A above middle C @ 432 hz instead of 440 for a warmer, transparant sound?

[Goa-Dubs]

Everything starts with an E.....

[KT1]

What a great thread BEat! nice one! really nice reading something like this!

I have to chime in hear and say that ...I am a bit of a maths guy..Not that i need to get into it but studied statistics wiith econometrics at Masters so not bad with maths in general.

All numbers are interesting in some way.. You can really get stuck into this.

As far as tuning we only have to look at world music which i was brought up on. Turkish folk music from the black region. Look at a string instrument like the 'Kemenche'. It is tuned to the tonic, fourth and an octave. That being said i have heard other tunings like an octave high fourth all based on fourths.

This is common in any instrument with a bass note utilised for a drone. In fact back in ottaman time they would tune to the voice of the singer which was usually the same person playing the instument.

What i am getting at is there is no RIGHT way to tune something..and all number can be seen as magic numbers..

I bet i could (if i could be arsed) explain why 527 was magical in this respect.

Hey if it sounds good im not complaining and i'm totally into this shizzle! It's not so relevant - i use mostly detuned insturments anyways and often start hitting cent manipulation..even modulation so ..i guess my pitch..and tuning is constantly moving..It sounds good to me :D

This is awsome guys..

Thanks

[RyanC]

I think it's funny that all this stuff is based on the fundementally false assumption that there are a fixed number of seconds in an actual solar day:

Solar time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oops. Reminds me of Office Space, "Damn it I always do all the math right and get one stupid decimal wrong"

Also pretty darn narcissitic that any sort of "Universal Frequency" Would be based on roughly 84,600th's of THE EARTHS rotational time.

[Storyville]

The BEST tuning center is the one that the instrument was optimally designed for. A Baroque violin will sound best when tuned to a baroque tuning - a modern violin will sound best tuned to a modern tuning (usually A440).

[Oden]

It's impossible to even tune guitar or piano to be in tune.

They are always out of tune. Unless you play octaves. (But even then only rarely, guitarists never tune their instruments!).

So I don't think it much matters if they are out of tune at A=440 or A=432.



I have heard about a software that makes VSTI instruments play in perfect tune, anybody else heard/used something like that? I wonder if it sounds any better.

Heck, in mixing and synthesis we often purposely detune/chorus/pitch shift/"supersaw" sounds. Even piano uses this technique. Seems like people like slight "De-tuning". Let's not even talk about the dissonant drums.

I am not sure if this is technically correct, but isn't the whole harmonic series out of tune anyway? I mean awfully many harmonics out of scale right there!

[tharemedy]

Originally Posted by irthwirm

wonder if auto tune allows you to adjust this???

It does. I was editing a session once and was wondering why autotune was making everything sound off. I got at the producer and he said middle C was not 430.

[excLOUsiv]

I tried 432 hz awhile ago. I didn't keep that tuning cause I thought it sounded bland.

I'd like to try 444hz and compare that to the regular 440.

I have an MPC 1000. The pitch works on cents. If I change pitch by 1.00 it moves half a step. If I change it by 2.00 it moves a full step.

If I want to try 444hz what would I have to change my pitch to? Sorry, I'm very bad at math. I would very much appreciate the help. I'm very curious about this kind of thing.

[excLOUsiv]

Anyone?

Sent from my R800a using Gearslutz.com

[excLOUsiv]

Since no one bothered and my math is THAT bad, I did some google searching. I think since my sampler works in cents I would only have to tune it up by 1 cent to get to 444 hz. Is this right? That's barely perceptible unless you have perfect pitch.

I also found something that said it's 4 cents per 1hz, so I would have to change it by +16 cents. I think this is correct actually.

http://www.larrybell.org/id45.htm

[RyanC]

Originally Posted by excLOUsiv

I also found something that said it's 4 cents per 1hz, so I would have to change it by +16 cents. I think this is correct actually.

Tuning: How to Use an Electronic Tuner

Unfortunately it isn't so simple. "Cents" like notes have a linear relationship to themselves and each other, while hertz are exponential. EG a1 and A8 + 10 cents is the same, where 10hz would be enough to make the bass (a1) out of tune and 10 hz would be almost an inaudible change at (A8).

Look at it like this, Pi is the number that defines a circle (3.14~) what these people are claiming is that a circle of a specific size should be considered more important (universal-LOL) than all other sizes because that size is an even division of the earths own radius. (which somehow the size of the earth is relevant universe wide???)

What does make sense is an acoustic instrument being tuned to a specific set of overtones etc, like story talked about...The rest of this is "ya think to much" x10. The size of one circle is universal? F'n please. You take that route and what you miss is that THE CIRCLE IS UNIVERSAL!!! not the size of it!

[excLOUsiv]

I figured it wouldn't be that simple. I just want to hear the difference. Maybe I'll go searching for audio clips.

[KT1]

8 Htz - i assure you when you finally work it out..you'll be pissed you wasted so much time. 8htz? Cmon..I'm all for exotic tuning but to set up shop this way just seems like a UFO hunt. Maybe im wrong!

[excLOUsiv]

Originally Posted by KT1

8 Htz - i assure you when you finally work it out..you'll be pissed you wasted so much time. 8htz? Cmon..I'm all for exotic tuning but to set up shop this way just seems like a UFO hunt. Maybe im wrong!

I started digging when I was a teenager. I'm twice the age from when I started. That makes you patient cause it takes A LOT of time if you do it to the best of your ability wherever you are. This is just another form of digging for me, so no big deal.

