The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
A above middle C @ 432 hz instead of 440 for a warmer, transparant sound? Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 5th December 2008
  #31
Lives for gear
 
The Beatsmith's Avatar
 



as SOON as you see this ****, alarm bells should be ringing in your head

preferably at 432Hz
Old 5th December 2008
  #32
Lives for gear
 
Alxi's Avatar
 

Very interesting

I am definately interested to learn more on the subject

-Alxi-
Old 5th December 2008
  #33
Lives for gear
 
irthwirm's Avatar
 

so i tried it. Problem was i was playing 440 first then i jump the global tune down 31.8 cents which is 8hz to 432hz. I think the contrast of two made me not like the flatter sound because it sounded horrible... LOL. I'm going to try again with fresh unbiased ears tonight. Which brings up another question couldn't you just adjust the pitch after you bounce it but then again it could effect your lows to go to low and give your attacks on your drums a differernt feel.

gotta check this thread out on the subject. Talks about DNA, Tombs **** math etc etc and how they all relate to 432 good /440 evil. Ha! READ
Old 5th December 2008
  #34
Gear Head
 
DeemaBlue's Avatar
 

Old 6th December 2008
  #35
Lives for gear
 
Alxi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeemaBlue View Post
Thanks Deemablue. I'll definately take a look at those.

I wouldn't say i'm a pianist but i play a bit of piano and so i tryed it today ( the 432 tunning ). Got use to it pretty quickly. Made the 440 tunning sound harder and made me feel a bit more sad, kind of. I think i will try to compose a song or two at 432 just to see if i still like it.

A lot of good info on this forum. You guys are Great

( i guess this is the first side effect of the 432, i'm beeing nice lolol just kidding )

-Alxi-
Old 6th December 2008
  #36
Gear interested
 

I'm a piano tuner here in New York and most ensembles I tune for like to keep the pianos above A440 for practical reasons. Mainly because it just sounds dead if the tuning goes south of A440 and pianos are a serious pain to keep stable if you have to raise the pitch any more than 4 cents or so. So we keep them a little sharp and tune them where they are if they go a little flat in the winter. A little bit above 440 is acceptable and not very noticeable but for some reason the moment it dips below 440, everyone can tell. The strange this is I generally detune all my samples in my beats. Maybe I'm so used to tuning things that I like my stuff to make me feel a bit uncomfortable.
Old 6th December 2008
  #37
Lives for gear
 
matyas's Avatar
 

430-ish makes sense if you're playing late-18th or early-19th century music on historical instruments, or if you have some other very old instrument which was built to be played at that pitch (such as an old piano, reed organ, or even an old parlor guitar). I can't see much point in in tuning down otherwise. I do however, highly endorse using non-equal temperaments. For music which does require modulation, or some degree of compatibility with equal-tempered instruments, Werckmeister, Vallotti, or Lehmann's Bach tuning all work nicely. And Logic's "Hermode" tuning is awesome. Synths tuned non-ET sound much more alive and organic to my ear.
Old 6th December 2008
  #38
Lives for gear
 
Storyville's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgood View Post
Download this track and listen to it with your eyes closed. If you have some nice headphones use them. I transposed this recording so that it is tuned to 432 instead of 440. I've been AB'ing a lot of files this way and 432 seems to have this smooth 3 Dimensional quality that is very interesting. It seems to go right to your chest. This sounds stupid until you really close your eyes and listen.

Check it out for yourself.

Emmanuel, God With Us 432.mp3

It sounds like it was pitch shifted down. And you don't transpose to a different tuning, you transpose to different key signatures.


Ok. I'm gonna do a bit of ranting:

Music is about how sounds relate to each other. Whether A is at 440, or 432 literally makes NO DIFFERENCE, at all, without other relative notes.

