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
Why don't we switch to 432Hz tuning? Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 17th April 2018
  #181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
It's not at all irrelevant (although you might think it is).
(I do think it is)

It is made irrelevant by the fact that if a minor adjustment is made to the arbitrary length of time know as a "second", 440hz magically becomes 432hz without actually changing pitch, but nevertheless inheriting all the non-fractional goodness you alluded to above.

(although you might not think so)
2
Share
Old 17th April 2018
  #182
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
So tell us, how is it relevant?

Alistair
Well, bearing in mind that I only learnt of this fact a few hours ago, I'd say that the immediate relevance is to mathematicians and people interested in applying mathematical or geometrical principles to music (if that's allowed of course /sarc). The video above discusses this.
I'm also interested in why Stradivari and Verdi were interested in that particular scale and reference and also why it coincides with integers; related to this is the monochord and the abstraction of mathematics and music in the Jain culture.

For me it's relevant; I'm not insisting that anyone else think it relevant.
Old 17th April 2018
  #183
Quote:
Originally Posted by nspaas View Post
(I do think it is)

It is made irrelevant by the fact that if a minor adjustment is made to the arbitrary length of time know as a "second", 440hz magically becomes 432hz without actually changing pitch, but nevertheless inheriting all the non-fractional goodness you alluded to above.

(although you might not think so)
You're entitled to your opinion.
Old 17th April 2018
  #184
Lives for gear
 

There's no opinion to what he's saying. This is getting comical.
2
Share
Old 17th April 2018
  #185
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
There's no opinion to what he's saying. This is getting comical.
He's accusing me of something I haven't done: reification. That's his opinion.

If you agree with his confabulation then I challenge you to quote me where I have done so.
Old 17th April 2018
  #186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Well, bearing in mind that I only learnt of this fact a few hours ago, I'd say that the immediate relevance is to mathematicians and people interested in applying mathematical or geometrical principles to music (if that's allowed of course /sarc). The video above discusses this.
I'm also interested in why Stradivari and Verdi were interested in that particular scale and reference and also why it coincides with integers; related to this is the monochord and the abstraction of mathematics and music in the Jain culture.

For me it's relevant; I'm not insisting that anyone else think it relevant.
432 as an A4 ref coincides (to the extent it does) with integers because the 12TET system uses a formula based on 12 and 432 is a multiple of 12. (Cosmic, eh, 12 tones in the octave, 12 in a dozen... oh... wait...)

Quote:
In twelve-tone equal temperament, which divides the octave into 12 equal parts, the width of a semitone, i.e. the frequency ratio of the interval between two adjacent notes, is the twelfth root of two:

12√2 = 2​1⁄12 ≈ 1.059463
This interval is divided into 100 cents.
Equal temperament - Wikipedia

It's perhaps interesting to note that things do NOT similarly work out 'evenly' with the older, mathematically correct Just Intonation using 432 Hz; the upshot is that the 'simplification' of scalar relationships implicit in 12TET allows this illusory 'organic' relationship when using a 12-divisible reference -- but it's worth noting that the perceived 'perfection' exists only in the nonphysical world of that simplified mathematical relationship.

[The Hz values below are for A4=440. Click to for full size chart and Wikipedia article]

Last edited by theblue1; 17th April 2018 at 08:57 PM..
Old 17th April 2018
  #187
Lives for gear
 
norfolk martin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
He's accusing me of something I haven't done: reification. .
you haven't thrown someone in the east river encased in concrete?

I'm glad.
Old 19th April 2018
  #188
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreiPiatra View Post
3 years ago I was in a place where doctors told me they need to put me on medication for the rest of my life.
Color me shocked.

lol, j/k. I switched to 432 years ago. The difference is INSANE!
Old 19th April 2018
  #189
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bill5 View Post
Color me shocked.
I thought that was totally old-school, but they did it to Carrie on "Homeland" last Sunday. As for color, she stayed the same. Kinda like old, dried Elmer's Glue.
Old 19th April 2018
  #190
Lives for gear
 

Yeah that's pretty much where I'm at.
Old 19th April 2018
  #191
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Kinda like old, dried Elmer's Glue.
That's nothing to sniff at...
Old 19th April 2018
  #192
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
That's nothing to sniff at...
I know. Doesn't work anywhere near as good as Model Airplane, just clogs your nostrils. I wonder if "Krazy" is a sly reference to huffability.
1
Share
Old 19th April 2018
  #193
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
huffability
Huffability?

The adroitness of being a beard to a millionaire businessman/congressman, and parlay that into a media empire using his name no less?

