What is KVR Audio? | Submit News | Advertise | Developer Account

Options (Affects News & Product results only):

OS:
Format:
Include:
Quick Search KVR

"Quick Search" KVR Audio's Product Database, News Items, Developer Listings, Forum Topics and videos here. For advanced Product Database searching please use the full product search. For the forum you can use the phpBB forum search.

To utilize the power of Google you can use the integrated Google Site Search.

Products 0

Developers 0

News 0

Forum 0

Videos 0

Search  

440 hz to 432 hz - sounding more natural?

Chords, scales, harmony, melody, etc.

Moderator: Moderators (Main)

User avatar
arkmabat
KVRAF
 
2578 posts since 5 Nov, 2009

Postby arkmabat; Fri Jul 04, 2014 9:36 am 440 hz to 432 hz - sounding more natural?

Anybody ever read up on this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVoVr9UwOQM
cron
KVRAF
 
2161 posts since 27 Dec, 2002, from London

Postby cron; Fri Jul 04, 2014 10:14 am Re: 440 hz to 432 hz - sounding more natural?

All of the reading you'll be able to find about this is pseudoscientific twaddle concerning energy frequencies and karma and healing and shite. 432 (as a number) has more factors than 440 - that's it: that's the argument for it. It'd be mental enough even if it didn't rely on the implications that:

A: The second is a 'divine' unit of duration, and that waves only have properties because their frequencies are measured as such.
B: Base 10 is a divine method of counting
C: Numbers are themselves divine (but only integers, not numbers with a fractional component)
D: All music is variations on sine waves playing an A. No other notes (or their harmonics) to think about
E: That A wasn't an arbitrary choice around which to tune-up in the first place
F: Something to do with crystals probably
G: Etc ad infinitum

Other than pissing those with perfect pitch off, I don't think you'll accomplish anything else. Music sounds 'richer' when it's slowed down and 'tighter' when it's sped up. Nothing unusual there. Tune a full semitone down and the music will sound even richer! Actually, I'm pretty sure most of the examples there ARE tuned down by something approaching that. No way is that less than a quarter tone's difference.

edit: I should say none of this is aimed at you personally for your initial interest. I'm just trying to say that this isn't something worth investigating as a musician. It's purely one for the New Age crew.
MadBrain
KVRian
 
745 posts since 1 Dec, 2004

Postby MadBrain; Fri Jul 04, 2014 10:46 am Re: 440 hz to 432 hz - sounding more natural?

Yeah. Considering that there's not that much difference when transposing a whole song from, say, F to E, it's not like transposing 32 cents down from A 440hz to A 432hz is going to change much, except making everybody have to retune millions of pianos, xylophones, synthesizers and so on (a huge waste of time).
jancivil
KVRAF
 
9700 posts since 20 Oct, 2007

Postby jancivil; Fri Jul 04, 2014 1:46 pm Re: 440 hz to 432 hz - sounding more natural?

432 per se as magical is pretty much just goofy. I tune below 440 for effect fairly often because I like it for some things. Nowadays 442 is more or less the standard for Euro orchs. So I'm not the only person that believes tuning means a difference in effect.

Considering that there's not that much difference when transposing a whole song from, say, F to E,

:lol:
Yeah, I wonder why there isn't just the one key.

Everything tuned down ≠ a transposition, note well.
JumpingJackFlash
KVRian
 
1147 posts since 10 Oct, 2004

Postby JumpingJackFlash; Fri Jul 04, 2014 1:53 pm Re: 440 hz to 432 hz - sounding more natural?

We had this discussion on here a while back. As I recall, it went on for several pages, got pretty heated and ended up being moved to the Hyde Park Corner ...

Fairly typical for a music theory topic I guess :wink:
Unfamiliar words can be looked up in my Glossary of musical terms.
Also check out my Introduction to Music Theory.
jancivil
KVRAF
 
9700 posts since 20 Oct, 2007

Postby jancivil; Fri Jul 04, 2014 5:13 pm Re: 440 hz to 432 hz - sounding more natural?

Meffy moved everything about 432hz to HPC, as, for Meffy it was a religious type of idea.
Did it even begin here?

I believe it did, I seem to remember pressing, does a MT controversy qualify for HPC now or is this the usual objection to it as a religious expression.
thomni
KVRist
 
109 posts since 17 Apr, 2013, from USA

Postby thomni; Sat Jul 05, 2014 10:55 pm Re: 440 hz to 432 hz - sounding more natural?

Now, besides all the 'new-age hype' I think there is something to consider when dealing with frequencies. Yes, nothing about crystals, but it's more to do with the human body. Stay with me...

Maybe jancivil can do the math and extrapolation on this, but I certainly find different bass frequencies will resonate differently with the body. Everything has a resonating frequency, and while I'm not too involved to really measure it out, the body has resonant frequencies as well.