The general theory about tonal functionality is that all instruments generate sound comprised of three elements: the fundamental tone, the overtones (or harmonics), and the non-harmonic sound. Harmonic tones are proportionate to the fundamental tone so that if fundamental tone = Xhz, the harmonics will equal 2Xhz, 3Xhz, 4Xhz, ad infinum. The amplitude of each harmonic helps shape the overall sound of the instrument. The interesting thing is that these harmonics are essentially equivalent to seperate notes. For example if your fundamental tone is A (440), your first order harmonic will be 880. 880 corresponds to the A one octave above A 440. In fact, any time you double a frequency, it is the same as moving up an octave. Now here's the good part. Your second order harmonic would be 1320Hz. 1320Hz is the note E. And E is the dominant tone in the key of A. Coincidence? No, theory is that we hear an E subtly every time we hear an A played.

Of course, notes are not mathmatically tuned. They are tuned to preserve an equal temperment system, which allows for an instrument to be chromatic. This means that little offsets are put in each note's tuning so that the musician can switch keys on the same instrument.

When things are mathematically in tune you essentially get harmonic dissonance. This of course is not a bad thing. In fact, a lack of dissonance may be too sterile. When two dissonant notes play you get three effects: beats (a rise and fall during the sustain), a new set of harmonics generated from the composite sound, and a "tone" based on your brain negotiating the difference in sound. Extreme examples of dissonance used musically is Major-minor 7th chords, and any Diminished triad. These produce a good deal of deliberate dissonance which create interesting effects and are very musical.

So psuedo-spiritual stuff aside, tuning A to 432 (when C is 256) is a very open question - one with varying answers. Baroque music may favor harmonic perfection. Blue Grass, not so much.
Old 6th December 2008
  #39
Lives for gear
 
dualflip's Avatar
 

Ok people i think you should lay off the drugs.... heh
Old 6th December 2008
  #40
Lives for gear
 
The Beatsmith's Avatar
 

"The Cosmic Octave"

Roflz. You guys seriously should have stayed in school. Maybe then you wouldn't be susceptible to this bull****.
Old 6th December 2008
  #41
Lives for gear
 
PlugHead's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Beatsmith View Post
"The Cosmic Octave"

Roflz. You guys seriously should have stayed in school. Maybe then you wouldn't be susceptible to this bull****.
Some of us might be more schooled than you think...

Dismissing alternate theories to human's perception of pitch and it's relevance is ignorant, and shows your lack of an open mind about not only this, but obviously many other things...

Now may we continue?

@ bcgood: I'm pretty sure pitch-shifting down previously recorded material at 440 or similar will not achieve desired results - one must actually have the instruments tuned before-hand.

I'd also question whether or not sampled (digital) instruments would benefit from this, as they are captured at regular (A=440) pitch and again negates the perceived benefit.

This is very interesting stuff - naysayers, please refrain from pissing on this subject - start your own thread if you feel the need to diss this subject... tutt

thanks for interesting subject matter and discourse! thumbsup
Old 6th December 2008
  #42
Lives for gear
 

from what I gather we have two issues to consider - equal vs. unequal temperament and 440 vs 432.

re: temperament, you can hear the same song twice...

unequal


equal


imo, unequal can be impressive - intense, focussed, unusual. but i doubt anyone would want to mess with their analog/acoustic hardware for it. and i am not aware of any softsynth that allows note-by-note tuning. are there any or how could you do this?
Old 6th December 2008
  #43
Lives for gear
 
Alxi's Avatar
 

Let me be the 1st noobie to ask this.

What is equal and unequal temperament. Is it what some call stretch tunning on a piano ??
Old 6th December 2008
  #44
Gear Addict
 

re

i think stevie wonder uses a 442 or something along those lines. also srv and hendrix tunning down doesnt really count because they tune down a .5 step so its just Eb. its more about being able to use big strings and tone
Old 6th December 2008
  #45
Lives for gear
 
PlugHead's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alxi View Post
Let me be the 1st noobie to ask this.

What is equal and unequal temperament. Is it what some call stretch tunning on a piano ??
For equal temperament, this is fine to ref.:

Equal temperament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"unequal" is a misnomer - there a various degrees of tuning for pitch - too many to list - if you have a version of "autotune" on your computer, goto the tuning menu and look at the various tunings available...

Suffice to say, each have their merit, but also shortfalls with various intervals and their relationships. Stretch tuning is something experienced piano tuners will employ to make a piano sound fuller, but again, most often at the expense of certain intervals...
Old 6th December 2008
  #46
Lives for gear
 
matyas's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by audiovisceral View Post
imo, unequal can be impressive - intense, focussed, unusual. but i doubt anyone would want to mess with their analog/acoustic hardware for it. and i am not aware of any softsynth that allows note-by-note tuning. are there any or how could you do this?
Logic allows all softsynths to be retuned to pretty much whatever temperament you feel like messing with. Lots of hardware synths do, as well, it's just that most people never go there. Even my old DX-7II with E! board had reprogrammable tunings. I've never used it, but some people like Scala. Also, non-fretted, non-keyed instruments are inherently non-equal tempered. Symphony orchestras and string quartets, for example, play in something between Pythagorean and meantone tuning. I tune my clavichord to Lehmann's tuning, which is actually much easier than equal-temperament.
Old 6th December 2008
  #47
Lives for gear
 
Alxi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PlugHead View Post
For equal temperament, this is fine to ref.:

Equal temperament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"unequal" is a misnomer - there a various degrees of tuning for pitch - too many to list - if you have a version of "autotune" on your computer, goto the tuning menu and look at the various tunings available...

Suffice to say, each have their merit, but also shortfalls with various intervals and their relationships. Stretch tuning is something experienced piano tuners will employ to make a piano sound fuller, but again, most often at the expense of certain intervals...
Thanks plughead

Good info. Somethings i allready knew but others were new to me.
Old 6th December 2008
  #48
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by matyas View Post
Logic allows all softsynths to be retuned to pretty much whatever temperament you feel like messing with. Lots of hardware synths do, as well, it's just that most people never go there. Even my old DX-7II with E! board had reprogrammable tunings. I've never used it, but some people like Scala. Also, non-fretted, non-keyed instruments are inherently non-equal tempered. Symphony orchestras and string quartets, for example, play in something between Pythagorean and meantone tuning. I tune my clavichord to Lehmann's tuning, which is actually much easier than equal-temperament.
cool. also just found this.

Music Keyboard Retuning - Tune Smithy - Windows Software
Old 6th December 2008
  #49
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PlugHead View Post
Some of us might be more schooled than you think...

Dismissing alternate theories to human's perception of pitch and it's relevance is ignorant, and shows your lack of an open mind about not only this, but obviously many other things...

Now may we continue?

@ bcgood: I'm pretty sure pitch-shifting down previously recorded material at 440 or similar will not achieve desired results - one must actually have the instruments tuned before-hand.

I'd also question whether or not sampled (digital) instruments would benefit from this, as they are captured at regular (A=440) pitch and again negates the perceived benefit.

This is very interesting stuff - naysayers, please refrain from pissing on this subject - start your own thread if you feel the need to diss this subject... tutt

thanks for interesting subject matter and discourse! thumbsup
Good points all around PlugHead.

It's pretty funny how ignorant and closed minded some posts have been on this thread. Ussually I find that the most ignorant and scared people are those that are willing to disregard an idea after a few hurdles instead of keeping an open mind till all data can be evaluated. Sure there are some claims being made about 432 tuning that are a little wacky. That doesn't mean that the whole idea is wrong. The song I posted sounds quite a bit better at 432 as opposed to 440. I disagree that slightly slowing it down like I did to achieve the result isn't legitimate. If the tuning is 432 it's 432. Comparing the two files is interesting. The 432 file has so much more lushness and depth. It feels different as well. I won't go into all the details but 432 does fit in better with the golden ratio and phi than any other type of musical tuning. This earth is full of mystery and wonder. I'm glad that with my knowledge, university studies and degrees that I'm not afraid to continue my exploration of new ideas and discoveries!

P.S. To the poser whoops I meant poster that tried to say that I couldn't use the word transpose the way I did...

Transposing something means to change position from, to place in a different position. So using transpose like I did was perfectly legitimate. It also means to change in form or nature; which is of course especially relevant concerning this subject.
Old 6th December 2008
  #50
Lives for gear
 
Storyville's Avatar
It isn't legitimate

Period. You cannot tune a whole song to 432. You pitch shifted it. That's not what this thread is about. What you are hearing is the effect of pitch shifting a song - and that is perfectly legitimate in and of itself. You may certainly feel that it sounds better, and there is no argument. But again, PITCH IS RELATIVE. ALSO, the perception of pitch CHANGES WITH VOLUME. Sustained tones above 2k appear to get higher in pitch when they appear to rise in volume. This is most noticeable in instruments such as the violin, which can swell at high notes. ALSO, perception of pitch CHANGES WITH ENVELOPE. Sustained sounds generally appear to be lower in pitch than short duration sounds of equal frequency.

For the person who said "this thread isn't legitimate if you had just stayed in school" that is by far the stupidest comment I've ever heard on this website. It not only exposes your own ignorance, but it condemns other people for attempting to shed theirs. IF YOU HAD STAYED IN SCHOOL, you would know that the discussion of frequency in relationship to pitch has been debated and examined for all sorts of reasons for hundreds of years. Yes, the original articles posted, and a few after contain some pretty out there pseudo science. But there's legitimate science here as well.

Other things you may want to know: Most people can't perceive a change in pitch less than 1/20th of a semi-tone. Pitch, especially in low notes appears to be lower when the volume is louder. This is important when consider how loudly one mixes the bass in a mix.
Old 6th December 2008
  #51
Lives for gear
 
Storyville's Avatar
Transpose

Fair. I thought you were using the word in the musical context. For edification, transposition as a musical term means to mark something to another key, as many instruments are notated in designated key signatures and therefore require their scores to be written differently.
Old 6th December 2008
  #52
Lives for gear
 
PlugHead's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgood View Post
The song I posted sounds quite a bit better at 432 as opposed to 440. I disagree that slightly slowing it down like I did to achieve the result isn't legitimate. If the tuning is 432 it's 432.
Agreed: lushness is a real artifact of 'slowing down the molecules' - have you ever tracked instruments (esp. drum kit) on analog tape and used 'varispeed' to raise tape speed a few notches, then replay (and track the others parts) at correct speed? (for any newbs, same concept as sports replays: i.e. recorded full motion @ 60 FPS, then replayed @ 30 FPS for slow motion...)

I have on more than a few occasions - well worth experimenting with, as it totally develops a euphonic sound unlike any other treatment(s). I liken it to giving an extra depth unachievable through ordinary means, and no - digital cannot do it anywhere near as well as analog can (no snobbery intended, just what I have experienced).

That is the same benefit I perceive(d) from your file, but not any 'tuning' or intonation betterment, just a slightly more euphonic representation of the musical event/recording.

That said - I am all for experimentation - in the quest for greatness, one must stumble on many hurdles before achieving success.
Old 6th December 2008
  #53
Lives for gear
 

Pitch (music) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

reading this is brilliant. i always used to wonder why the notes were where they are and what the sound was in between. as it turns out a=440hz is completely arbitrary standard we've settled on here in the 20th century, but it's purely a side effect of global music/instrument homogenization. it's all music in between just the same.

i'm thinking about experimenting with different pitch standards for different songs. i wonder if putting a 420 next to a 450 next to a 440 next to a 432 on a cd would be too jarring. it's essentially what rappers would do when they'd 'chipmunk' their sampled beats by random amounts. many people have enjoyed those despite the song-song dissonance. could be interesting...
Old 6th December 2008
  #54
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Storyville View Post
Period. You cannot tune a whole song to 432. You pitch shifted it. That's not what this thread is about. What you are hearing is the effect of pitch shifting a song.
This is true but if that songs instruments where tuned to 440 and I slowed it down to match 432 it could still highlight tonal differences between the two different tunings. If 432 is a more natural sounding tuning system then you will still hear the benefits irregardless of the sonic differences that occur as a result of the very minor change in speed. I will hook up my midi keyboard and do a little experiment soon to address your concern though so, stay tuned! (Pun intended) heh
Old 7th December 2008
  #55
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 

