True Qwghlmanian tuning is far superior.
True, but banging a silver spoon on an aged stoat is problematic.
I can never find the right spoon.
The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory
11–20 of 332 posts
Re: The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory
#12Here's the rant I posted to Facebook when someone posted about this a couple of years ago. The site that was on Facebook 404s, including the Wayback Machine, so I can't share all the craziness: The simplest argument against this is the casual way your typical garage bands tune. Not everyone is busting out the tuners and dialing up 440 Hz, when the guitar player figures out they're out of tune with the bass they just…
> The simplest argument against this is the casual way your typical garage bands tune. Not everyone is busting out the tuners and dialing up 440 Hz, when the guitar player figures out they're out of tune with the bass they just tune up to wherever they're at. With strings stretçhing, drop D tuning, and tuning down a half step, most bands would have hit the 'magic' 432 Hz every other practice and would have stayed there if it had any special properties. And this isn't just me and my buddies in the garage but musicians of nearly every style, genre, and background around the world. We'd revolt if we found our magic 432 Hz and then some clown brought a keyboard in that was at 440 Hz. This simply doesn't happen.
I don't really understand what you're saying here. If you tune casually by ear, then of course when a digital keyboard comes in at 440 you will be off. Maybe higher, maybe lower. But you will be off. Unless you're saying 440 has some "special properties"...
Re: The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory
#13Here's the rant I posted to Facebook when someone posted about this a couple of years ago. The site that was on Facebook 404s, including the Wayback Machine, so I can't share all the craziness: The simplest argument against this is the casual way your typical garage bands tune. Not everyone is busting out the tuners and dialing up 440 Hz, when the guitar player figures out they're out of tune with the bass they just…
"So a 432 Hz retune might be just the thing to mellow out to."
I occasionally like to pitch-shift my music by up to a minor third. It's not enough to introduce much distortion and it can make it, if not fresh, at least something you listen to again.
(Unfortunately, the intersection of music players that make that easy and music players I want to use seems to be empty.)
Re: The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory
#14Prince was also big into the 432 Hz thing vs. 440. 432 on guitar feels a little nicer overall but I like to play along to radio / DJ mixes for fun & practice and being at 432 feels off to me, so I stick with 440. 432 is good on acoustic, but then again open tuning sounds good on acoustic no matter if using 432 or 440.
I like playing bass tuned slightly flat because I have tiny hands and it's easier to play with less tension.
Re: The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory
#15440 Hz is also the standard telephone dial tone in the US.
Dial tones are a chord of 440 and 350 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precise_Tone_Plan This follows on from DTMF's use of pairs of tones for signalling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-tone_multi-frequency_sign...
Re: The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory
#16Here's the rant I posted to Facebook when someone posted about this a couple of years ago. The site that was on Facebook 404s, including the Wayback Machine, so I can't share all the craziness: The simplest argument against this is the casual way your typical garage bands tune. Not everyone is busting out the tuners and dialing up 440 Hz, when the guitar player figures out they're out of tune with the bass they just…
Last I checked keyboards default to 440hz, and most crappy tuning tools default to 440hz too.
So it is normal for everyone to drift towards 440hz... to use 432hz in current era, it is necessary to purpusefully tune for it, including retuning digital instruments (keyboards, synths, etc...)
Re: The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory
#17Here's the rant I posted to Facebook when someone posted about this a couple of years ago. The site that was on Facebook 404s, including the Wayback Machine, so I can't share all the craziness: The simplest argument against this is the casual way your typical garage bands tune. Not everyone is busting out the tuners and dialing up 440 Hz, when the guitar player figures out they're out of tune with the bass they just…
> The simplest argument against this is the casual way your typical garage bands tune. Not everyone is busting out the tuners and dialing up 440 Hz, when the guitar player figures out they're out of tune with the bass they just tune up to wherever they're at. With strings stretçhing, drop D tuning, and tuning down a half step, most bands would have hit the 'magic' 432 Hz every other practice and would have stayed the…
They're saying that if 432 Hz had special properties, then they'd randomly hit upon it because of the random drift of tuning, and notice that it was better than other tunings; if the keyboardist then came along and insisted on 440 Hz, they'd revolt because it was worse.
But they DON'T revolt, because 432 Hz is no better or worse than 440, 450, 429, 490, or anything else in that range.
Re: The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory
#18Just wait until the conspiracy nuts learn about the tunings that affect the distance between notes, not just the shift!
(I'm surprised my double music major is useful somewhere).
Re: The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory
#19> the BBC required their orchestras to tune to 440 Hz instead of 439 Hz because 439 is a prime number, and the corresponding frequency is hard to generate electronically.
I followed, until this. Earlier he debunks the significance of 432 per second (including that it's a sum of four consecutive primes), because a second is an arbitrary length of time. But now he says that 439 per second is difficult to generate electronically, because it's prime.
I'm not an EE. I'm willing to believe, but could a knowledgeable someone help us out here?
Re: The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory
#20Prince was also big into the 432 Hz thing vs. 440. 432 on guitar feels a little nicer overall but I like to play along to radio / DJ mixes for fun & practice and being at 432 feels off to me, so I stick with 440. 432 is good on acoustic, but then again open tuning sounds good on acoustic no matter if using 432 or 440.
I like playing bass tuned slightly flat because I have tiny hands and it's easier to play with less tension.
I recently switched to nylon wrapped strings... they also have lower tension. But I mostly did it because I play a lot of americana / folk / rockabilly / blues / jazz and wanted a better slap sound.
Unfortunately they sound terrible arco so now I have to play cello when I play in my wife's orchestra. :(
[edit] it occurs to me that you're talking about electric bass... in which case nylon strings would be a bit strange ;) sorry about that.