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

61–70 of 332 posts

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

#61

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#62

Post by ssttoo »

dragonshine wrote: post #51

I have met some very competent musicians who have found 432 tuning to be powerfully effective. When I dug into this, I discovered they were tuning the other notes in the scal to frequencies in whole numbered cycles per second, using tables being passed around. So the real change was in the qualities of intervals ; many of these became far more resonant than the compromised resonant qualities we get with equal tempere…

could also be about the instruments, say a violin built in the olden times tuned differently so the tension of the strings is different and the body accentuates certain harmonics in a certain way...

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

#63

Post by genericpseudo »

na85 wrote: post #58
Normal_gaussian wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Brit, my reaction to a Frenchman is one of disgust as I reach for my insults. Yet there are few countries I would turn to so quickly in the search for a sane and good friend. Perhaps it is easiest to say: Where the USA has Russia, we have France. Where the USA has Canada, we have France.

Does it work the other way? I'm Canadian and a huge part of our culture is defined by the ways we are unlike Americans. Can't imagine Anglo-French culture works quite like that.

Oh, England and France are entirely about the narcissism of small differences. (Also England and Scotland, hence the Auld Alliance of Scotland and France.)

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

#64

Post by code_duck »

I use all different sizes of strings and tensions and tunings for my basses and guitars. ALL of the Western 12 note musical system is a social construct, not something innate to music, and other than what audiences and musicians are accustomed to, it makes no difference what tuning you use. Just like bands can play songs slightly faster or slower live, they can also transpose the pitch a half step or two, or a semitone in whatever direction, without most people consciously noticing. And it could have a beneficial effect on a song, or not. Exact tuning just doesn't matter to people without perfect pitch - relative pitch matters.

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

#65

Post by chimeracoder »

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…

> I have never performed at a pitch higher than 440. I'm sure it happens sometimes, but I think it's more of a niche thing.

In addition to varying by era of music, as you mention, this also varies by country. My violin teacher had done a lot of traveling and performing in different countries. She told me that, in one country[0], she was given criticism that her tuning was off in her solos. She realized that they were using A=445, and their ears were trained on that, so everything she played solo sounded flat to them[1]. Once she discovered this, it was an easy "problem" to fix!

[0] I wish I remember which countries - I think Austria and Germany? I can't be sure. I'm almost postive it's not Russia, because I think A=435/438 is more common there - or at least was at the time.

[1] It's only really relevant for solos, because for a trained violinist playing in an orchestra, tuning is done by ear. So a professional violinist would adjust to the tuning used by the group without really thinking about it.

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

#66

Post by patwolf »

I always liked the idea of standardizing on notes with the formula Cx = 2^(x+4)Hz. In reality it's fairly arbitrary, but in this method the frequency would follow numbers familiar to programmers, e.g.

C5 = 512Hz C6 = 1024Hz C7 = 2048Hz

In such a method, 'A' would be closer to 431Hz, so slightly flatter than the 440 we use now.

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

#67

Post by tjr »

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.

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

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

#68

Post by bravo22 »

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?

It would still have been divided down. There aren't many "Hz" oscillators. They're all usually in KHz/MHz range.

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

#70

Post by masklinn »

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?

Maybe but it'd have been significantly more complex, here they could take a MHz piezo-electric crystal and tack on a few electronic multipliers and dividers (/1000 *11 /25) to get the desired frequency.
Post reply on HN