432 Hz vs 440Hz
- Thread starter WIN 52
- Start date
paralleloscope
The Living Force
Rhys said:
Here is a site exploring cheap/ free microtuners for synths and midi
_http://kore.noisepages.com/2008/09/05/advanced-mega-round-up-going-microtonal-with-synths/
WIN 52
The Living Force
Tempering music is a bit off, I think. It seems Hz is more the key here. The Beatles played their music in 432 Hz, John Lenon died young. The Doors, Elvis and some other musicians all died mysteriously at 27 yrs old, all using 432 Hz tuning.
It seems they could tune their guitars to 432 Hz. I found some examples of this on u-tube also. I don't understand it to mean designing new instruments.
Jim Hendricks was another musician who died at 27. There are quite a few of them, all using 432 Hz... the edit
It seems they could tune their guitars to 432 Hz. I found some examples of this on u-tube also. I don't understand it to mean designing new instruments.
Jim Hendricks was another musician who died at 27. There are quite a few of them, all using 432 Hz... the edit
dant
The Living Force
Just pondering a thought...
It is one thing to play live music, with real instruments, and
to a live audience, but with digital music, can the original music
be reproduced exactly in the same way once having gone through
the many different music players available on the consumer markets?
Many player devices have different hardware limitations, different
programmable settings and so on, and could produce different results?
To top it off, not all humans ears are "tuned" in exactly in
the same way, so are there going to be some differences?
If so, how can we all find a common "frame of reference"
and to compare notes? :D
FWIW,
Dan
It is one thing to play live music, with real instruments, and
to a live audience, but with digital music, can the original music
be reproduced exactly in the same way once having gone through
the many different music players available on the consumer markets?
Many player devices have different hardware limitations, different
programmable settings and so on, and could produce different results?
To top it off, not all humans ears are "tuned" in exactly in
the same way, so are there going to be some differences?
If so, how can we all find a common "frame of reference"
and to compare notes? :D
FWIW,
Dan
abstract
Dagobah Resident
In terms of what is fundamentally contained in the music medium, no, i do not believe so.
If it's in perfect tune when you record it, that cannot be changed by your listening device as far as i know.
I don't think it's so much the ear itself, but the way the brain will process a sound.
My brain will process a sound different from your brain, just like a smell or a touch will be processed differently based on the indiviual.
The ability to recognize a pitch, whether something is in tune or out of tune, takes time to develop.
Some people won't even pick up certain frequencies in music because they haven't trained themselves to hear it. My opinion is that
it's based on how aware you are of "how music works". It's all incredibly complex.
dant
The Living Force
[Off topic?]
The devil is in the details?
The ear contains many parts: the ear/canal, "drum", "hammer", "anvil",
"stirrups" (which moves the fluid in the), cochlear, auditory nerves, and
the brain.
The cochlear could be thought of a carpet rolled up into a spiral, and on the
"carpet", contains many "fibers", each "fiber" representing a "tuned fork", each
"fiber" is tuned for a specific incoming wavelength from high to low frequency,
each "fiber" is tied to a specific nerve, and all nerves are "bundled up" and
connected to the brain pathways.
Any problems found along the various parts of the ear; from the ear/canal
to the brain can cause impairments of "hearing" but the brain has to process
what was heard into by "adaptive understanding" and may require the support
of other "sensors" in order to complete "understanding" of speech/frequency.
The "tuning forks" can be thought of that of a bandpass filter - they
can have different or missing "settings".
As I understood it, not all humans have "perfect" hearing and most do not.
As for transducing digital sound, it is not a perfect analog reproduction
of sound due to many factors, the primary being, the speaker/transducer,
the secondary due to processing/sampling/range/filtering, or so I think.
FWIW,
Dan
abstract said:
The devil is in the details?
The ear contains many parts: the ear/canal, "drum", "hammer", "anvil",
"stirrups" (which moves the fluid in the), cochlear, auditory nerves, and
the brain.