OK, so here is a file of a recording that I just made on my keyboard. I used my outboard Roland sequencer to record me playing three A notes and one E note at 440 first then the EXACT same thing again the ONLY difference being that the second sound sample is tuned down to A above middle C @ 432 Hz. The way I was able to play it exactly the same both times was by triggering both performances from my initial performance via the sequencer. In other words both times it was triggered from the exact same midi performance so the velocity, length of sustain etc. is the same.

The first file is 440 and the second file is 432.

This is the original recording absolutely no processing of any kind has been applied after the fact.

What's interesting to me is that for some reason my keyboard played 440 slightly louder than 432. Even though people usually perceive louder as better I still prefer the second sample at 432. I'm providing an mp3 file saved at the highest quality, slow setting in Wavelab at 320 kbps and the original 24 bit 96 Khz sample as well.

Cheers,

bc


440 and 432.mp3

440 and 432.wav
Old 7th December 2008
  #56
Lives for gear
 
dualflip's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgood View Post
OK, so here is a file of a recording that I just made on my keyboard. I used my outboard Roland sequencer to record me playing three A notes and one E note at 440 first then the EXACT same thing again the ONLY difference being that the second sound sample is tuned down to A above middle C @ 432 Hz. The way I was able to play it exactly the same both times was by triggering both performances from my initial performance via the sequencer. In other words both times it was triggered from the exact same midi performance so the velocity, length of sustain etc. is the same.

The first file is 440 and the second file is 432.

This is the original recording absolutely no processing of any kind has been applied after the fact.

What's interesting to me is that for some reason my keyboard played 440 slightly louder than 432. Even though people usually perceive louder as better I still prefer the second sample at 432. I'm providing an mp3 file saved at the highest quality, slow setting in Wavelab at 320 kbps and the original 24 bit 96 Khz sample as well.

Cheers,

bc


440 and 432.mp3

440 and 432.wav
Thanks for the samples but i must say that one chord is not the thing i had in mind for an example, i mean, part of the whole down tuning thing is to be able to hear all different intervals and the relationship between them (more than your octaves and a fifth in your chord) so melodies, and chord progressions may be a better way to illustrate than a static 30 sec power chord.
Old 7th December 2008
  #57
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dualflip View Post
Thanks for the samples but i must say that one chord is not the thing i had in mind for an example, i mean, part of the whole down tuning thing is to be able to hear all different intervals and the relationship between them (more than your octaves and a fifth in your chord) so melodies, and chord progressions may be a better way to illustrate than a static 30 sec power chord.
I can hear a difference and preference in my example so apparently it is enough. If you want more than that why don't you create a whole song @ 432? Stop complaining and do it yourself.
Old 7th December 2008
  #58
Lives for gear
 
dualflip's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgood View Post
I can hear a difference and preference in my example so apparently it is enough. If you want more than that why don't you create a whole song @ 432? Stop complaining and do it yourself.
LMAO, ok man i will no reason to get angry
Old 7th December 2008
  #59
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dualflip View Post
LMAO, ok man i will no reason to get angry
Not angry at all.

Let us know your results when you're finished.thumbsup
Old 9th December 2008
  #60
Lives for gear
 
Storyville's Avatar
I plan on giving it a shot

I haven't heard back from my violist yet, but hopefully I will be able to do a song at C256, A440, then again at C256 and A432.

There's a lot of variables here. A lot of instruments tune to E, rather than C or A. C is generally excepted as the fixed standard, not A. So the question is, is A the only note that changes in tune? I like the equal vs. unequal temperment example above. But still, it's different recordings on different pianos.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
juicylime / So much gear, so little time!
38
Lexicondonn / Mastering forum
7
nomraun / So much gear, so little time!
9

Forum Jump