Conspiracies aside, which do you prefer?

[leftybassman392]

[quote name='dlloyd' timestamp='1493820557' post='3290950']
There's some neat patterns if you start from a "magical frequency" of 3 Hz for a G. The G six octaves above is 192 Hz. A perfect fifth above that is D at 288 Hz and a further perfect fifth is A = 432 Hz.

[/quote]

Not if you use Equal Temperament it isn't!

[JellyKnees]

Check this article out...

[url="http://www.miltonline.com/2014/01/07/hertz-so-good/"]http://www.miltonline.com/2014/01/07/hertz-so-good/[/url]

If you believe 432Hz has some special 'celestial properties' then frankly you are seriously deluded. If you think it sounds better, then good for you. But please don't claim that there is some actual scientific basis for it.

[SpondonBassed]

[quote name='leftybassman392' timestamp='1493806145' post='3290750']
(My emphasis) I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the highlighted remark.
[/quote]

I'm sorry. I am not usually stuck for words but I find it hard to describe the notion.

Think of it this way: Had the OP's clip got the same chap playing but instead of him doing it in two different tunings he just slowed the clip enough to get 332 from a 440 clip I would have little difficulty in accepting that the harmonic relationships are preserved as they are with key changes. If however the chappie plays exactly at the same tempo with different pitches, there isn't the same relationship. Can't happen in fact. I can accept that we humans can not perceive the difference but that is not to say that it does not exist.

That's just how it strikes me. Maybe someone else can put it better than I.

[SpondonBassed]

[quote name='markstuk' timestamp='1493806246' post='3290753']
It's only sort of a standard anyway.. [url="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_pitch"]https://en.m.wikiped...i/Concert_pitch[/url]

Apparently we need to tune to an oboe
[/quote]

Girlfriend's got an oboe... oh no

(Even [i]I[/i] miss Mozzer sometimes)

[SpondonBassed]

[quote name='DaveFry' timestamp='1493812214' post='3290827']
Autistic-pianist-learning-upright-bass here contributing :

I also enjoy sound-to-colour synaesthesia , and I find the colours in 432 more saturated , although I don't expect anyone to believe that now .

@ Leftybassman ; Ambient is not necessarily bound to equal temperament ; he plays solo 7-string fretless .
[/quote]

Sound-to-colour synaesthesia's something that fascinates me. I may have had a similar experience on drugs as a youth but for the most part I can't experience that sensory crossover myself. Do you enjoy it as a matter of course or does it become an inconvenience? I mean, I think I feel a slight difference in mood between 440 and 332 but I can only perceive it in a comparison. You say you can actually see a difference! I'd say that's a great talent to have.

[leftybassman392]

[quote name='SpondonBassed' timestamp='1493823172' post='3290987']
I'm sorry. I am not usually stuck for words but I find it hard to describe the notion.

Think of it this way: Had the OP's clip got the same chap playing but instead of him doing it in two different tunings he just slowed the clip enough to get 332 from a 440 clip I would have little difficulty in accepting that the harmonic relationships are preserved as they are with key changes. If however the chappie plays exactly at the same tempo with different pitches, there isn't the same relationship. Can't happen in fact. I can accept that we humans can not perceive the difference but that is not to say that it does not exist.

That's just how it strikes me. Maybe someone else can put it better than I.
[/quote]

First off, I assume you mean 432 rather than 332. Tiny pedantic point.