The cochlear could be thought of a carpet rolled up into a spiral, and on the
"carpet", contains many "fibers", each "fiber" representing a "tuned fork", each
"fiber" is tuned for a specific incoming wavelength from high to low frequency,
each "fiber" is tied to a specific nerve, and all nerves are "bundled up" and
connected to the brain pathways.
Any problems found along the various parts of the ear; from the ear/canal
to the brain can cause impairments of "hearing" but the brain has to process
what was heard into by "adaptive understanding" and may require the support
of other "sensors" in order to complete "understanding" of speech/frequency.
The "tuning forks" can be thought of that of a bandpass filter - they
can have different or missing "settings".
As I understood it, not all humans have "perfect" hearing and most do not.
As for transducing digital sound, it is not a perfect analog reproduction
of sound due to many factors, the primary being, the speaker/transducer,
the secondary due to processing/sampling/range/filtering, or so I think.
FWIW,
Dan
I must admit that I don't like to tune the guitar with the electronic devices. I tend to tune it by ear and it doesn't fit with the electronic thing. When I played with bands I slightly fine de-tuned the guitar so that it matched better the singer's voice, like a second voice, even if it made angry the other musicians :p
I tuned my acoustic guitar yesterday into the 432 Hz (by ear according to the pink floyd youtube versions posted in this thread) tuning and I kind of like it. Now if there is any basis to choose the basic frequencies, maybe it's neither 440 nor 432Hz and that we could find the best by experience?
I tuned my acoustic guitar yesterday into the 432 Hz (by ear according to the pink floyd youtube versions posted in this thread) tuning and I kind of like it. Now if there is any basis to choose the basic frequencies, maybe it's neither 440 nor 432Hz and that we could find the best by experience?
Rhys
Jedi Master
mkrnhr said:
I found this whilst browsing a thread on another forum discussing 432Hz you might find interesting:
[quote author=sevenstring.org forum]I'm of the opinion that if it is a more relaxing set of overtones you seek, you should instead change the makeup of the notes, and not simply shift the same construction down 8hz.
I find equal temperament itself to be fundamentally flawed. All twelve notes are equal. I'm fully aware of the detriments of meantone temperament and well-temperament, but at least there is a differentiation between keys. And this is undeniably what composers from the baroque and classical period were using.
Personally, I'm a fan of just intonation and the Partch tonality diamond.[/quote]
The poster includes a link to a guy called Prent Rogers, whom composes music using Microtonal intonation systems (drawn on Just intonation). His music is here if you want to listen - SoundClick artist: Prent Rodgers - Microtonal Music by Prent Rodgers. Made with Csound.javascript:void(0);
I'm still reading through all the thread.. linked here
Its really bugging me at the moment why there is so much mention of this particular frequency. A lot of 'new age' sites mention it and I dont know if there is a lot more to discover about it, or if its just distraction
I would say it's distraction at this point (osit).
thevenusian
Dagobah Resident
The motivation for tossing the whole tempered vs just tuning thing into this discussion was to clarify that Pythagorean scale math was being projected onto tempered-scale music earlier in the thread. This whole area of inquiry, and the difference between Just and Tempered requires some background understanding and some reading. There are many Wikipedia pages with good information about this subject to start. Anyone with the time & interest can learn all about it by searching out one of these terms and following the links to related material. I don't think it is especially productive to jump to any conclusion about what is better or more beneficial, though, since we are lacking data on that.
Likewise, I don't see any compelling evidence that picking A-432 over A-440 is somehow more 'in tune with the Earth' and thereby more natural and better. My thought is that if you really want to go down that road, there is much more to it than just taking a modern tempered-tuned instrument and tuning the whole thing down 8 cents so that A is tuned to 432. Likewise for taking a Pink Floyd track and lowering the pitch slightly so that A is at 432. Whatever A is tuned to is really arbitrary, and could cover a whole range of cycles per second (or Hz) since we are just assigning the name 'A' to the note that comes after 'G' and before 'B'. 'Concert A-440' is just a convention agreed upon by groups of musicians in order to standardize pitch among different instruments and among groups of musicians performing together. Most people really cannot hear the difference between 440 and 432- it is not a very big difference.
