[backdrifter]

If we cannot talk about the timbre or tonal quality of a pair of headphones or loudspeakers, then I guess we also can't talk about their pitch or loudness either. Because they aren't "true" sound sources by your definition. Seems a bit silly imo.

What distinguishes one quality from the others when discussing produced vs. re-produced sounds? Both imo have pitch, loudness, and yes, timbral or tonal qualities. To deny that is to deny the evidence of your own ears imo. The fact that the terms have been appropriated from music production is irrelevant imo. If it looks, quacks, and walks like a duck... it's a duck.

The term distortion, by contrast, also implies error. Which implies that you have knowledge of how something should sound. As opposed to how it should not. Which is a very hairy business when it comes to headphones. If you use the term "distortion" in place of timbre or tone when discussing the sound quality of headphones, then you are necessarily also making a value judgement about the correctness or incorrectness of the reproduced stimuli, as opposed to a more benign comparison.

If I talk about one headphone having a brighter or darker tone or timbre than another, there is no value judgement there. It is simply a comparison of different (tonal) qualities. If I talk about a headphone being more brightly distortive or darkly distortive, then that implies that both deviate to some degree from some hypothetical ideal. Which may imply knowledge that I don't actually possess. The terms timbral or tonal quality have no such implication. They are simply convenient terms for comparing the different qualities of headphones.

I know what the purpose of the term is, I'm just saying it's not really accurate. I don't understand your first comment. If we can't talk about a headphone's timbre, we can't talk about its pitch? So you're going to argue that headphones have pitch now? Well, I can't stop you, but they don't have pitch. The pitch on the record is the pitch you hear. Of course you can talk about tonal qualities. I'm just saying distortion is more accurate. Maybe you find it to be a pejorative, but a speaker doesn't reproduce a musician's timbre correctly, that's a distortion. It doesn't mean it's a distortion you don't like. I made this point earlier relating it to tube amps. You're adding layers about value judgments but I don't share your values, I guess. "Bright" isn't bad if you want bright. Coloration, character, or nature are fine by me, too. I find "distortion" to be most accurate, though.

Yes, within some bounds, I know how instruments should sound, and I think it's valid to say if something sounds correct. A violin on a NiceHCK F3 doesn't sound like a real violin. It's a judgment, but would someone argue that it's not true? I think a spectrum analyzer would back me up.

I think your argument is a bit of a straw man. I'm not saying you should ignore the evidence you hear. I'm not saying you can't talk about it. I'm just saying "timbre" is a word with meaning, and I don't think it means what you think it means. But if you find it convenient, that's fine. "Irregardless" got added to the dictionary recently. No one asked my opinion about it.

 

[IEMusic]

"Irregardless" got added to the dictionary recently. No one asked my opinion about it.

Seriously!! Now incorrect use of it can not longer be one of my pet peeves! Ah well....

 

[ChrisOc]

Very interesting discussion on the use of the word, "Timbre".

There is clearly a school of thought which says if language evolves, it follows that the use of a term or particular word would have a definitive meaning as a consequence of its evolution. The difficulty I have is that the word, "Timbre" in audiophilia appears to have multiple meanings, all of which appear to differ from the traditional meaning, which means at best its evolution is incomplete. The alternative view is that it is not at all in an evolutionary process if it means different things to different people. Although, arguably, there is a core or segment within the cluster of audio commentators who use the term, "Timbre" to refer variously to "colour", "sound quality", "tonality", "sound signature" which was @IEMusic's term I believe....etc. I take the view that the term "Timbre" has taken hold but its meaning has not taken hold.

Why not adopt a term which can (hopefully) clearly be understood by all. How about the term, "tonal signature"???

 

[FastAndClean]

there is also BA timber

 

[IEMusic]

Timbre" to refer variously to "colour", "sound quality", "tonality", "sound signature" which was @IEMusic's term I believe....etc. I take the view that the term "Timbre" has taken hold but its meaning has not taken hold.

Why not adopt a term which can (hopefully) clearly be understood by all. How about the term, "tonal signature"???

We do need a term to encompass the complex harmonics and other sonic features that makes one sound reproducer (I prefer a more specific use, for an individual driver, rather than an entire complex unit, such as an IEM) sound different from another, even when producing the exact same sound. The issue with the term tonality is that it also encompasses more tangible characteristics such as tuning, frequency response, sound signature. I perceive the word timbre as more abstract, hence the need for the term. Two identical trumpets based on almost all specifications, yet one can tell them apart when playing the same note. It describes subtle nuances.

 

[ADUHF]

Do microphones have a timbre? If so, then I may need to expand my definition of the term to include sound recording/capturing devices as well as sound-producing devices.

 

[backdrifter]

Do microphones have a timbre? If so, then I may need to expand my definition of the term to include sound recording/capturing devices as well as sound-producing devices.

I wish I thought of that!

