Timbre lacks a correct answer, so it must be measured via adjective-pair ratings.
Evidence
Timbre judgments are highly subjective and therefore individualistic. Unlike pitch or loudness judgments, for which listeners might be asked to rate sounds on scales of low to high or soft to loud respectively, there is no “right” answer for timbre judgments. Listeners will usually be asked to compare the timbre of different sounds and rate each numerically between two opposite extremes of descriptive adjectives, for example on a 1-to-10 scale between “bright” (1)—“dark” (10) or “brilliant” (1)—“dull” (10), and a number of such descriptive adjective pairs could be rated for a particular sound. The average of ratings obtained from a number of listeners is often used to give a sound an overall timbral description. — David M. Howard, Jamie Angus, Acoustics and Psychoacoustics, 1481
Categorization
- DEFINE: Lays out the semantic-differential method as the standard way timbre gets quantified.
- QUESTION: Hall’s claim that five rating scales might someday capture almost any timbre is speculative — worth checking whether later research confirmed it.
- XREF: Cross-disciplinary parallel to how emotion or personality is rated on bipolar adjective scales in psychology. — connects to: Timbre has no objective right answer and must be measured by averaged listener ratings — David Howard, Jamie Angus, coustics and Psychoacoustics, 1505; Timbre is judged subjectively with no right answer, unlike pitch or loudness — David Howard, Jamie Angus, coustics and Psychoacoustics, 1505; Timbre, unlike pitch and loudness, has no objective scale — David M. Howard, Jamie Angus, Acoustics and Psychoacoustics, 1481 (+11 more)
Broader Connections
- Timbre has no objective right answer and must be measured by averaged listener ratings
#corroborates(1.00) — David Howard, Jamie Angus, coustics and Psychoacoustics, 1505 - Timbre is judged subjectively with no right answer, unlike pitch or loudness
#corroborates(1.00) — David Howard, Jamie Angus, coustics and Psychoacoustics, 1505 - Timbre is described through a rich vocabulary of quality adjectives
#expands(0.90) — David Howard, Jamie Angus, coustics and Psychoacoustics, 1450 - Timbre, unlike pitch and loudness, has no objective scale
#corroborates(0.85) — David M. Howard, Jamie Angus, Acoustics and Psychoacoustics, 1481 - Current acoustic models cannot explain how experts distinguish fine timbre differences between instruments
#corroborates(0.85) - Timbre is defined negatively, as whatever differs between equal-pitch, equal-loudness sounds
#corroborates(0.85) — David Howard, Jamie Angus, coustics and Psychoacoustics, 1451 - Timbre is determined by the relative amplitudes of partials, not their frequencies alone
#corroborates(0.85) — Eric J. Heller, Why You Hear What You Hear- An…, 2201 - Timbre lacks a one-dimensional subjective scale unlike pitch and loudness
#qualifies(0.80) — David M. Howard, Jamie Angus, Acoustics and Psychoacoustics, 1425 - Timbre perception research remains too coarse to explain fine discriminations like distinguishing violin makers.
#complicates(0.80) — David Howard, Jamie Angus, coustics and Psychoacoustics, 1547 - Harmonic content alone produces recognizable, describable timbre qualities
#contradicts(0.80) — Eric J. Heller, Why You Hear What You Hear- An…, 2202 - Timbre can be graphed as relative energy across fundamental, resolved, and unresolved harmonics.
#complicates(0.75) — David M. Howard, Jamie Angus, Acoustics and Psychoacoustics, 1488 - Timbre reduces to a weighted ratio of fundamental and resolved versus unresolved harmonics
#complicates(0.75) - Temporal envelope alone, not spectral content, determines much of perceived timbre.
#complicates(0.75) — Eric J. Heller, Why You Hear What You Hear- An…, 2255 - Harmonic amplitudes shape timbre and loudness but not pitch.
#complicates(0.75) — Jennifer Lentz, Psychoacoustics- Perception of Normal…, 1195