[Whazzzup]

Timber? I haven’t figure out transients yet, except they come they go. And don’t get me started on taps....

 

[ADUHF]

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 )

If you're talking specifically about the headphone's abilities to accurately reproduce the sound or timbral qualities of different instruments, that would be something different than just generalized "timbre" or "tone" imo. You're getting more into the realm of the headphone's fidelity there, which is a slightly thornier topic imo.

If you want to go down that road though, then maybe terms like "timbral or tonal accuracy, fidelity or excellence" would be better. I've heard Floyd Toole use the term "timbral excellence" when referring to the accuracy or neutrality of loudspeakers, for example. If you add other qualifiers like these to the terms timbre/timbral or tone/tonal then it makes it a little clearer whether you're referring to the tonal/timbral qualities of the headphones vs. it's ability to reproduce them correctly for other instruments and voices. I suppose "timbral distortion" could also work, provided the context is clear, and it's understood that you're not talking about other types of distortion.

I am still a newb to alot of the headphone lingo, but I believe there are other terms which are also used to describe more or less the same thing. A few have already been mentioned here, such as "coloration". I headphone with less coloration would generally be better at accurately reproducing a recording than one with more coloration. "Transparency" is another term that people use for this, I think. I believe "neutrality" and "flatness" are also terms which can sometimes be used to describe a headphone's timbral accuracy or fidelity, or faithfulness to a recording. I tend to use neutrality more. But will use both when the context is clear.

There are probably others that I'm forgetting as well. And subtle differences between all the above. But generally speaking, I believe they all more or less relate in some way to the accuracy (or lack thereof) of a headphone's frequency response.

There was a recent discussion on the subject of "transparency" and its importance to different listeners here btw...

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/wha...ansparent-but-tailored-to-your-liking.933073/

 

[ADUHF]

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

Not sure exactly what you're referring to here, 1TrickPony. Maybe it's still too early though?

Nice nic btw.

 

[GREQ]

If you're talking specifically about the headphone's abilities to accurately reproduce the sound or timbral qualities of different instruments, that would be something different than just generalized "timbre" or "tone" imo. You're getting more into the realm of the headphone's fidelity there, which is a slightly thornier topic imo.

If you want to go down that road though, then maybe terms like "timbral or tonal accuracy, fidelity or excellence" would be better. I've heard Floyd Toole use the term "timbral excellence" when referring to the accuracy or neutrality of loudspeakers, for example. If you add other qualifiers like these to the terms timbre/timbral or tone/tonal then it makes it a little clearer whether you're referring to the tonal/timbral qualities of the headphones vs. it's ability to reproduce them correctly for other instruments and voices. I suppose "timbral distortion" could also work, provided the context is clear, and it's understood that you're not talking about other types of distortion.

I am still a newb to alot of the headphone lingo, but I believe there are other terms which are also used to describe more or less the same thing. A few have already been mentioned here, such as "coloration". I headphone with less coloration would generally be better at accurately reproducing a recording than one with more coloration. "Transparency" is another term that people use for this, I think. I believe "neutrality" and "flatness" are also terms which can sometimes be used to describe a headphone's timbral accuracy or fidelity, or faithfulness to a recording. I tend to use neutrality more. But will use both when the context is clear.

There are probably others that I'm forgetting as well. And subtle differences between all the above. But generally speaking, I believe they all more or less relate in some way to the accuracy (or lack thereof) of a headphone's frequency response.

There was a recent discussion on the subject of "transparency" and its importance to different listeners here btw...

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/wha...ansparent-but-tailored-to-your-liking.933073/

I think you're onto something here, especially with the "timbral or tonal accuracy"
Too often people get stuck in a way of doing or saying things because it's the status quo, even though it's utterly incorrect.

For example, people STILL call audible mechanical vibrations on a cable "microphonics", which is catagorically incorrect.
Microphonics are unwanted electrical signals that are generated by mechanical movements.

Instead, cables should be judged by their ability to dampen vibrations, or inversely their ability to transmit vibrations.
There is probably a more elegant wording.

 

[backdrifter]

If you're talking specifically about the headphone's abilities to accurately reproduce the sound or timbral qualities of different instruments, that would be something different than just generalized "timbre" or "tone" imo. You're getting more into the realm of the headphone's fidelity there, which is a slightly thornier topic imo.

If you want to go down that road though, then maybe terms like "timbral or tonal accuracy, fidelity or excellence" would be better. I've heard Floyd Toole use the term "timbral excellence" when referring to the accuracy or neutrality of loudspeakers, for example. If you add other qualifiers like these to the terms timbre/timbral or tone/tonal then it makes it a little clearer whether you're referring to the tonal/timbral qualities of the headphones vs. it's ability to reproduce them correctly for other instruments and voices. I suppose "timbral distortion" could also work, provided the context is clear, and it's understood that you're not talking about other types of distortion.

I am still a newb to alot of the headphone lingo, but I believe there are other terms which are also used to describe more or less the same thing. A few have already been mentioned here, such as "coloration". I headphone with less coloration would generally be better at accurately reproducing a recording than one with more coloration. "Transparency" is another term that people use for this, I think. I believe "neutrality" and "flatness" are also terms which can sometimes be used to describe a headphone's timbral accuracy or fidelity, or faithfulness to a recording. I tend to use neutrality more. But will use both when the context is clear.

There are probably others that I'm forgetting as well. And subtle differences between all the above. But generally speaking, I believe they all more or less relate in some way to the accuracy (or lack thereof) of a headphone's frequency response.

There was a recent discussion on the subject of "transparency" and its importance to different listeners here btw...

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/wha...ansparent-but-tailored-to-your-liking.933073/

I like these comments. I see no problem with phrases based on the adjective form, e.g. timbral character/reproduction/accuracy/etc., being applied to speakers or headphones.

 

[diggygun]

I’ve been chasing the “End Game” for years now.

Can someone let me know when I get there.......

 

[backdrifter]

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.)

I'm not following some of that, but it seems you're taking an instance of their use of the word and forming a definition around that, rather than using their actual definition.

That's on p. 97, and the preceding paragraphs are clarifying, too. I meant, think about that explanation and ask yourself how it could be applied to a headphone, as in "dynamic drivers have a timbre." It just doesn't make any sense. Even if you could imagine there is a secondary definition of timbre that is being use in the phrase you quoted, that doesn't mean it can be applied to speakers in the way that it was applied to orchestral instruments. In that case, you could imagine the author meant "the timbral qualities of band and orchestral instruments," or even "the differences in the timbre of notes played by band and orchestral instruments," but at some point it just becomes bad writing. We're always sacrificing precision for convenience in language. But now we're trying make some fine distinctions. I wasn't using it exactly correctly at first in this discussion, either. That doesn't change the fact that speakers don't have a timbre.

As I commented above, I agree with you that phrases based on the adjective form seem more appropriate. So after all this, we may be converging on some agreement, and I'm glad to see that!

 

[IEMusic]

I’ve been chasing the “End Game” for years now.

Can someone let me know when I get there.......

In your rush, you totally missed it and went past it. Time to circle around and go back and listen to what you’ve got.

 

[IEMusic]

I like “timbral accuracy” as a way to describe the accuracy or naturalness of a HP/IEM/speaker in reproducing the sound of instruments, and will probably use it going forward.

This is why I don’t like using the term “tonality” as a replacement for “timbral accuracy”. Tone is different from timbre.

 

[1TrickPony]

Not sure exactly what you're referring to here, 1TrickPony. Maybe it's still to early though?

Nice nic btw.

Actually. Not early enough at this point. I just can't multi-task -- busy with another discussion at the same time (hence the nic? Haha)

You know, at the fringes of music making, there are ways to make a mic into an instrument.

