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

291–300 of 332 posts

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

#291

Post by spraak »

cageek wrote: post #99

[Posted on my blog]( http://www.krisconstable.com/432-hz-vs-440-hz-conspiracy-the... ) While I appreciate Jakub’s breakdown for the reader to get to explaining why the 432 number itself is effectively fabricated for convenience, he eventually states: “_The 432 Hz tuning, the divine tuning of nature itself, is ultimately defined as one vibration per 21279240.2083 periods of radiation of an uncommon chemical element_”…

Thank you! My thoughts exactly - glad to see someone else with the same sentiment

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

#292

Post by totallymike »

timehastoldme wrote: post #242
tpeo wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I'm assuming that the ease or difficulty of recognizing the difference between two notes bears some proportion to difference between their frequencies (the frequency of one minus that of the other), and not just their relative frequencies. The intervals in the 432Hz are "tighter" in the sense that, because the interval they correspond to in 440Hz is smaller for every possible interval, there are more notes in 4…

Ok, I see what you mean. Then most songs would sound 'better' a half-step down, etc.

Look at it like Celsius vs Fahrenheit (this isn't a perfect analogy because both scales measuring the same value, where we're discussing different values, but it'll do).

The boiling point of water in Celsius is 100 degrees, and the freezing point is 0 degrees; in Fahrenheit, 212 and 32, respectively. What's significant is the scale of each unit. 99C is colder than 211 Fahrenheit.

In the case of music, which is all about relative frequencies, establishing A determines the size of the steps. The above poster is proposing that A=432 yields more interesting frequency relationships than A=440. I have no idea.

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

#293

Post by spraak »

thght wrote: post #122

I think it is totally irrelevant what the exact pitch is. I play guitar for over 40 years and I rarely tune my guitar exactly to 432 or 440, instead, I often tune my guitar about a whole note lower because I like the sound of the strings with less tension. Whatever the pitch is, I have my moments playing great and playing terrible. If there is one special quality that might be heavenly then it is the artist composing…

Drop tuning is different than the actual frequency to which the instrument is tuned. You could tune up or down as many steps as you want and you might still be at A=440Hz. To try this you need a chromatic tuner which lets you change the frequency of the A note.

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

#294

Post by MandieD »

rdiddly wrote: post #113
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…

Anywhere in the USA where there's electricity, the frequency we're hearing the most is probably 60Hz and a couple harmonics thereof. It's between B and B-flat. I've been curious for some time now what it would sound like to perform in a scale tempered around that, such as B = 480 (and 60), which translates to A = about 427.6 by my rough calculation. 60 Hz is everywhere, often at a subliminal level, sometimes at an ob…

My middle school band director told us that the hum of the lights was B-flat, but that would make A=453, which is rather high. My Yamaha flute is A=442, which is pretty common. You can always pull a headjoint out (lowers pitch), but there's a limit to how far in you can push it in.

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

#295

Post by nonbel »

sesqu wrote: post #288
nonbel wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"It'd also be crazy hard to keep track of how long a second is at any given moment, since some of the variation is random from tidal forces." I think you could use something like this, which may be accurate enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_equation It may be more accurate to use something like the JPL ephemerides to convert between the two though: https://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/pub/naif/toolkit_docs/FORTRAN/…

If I understand you correctly, you are advocating for defining the second such that its length varies, but its connection to a day does not? And you would also introduce locality to the definition? edit : Or perhaps you meant to tune variably, and not redefine the second. That sounds more sensible, but not as practical.

Here is the scheme which I am thinking may better link timekeeping to biological clocks:

  A day is defined as sunrise to sundown.
  A night is defined as sundown to sunrise.

  Every day consists of 12 hours.
  Every night consists of 12 hours.
  Each hour consists of 60 minutes.
  Each minute consists of 60 seconds.