Musicians are all over the map with tricks of tuning. Guitar strings are easier to bend if you tune them down a bit. Hendrix tuned his guitar in standard tuning, but down a half step (he tuned the E to E-flat), so technically he played with A-415 Hz, not A-432 or A-440, since his A string was tuned to A-flat. I am sure during his time he played with his A string tuned to everything from 400-460 Hz. if it were to be measured. So the whole idea of A-432 being 'more natural', at least as the point to choose for the note A in tempered tuning, doesn't really mean much. At least I haven't seen any compelling evidence that it has any special meaning other than some people saying it does. However, if it sounds or feels better to you, and that is what you like, then by all means do it.
Likewise, I don't see any compelling evidence that picking A-432 over A-440 is somehow more 'in tune with the Earth' and thereby more natural and better. My thought is that if you really want to go down that road, there is much more to it than just taking a modern tempered-tuned instrument and tuning the whole thing down 8 cents so that A is tuned to 432. Likewise for taking a Pink Floyd track and lowering the pitch slightly so that A is at 432. Whatever A is tuned to is really arbitrary, and could cover a whole range of cycles per second (or Hz) since we are just assigning the name 'A' to the note that comes after 'G' and before 'B'. 'Concert A-440' is just a convention agreed upon by groups of musicians in order to standardize pitch among different instruments and among groups of musicians performing together. Most people really cannot hear the difference between 440 and 432- it is not a very big difference.
Musicians are all over the map with tricks of tuning. Guitar strings are easier to bend if you tune them down a bit. Hendrix tuned his guitar in standard tuning, but down a half step (he tuned the E to E-flat), so technically he played with A-415 Hz, not A-432 or A-440, since his A string was tuned to A-flat. I am sure during his time he played with his A string tuned to everything from 400-460 Hz. if it were to be measured. So the whole idea of A-432 being 'more natural', at least as the point to choose for the note A in tempered tuning, doesn't really mean much. At least I haven't seen any compelling evidence that it has any special meaning other than some people saying it does. However, if it sounds or feels better to you, and that is what you like, then by all means do it.
Iconoclast
Jedi Master
very interesting thread.
i have no musical education of any sort and recently started fooling around with a midi keyboard and various music software. (very enjoyable but time consuming)
this has gotten me to become aware of music in quite a different way than i was before.
one thing i have often thought about is the fact that nowadays we never hear 'actual' music from instruments.
most of the music we hear never really 'exists' except as zeros and ones in a computer before it is being put out via speakers or headphones.
and i also wonder how much of the 'beneficial vibrations' of music are left in todays world. most music these days is listened to via headphones (i'm certainly no exception) - so the sound waves don't even go through your whole body but only very localized into your ear.
i wonder if this cancels out any health benefit that music might have if you listened to it coming straight from instruments (or even speakers).
anyway, i think that music and sound waves are a very important topic. from what the C's have told us, it seems we have lost much of our understanding of these forces.
i have no musical education of any sort and recently started fooling around with a midi keyboard and various music software. (very enjoyable but time consuming)
this has gotten me to become aware of music in quite a different way than i was before.
one thing i have often thought about is the fact that nowadays we never hear 'actual' music from instruments.
most of the music we hear never really 'exists' except as zeros and ones in a computer before it is being put out via speakers or headphones.
and i also wonder how much of the 'beneficial vibrations' of music are left in todays world. most music these days is listened to via headphones (i'm certainly no exception) - so the sound waves don't even go through your whole body but only very localized into your ear.
i wonder if this cancels out any health benefit that music might have if you listened to it coming straight from instruments (or even speakers).
anyway, i think that music and sound waves are a very important topic. from what the C's have told us, it seems we have lost much of our understanding of these forces.