 

[ChrisOc]

We do need a term to encompass the complex harmonics and other sonic features that makes one sound reproducer (I prefer a more specific use, for an individual driver, rather than an entire complex unit, such as an IEM) sound different from another, even when producing the exact same sound. The issue with the term tonality is that it also encompasses more tangible characteristics such as tuning, frequency response, sound signature. I perceive the word timbre as more abstract, hence the need for the term. Two identical trumpets based on almost all specifications, yet one can tell them apart when playing the same note. It describes subtle nuances.

"Two identical trumpets" with slight differences in tone of the same note can arguably be put down to the trumpeters (if different) as opposed to the instruments.

Nonetheless, in the case of In Ear Monitors surely that is a fault in manufacturing or variation in driver(s) or other components. I am thinking of.... Urbanfun YBF???

I think trying to capture the subtleties or nuances may require separate words. However, with reference to the particular issue of replacing the disparate use of the word "Timbre" would require specific words, each for the various concepts, characteristics...etc. for which the term is used. I make reference to one use of the word, "Timbre" for audio gear, which appears to be to denote the particular characteristics of a monitor, and I believe "tonal signature" is an appropriate phrase.

Although it does not matter what I think, it is a question of what the collective thinks as no word or phrase takes hold if is not collectively accepted.

 

[1TrickPony]

Do microphones have a timbre? If so, then I may need to expand my definition of the term to include sound recording/capturing devices as well as sound-producing devices.

My best guess is it can be a scientific instrument???

 

[1TrickPony]

"Two identical trumpets" with slight differences in tone of the same note can arguably be put down to the trumpeters (if different) as opposed to the instruments.

Nonetheless, in the case of In Ear Monitors surely that is a fault in manufacturing or variation in driver(s) or other components. I am thinking of.... Urbanfun YBF???

I think trying to capture the subtleties or nuances may require separate words. However, with reference to the particular issue of replacing the disparate use of the word "Timbre" would require specific words, each for the various concepts, characteristics...etc. for which the term is used. I make reference to one use of the word, "Timbre" for audio gear, which appears to be to denote the particular characteristics of a monitor, and I believe "tonal signature" is an appropriate phrase.

Although it does not matter what I think, it is a question of what the collective thinks as no word or phrase takes hold if is not collectively accepted.

No, no, you said it right. Ask any musician what timbre and they pretty much have a common understanding of what it means.

This isn't pointed at anyone in particular, but if something new is learned, we all win.

 

[ADUHF]

An illustration of the timbral differences between 5 different closed-back circumaural headphones (recently posted here). From top to bottom, these are the Beyerdynamic DT-770, AudioTechnica M50x, Sony MDR-7506, Sennheiser HD 280 Pro, and AKG K371.

Tonally, these are all fairly well-balanced across the frequency spectrum. But they each sound quite different due to smaller scale variations in their resonant or spectral responses.

 

[IEMusic]

Wow, the longer this debate goes on, the less I understand the term timbre.

 

[backdrifter]

An illustration of the timbral differences between 5 different closed-back circumaural headphones (recently posted here). From top to bottom, these are the Beyerdynamic DT-770, AudioTechnica M50x, Sony MDR-7506, Sennheiser HD 280 Pro, and AKG K371.

Tonally, these are all fairly well-balanced across the frequency spectrum. But they each sound quite different due to smaller scale variations in their resonant responses.

Maybe I can explain this more clearly. Timbre has to do with a quality of sound. Two notes having the same pitch but that sound different have a difference in timbre. Headphones don't have timbre. Even musical instruments don't have timbre. They just sit there until you play them. When someone plays an instrument, it is the system of musician plus instrument that is responsible for the timbre, but even they don't have a timbre. Each sound that is made is what has a timbre. Read this and think about it.
https://www.google.com/books/editio...dq=musical+timbre&pg=PA95&printsec=frontcover

Just because speakers can have different sonic characteristics, that doesn't mean they have timbre. You can't show a graph and say "that's differences in timbre" and draw the conclusion that headphones have timbre. To me, it's just an obvious category error. I can't imagine a trained musician being confused about this. I keep trying to come up with ways to illustrate it. Say you have a recording of a violinist. Without question, each note will have a particular timbre. Then we play it back through a speaker. Now the violinist's notes' apparent timbre have been changed. That doesn't mean the speaker itself has a timbre. Maybe you adjust the equalizer. Now the violinist's notes' apparent timbre has changed again. That doesn't mean the equalizer has a timbre. All the speaker and the equalizer have done is apply distortions to each note of the violin's performance. The sound with the timbre came from the musician and her instrument and the speaker and equalizer altered it.

OK, this dead horse is sufficiently beaten.