Mics aren't that different from guitar pick ups. Heck you can bash it on your chest and create music with. Throw in effect pedals and you have a good setup.

Scientific instruments gather data do they?

I'm not a fun guy to intercourse with though. Just kidding.

 

[GREQ]

I’ve been chasing the “End Game” for years now.

Can someone let me know when I get there.......

Pretty sure the Avengers beat you to it last year.

 

[ADUHF]

I'm not following some of that, but it seems you're taking an instance of their use of the word and forming a definition around that, rather than using their actual definition.
That's on p. 97, and the preceding paragraphs are clarifying, too. I meant, think about that explanation and ask yourself how it could be applied to a headphone, as in "dynamic drivers have a timbre." It just doesn't make any sense. Even if you could imagine there is a secondary definition of timbre that is being use in the phrase you quoted, that doesn't mean it can be applied to speakers in the way that it was applied to orchestral instruments. In that case, you could imagine the author meant "the timbral qualities of band and orchestral instruments," or even "the differences in the timbre of notes played by band and orchestral instruments," but at some point it just becomes bad writing. We're always sacrificing precision for convenience in language. But now we're trying make some fine distinctions. I wasn't using it exactly correctly at first in this discussion, either. That doesn't change the fact that speakers don't have a timbre.

As I commented above, I agree with you that phrases based on the adjective form seem more appropriate. So after all this, we may be converging on some agreement, and I'm glad to see that!

I'm still tryin to understand some of the distinctions you're drawing, backdrifter. If I were to put what's posted above into sort of a nutshell though, it seems as though you and some others here believe that timbre, in the more classical or technical sense, applies mostly or solely to the sounds (or "tones" if you like) that instruments can produce, as opposed to the instrument's themselves, or their physical or material characteristics. It is hard to separate the two in my mind though, esp. when you're talking about instruments or devices (such as headphones or speakers) whose sole purpose is the creation or reproduction of sound.

Because I spend alot of time looking at graphs and charts of different headphones' sonic characteristics, I tend to see them as part of the device's physical makeup. Sound is a physical phenomena after all. So it is hard for me to divorce the two. And I think of a headphone's sonic capabilities as simply another aspect of it's physical characteristics. That is why a headphone or loudspeaker can have a timbre or timbral qualities in my mind. It's possible that a headphone has no sound or sonance of its own, in the technical senses of those words. (I'm still not 100% sure about that.) And it only creates sound when a user puts a certain voltage through it. To my way of thinking though, it's sonic characteristics are still an essential part of its physical characteristics. The most important part, in fact. So why try to separate the two?

What I seem to be getting from the conversation here though is that confusion has crept into the term "timbre" because it's not always totally clear whether people are referring to the headphones themselves, or to the timbre of the instruments in the recordings they're listening to. Hopefully this discussion has helped to shed a little more light on that though.

I am not a classically-trained musician btw. (Not in any significant way that is.) I just did the usual grade school and high school stuff (or at least it was usual when I was a kid). And also tinkered a bit with some electronic music in college. So I'm not as familiar with the technical aspects of musical theory as some others here may be. I hated doin scales and arpeggios when I was kid. It was one of my least favorite things about music back then. (Now I have a somewhat different appreciation for it,... though I'd probably still hate doin it.)

In addition to "timbral accuracy" and "timbral fidelity", I was also going to suggest some other terms like "timbral precision", "timbral realism", "timbral transparency" and "timbral neutrality" as other ways of describing how well or accurately a headphone reproduces the timbres (or timbral qualities) of different instruments, voices, etc. in recordings.

I think you can pretty much use any of the following when referring to just the timbral or tonal qualities of the headphones themselves in more generic or comparative terms...

(compensated) frequency response
resonant characteristics
resonant qualities
resonant properties
resonant response
sound signature
spectral balance
spectral response
timbral properties
timbral qualities
timbral response
timbral signature
tonal balance
tonal character(istics)
tonal response
tonal properties
tonal quality(s)
tonality

In the right context, some of the above could probably also be used to refer to a headphone's timbral fidelity/accuracy/precision as well.

