Fidelity vs. Musicality...........Is there a tug of War?

Dear lemonhaze it is a misunderstanding...


If you read my post i specifically said that timbre cannot be reduced to fundamental frequency and harmonics ONLY...A  relatively low cost dac cannot replace room acoustic for  example...And most of the times even the costlier dac cannot...


All acoustic science and psycho-acoustic science cannot be reduced to Fourier transform...There is more in "timbre" concept than meet the eye....

If it was  not the case there will be no definition of "timbre" in 5 points at least like for example in this wikipedia definition:

Many commentators have attempted to decompose timbre into component attributes. For example, J. F. Schouten (1968, 42) describes the "elusive attributes of timbre" as "determined by at least five major acoustic parameters", which Robert Erickson finds, "scaled to the concerns of much contemporary music":[4]

1. Range between tonal and noiselike character
2. Spectral envelope
3. Time envelope in terms of rise, duration, and decay (ADSR, which stands for "attack, decay, sustain, release")
4. Changes both of spectral envelope (formant-glide) and fundamental frequency (micro-intonation)
5. Prefix, or onset of a sound, quite dissimilar to the ensuing lasting vibration

@ mahgister, yes a misunderstanding. All good.

The timbre of a sound is formed in it's entirety and does not depend on the room but is influenced by the room. By that I mean any instrument could play a note in an anechoic chamber or out in an open field and it's timbre will be heard.

In the wikipedia definition there is no mention of the acoustic propagation. As I see it the decay mentioned in regard to ADSR (point 3) is the natural decay of the instrument and not the decay behaviour of the acoustic environment which affects your perception of that instrument's timbre.

This link:  https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/fidelity-vs-musicality-is-there-a-tug-of-war?lastpage=true&am... where they claim ' the duration of a sound also affects how we perceive its pitch, loudness and timbre'
The sentence in parenthesis seems to support my understanding of timbre.

I find this issue of timbre fascinating. It is something I have tried to understand but gave up.

I’m interested to attempt to know how the choice of an amplification medium is material in reproducing the timbre in the recorded performance.

This has been mentioned, but I’m still confused. An amp that reproduces detail/resolution may sound white/clinical/thin - is this the cutting out all the complex aspects of timbre? Or recognizing that aspects of timbre don’t exist in the recording in the first place (which clearly can’t be true)?

On the other hand, does a tube amp add artificially to the timbre that was recorded or does it just amplify the existing complex harmonics in a manner that may or may not be correct? Or some combination? Am I confusing technical terms?

Forgive me if I’m asking the wrong questions - there are knowns which are obviously unknown to me, see me struggle. I’m asking this from a measurement/objective perspective, if possible. I don’t like using the words distortion or colour - means different things to different people and handwaving ensues.

The timbre of instruments is determined by the harmonic spectrum and the attack and decay of each harmonic relative to the fundamental.
This means changing the frequency response (local ratio of harmonics opposite the fundamentals) or the decay of harmonics needs to alter.
Amps do not change decay and attack so that leaves ... frequency response.

@stuartk , Sorry for the delayed response. I wish everyone could afford
an ultimate system. On the other hand one need not spend totally ridiculous money either. Accurate reproduction is not a problem of visual aesthetics. It is not an issue of personal taste. It is a science problem dealing with the accurate reproduction of sound. It is about physics and engineering, nothing else. Save the emotion for the music. There is equipment out there that is of extraordinary value and there is equipment that is pretty bad and sometimes it is not cheap either. It is up to the consumer to choose wisely. Most consumers are out to sea without a compass. They are subject to marketing which as we all know is the fine art of lying. Listening to what people think they hear is a seriously bad mistake unless you know that person and their experience well. What any system sounds like is a relative issue. It depends on what the person has been listening too. As an example, if the person has been listening to a system that is too bright, a system that is accurate will sound dull. If you really want to know what you are doing you have to calibrate your brain by measuring your system. In order to know what you are hearing you have to know what you are listening to. If you do not than your opinion is worthless. I think I just insulted at least 3/4 of the people on this site. It is easy to measure your system and all of you already have the most expensive part of a measurement system, your computer. 

Anyone (with a lot of money) can spend a lot of money on a system and come up with a pretty bad system. The trick (and fun) is to come up with a great system for reasonable money. I think you can create an "absolute sound system, including turntable for about $100,000. In another few months it might be up to $120,000 if the powers that be continue to destroy the economy. It might be less. I should also note that the single most expensive (and important) component is usually the room.