 

[ADUHF]

Maybe I can explain this more clearly. Timbre has to do with a quality of sound. Two notes having the same pitch but that sound different have a difference in timbre. Headphones don't have timbre. Even musical instruments don't have timbre. They just sit there until you play them. When someone plays an instrument, it is the system of musician plus instrument that is responsible for the timbre, but even they don't have a timbre. Each sound that is made is what has a timbre. Read this and think about it.
https://www.google.com/books/editio...dq=musical+timbre&pg=PA95&printsec=frontcover

Just because speakers can have different sonic characteristics, that doesn't mean they have timbre. You can't show a graph and say "that's differences in timbre" and draw the conclusion that headphones have timbre. To me, it's just an obvious category error. I can't imagine a trained musician being confused about this. I keep trying to come up with ways to illustrate it. Say you have a recording of a violinist. Without question, each note will have a particular timbre. Then we play it back through a speaker. Now the violinist's notes' apparent timbre have been changed. That doesn't mean the speaker itself has a timbre. Maybe you adjust the equalizer. Now the violinist's notes' apparent timbre has changed again. That doesn't mean the equalizer has a timbre. All the speaker and the equalizer have done is apply distortions to each note of the violin's performance. The sound with the timbre came from the musician and her instrument and the speaker and equalizer altered it.

OK, this dead horse is sufficiently beaten.

Horse not quite finished yet. I'm quoting now directly from the link you posted above from The Psychology of Music:

"Chapter 17 is devoted entirely to illustrations of the timbre of band and orchestral instruments (yadda-yadda-yadda*)..."

The (clear imo) implication being that instruments (in the vernacular use of the term) do, in fact, have timbral qualities or characteristics of their own, which are distinct from other instruments. And separate and apart from who's playing them, or how they are played. Can the timbral qualities of an instrument be altered or varied based on how you play it? Absolutely. But that does not mean that it is absent a timbre or timbral qualities of its own when compared to other instruments. Can you hear the instrument's timbre without playing it? No. Headphones work the same way. You can't hear their timbral qualities unless you play some music or sound through them.

It's kind of a chicken and egg argument. But based on the logic you are trying to use here, you could probably make a somewhat better case that headphones have no tone or tonal quality, rather than timbre. Because according to the link you posted above "tone" requires BOTH timbre AND sonance. A headphone has no sonance of its own, unless or until a user plays some music through it. And it is the music, in combination with the headphone's timbral qualities, which produces a certain "tone" or "tonal quality". Not the other way around.

To be frank though, I think its splitting hairs either way. And I'll continue to use both terms in relation to headphones when I think they're applicable. Unless or until someone comes up with a better descriptor. If you understand how to read a frequency response graph, then you can imo get some idea of the differences in timbral (or tonal) qualities between different headphones by looking at a compensated frequency plot. Just like you can by looking at frequency response plots of different instruments.

"Sound quality" is imo too broad a term to describe the above, because it encompasses a much wider array of characteristics. And "distortion" generally means something different in relation to headphones than timbre or tone. Something which is more closely related to clarity. So I think you can rule both of those out as potential alternatives.

If you don't want to use timbre or tone, then maybe you could use "timbral or tonal response" or "timbral/tonal qualities", or something similar. Maybe those would be better. Both are ok by me. "Spectral or resonant qualities or characteristics" also works and is probably somewhat more accurate. But it doesn't roll off the tongue as easily as timbre or tonal response. "Compensated or perceived frequency response" is also rather clunky and less specific (though probably also accurate). "Acoustic qualities" also seems a little too broad to me, but I'd have to read up a little more on exactly what that means. If we let the millennials decide, then it'll probably be somethin like the headphone's "timbrals", or "tonals", or "spectrals". Like what's that headphone's timbrals, dude?

(*Note: I added that "yadda-yadda-yadda" part above.)

 

[GREQ]

An illustration of the timbral differences between 5 different closed-back circumaural headphones (recently posted here). From top to bottom, these are the Beyerdynamic DT-770, AudioTechnica M50x, Sony MDR-7506, Sennheiser HD 280 Pro, and AKG K371.

Tonally, these are all fairly well-balanced across the frequency spectrum. But they each sound quite different due to smaller scale variations in their resonant or spectral responses.

This goes completely against/opposite to my 'classical musician' understanding of timbre.

Tonally, the graphs are obviously different. I've owned two of them and heard a third and can safely say that their differences in tonality are vast, and their differences also go so far beyond that.

The size of driver, the driver material, the materials headphones are made of, the size, depth and chosen material of the ear pads, the acoustic lens, the baffle venting, the rear driver venting, the 'cup' or 'rear chamber' volume, size, design etc etc etc all amount to variances in timbre.

I would suggest think of it less in scientific terms because there's SO much to unpack that the deeper we go in, the more confusing it gets.
Rather, consider them more as different flavours of the same recipe.
The best definition I've heard is the different way any instrument or voice sounds while playing the same note, at the same octave (or same tone).
Instruments and voices will all produce different resonant frequencies.
While this is also true for headphones, as we know from years of measurements that many do have resonances or resonant frequencies, I think it is more beneficial to describe a headphones ability to accurately reproduce existing timbres of instruments... that being said, if someone can successfully describe the 'added' timbre(s) that a headphone gives to a recording, then I don't see the harm in that either.

Don't forget, before you chop down a headphone, you need to shout TIMBRE!!!!
(yes, I know that's not how it's pronounced )