. Hence why I'm here... cause we're always curious regarding this ridiculously exciting hobby.
Everyone's chasing the end of the rainbow. Wallet mileage is another story
I am just into the sharing of ideas, i care less and feel no FOMO. concerning the wallet the only advice is avoid the shuffle up the product lines as best you can. or just be happy with entry level.
I am just into the sharing of ideas, i care less and feel no FOMO. concerning the wallet the only advice is avoid the shuffle up the product lines as best you can. or just be happy with entry level.
Immediate, vintage Sansui and Pioneer speakers pop into my head... the ones with 'every' size speaker on one box.
I'd love to hear some of those one day.
I've read some articles that say that single 'full range' transducer speakers (just one transducer per channel) tend to present sound in a more clear way, which is why there are those 2-way coaxial speakers to produce the same effect.
But then you see those extremely expensive boutique speakers that are 7 foot tall with 20-30 speakers per channel.... sooo.... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Being broke most of the time also helps. 
