n=33? main outcome measures just at, or not even meeting statistical significance. Meh. It’s an interesting, but still open, question though.
The only takeaway from the study was that it warranted a similar study with more participants.
Music Tuned to 440 Hz versus 432 Hz and Health Effects (2019)
81–90 of 93 posts
Re: Music Tuned to 440 Hz versus 432 Hz and Health Effects (2019)
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get your pun. Am I missing something?
The joke, intentional or not, is that he has not farmed enough karma to downvote.
Everybody knows that organically grown downvotes are healthier for the commons.
Alas, dang is firmly in the pocket of big karma.
Re: Music Tuned to 440 Hz versus 432 Hz and Health Effects (2019)
#83Earlier 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.
Sorry, that wasn't my point but I haven't made it clear.
432 vs 440, independently of any unit, makes the math easier.
432Hz vs 440Hz, obviously, is two pitches that form an audible interval.
But 432 can be a valuable explaining tool. Just don't read it as Hz, but Hz' (prime), cycles per s', such that 432Hz' = 440Hz.
That's about as far as I'm willing to defend 432.
Re: Music Tuned to 440 Hz versus 432 Hz and Health Effects (2019)
#84Another hilarious indictment of our academic peer review system
this wasn't peer reviewed. most papers aren't.
individual papers getting through would hardly be an indictment besides. people make too much fuss over slips
the idea that a system would never pass a single mistake or is otherwise defective is kind of surprising to me, frankly
Re: Music Tuned to 440 Hz versus 432 Hz and Health Effects (2019)
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As an avid vaporwave listener, I’d wager that listening to music slowed down / pitched down has a calming psychological effect in general. 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
(3 minutes * (440 / 432 - 1)) * 24 FPS = 80 frames You're not wrong that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference as long as you don't have perfect pitch (it's a fraction of a semitone), but you might want to check your math.
you're right, i misplaced a decimal two steps
sorry
Re: Music Tuned to 440 Hz versus 432 Hz and Health Effects (2019)
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dissonant with any western music that might be playing in the key of C.
B is in the key of C. It's the seventh degree of the scale. It's the seventh of the I chord and the 3rd of the V chord and more. That's not dissonant in any way, shape or form. Nevermind that obviously music is written in more keys than C anyway.
Play a B and C together. Dissonance. It is true it's not a very good idea.
Re: Music Tuned to 440 Hz versus 432 Hz and Health Effects (2019)
#87I'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?
> Dissonant tones are associated with anxiety.
is this true in all cultures?
Re: Music Tuned to 440 Hz versus 432 Hz and Health Effects (2019)
#88I'd be more curious on if (coined) 8D music has any actual effect on ADHD/autistic brains. Personally, I feel it calms me, but I can't say if it actually is making me more focused or affecting depression or if it's just placebo. Some sort of real study would be nice...
Unfortunately the greatest effect comes from eyes-closed listening, as the music sort of swirls around me, so the movements it illicits almost feels like I'm floating, it loses effect if I'm not really just all-in on listening. I.e. it doesn't seem to do much if I don't think as background noise while coding, but it could help clear my head at the end of the day so I focus better the next day or don't deal with insomnia.
Re: Music Tuned to 440 Hz versus 432 Hz and Health Effects (2019)
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
B is in the key of C. It's the seventh degree of the scale. It's the seventh of the I chord and the 3rd of the V chord and more. That's not dissonant in any way, shape or form. Nevermind that obviously music is written in more keys than C anyway.
Play a B and C together. Dissonance. It is true it's not a very good idea.
A CMaj7 chord has both a B and a C in it and it sounds perfectly fine. You're saying the home chord in the key with the simplest extension is dissonant. That makes no sense. You hear music with two adjacent semitones played together all the time. It's in all jazz music and everything derived from it, which is a huge chunk of modern western music.
Seriously, music isn't all just 3-note chords and a B and a C together sound perfectly fine in the right context, and even moreso when they are separated by several octaves, as in the mains hum theory.
Re: Music Tuned to 440 Hz versus 432 Hz and Health Effects (2019)
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is, but I'm sure the audible artifacts introduced by a pitch shifter would outweigh any perceptual effects due to the change in tuning. It has to be one of the two - either the lower-frequency music is fractionally slower or it has been modified in a non-transparent way - I don't think the article tells us which. There seem to be other things the article doesn't tell us, such as how the authors verified that the m…
You can transparently slow music without changing the pitch or pitch music without changing the tempo far more than 2%, which was what was done here. This technology has been in use by DJs spinning CDs since the 90s and is also used in music production. Depending on the source material, you can actually double the pitch or tempo with no artifacts.
There is no way to do this with no artifacts; it's just fundamental to how audio works. We have pretty good algorithms for it, but in the end you're doing psychoacoustics to try to make it sound good. There's no mathematical model for doing this "perfectly" like there is for resampling.
It's not hard to hear the artifacts in DJ tempo stretch algorithms if you listen closely, especially when they are applied to a full mix (as opposed to single instruments). Of course they're small these days, but when you're trying to measure a subtle effect, they're too much of a confounding variable.