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

21–30 of 332 posts

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

#21

Post by guitarbill »

nerdponx wrote: post #14
6stringmerc wrote: post #8

Prince 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.

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.

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

#22

Post by finnh »

sp332 wrote: post #15
mediaserf wrote: post #10

440 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...

I love the scene in Adaptation where a tripping Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper harmonize the dial tone chord while talking on the phone.

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

#23

Post by bravo22 »

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…

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.

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

#24

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#25

Post by scottmf »

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…

Perhaps he meant to say the BBC made that choice for that reason. Not that they're necessarily right to do so.

Or perhaps seconds are relevant in the way sound was broadcast.

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

#26

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#27

Post by guitarbill »

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…

To common ways to produce precise oscillating signals are tuned crystals or RC oscilators. In both cases, you're looking at common parts (i.e. standardised to x Hz), and then multiplying or dividing by integer multiples to get to the frequency you want. With a prime number, you'd need a component specifically tuned to that or a multiple of it.

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

#28

Post by meredydd »

VeejayRampay wrote: post #5

As a Frenchman, I chuckled at "In Britain, however, the French standard was interpreted in an erroneous way, due to which British orchestras commonly tuned to A = 439 Hz." NOTE: I hope the word chuckle isn't interpreted as condescending, I only meant that this story is almost a perfect parable for our relationship with Great Britain throughout history, one of mutual defiance and refusal to acknowledge the other party…

As someone with two siblings he loves dearly, never has the phrase "brotherhood of nations" seemed so apt as UK/France.

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

#29

Post by djaychela »

bravo22 wrote: post #23
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…

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?

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

#30

Post by detaro »

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…

From other sources it doesn't seem clear if this actually was considered in the decision, but it describes how they got the tone:

> The B.B.C. tuning-note is derived from an oscillator controlled by a piezo-electric crystal that vibrates with a frequency of one million Hz. This is reduced to a frequency of 1,000 Hz by electronic dividers; it is then multiplied eleven times and divided by twenty-five, so producing the required frequency of 440 Hz. As 439 Hz is a prime number a frequency of 439 Hz could not be broadcast by such means as this (http://www.wam.hr/sadrzaj/us/Cavanagh_440Hz.pdf)

Since 1000 Hz also was (is?) a broadcasted test tone, it makes sense that it is much easier to get perfectly matching 440 and 1000 Hz from the same high-frequency source than it is to get 439 and 1000 Hz. A more precise way of describing the problem is then that it's hard to generate since it doesn't share any divisors with other desired test frequencies.

If they only required 439 Hz they could have just used a slightly differently tuned source oscillator, yes.

Post reply on HN