Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory

jakubmarian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 332 posts

Re: The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory

#221

Post by hunter2_ »

jefurii wrote: post #195
soundwave106 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tunings (whether by key shift or by reference frequency or whatever other means) can evoke a different sort of feeling and mood in music IMHO. Music is such a personal thing in so many ways, so even though the "beneficial healing energy" / "pure tone of math fundamental to nature" thing is kind of BS, I'll allow a little out there mystical pseudobabble. :) It's just a pity in a way that the mystical BS focuses only o…

> There is no science that can explain this sort of thing that I know of, and I fully expect that others would have different interpretations. The article had a pretty good explanation: that strings sound different at different tensions. Musical instruments tuned lower would sound darker, mellower, and "looser" than those tuned higher. The instruments would probably feel a little different to the musicians, who would…

This is exactly it. If you have two identical pianos, both precisely equally tempered, but one tuned a half step lower, and then you played notes of the same pitch on both pianos (the notes are a half step apart, the pitch is not), they will sound different. Disregarding all the differences surrounding the natural wood and other materials, and the fact that it's impossible to use the same velocity, and the pianos aren't in the same exact position relative to the room, and everything like that -- you will be left with just the differences that have to do with tension.

On an FFT graph, you'll have the same fundamental and a very similar next few partials, but eventually you'll see (and hear) the results of the different tensions. Those differences represent what people like and don't like about different tunings -- nothing to do with the slightly different pitch between 440/442/438/432/etc!

Re: The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory

#222

Post by nerdponx »

scarecrowbob wrote: post #20
nerdponx wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 strang…

I was talking about electric. But thanks for reminding me to play my upright now and then! Poor thing needs some TLC... and a much lower bridge.

Re: The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory

#223

Post by colomon »

clay_to_n wrote: post #203
analog31 wrote: post #98

An amusing aside: As I understand it, a lot of rock bands use "drop" tuning, in which the guitars and electric bass are tuned down by a semitone or more. Explanations on web forums vary, but tend to revolve around the range of the typical male singer, as well as a preference for a more "heavy" sound.

This is true, but in drop tunings (and most alternate guitar tunings) the instrument is still usually tuned to 440 Hz - each string is just tuned to a different note in a 440 Hz scale.

It's a somewhat interesting question. One of my favorite recent albums [1] is at A = 366Hz. That's literally the case (the A string on the fiddle is tuned to 366Hz), but of course you could argue the whole thing is transposed down a minor third and then tuned to A = 435 or so.

[1] https://soundcloud.com/nicolaslbrown/sets/alison-and-nicks-t...

Re: The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory

#224

Post by nerdponx »

tjr wrote: post #67
nerdponx wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like playing bass tuned slightly flat because I have tiny hands and it's easier to play with less tension.

If electric bass (or maybe even if not) try Thomastik-Infeld strings, especially the flatwound strings.

Never heard of this brand. DR has been my go-to for years and recently gave Rotosound a try after going on a Yes bender. Thanks for the tip.

Re: The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory

#225

Post by nerdponx »

guitarbill wrote: post #21
nerdponx wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like playing bass tuned slightly flat because I have tiny hands and it's easier to play with less tension.

Like the article says, just getting lighter gauge strings is just as easy and keeps you in tune. I play guitar, and the Ernie Ball Slinkys work well for me.

Fair, although this is something I discovered mostly through picking up and playing my bass without bothering to tune it, or than something I do on purpose.

Re: The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory

#226

Post by triplesec »

mrb wrote: post #108
anigbrowl wrote: post #76

I have been following this for years, being both a sound engineer and a bit of a hippie who knows a lot of other hippies. The basic issue is that 432 is a numerologically interesting number compared to 440. So if it's more interesting it should be better for artistic purposes, goes the argument. However this falls flat as soon as you consider that the 432 is only interesting relative to the completely arbirtrary dura…

"if you take a track and play it a little bit faster or slower it still sounds great or awful as at the default speed in most cases." Yup. Another example: in most of the world (where the television system is PAL or SECAM) movies are played on TV or released on DVD at 25 frame per second. But to achieve this frame rate, they take the theatrical film release at 24 fps and speed the video and audio up by 25/24th (4.17%…

This explains the years of confusion I've suffered noticing sharp pianos in films. I could never work out what was wrong with American film pianos! Thank you, seriously.

Re: The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory

#227

Post by hunter2_ »

ohthehugemanate wrote: post #170
haberman wrote: post #43

> orchestras specializing in older music may sometimes tune in the tuning close to the one for which the piece was originally written, which may range from 415 Hz to 470 Hz). I can say as someone who performs a lot of Baroque music (c. 1600 - 1750) that there is a relatively common standard of A=415 for music of this period. A=415 is often referred to as "Baroque pitch." This mainly applies to ensembles that speciali…

Opera singer here - you must be playing in North America. In Germany tunings range from 436 to 444, depending on what you're playing. Most theaters tune to 442. One thing that gets opera singers (like me) up in a knot about this, is that the human voice is not a tune-able instrument. There are registration issues in fixed frequency ranges, which we can't change. At A440, a register shift happens a quarter tone lower…

As a classically trained but relatively amateur singer, and professional audio engineer, this fascinates me because I would've thought such breaks vary enough from person to person that it wouldn't be possible for a composer/conductor to expect it to be somewhere with anything like quarter-tone precision. Cool!

Re: The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory

#228

Post by droidist2 »

hammock wrote: post #193
phire wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course almost nobody knows this because nobody notices it. Though, I can now instantly tell if I'm watching a PAL or NTSC version of Star Trek TNG based on the the first few bars of the opening song. Which is weird, because I don't even have pitch perfect hearing and I'm not even that musically inclined.

You can train your brain to remember pitches. Try humming your favorite song, then play it and see if you picked the right key. I did this as a game with a friend one afternoon with maybe 80% success rate across 50 songs.

Does that mean you can train yourself to have perfect pitch?

Re: The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory

#229

Post by hammock »

droidist2 wrote: post #228
hammock wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can train your brain to remember pitches. Try humming your favorite song, then play it and see if you picked the right key. I did this as a game with a friend one afternoon with maybe 80% success rate across 50 songs.

Does that mean you can train yourself to have perfect pitch?

That seems like a logical conclusion

Re: The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory

#230

Post by brazzledazzle »

costcopizza wrote: post #83
dmix wrote: post #46

Decided to try searching this and found this lovely site: > A=432 Hz, known as Verdi’s ‘A’ is an alternative tuning that is mathematically consistent with the universe. Music based on 432Hz transmits beneficial healing energy, because it is a pure tone of math fundamental to nature https://attunedvibrations.com/432hz/ Oh new age pseudo science. My mom loves this stuff and I never fully understood why. My sister gets…

Eh-- pick your battles. If family members get a positive placebo effect from listening to "5 Hours High Quality BEST 432hz Meditation Healing Chakra" on YouTube...Who cares?

I think the problem is the mindset. And it's slowly spreading because it's considered rude to challenge it. It's this mindset that leads to unvaccinated children and the use of amber jewelry[0] that's a choking and strangulation hazard on infants and toddlers because amber has supposed magical healing properties. That article is from late 2013 and if anything it's more prevalent.

[0] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/11/amber-teething-neck...

Post reply on HN