[shellsj]

Originally Posted by RyanC

I think it's funny that all this stuff is based on the fundementally false assumption that there are a fixed number of seconds in an actual solar day:

Solar time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oops. Reminds me of Office Space, "Damn it I always do all the math right and get one stupid decimal wrong"

Also pretty darn narcissitic that any sort of "Universal Frequency" Would be based on roughly 84,600th's of THE EARTHS rotational time.

Actually, if you read, or look at some of this stuff, the second is not the least bit arbitrary. It was calculated based on the time taken at sea level for sound to travel a specific arc of the circumference of the earth. Interesting reading here: Numbers in Nature and an interesting couple of videos here: jamiebuturff's Channel - YouTube

[Storyville]

Originally Posted by shellsj

Actually, if you read, or look at some of this stuff, the second is not the least bit arbitrary. It was calculated based on the time taken at sea level for sound to travel a specific arc of the circumference of the earth. Interesting reading here: Numbers in Nature and an interesting couple of videos here: jamiebuturff's Channel - YouTube

Except the speed of sound changes with atmospheric pressure and humidity. Both of which vary at any given time, day, year, era. You won't get the same time increment each time. So in that sense, the second is not calculated on a fixed function.


This is such an odd thread....

[RyanC]

Originally Posted by shellsj

Actually, if you read, or look at some of this stuff, the second is not the least bit arbitrary. It was calculated based on the time taken at sea level for sound to travel a specific arc of the circumference of the earth. Interesting reading here: Numbers in Nature and an interesting couple of videos here: jamiebuturff's Channel - YouTube

They are using the speed of sound @ unclear altitude @ the freezing temperature of water @ some sort of assumption of what the air composition is (which is never mentioned). Curiously water doesn't conduct sound much when frozen...why not use the freezing temperature of molten lava? That is after all what the earth is made out of.

Moreover this still doesn't prove that the division of a day into 84600 is non-arbitrary. Even if the speed of sound under very unrealistic controlled laboratory circumstances can be divided into 84600 to get 74 1/3, it still doesn't change the fact that there also are not consistently 84600 seconds in an actual day. And 1/3 still has lots of (endless) decimal points and we know that Gaia hates decimals right? Why not have 100,000 seconds in a day decided into 1000 minutes in 10 hours? We could create lab conditions where air would travel 1000fps and we would finally know what the cosmic definition of "Air" is. Or does Gaia prefer the metric system? The point is you for any equation you can adjust one variable until you solve the equation, easy algebra.

The best part of that article is when he marvels at how all the angles in a pentagon add up to 360 degrees (f'n duh buddy), and the part where they measure the speed of sound by yelling and waiving your arm at your buddy, as if that would be accurate enough to prove a change is necessary to affect 8/1000ths of 1/84600th of a day on earth.

The earth is a dynamic system! The moment you choose to create a an abstract concrete mathematical construct, like the the idea of a "second" or Hz in hundreds or thousandths of seconds, or the "speed of sound" those constructs are by-their-nature arbitrary to any consistently measurable values on earth.

[Danny Downer]

Originally Posted by RyanC

They are using the speed of sound @ unclear altitude @ the freezing temperature of water @ some sort of assumption of what the air composition is (which is never mentioned). Curiously water doesn't conduct sound much when frozen...why not use the freezing temperature of molten lava? That is after all what the earth is made out of.

Moreover this still doesn't prove that the division of a day into 84600 is non-arbitrary. Even if the speed of sound under very unrealistic controlled laboratory circumstances can be divided into 84600 to get 74 1/3, it still doesn't change the fact that there also are not consistently 84600 seconds in an actual day. And 1/3 still has lots of (endless) decimal points and we know that Gaia hates decimals right? Why not have 100,000 seconds in a day decided into 1000 minutes in 10 hours? We could create lab conditions where air would travel 1000fps and we would finally know what the cosmic definition of "Air" is. Or does Gaia prefer the metric system? The point is you for any equation you can adjust one variable until you solve the equation, easy algebra.

The best part of that article is when he marvels at how all the angles in a pentagon add up to 360 degrees (f'n duh buddy), and the part where they measure the speed of sound by yelling and waiving your arm at your buddy, as if that would be accurate enough to prove a change is necessary to affect 8/1000ths of 1/84600th of a day on earth.

The earth is a dynamic system! The moment you choose to create a an abstract concrete mathematical construct, like the the idea of a "second" or Hz in hundreds or thousandths of seconds, or the "speed of sound" those constructs are by-their-nature arbitrary to any consistently measurable values on earth.

I like beer and hotwings!

[bcgood]

Originally Posted by Storyville

Goes to show how much I know about tuning. I did do the math in a previous post though, A433.5 yields C256.

So if the original topic was A432 being a better reference tone than A440, then we are talking about within the same tuning system. Which would make pretty much everything I've said void, as well as the post with the equal vs. unequal temperment. I thought we were talking about changing the tuning system. This also makes BC's post correct, and mine incorrect. Although I would still say that slowing something down will have effects outside of simple pitch shifting.

Hey sorry Storyville, I don't think I originally saw this post from you. Very cool for you to post this, good stuff. You obviously are really searching for the truth and I find it admirable that you posted this.

Someone I work with posted her discovery of 432 tuning vs 440 today and it made me search for this thread again. There is currently a movement to try and make the standard 432 otherwise known as Vivaldi/Mozart tuning.