  There are always 60*60*12 = 43,200 seconds each day and night.
  Within a given day or night every second is of equal length.*

  On the equinox (length of day = length of night) we will have a "base unit" s0.
  At times/places when there is more daylight than that, the duration of a second 
  during the day s_d > s0 and during the night s_n
The second part of what I am suggesting is there may be aesthetic or health benefits to varying periodic phenomenon along with the relative duration of a second. So if frequency is f = cycles/sec and we want to maintain the same numerical value, the f/f0 should scale with s_d/s0 and s_n/s0 (or just s/s0 if we are continuously varying it). Consider if f0 = 432 is ideal at the equinox, and we are wondering about f = 440. I would say that we look for when/where s = 440/432 x s0 x k. Setting the scaling constant k =1 and using an R package that in turn uses noaa sunrise/sunset data[1], I got 3/26/2016 at + 18 degrees latitude. You could do the same calculation in reverse from a given time/latitude to choose a preferred frequency.

[1] http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/

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

#296

Post by fuzzfactor »

djaychela wrote: post #29
bravo22 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

439 being a prime would be an issue if you were up multiplying a lower frequency to generate it, for example using a PLL. However it is such a slow signal that it would be generated by dividing down a higher frequency. For example you can divide it down from an 18 MHz clock. So, nope his claim doesn't make sense.

Would it not just have been created natively using an appropriate osciallator, given that the reference was from 1939?

A truly decent audio oscillator was only available after 1939, when Hewlett & Packard issued their first instrument.

In a 1985 letter, Dave [Packard] described Hewlett's audio oscillator as "the foundation on which Hewlett-Packard Company was able to grow into the largest manufacturer of electronic instruments in the world, the keystone that allowed four and one-half decades of major contributions to electronic measurement technology and equipment."

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

#297

Post by fuzzfactor »

gugagore wrote: post #88
a3n wrote: post #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 elect…

You raise a good point. a second is an arbitrary length, so nothing universally significant about 439 Hz or 432 Hz or etc. However, when you are trying to build a device that oscillates at x Hz, there are engineering-ly sigificant values. For example (as already mentioned) a 1kHz oscillator might be easier to come by. As an additional example, the AC power in the UK is at 50 Hz, a factor of 440 Hz. So there is a free…

AC line frequency has been recognized as a preferred reference for pitch. This is what made Hammond electric clocks the first reliable AC powered timekeepers.

Later, Hammond famously produced electro-mechanical organs referenced to line frequency.

Well, what do you expect from somebody simply following in the creative footsteps of Leonardo DaVinci & Thos. Edison?

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

#298

Post by timehastoldme »

totallymike wrote: post #292
timehastoldme wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I see what you mean. Then most songs would sound 'better' a half-step down, etc.

Look at it like Celsius vs Fahrenheit (this isn't a perfect analogy because both scales measuring the same value, where we're discussing different values, but it'll do). The boiling point of water in Celsius is 100 degrees, and the freezing point is 0 degrees; in Fahrenheit, 212 and 32, respectively. What's significant is the scale of each unit. 99C is colder than 211 Fahrenheit. In the case of music, which is all ab…

Well... It doesn't. The same ratios exist for A=440:A=440 * 3/2 and A=432:A=432 : 3/2, for example

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

#299

Post by nkrisc »

ptaipale wrote: post #120
costcopizza wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The one whose inheritance is next squandered on highly priced meditation chakra recordings and excessively expensive hoax high-end audio equipment? (From Youtube to purchasing mail order junk...)

Who's to say you're going to inherit anything anyway? Maybe they've willed it all to charity.

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

#300

Post by teilo »

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…

Thank you. This is the part of the conversation that gets drowned out by the taoy-wowy numerology crap.

If memory serves, a number of opera singers, including Pavoratti, were lobbying for a change of the international standard to 432. I thought this was a bit foolish, as the problem is better addressed by simply agreeing to adopt an alternate tuning for those pieces that would benefit from it.

Post reply on HN