61–70 of 93 posts
This is the only thing you need to really watch about this nonsense: https://youtu.be/EKTZ151yLnk
Funny how we all know the YouTube video is more credible than the peer-reviewed study. If I had to explain why to a stranger I'd really struggle.
I've wondered about the effects of 60 cycle hum. If 440 is an A, I believe 60 is a B. In a lot of popular musical scales this is a dissonant tone. Dissonant tones are associated with anxiety. Is constant 60 cycle hum giving people anxiety?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny how we all know the YouTube video is more credible than the peer-reviewed study. If I had to explain why to a stranger I'd really struggle.
The study makes no claims about why 432Hz is better, it just reports what they measured. I listened to the examples in the video myself and the 432Hz version really did feel about 1.0185 times as relaxing.
I tried to reproduce your result but I came out with 1.0815 times as relaxing. Are you sure you didn't commit a transcription error -- I doubled-checked mine.
Also: I had the BASS BOOST turned on my $9 bookshelf speakers while I listened. Did you have BASS BOOST on or off?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The length of the second is irrelevant. 432 makes the math easier by virtue of being more easily factorable, with no incidence as to what's heard.
You are just wrong. Musicians can absolutely tell the difference between 432Hz and 440Hz. Audience typically can too, although they might not be able to put into words what is different. Personally, I prefer a brighter concert-A, 444 or higher.
This has been discussed before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29849033 It's a very, very bad study. If you want to know how bad: it would lend equal support to the hypothesis "everyone's heart rate drops 4.8bpm in one day".
Jeesh, I wondered about that confounding variable but dismissed it, thinking surely they would have the sense to split their subjects so that half did 440 the first day and half did 432 the first day. It seems completely unsurprising that one would be slightly more relaxed the second day than the first. Edit: In another comment someone mentions that this study was split the way I would have expected so hopefully they…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are just wrong. Musicians can absolutely tell the difference between 432Hz and 440Hz. Audience typically can too, although they might not be able to put into words what is different. Personally, I prefer a brighter concert-A, 444 or higher.
Doubtful the audiences can, unless maybe they just heard another piece in 440 for comparison. Maybe those with good pitch memory would notice something before they readjusted. Maybe.
The fact that music tuned to 432 Hz might sound slightly off to listeners might explain the change in attention, which in turn might explain the change in heart rate. It would have been helpful measure other tuning values like 430 or 445 Hz to determine if it's caused by 432 Hz specifically.
I have ABXed myself with half-hour gaps on music re-tuned to 432, and music re-turned to 432, then 440, to control for that it has to sound like it's been retuned.
I have Audeze planar magnetics and a relatively quiet apartment.
I'm not able to tell the difference, even on music I listen to very frequently.
It's all horseshit.
As an avid vaporwave listener, I’d wager that listening to music slowed down / pitched down has a calming psychological effect in general. In other words, 432hz is not some magic number, it’s better because it’s lower.
slowing something down from 440 to 432 that's three minutes long will result in less than 1 screen frame of difference time
you wouldn't be able to tell the difference