440 hz to 432 hz - sounding more natural?
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
It would be a music theory topic if there was a discussion of an instrument which was made for this particular tuning.
EG: if you took a saxophone, made for A=440hz and went to make it that much flatter, it might not really be too useful an idea.
The difference between tuning a whole instrument down and mere transposition has to do with instruments and physicality. It's not unlike when you apply pitch shift in digital audio terms, the particular algorithm is going to do things to it, you'll after a point want to consider different formant characteristics, so people like different algorithms.
A lot of the 432 talk takes off from demonstrations of it in cymatics. Cymatics [Chladni figures] is actually useful in string instrument construction, but the 'making frequencies visible through cymatics' as proof of something good or bad morally is bad craziness, that is pseudo-science. It pretends to do something by observation but it's no such thing.
EG: if you took a saxophone, made for A=440hz and went to make it that much flatter, it might not really be too useful an idea.
The difference between tuning a whole instrument down and mere transposition has to do with instruments and physicality. It's not unlike when you apply pitch shift in digital audio terms, the particular algorithm is going to do things to it, you'll after a point want to consider different formant characteristics, so people like different algorithms.
A lot of the 432 talk takes off from demonstrations of it in cymatics. Cymatics [Chladni figures] is actually useful in string instrument construction, but the 'making frequencies visible through cymatics' as proof of something good or bad morally is bad craziness, that is pseudo-science. It pretends to do something by observation but it's no such thing.
Last edited by jancivil on Tue Jul 08, 2014 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- KVRAF
- 1758 posts since 15 Mar, 2013 from Germany
Good boywhyterabbyt wrote:Nope. Observing stuff, then theorising explanations, then testing those explanations properly, and making the test result available for peer review and confirmation is science.
- Beware the Quoth
- 33177 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
As opposed to 'someone who doesn't understand what science is' boy.CableChannel wrote:Good boywhyterabbyt wrote:Nope. Observing stuff, then theorising explanations, then testing those explanations properly, and making the test result available for peer review and confirmation is science.
my other modular synth is a bugbrand
- KVRAF
- 1758 posts since 15 Mar, 2013 from Germany
Yeah maybe. No, seriously, I understand what science is. I was just having fun provoking the science defenders. Sorry for that.
Usually the science guys treat the esotericism guys with such haughtiness that I have to puke. That's why I play devils advocate quite often.
Usually the science guys treat the esotericism guys with such haughtiness that I have to puke. That's why I play devils advocate quite often.
-
- KVRian
- 1000 posts since 1 Dec, 2004
So you're trolling us.CableChannel wrote:Yeah maybe. No, seriously, I understand what science is. I was just having fun provoking the science defenders. Sorry for that.
Usually the science guys treat the esotericism guys with such haughtiness that I have to puke. That's why I play devils advocate quite often.
I have nothing against esotericism guys, but when they trot out stuff that's obviously false and impossible, and at best demonstrates that they misunderstood the topic, I call them out. The 432hz thing is one of these cases. It also applies to stuff like vinyl.