"Coloration" can go either way imo. If you're using it in a more quantitative sense, such as "more or less colored", then I think it would relate more to the headphone's fidelity or timbral precision. If you say that a headphone has a "more warmly or darkly colored" sound though, then it may be less clear what you're referring to. If you're using it in a comparative sense, then there may be no value or accuracy assigned to it. "Timbrally transparent" would be the opposite of "timbrally colored" to me btw.

Like IEMusic, "tone" also has a slightly different connotation to me than "timbre". So I tend to treat them as slightly different qualities when referring to headphones. When I hear more general terms, like "warm or cool", or "bright or dark", I tend to think of those as relating more to a headphone's tonal quality or overall tonal balance than it's timbre. When I think of timbre in relation to headphones, I tend to think more of the smaller scale peaks and dips and fluctuations in its frequency response, which contribute to its sound quality or character in other ways than it's overall tonal balance. I'm not sure if that's really correct though. And there may be no real practical difference between the two.

Also, when you hear people refer to the "timbre" or "tone" of a headphone, it is quite possible that they may understand some of the distinctions being drawn here, between it's sonic and other physical or material properties. And they may be using those terms simply as an abbreviated or shorthand way of referring to its "timbral or tonal qualities" because it's fewer words to type... in much the same way that they'd abbreviate "transient response" to "transients", or "technical details/performance" to "technicals". For the most part, others here will generally get what they mean, with the possible exception of some of the more "old-school" or pedantically-minded classically-trained musicians who aren't as up on their shorthand usage, and have a somewhat different understanding of their meaning.

To put it another way, headphones and loudspeakers may have timbre or tone in the current vernacular or idiomatic sense of those terms. But maybe not in the technical or classical sense. If you're trying to argue that they do not have timbral or tonal qualities or characteristics though, then I think you're probably fighting an uphill battle.

 

[diggygun]

Pretty sure the Avengers beat you to it last year.

Always knew that John Steed and Emma Peal were a good team.

 

[IEMusic]

Always knew that John Steed and Emma Peal were a good team.

Aaahh, UK.

 

[backdrifter]

I'm still tryin to understand some of the distinctions you're drawing, backdrifter. If I were to put what's posted above into sort of a nutshell though, it seems as though you and some others here believe that timbre, in the more classical or technical sense, applies mostly or solely to the sounds (or "tones" if you like) that instruments can produce, as opposed to the instrument's themselves, or their physical or material characteristics. It is hard to separate the two in my mind though, esp. when you're talking about instruments or devices (such as headphones or speakers) whose sole purpose is the creation or reproduction of sound.

Because I spend alot of time looking at graphs and charts of different headphones' sonic characteristics, I tend to see them as part of the device's physical makeup. Sound is a physical phenomena after all. So it is really hard for me to divorce the two. And I think of a headphone's sonic capabilities as simply another aspect of it's physical characteristics. That is why a headphone or loudspeaker can have a timbre or timbral qualities in my mind. It's possible that a headphone has no sound or sonance of its own, in the technical senses of those words. (I'm still not 100% sure about that.) And it only creates sound when a user puts a certain voltage through it. To my way of thinking though, it's sonic characteristics are still an essential part of its physical characteristics. The most important part, in fact. So why try to separate the two?

What I seem to be getting from the conversation here though is that confusion has crept into the term "timbre" because it's not always totally clear whether people are referring to the headphones themselves, or to the timbre of the instruments in the recordings they're listening to. Hopefully this discussion has helped to shed a little more light on that though.

I am not a classically-trained musician btw. (Not in any significant way that is.) I just did the usual grade school and high school stuff (or at least it was usual when I was a kid). And also tinkered a bit with some electronic music in college. So I'm not as familiar with the technical aspects of musical theory as some others here may be. I hated doin scales and arpeggios when I was kid. It was one of my least favorite things about music back then. (Now I have a somewhat different appreciation for it,... though I'd probably still hate doin it.)

In addition to "timbral accuracy" and "timbral fidelity", I was also going to suggest some other terms like "timbral precision", "timbral realism", "timbral transparency" and "timbral neutrality" as other ways of describing how well or accurately a headphone reproduces the timbres (or timbral qualities) of different instruments, voices, etc. in recordings.

I think you can pretty much use any of the following when referring to just the timbral or tonal qualities of the headphones themselves in more generic or comparative terms...

(compensated) frequency response
resonant characteristics
resonant qualities
resonant properties
resonant response
sound signature
spectral balance
spectral response
timbral properties
timbral qualities
timbral response
timbral signature
tonal balance
tonal character(istics)
tonal response
tonal properties
tonal quality(s)
tonality

In the right context, some of the above could probably also be used to refer to a headphone's timbral fidelity/accuracy/precision as well.

"Coloration" can go either way imo. If you're using it in a more quantitative sense, such as "more or less colored", then I think it would relate more to the headphone's fidelity or timbral precision. If you say that a headphone has a more "warmly or darkly colored" sound though, then it may be less clear what you're referring to. If you're using it in a comparative sense, then there may be no value or accuracy assigned to it. "Timbrally transparent" would be the opposite of "timbrally colored" to me btw.

Like IEMusic, "tone" also has a slightly different connotation to me than "timbre". So I tend to treat them as slightly different qualities when referring to headphones. When I hear more general terms, like "warm or cool", or "bright or dark", I tend to think of those as relating more to headphone's tonal quality or overall tonal balance than it's timbre. When I think of timbre in relation to headphones, I tend to think more of the smaller scale peaks and dips and fluctuations in its frequency response, which contribute to its sounds quality or character in other ways than it's overall tonal balance. I'm not sure if that's really correct though. And there may be no real practical difference between the two.

Also, when you hear people refer to the "timbre" or "tone" of a headphone, it is quite possible that they may understand some of the distinctions being drawn here, between it's sonic and other physical or material properties. And they may be using those terms simply as an abbreviated or shorthand way of referring to its "timbral or tonal qualities" because it's fewer words to type... in much the same way that they'd abbreviate "transient response" to "transients", or "technical details/performance" to "technicals". For the most part, others here will generally get what they mean, with the possible exception of some of the more "old-school" or pedantically-minded classical-trained musicians who aren't as up on their shorthand usage, and have a somewhat different understanding of their meaning.

To put it another way, headphones and loudspeakers may have timbre or tone in the current vernacular sense of those terms. But maybe not in the technical or classical sense. If you're trying to argue that they do not have timbral or tonal qualities or characteristics though, then I think you're probably fighting an uphill battle.

I'd only be fighting an uphill battle here on Head-Fi or in the hi-fi community, and I'm not doing that. I've just been trying to explain to you guys why I don't use the word that way and why I think people here use it wrongly. I prefer to use words correctly. It has nothing to do with "old school" or classical; people here simply use the word incorrectly. Head-Fi isn't going to change the textbooks in psychoacoustics or music theory. Look at my original post. I was just explaining why I don't use it that way. It would be very apparent to a musician reading posts here who studied music and who didn't. Not that non-musicians have to care about that.

When I was reading your comments and those of @IEMusic and others, it just reads to me like you guys have unconsciously developed a feeling for what the word means by context, and now you are trying to articulate what it means clearly to you and you're finding that it's not so easy. Just go back to the definition. Just think about it differently now that you've learned about it. That's my advice. I've done the same thing with other words and I had to adapt.

Yes, sound is based on phenomena in the physical world, and your headphones are doing something physical. It's like that with most things. Even the thoughts in your brain are in the physical world so that's not a clarifying observation. It seems like you are aware that you are having a conceptual problem here. There's no shame in that. I'm sure you have better knowledge about something than I do. We're all learning all the time, hopefully.