Arianna, yes, she has that in spades...
1
Share
Old 19th April 2018
  #194
Is the Huff a thinking man's Hof?
Old 19th April 2018
  #195
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

a tabloid perspective

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Is the Huff a thinking man's Hof?
In certain areas of the world, notably the SF Bay Area, the notion/conflation of "Huff" and "thinking man" are concepts that elude credulity.



..OTOH, from a thinking man's POV, not too far removed, from the "Hoff", especially the hamburger episode.



Perhaps birds of a feather, who knows...
1
Share
Old 20th April 2018
  #196
Lives for gear
Possibly Hef...?
Old 24th April 2018
  #197
Lives for gear
 
Owen L T's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Had a 432 band in for a broadcast. Their head guy gave me the whole 432 sermon while was adjusting his capo.
I had a 420 band in. It was totally chill.
Old 24th April 2018
  #198
Lives for gear
 
Owen L T's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
The more quantifiable improvement to the record listening experience is to speed them up a bit, not slow them down. Radio stations found that out very quickly back in the day.

But that's getting into weird things like facts and measurable results and stuff. . . less of this:
The most quantifiable improvement is to put on the Born In The USA album on vinyl, set your turntable to 45 RPM, and listen to "I'm on Fire"; it sounds for all the world like Dolly Parton recorded it as a country single. (A DJ on Capital, in London, did that one morning, at the behest of a caller, in the days when I had a radio alarm-clock. One of the funniest things I'd ever heard - not least because it was so spot on!)
1
Share
Old 24th April 2018
  #199
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

.
I just figured out that if I just re-tune all my guitars to 432.25, I won't have to re-tune them again every leap-year.
.
3
Share
Old 24th April 2018
  #200
Gear Addict
Your reasoning does not make sense. If its sounds better or not, its up to you. Tune it to that base note. It really do not make sense to change it everywhere. And yes, this is'just because it is like that'. You need yo come with better argumwents than that. And probably its a money issue.
Old 24th April 2018
  #201
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gitaarwerk View Post
Your reasoning does not make sense.
[...]
To which post are you responding?
.
Old 24th April 2018
  #202
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
To which post are you responding?
.
Certainly not the 432nd one....
Old 24th April 2018
  #203
Lives for gear
 
teleharmonium's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
432 as an A4 ref coincides (to the extent it does) with integers because the 12TET system uses a formula based on 12 and 432 is a multiple of 12. (Cosmic, eh, 12 tones in the octave, 12 in a dozen... oh... wait...)

Equal temperament - Wikipedia

It's perhaps interesting to note that things do NOT similarly work out 'evenly' with the older, mathematically correct Just Intonation using 432 Hz; the upshot is that the 'simplification' of scalar relationships implicit in 12TET allows this illusory 'organic' relationship when using a 12-divisible reference -- but it's worth noting that the perceived 'perfection' exists only in the nonphysical world of that simplified mathematical relationship
I'm not quite clear on what you're saying here by working evenly, and certainly not advocating any form of 432hz blather, but JI math works just fine over any fundamental. Bear in mind there is no one type of JI, and it does not necessarily involve approximating ET scales. It can do that, or not, but all the math you really need is in accurate naming of the intervals, and in transposing high harmonics down into lower ranges when you need to.

The math of equal temperament is not real pretty, as math goes. If that matters (which it shouldn't, since we arbitrarily define the units that we use to name pitches.) Calculating the 12th root of two is not nearly as simple as dividing by 12, and the ET intervals have more infinitely non repeating numbers than the typical "12 note scale" flavors of JI like the one shown.
1
Share
Old 24th April 2018
  #204
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RJHollins View Post
Read the history of 'tuning'.

excerpt


Those wanting some education on this topic. Check this.

History of Pitch - The Diapason Normal
Looks like you might want to read that again yourself buddy. Nowhere is the claim that Mozart used 432 supported.

Again, it’s a bunch of Lyndon LaRouche nuttery, via his Schiller Institute, which started with this decades ago.
Old 25th April 2018
  #205
Quote:
Originally Posted by teleharmonium View Post
I'm not quite clear on what you're saying here by working evenly, and certainly not advocating any form of 432hz blather, but JI math works just fine over any fundamental. Bear in mind there is no one type of JI, and it does not necessarily involve approximating ET scales. It can do that, or not, but all the math you really need is in accurate naming of the intervals, and in transposing high harmonics down into lower ranges when you need to.

The math of equal temperament is not real pretty, as math goes. If that matters (which it shouldn't, since we arbitrarily define the units that we use to name pitches.) Calculating the 12th root of two is not nearly as simple as dividing by 12, and the ET intervals have more infinitely non repeating numbers than the typical "12 note scale" flavors of JI like the one shown.
I get you and agree.