Secondly, in fact there is the same relationship - precisely the same in ratio terms: that's just how scales work. Sorry if that appears pedantic and dull but numbers are numbers, and that's just how they work in this situation. In all honesty I can't think what else you might mean, and I'm really not trying to be confrontational or picky. Perhaps an example:

(procedural note: I'll use Just Intonation 'cos the numbers are easier to appreciate for non-mathematicians, but it works in exactly the same way with Equal Temperament)

If you play A at 440Hz, and then play a perfect fifth above it you get an E at 660Hz. The ratio E:A is 660:440 = 3:2 = 1.5:1

If you play A at 432Hz, and then play a perfect fifth above it you get an E at 648Hz. The ratio E:A is 648:432 = 3:2 = 1.5:1



[b]Edit to add[/b]: In Equal Temperament E comes out as 659.26 and 647.27 respectively, and the ratio comes out as 1.498:1 in both cases

Edited May 3, 2017 by leftybassman392

[Owen]

Germany goes for 443 on the classical scene. I have a friend who spoke of a guy he knew who went over there to play with a quartet. He tuned to his tuner (440) but realised something was very wrong very soon into the 1st piece. How they must have laughed.

[SpondonBassed]

[quote name='leftybassman392' timestamp='1493824350' post='3291008']
First off, I assume you mean 432 rather than 332. Tiny pedantic point.

Secondly, in fact there is the same relationship - precisely the same in ratio terms - that's just how scales work. Sorry if that appears pedantic and dull but numbers are numbers, and that's just how they work in this situation. In all honesty I can't think what else you might mean, and I'm really not trying to be confrontational or picky. Perhaps an example:

(procedural note: I'll use Just Intonation 'cos the numbers are easier to appreciate for non-mathematicians, but it works in exactly the same way with Equal Temperament)

If you play A at 440Hz, and then play a perfect fifth above it you get an E at 660Hz. The ratio E:A is 660:440 = 3:2

If you play A at 432Hz, and then play a perfect fifth above it you get an E at 648Hz. The ratio E:A is 648:432 = 3:2
[/quote]

Yes, my mistake, it should have been 432. I have always had this problem with numbers.

No I don't think you're being pedantic but I do think you are overlooking something. Let's say for examples 1 and 2 in the clip we change the scale by lowering A by 8hz. If we do this by slowing down the clip as if it was an analogue recording the tempo changes ever so slightly too. All relationships are preserved. The total number of oscillations in a given bar would remain the same in the resulting examples. If we do this by changing the pitch of the notes but let the tempo and note durations remain the same as it seems they might be in the clip I'd say you get more oscillations per bar for an increase in pitch and less for a decrease.

But I am just your average thicko.

PS: I was assuming that you were describing the relationships in the example where the notes are in a tune but I think you might just be thinking of notes relative to each other but not actually being played.

Edited May 3, 2017 by SpondonBassed

[JellyKnees]

[quote][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]If we do this by changing the pitch of the notes but let the tempo and note durations remain the same as it seems they might be in the clip I'd say you get more oscillations per bar for an increase in pitch and less for a decrease.[/font][/color][/quote]

This would also happen if you changed the key and retained the same baseline pitch. I genuinely don't understand what difference you think this makes to the quality/integrity of the music.

[SpondonBassed]

Never mind, it's probably nothing.

[Vinny]

The biggest difference in the video can probably put down to his guitar, would it not make sense that a guitar maker would build an instrument to sound it's best at 440? (even if they don't build it with any thought of the A pitch)

I'd like to hear the same sort of thing on different instruments, for some reason I get the feeling that windy ones would show different qualities up.

Probably wrong, though.

[JoeEvans]

I was watching (or rather listening to) a John Martyn video on Youtube; afterwards I noticed that it had been put up pitch-shifted to 432 Hz. Lots of people had left comments about how much better it was. I was skeptical but intrigued by how it could make any difference, so I found another video of the same tune and listened to that; I couldn't really tell any difference. Anyway, I wanted to see how big the pitch difference was, so I played both videos at once and it turned out that there was no difference - as far as I could tell the '432' version that everyone loved was exactly the same as the 440 one.
So either I'm wrong in some way (e.g. maybe the 440 version had been ripped from the 432 version and put up again by someone else?) or it's easy for people to delude themselves that one version of a tune sounds better, worse or indeed different in any way from another one.
Maybe someone might do a blind listening session with a friend. Put on really good headphones and get a friend to play 440 and 432 versions of various tunes and see which you prefer. But mix them up, working through maybe ten tunes, and not listening to 440 and 432 versions of the same tune back to back.
i witnessed a similar blind listening session years ago, testing very expensive speaker cable against chunky mains cable. None of the assembled audiophiles could tell the difference.

[Crawford13]

I think YouTube videos definitely aren't the media that will show the difference. I think a lot of the difference will be lost in the compression, then also with videos mainly being mixed to be listened to on phones and tablets.

[JoeEvans]

[quote name='Crawford13' timestamp='1493915751' post='3291840']
I think YouTube videos definitely aren't the media that will show the difference. I think a lot of the difference will be lost in the compression, then also with videos mainly being mixed to be listened to on phones and tablets.
[/quote]
Yes - my point was more that lots of people commenting thought that there was a big difference, but it seemed to me that it hadn't even been pitch-shifted at all and was identical to the version posted as 440. Given that, maybe all perception of any difference is equally unfounded?

[miles'tone]

[quote name='JoeEvans' timestamp='1493917341' post='3291863']

Yes - my point was more that lots of people commenting thought that there was a big difference, but it seemed to me that it hadn't even been pitch-shifted at all and was identical to the version posted as 440. Given that, maybe all perception of any difference is equally unfounded?
[/quote]
Do you mean you couldn't hear any difference between either the a and b guitars on post #1 of this thread?

[Dad3353]

Well, [i]I [/i]couldn't hear any difference. I didn't listen to the speaking stuff, just skipped straight to the playing, and shifted the start point around from one to the other. Which was 440, 432 or anything else in between made no difference to me. I'm a drummer, though, so what would [i]I [/i]know about Hz..?

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='leftybassman392' timestamp='1493824350' post='3291008']
If you play A at 440Hz, and then play a perfect fifth above it you get an E at 660Hz. The ratio E:A is 660:440 = 3:2 = 1.5:1[/quote]

That's nice. Quite chewy. Good value at £6.99

[quote name='leftybassman392' timestamp='1493824350' post='3291008']If you play A at 432Hz, and then play a perfect fifth above it you get an E at 648Hz. The ratio E:A is 648:432 = 3:2 = 1.5:1
[/quote]

That not so much. Restrained nose, hint of raspberry and autumn leaves but an understated finish.

[Twincam]

I heard the difference. I think there was parts of the different pieces that suited both tunings.
Overall 440 I preferred.

Anyhow probably in the mix no one will notice lol.

[SpondonBassed]

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1493938684' post='3292078']
That's nice. Quite chewy. Good value at £6.99



That not so much. Restrained nose, hint of raspberry and autumn leaves but an understated finish.
[/quote]

"Quite chewy" - priceless.

OT, I felt the difference. But then I can't tell the difference between margarine.

Edited May 5, 2017 by SpondonBassed

[SpondonBassed]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1493936531' post='3292057']
Well, [i]I [/i]couldn't hear any difference. I didn't listen to the speaking stuff, just skipped straight to the playing, and shifted the start point around from one to the other. Which was 440, 432 or anything else in between made no difference to me. I'm a drummer, though, so what would [i]I [/i]know about Hz..?
[/quote]

D? Aren't I right in saying that drums are tuned just the same as all instruments? It's something I'd like info on if you'd be kind enough to PM me with some pointers please?

Sorry for the percussive interlude chasps and chappettes. As you were.

Edited May 5, 2017 by SpondonBassed

[lowdown]

[quote name='ivansc' timestamp='1493821632' post='3290961']
A440 appears to have a fuller sound and some reverb added. Cynical old me....
[/quote]

Yes....
And 432 sounded flat.