Most of the claims on this page: http://www.lunarsight.com/freq.htm I think are a little farfetched, but when you test some of the tones on your own system, you can find that at about 73~74Hz will resonate the genetalia, it lists. :-P
So, the note D (regular 440 tuning though, but you can use a sine and any synth with a freq. knob) falls there. No joke, try your bass guitars.

I guess I can see where the idea might come about, but as far as I know, there's nothing special about 432.
Only getting better...
\__ Camel Audio - Alchemy___Ableton Live 9 Suite___Lots of Izotope___\
User avatar
whyterabbyt
Beware the Quoth
 
21619 posts since 3 Sep, 2001, from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair

Postby whyterabbyt; Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:34 am Re: 440 hz to 432 hz - sounding more natural?

thomni wrote:Maybe jancivil can do the math and extrapolation on this, but I certainly find different bass frequencies will resonate differently with the body. Everything has a resonating frequency, and while I'm not too involved to really measure it out, the body has resonant frequencies as well.


Well, the human body has multiple resonant frequencies. Its not as if its a uniform shape made from a single consistent material. And if that werent enough, the fact is that we all have different sizes and densities of bone, flesh, organs. Its not as if a skinny kid has the same resonant frequencies as a solidly muscled 6'2" athlete, or a 20 stone middle aged man.
Never yet seen one of the 432Hz proponents deal with the real anatomical variance of humans. And if they did, I kinda expect fudging of the 'well X is nearly a multiple of 432, so proof', when any other frequency is just as close.

Image
To laymen, software development is something akin to wizardry. Neither time, nor effort are involved. If software is missing features they want, or has bugs, it is solely because someone has been too lazy to wave their magic wand.
c_bomb
KVRist
 
166 posts since 3 Apr, 2012, from Melbourne

Postby c_bomb; Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:43 am Re: 440 hz to 432 hz - sounding more natural?

jancivil wrote:Did it even begin here?


Nah, Goebbels.

http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2013/0 ... 432hz.html
User avatar
whyterabbyt
Beware the Quoth
 
21619 posts since 3 Sep, 2001, from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair

Postby whyterabbyt; Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:15 am Re: 440 hz to 432 hz - sounding more natural?

c_bomb wrote:
jancivil wrote:Did it even begin here?


Nah, Goebbels.

http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2013/0 ... 432hz.html


I thoroughly believe the source of that.
http://www.skepdic.com/horowitz.html
To laymen, software development is something akin to wizardry. Neither time, nor effort are involved. If software is missing features they want, or has bugs, it is solely because someone has been too lazy to wave their magic wand.
c_bomb
KVRist
 
166 posts since 3 Apr, 2012, from Melbourne

Postby c_bomb; Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:19 am Re: 440 hz to 432 hz - sounding more natural?

whyterabbyt wrote:
c_bomb wrote:
jancivil wrote:Did it even begin here?


Nah, Goebbels.

http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2013/0 ... 432hz.html


I thoroughly believe the source of that.
http://www.skepdic.com/horowitz.html


My apologies for the lack of obvious sarcasm.

:dog:

:lol:
User avatar
whyterabbyt
Beware the Quoth
 
21619 posts since 3 Sep, 2001, from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair

Postby whyterabbyt; Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:21 am Re: 440 hz to 432 hz - sounding more natural?

c_bomb wrote:
whyterabbyt wrote:
c_bomb wrote:
jancivil wrote:Did it even begin here?


Nah, Goebbels.

http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2013/0 ... 432hz.html


I thoroughly believe the source of that.
http://www.skepdic.com/horowitz.html


My apologies for the lack of obvious sarcasm.

:dog:

:lol:


nah, i got it, i was just providing the link for completeness.
To laymen, software development is something akin to wizardry. Neither time, nor effort are involved. If software is missing features they want, or has bugs, it is solely because someone has been too lazy to wave their magic wand.
GeckoYamori
KVRist
 
314 posts since 22 Feb, 2004

Postby GeckoYamori; Mon Jul 07, 2014 7:49 am Re: 440 hz to 432 hz - sounding more natural?

They're both wrong. 420hz is optimal. YOLO!
User avatar
Gamma-UT
KVRAF
 
2488 posts since 8 Jun, 2009, from UK

Postby Gamma-UT; Mon Jul 07, 2014 7:53 am Re: 440 hz to 432 hz - sounding more natural?

GeckoYamori wrote:They're both wrong. 420hz is optimal. YOLO!


Lies. 444Hz is the one. Unless you're in China, in which case you need to be careful around mirrors and ladders while playing.
No longer blank as Frank
Soundcloud
User avatar
robojam
KVRAF
 
21368 posts since 26 Jul, 2005, from Inside Schroedinger's Cat...or am I...

Postby robojam; Mon Jul 07, 2014 7:56 am Re: 440 hz to 432 hz - sounding more natural?

GeckoYamori wrote:They're both wrong. 420hz is optimal. YOLO!

420 is much more mellow and chilled out, for sure...
Next

Moderator: Moderators (Main)

Return to Music Theory