Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Into the 432 Hz rabbit hole (Read 5554 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Into the 432 Hz rabbit hole

Came across this article on the 432 Hz movement.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fring...standard-tuning

Quote
“432 Hz is a vibration that has to be spread around the world.” For him, it’s not just pleasant to the ear; it’s a profound key capable of unlocking mysteries on the level of consciousness itself.

Yanakiev is a particularly spirited member of a fringe community of musicians and listeners who believe there’s something more “natural,” “truer,” and generally in tune with the universe, when the A note above middle C, long the keynote against which instruments are tuned, is set to vibrate at 432 cycles per second, or Hertz, as opposed to the Western universal 440.


Quote
now, walking among you, there are rational human  beings who believe that the Western psyche has been antagonized by Nazi mood depressants for 75 years and counting

I knew about this 432 Hz thing before, but this article goes pretty in depth about it.

Also:

Quote
Please

Go and read more about it.

It's more than spiritual, it is
Scientifically and
mathematically proved.


Yeah, that'll make me click on the video.

Into the 432 Hz rabbit hole

Reply #1 –
Just some "new age" non-sense. I  actually like this kind of silly new age,  to some extent (i.e I listen to album  that are supposed to improve health or whatever).
But this story of 432 hz is encountering a strong resistance from my skeptic mind, so I won't have any of the placebo benefits .
A similar story, is the "solffeggio frequencies" , that was popularized by Jonathan Goldman,  it seems.
There's one frequency supposed to repair the DNA, so you'd see people listening to very annoying  drones on youtube, and rave about it.
I  fall for  a recording supposed to "release guilt" based on 396 hz, but the recording is not that bad by itself (few gregorian chants, slow synth etc).

Into the 432 Hz rabbit hole

Reply #2 –
Would be an annoying to the musician if that A you play is a passing note jumps out and strikes a chord with universe.

Into the 432 Hz rabbit hole

Reply #3 –
Could 432 Hz be close to calm human voice (probably female?) ?
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung

Into the 432 Hz rabbit hole

Reply #4 –
Quote from: smok3 on
Could 432 Hz be close to calm human voice (probably female?) ?


Closer than 440 Hz? Hard to imagine the difference being significant.

Into the 432 Hz rabbit hole

Reply #5 –
The stuff further down the page about non Equal Temperament tuning is far more interesting and significant. EDIT: you can hear examples here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_tunin...chromatic_scale
...that piece being a killer example of why we don't use them any more. They can work for simpler pieces of music which don't stray into other keys too much. Some pieces of music were written with non equal temperament tuning in mind, and don't sound at all like the composer wanted with "modern" Equal Temperament tuning. We're culturally conditioned to Equal Temperament tuning now though.

The article hits a very HA-like rational note () about 432Hz towards the end.

Cheers,
David.

Into the 432 Hz rabbit hole

Reply #6 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
The stuff further down the page about non Equal Temperament tuning is far more interesting and significant.
It doesn’t seem very useful when it only cites ratios and doesn’t actually explain the differences in practical terms (key changes, stretched octaves, and so on)… or did I miss another bit?

Quote
It’s this section that’s grown into the lifeblood of the entire movement: that tones inherently affect emotions and that some tones produce more desirable effects than others. She reports that whenever she played the tones C=128 Hz against the standard C=130.828 Hz, people overwhelmingly (as in, over 90 percent of test-takers) preferred the former.
I’m going to go ahead and assume these tests were sighted and enthusiastically prompted. ‘Don’t you agree this other tone sounds so much more nice?’

Quote
By her accounts, subjects not only preferred Steiner’s prescribed tuning standards, but described their experience of his tones in terms like “harmonized with the human being,” “sunlike,” and “that it awakened trust.”

Conversely, the pitch standards, octaves of A440 and C261.565, reportedly sounded “irritating and unpleasant,” and “oppressive”. One particularly colourful respondent said “that the sound made one forebode evil, that it droned behind the ear and under the roof of the cranium, as if it wanted to force one out of one’s head.”
I’m out

Into the 432 Hz rabbit hole

Reply #7 –
Just speeding up or slowing down recordings of "real" instruments to hit a different pitch isn't necessarily the same as playing those instruments at a different pitch. I'm not saying the difference has to be audible, but it may with, say, the human voice. I don't know what the threshold would be for noticing that a recording has been re-pitched rather than played at a different pitch; it probably needs a bigger change than 2% though. Yet if you have to record the whole thing twice with two pitches to be sure of doing the comparison properly, how are you ever going to ensure that only the pitch is different?

What this means is A/B comparisons using recordings of "real" instruments, even properly blinded, can give misleading results - either because you are pitch shifting the same recording (which could sound "wrong" at the new pitch), or because you have other differences in addition to the pitch.

With synthetic instruments, it's easy, assuming the synthesis is fairly dumb.


I don't doubt that people can ABX the difference and express a preference, but I don't buy into all the rest of it. Apart from anything else, it seems to me that people often prefer the higher pitched version. Look how concert pitch as risen over the years (vast oversimplification, but generally true). Look at how (back in the all analogue era) most record decks and tape players played slightly too fast.

Cheers,
David.

Into the 432 Hz rabbit hole

Reply #8 –
That’s an interesting different angle to take, but I doubt it explains what we’re reading here  Of course, a qualitative difference in timbre can emerge from playing a different pitch vs. time-stretching, at least if the change is sufficiently extreme, but it doesn’t lead necessarily to the sorts of wild quantitative differences cited. The cause would seem to be expectation/suggestion bias, or – the interesting option – psychological predilection for certain pitches/directionalities.

Into the 432 Hz rabbit hole

Reply #10 –
A equal temperament C# is less than four cents from a just temperament C# @ 432Hz. Yet no one raves about this particular note...

Into the 432 Hz rabbit hole

Reply #11 –
sigh! Such BS as the one linked to in the OP, is more akin to scientological evidence rather than good olde,  scientifical one, as we've grown so used to, here at HA.
Listen to the music, not the media it's on.
União e reconstrução

Into the 432 Hz rabbit hole

Reply #12 –
I know it's BS of course, but nevertheless I found it an interesting read, it's a good article all in all.