[Conan]

[quote name='Twincam' timestamp='1493944735' post='3292100']
Overall 440 I preferred.
[/quote]

[JoeEvans]

[quote][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Do you mean you couldn't hear any difference between either the a and b guitars on post #1 of this thread?[/font][/color][/quote]
I don't hear them as qualitatively different, only pitched slightly differently. Sounds like the same guy playing the same guitar to me.
But it's not a proper test because it isn't double blind. He obviously knows which one he's playing and which one he's recording, and given that he believes passionately in 432, it's pretty much a certainty that some of that is coming through in his playing; I would also want independent verification that the eq etc was exactly the same on both.
The way to do this would be to get a guitarist who doesn't have perfect pitch; sit them in a room with a mic, and bring them a whole series of identical guitars, all tuned slightly differently but including one at A=440 and one at A=432. Leave the recording rolling the whole time. Then have someone edit the audio who didn't know which order the guitars were recorded in, and put up the video without captions so the listener doesn't know either.
It's extraordinary how much meaning we bring to what we see and hear. We think of our senses as neutral input, but they aren't - we very much see and hear what we want or expect to see and hear.

Edited May 5, 2017 by JoeEvans

[Andyjr1515]

I think this is a bit like 'do you believe in ghosts'. Is there something tangible and real that people are sensing? Probably. Is their interpretation and explanation of what they are sensing correct? Probably not

The trouble with the purely mathematical approach above, is that, unless you build all of the factors into the equations, it misses out all of the other factors relating to string tension and harmonics and soundboard resonance and harmonics within the soundboard etc, etc, etc.

Anyone who has tap-tuned an acoustic top will confirm that what you do with the braces makes a huge difference to the sound, will probably confess that they don't fully understand exactly where to sand off 0.2mm off a brace for the 'best' result, but that it can make a big difference, and that they broadly end up with a result that is at least in the spectrum of sound they were after. But it will be just very slightly different to the next one they build.

Basic mathematics probably says that the three strings for each note of a piano should be tuned to the same note. Ask a piano tuner. If you do that, it doesn't sound right. So each of the three strings are pitched very slightly different to each other. There is a mathematical explanation, but it's a very complex one

So does tuning an acoustic guitar down part of a semitone make any difference? Absolutely. The harmonic and sub harmonic points will be in slightly different places because the string tension and the resonance points of the top and braces will interact to the changes frequencies.
Will that be better? No....it will just be different.
Will I be able to hear it? Some people will and some people won't. Most people are unlikely to hear it through a basic recording.

[SpondonBassed]

[quote name='JoeEvans' timestamp='1493966597' post='3292142']
I don't hear them as qualitatively different, only pitched slightly differently. Sounds like the same guy playing the same guitar to me.
But it's not a proper test because it isn't double blind. He obviously knows which one he's playing and which one he's recording, and given that he believes passionately in 432, it's pretty much a certainty that some of that is coming through in his playing; I would also want independent verification that the eq etc was exactly the same on both.
The way to do this would be to get a guitarist who doesn't have [size=6]perfect pitch[/size]; sit them in a room with a mic, and bring them a whole series of identical guitars, all tuned slightly differently but including one at A=440 and one at A=432. Leave the recording rolling the whole time. Then have someone edit the audio who didn't know which order the guitars were recorded in, and put up the video without captions so the listener doesn't know either.
It's extraordinary how much meaning we bring to what we see and hear. We think of our senses as neutral input, but they aren't - we very much see and hear what we want or expect to see and hear.
[/quote]

I first heard the term "perfect pitch" when it was said of me in Primary School. I was learning script, recorder and was about to pick up violin. I didn't get to finish what I'd started on that school's curriculum because we emigrated to an education system that was quite different. Music as a subject was not available to me and I lost interest for many years after. As a consequence, I don't really know if I really have the fabled "perfect pitch" or not. I do know that I hear stuff that others don't.

Does such a thing as "perfect pitch" exist? If so, what percentage of the population has it?

Edited May 5, 2017 by SpondonBassed