My comment had been in response to someone who, earlier in the thread, had mentioned that a putative virtue of 432 Hz as A ref was that meant that the value of notes (above a certain pitch) in 12TET are all integer values in Hz. (And, if one takes a cursory look at the ET math for a 12 tone system in that Wikipedia link, it's easy to see why.)

[Comparison of 12TET and Just Intonation values and formulae]
Old 26th April 2018
  #206
Lives for gear
 
norfolk martin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I get you and agree.

My comment had been in response to someone who, earlier in the thread, had mentioned that a putative virtue of 432 Hz as A ref was that meant that the value of notes (above a certain pitch) in 12TET are all integer values in Hz. (And, if one takes a cursory look at the ET math for a 12 tone system in that Wikipedia link, it's easy to see why.)

[Comparison of 12TET and Just Intonation values and formulae]
I must admit that I didn't understand the "integer values" argument.

332 only divides into 12 tone integer values because the unit of measurement is "cycles per second" If one second was any longer or shorter that we have chosen to define it, pitches that currently divide into 12 integer values would no longer do so.

Therefore, unless the second is some sort of natural constant, it makes no more sense to call a pitch 440 than 463 using a longer reference period.

Is the second a natural constant? It was designed to represent 1/86400 of the time it takes the earth to rotate on its axis each day. This was found to be inaccurate because the earth's daily rotation varies a bit, and actually takes a fraction longer that the 24 hours that was originally assumed

Since 1967, the official definition of a second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation that gets an atom of cesium-133 to vibrate between two energy states.

If we made it 9,235,388,196 instead , what we call 432 would still sound the same, but would measure as 440, and not divide perfectly .
Old 27th April 2018
  #207
Quote:
Originally Posted by norfolk martin View Post
I must admit that I didn't understand the "integer values" argument.

332 only divides into 12 tone integer values because the unit of measurement is "cycles per second" If one second was any longer or shorter that we have chosen to define it, pitches that currently divide into 12 integer values would no longer do so.

Therefore, unless the second is some sort of natural constant, it makes no more sense to call a pitch 440 than 463 using a longer reference period.

Is the second a natural constant? It was designed to represent 1/86400 of the time it takes the earth to rotate on its axis each day. This was found to be inaccurate because the earth's daily rotation varies a bit, and actually takes a fraction longer that the 24 hours that was originally assumed

Since 1967, the official definition of a second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation that gets an atom of cesium-133 to vibrate between two energy states.

If we made it 9,235,388,196 instead , what we call 432 would still sound the same, but would measure as 440, and not divide perfectly .
The primary advantages I can see are that it makes the math easier and means that if you tune to the frequency rather than a note value defined by a device's internal settings/programming, if you get the note smack on the frequency with no decimal point (I did it once... it was kind of eerie) you'll be precisely on the money (at least to the resolution of your tuner's frequency display).

The main disadvantage I see is that it puts you out of tune with a whole lot of the rest of the musical world. And makes your friends laugh at you behind your back in some cases, I suspect.


I might tune my guits down a half step -- but I do it from a 440 A ref.
Old 27th April 2018
  #208
Here for the gear
I tune to 432. I've read arguments both supporting and denying claims about any significance regarding 432 tuning. And for all my research, I've found nothing that actually refutes the argument, nor anything that proves it in toto. All that aside, I like the way it sounds. I do believe the resonance does create some kind of more natural reaction for people. Whether or not that's placebo, I don't really care? For me, when I tune to 432, I feel my music more, it's more compatible with my singing voice, and I seem to draw out more emotion. Even when I've forgotten it's in 432 after having switched to 440 and vice versa. So, regardless of the quibbling, I use A=432, I enjoy it, and I do in all sincerity believe there's something interesting going on with it. Though, I'd really love to get one of those properly tempered guitars with the crazily aligned frets and tune one of *those* with 432. I think that's where the real money's at.
Old 27th April 2018
  #209
Lives for gear
 
robert82's Avatar
I tune my guitar in all prime numbers. "A" is 433. It sounds like hell, but at least it's mathematically correct.
1
Share
Old 27th April 2018
  #210
Gear Head
 

I tune everything to 1hz. It's inaudible, but it's, like, the frequency of the universe, maaaan...

In the past couple of days I've seen a guy on here claim that we're all using inferior AD conversion, another claim that you can't produce professional work on speakers that don't cost $15k (I think that was the OP actually), and now this.

Most people couldn't tell you the difference between 440 and 432 unless they were played next to each other. Hell, a lot of people wouldn't know the difference if they were played next to each other.

This reeks of people looking for some gimmicky reason to claim their music's intangibly better than it actually is because they refuse to accept the unglamourous reality that the only thing that makes music better is a lot of hard work.
6
Share
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump