I have changed a songs pitch using soundtouch plugin from 440 hz to 432 hz. Is it possible to determine a songs pitch so that i can confirm it's at 432 hz?
any answer is appreciated.
I don't think a computer program can do that... A song doesn't have a single pitch. Each note has a pitch.
A song can be played in (or transposed to) a particular key. I'm not a musician, but to determine the key of a song, I think it takes a musician with a tuned instrument (or someone with perfect pitch). As I understand it, the key is a "musical foundation" or "starting point" for the musical scale choosen for the song. If the artist "follows the rules" (or the tradition) he/she will be constrained to the notes in the choosen scale/key. But, there's really nothing stopping the musician from playing any note at any time (any note that his instrument can play.)
The process you described would pitch-shift the audio so that any frequencies of 440 Hz (concert A pitch) became 432 Hz, and so on (880 Hz becomes 864 Hz, etc.). I'd think you'd need to know the song's original key, then use a manual or automatic (I presume there are programs that can do this) method to determine that of the processed file.
Try Sonic Visualiser (http://www.sonicvisualiser.org/)
(http://www.giantpygmy.net/sections/pause/img/screenshot_sonicvisualizer.png)
EDIT: On second thoughts it probably won't help you, but it does have key detection, and maybe if you look through available plugins you may find something useful.
C.
carpman,
How are you getting key detection with SV (the upper pane of your window)? I downloaded it and don't see it as an obvious menu item. Is it a plugin?
EDIT: never mind, found the Queen Mary VAMP plugin.
I don't think a computer program can do that... A song doesn't have a single pitch. Each note has a pitch.
Not true. Platinum Notes (http://www.platinumnotes.com/) is able to find and adjust pitch of a track if it's off key. A pretty neat feature - However the program does so much other crap-mastering that I wouldn't spend a penny on it. However a pitch-corrector DSP for foobar2000 would be very cool indeed.
As far as I know it's based on zplane tonArt (http://www.zplane.de/index.php?page=description-tonart). You can download a demo and play with - It might actually do what you want.
i can't figure out how to do it. none of the programs work with aac files.
I have changed a songs pitch using soundtouch plugin from 440 hz to 432 hz.
i can't figure out how to do it. none of the programs work with aac files.
How did you change the pitch? Using iTunes or something like that? I suppose you use a DSP while converting or something like that - In that case, you could try converting to wav and input it in the tonArt demo.
However a pitch-corrector DSP for foobar2000 would be very cool indeed.
It seems that already exists http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Au...oundtouch.shtml (http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Audio/Audio-Plugins/foo-dsp-soundtouch.shtml)
How did you change the pitch? Using iTunes or something like that? I suppose you use a DSP while converting or something like that
don't suppouse, read the OP. He already said he used soundtouch plugin.
However a pitch-corrector DSP for foobar2000 would be very cool indeed.
It seems that already exists http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Au...oundtouch.shtml (http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Audio/Audio-Plugins/foo-dsp-soundtouch.shtml)
I was reffering to something more automatic, like Platinum Notes. I already know the SoundTouch plugin.
How did you change the pitch? Using iTunes or something like that? I suppose you use a DSP while converting or something like that
don't suppouse, read the OP. He already said he used soundtouch plugin.
Yet he ended up with an aac-file, and didn't know how to convert to a wav file that tonArt can read?
Google (http://www.google.com/search?q=440+hz+432+hz&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3a%6ffficial&client=firefox-a) brings up an interesting first result (http://dutchpatriot.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/back-to-432-hz/):
432 Hz is the natural “keynote” in the universe, as opposed to 440 Hz, which is the standard in the music nowadays.
What are the advantages of 432 Hz? 432 Hz is nicer for hearing, is softer and brighter than 440 Hz.
432 Hz also prevents hearing damage. You probably know when you hear very loud music, for instance in discos, it can hurt to your ears. With 432 Hz, you have no pain in your ears, at a very loud volume.
432 Hz is more favourable for the chakras too, which has a good influence at the spiritual development of the music-lover.
So, why did
you pitch-shift your music to 432 Hz?
There's also this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLhegBf_TkI) on youtube. It doesn't seem like much of a change, but if you got a good ear and an instrument, you can tune it based on that, and then compare with the song, I guess. It seems easier to me.
That would be another good reason to have a better DSP for foobar2000
I dislike the quality of Soundtouch as it attempts to keep the speed by timestretching. The proper way to do it would be to alter the samplerate accordingly and applying a good resampler in the DSP chain after it. Could even be user-definable, as long as the resampler supports arbitrary samplerates.
Also note that while most music are tuned to that frequency, some might not be pitched correctly for various reasons. Hence my request above, for a pitch-correcting (or detecting) component.
At the moment I've successfully done 432Hz conversions in 3 different ways:
-
Audacity (http://nulpuntenergie.net/index.php/geluid-en-frequenties/230):
However, the instructions here aren't accurate, because it's 432Hz what you want and not 432.186Hz.
(http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/9624/audacity432hz.png)
The only thing you have to do is enter 440 and 432 in the two "Frequency (Hz)" boxes.
Now there's a glitch with Audacity when trying to enter 440 in the left box. You simply can't somehow. There's a workaround though. Press Windows-button+R and type "440". Select it, copy it (ctrl+c) and paste it in the left "Frequency (Hz)" box. Then enter 432 in the right box and after that it should exactly look like the screenshot above.
-
Foobar + foo_dsp_soundtouch (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=46000) or foo_dsp_effect's (http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_dsp_effect) "Pitch Shift":
Simply move the Pitch slider to -0.32 semitones and you're done.
-
Avisynth + TimeStretch()
(internal Avisynth filter) + NicAudio (http://nicaudio.codeplex.com/)
(optional, for AC3,DTS,MP3,WAV) + BassAudio (http://behappy.codeplex.com/)
(optional, for MP3/MP2/MP1/OGG/WAV/AIFF/WMA/FLAC/WavPack/Speex/Musepack/AAC/M4A/APE/MO3/IT/XM/S3M/MTM/MOD/UMX) + foo_input_avs (http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_input_avs)
(optional, to play in Foobar):
Create a text document and copy-paste...
WavSource("Sample.wav") or NicMPG123Source("Sample.mp3") or BassAudioSource("Sample.ogg")
TimeStretch(pitch=432.0/440.0*100.0)Then you can open it with Media Player Classic (DirectShow), play it in Foobar with the before mentioned input plugin, or even feed it to BeHappy.
note 1. The fastest way to get all the needed Avisynth plugins is to install BeHappy and copy the whole plugins directory (which also happens to include NicAudio) to your Avisynth plugins directory.
note 2. I couldn't open lossless audio files (FLAC,WV,APE,...) with BassAudioSource() in combination with foo_input_avs in Foobar at this time.
note 3(!). foo_input_avs always seems to output a 24bit audio stream despite the input being 16bit, but that's another story (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=42705&view=findpost&p=771806)
note 4. I noticed doing 440-432 conversions through Avisynth has the advantage of putting out the exact amount of samples as the input. For instance, the sample I use a lot has 14109060 samples. Audacity produced 14109072 samples, Foobar (with Pitch Shift) 14105970(!), Foobar (with SoundTouch) again 14109072, but Avisynth the same 14109060.
Interesting links:
- The Importance of A=432hz as a concert pitch for music (http://www.omega432.com/music.html)
- The Return to Concert Pitch A=432hz (http://www.omega432.com/concertpitch432.html)
- Maya 2012 Forum - 440hz to 432hz using Audacity :-) (http://maya12-21-2012.com/2012forum/ascension-and-awakening/440hz-to-432hz-using-audacity-%29/)
Interesting links:
- The Importance of A=432hz as a concert pitch for music (http://www.omega432.com/music.html)
- The Return to Concert Pitch A=432hz (http://www.omega432.com/concertpitch432.html)
I don't think these links adequately support the notion that a base of 432Hz is beneficial over 440Hz.
Interesting links:
- The Importance of A=432hz as a concert pitch for music (http://www.omega432.com/music.html)
- The Return to Concert Pitch A=432hz (http://www.omega432.com/concertpitch432.html)
- Maya 2012 Forum - 440hz to 432hz using Audacity :-) (http://maya12-21-2012.com/2012forum/ascension-and-awakening/440hz-to-432hz-using-audacity-%29/)
Lol what
432 Hz is more favourable for the chakras too, which has a good influence at the spiritual development of the music-lover.
So, why did you pitch-shift your music to 432 Hz?
So you laugh about it, but let me show you how serious this really is:
Did you know that - contrary to what the church and wordly authorities want us to believe - all corruption and all evil came into the world when mankind apostatized from the divine truth by changing standard pitch from the divine 432Hz to 440Hz which is in fact
the pitch of the devil?
You don't believe me? Here is the unnerving proof:
If you take the 440Hz of A4 (alpha) and count all the 24 letters/2 octaves of the greek alphabet up to omega (representing the whole of the creation) you end with A6 which is 1760Hz
Substract 440Hz from 1760Hz. You get 1320Hz. Add the digits of that number: 1+3+2+0 = 6.
Now it gets frightening: did you notice that 1320 is in fact 3 times 440Hz?
3 times 440 yields the cross sum of 6.
That's 3 times 6. The number of the beast.
May the Lord have mercy upon us!
Don't fall for the misinformation, 432 * 1.5416̅ = 666! Use π * 140, it's much safer!
Also, those 432 Hz sites look a lot like something you'd expect to read on Time Cube (http://www.timecube.com/).
Don't fall for the misinformation, 432 * 1.5416? = 666! Use ? * 140, it's much safer!
It seems to me that his mind is currupted by listening to 440Hz music for too long. Poor fellow! See what happens! Everybody is complaining about the loudness war but that's just a skirmish compared to the pitch war, which is nothing less than the apocalyptic battle between Good end Evil.
Did you know that the concert pitch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_pitch) did rise and rise throughout the last centuries? The higher the pitch the more direful the wars and disasters all over the world. Did you know that the pitch of 440Hz was finally standardized in 1939 by the German Nazi government?
It's time for a new online campaign to save the world:
Tune it down!
Sorry but I don't trust anyone who believes in math.
note 1. The fastest way to get all the needed Avisynth plugins is to install BeHappy and copy the whole plugins directory (which also happens to include NicAudio) to your Avisynth plugins directory.
note 2. I couldn't open lossless audio files (FLAC,WV,APE,...) with BassAudioSource() in combination with foo_input_avs in Foobar at this time.
I've done some more testing with BassAudioSource() in combination with foo_input_avs and I'd like to revise my quoted statements. It seems foo_input_avs has some more shortcomings...
- When you've copied BeHappy's entire plugins directory (BassAudio.dll, bass.dll and bass_xxx.dll) to your Avisynth's plugins directory, foo_input_avs (and Foobar) will crash immediately upon playing anything through Avisynth! It will also even crash when trying to play an audio file with WavSource() or NicAc3Source() through Avisynth. Simply the presence of BassAudio.dll
and bass.dll in Avisynth's plugins directory will crash Foobar upon
playing anything through Avisynth. It seems foo_input_avs doesn't like non-Avisynth libraries (bass.dll and bass_xxx.dll) in Avisynth's plugins directory.
- foo_input_avs having its way, we can of course load BassAudio.dll from elsewhere: Loadplugin("X:\BeHappy 0.2.5.30809\plugins\BassAudio.dll"). This will let BassAudio.dll load bass.dll (WAV/AIFF/MP3/MP2/MP1/OGG)
1 but somehow NONE of the other bass_xxx.dlls (AAC/M4A/WMA/FLAC/WV/APE/etc)! Dragging an avs-file with BassAudioSource("Sample.flac") into Foobar won't even
load.
1 bass.dll also supports Tracker Audio (MOD/IT/XM/etc), but not through Avisynth. I guess Avisynth is limited to sample audio.All of this happens because of foo_input_avs. Converting an audio file through Avisynth (no matter the ...Source()) with BeHappy works just fine. Playing the avs-file with Media Player Classic works fine too.
So to sum up...
If you want to convert audio files through Avisynth with Foobar, DON'T copy the content of BeHappy's plugins directory to Avisynth's plugin directory! Use Loadplugin("X:\BeHappy 0.2.5.30809\plugins\BassAudio.dll") instead. But even then, you have to settle for WAV/AIFF/MP3/MP2/MP1/OGG support only as far as BassAudio is concerned. Want to convert from FLAC for instance through Avisynth, use BeHappy.
I don't think these links adequately support the notion that a base of 432Hz is beneficial over 440Hz.
In my post I never made that assumption anyway. People should experience it for them selves and make up their own mind about it.
Especially for our Dutch readers: Niburu - The Forgotten Frequency: 432 Hz (http://www.niburu.nl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1161:niburu-new-music-the-forgotten-frequency-432-hz&catid=29:site-mededelingen&Itemid=42)
I even found a website with an English translation of that article: Niburu - The Forgotten Frequency: 432 Hz (http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1054/200/Niburu_New_Music_The_Forgotten_Frequency:_432_Hz.html)
A=432 Hz is not even historically privileged. See for instance http://pbosf.blogspot.com/2009/07/tune-in-...d-title-of.html (http://pbosf.blogspot.com/2009/07/tune-in-baroque-tuning-and-title-of.html) and http://pbosf.blogspot.com/2010/01/story-of...que-pitch.html (http://pbosf.blogspot.com/2010/01/story-of-more-about-baroque-pitch.html;); in the Baroque era, A ranged from the 380s to the 460s (in Venice, always over the top, but perhaps striving upwards to keep afloat).
One need not, of course, engage with the odd idea that the arbitrarily chosen tuning pitch has cosmic resonances.
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1054/200/Ni...cy:_432_Hz.html (http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1054/200/Niburu_New_Music_The_Forgotten_Frequency:_432_Hz.html)
Optimal number of holes to a golf ball as aerodynamic as possible = 432
Now that convinced me!
Apart from all the esoteric speculations which completely ignore the arbitrariness of our basic physical units, the question remains if a lower pitch of 432Hz could actually sound more pleasing. I found an empirical study by the TU Munich (in German) (http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/publ/pdf/03/03fas1.pdf) for which the authors used an automated Steinway to record six pieces (which are thought to had originally been played in a lower pitch) in 440Hz and down tuned in 432Hz. Those pieced were then played to 13 test subjects via headphones which had to evaluate the quality on a scale. The overall result is a statistical tie (see fig. 1), even for most individuals there was no clear preference.
Though there is a reason why the pitch of A crept upwards (and singers had to keep protesting to bring it back down again)--people seem to have thought it "sounded better." Apparently, more tightly stretched strings will put more energy into the harmonics, so they might actually sound brighter if tuned to a higher pitch. Consider it as the 19th c. loudness wars.
Though there is a reason why the pitch of A crept upwards (and singers had to keep protesting to bring it back down again)--people seem to have thought it "sounded better." Apparently, more tightly stretched strings will put more energy into the harmonics, so they might actually sound brighter if tuned to a higher pitch. Consider it as the 19th c. loudness wars.
There's a pretty narrow optimum however, where an instrument is perfectly balanced between sonorous and bright sound qualities. Of course sound aesthetics (and thus instruments!) change over time but I'm sure that even this change this is bound to a certain range confined by anthropological universals. I've experiented with alternate tunings on my guitar but if you tune the strings of a concert guitar more than two semitones above standard tuning the instrument begins to sound thin and harsh because the added tension inhibits too many lower resonances.
The particular question investigated by the authors of the study is whether a Steinberg piano which was originally designed to be tuned around A-432Hz sounds better at this tuning than on the higher tuning used today. The conclusion is that a pitch change of +8Hz seems to be insignificant for the instrument's perceived quality. It would be interesting to know however, if the authors applied any kind of loudness normalization to the recordings.
sonorous and bright sound qualities
Do these terms have (common) definitions? Just asking.
You can't make the blanket assumption that instrument scale (read: string lengths), string material, construction and gauge remain constant even though the reference pitch changes. IOW, it's not like reference pitch evolves but the instruments don't.
sonorous and bright sound qualities
Do these terms have (common) definitions? Just asking.
Of course these terms are subjective, but I think it should be easy to link them to the spectrum of overtones an instrument produces.
You can't make the blanket assumption that instrument scale (read: string lengths), string material, construction and gauge remain constant even though the reference pitch changes. IOW, it's not like reference pitch evolves but the instruments don't.
Who makes this assumption!? That would be the opposite of what I stated in my previous post
Who makes this assumption!?
A question with an exclamation mark? My aren't we sensitive.
Is it possible that it might have been someone other than you?
Since you seem to want feedback about your post, I can't exactly concur that increasing string tension results in a sound that is thin and harsh. If you constrain the scale and pitch of the instrument but increase the string gauge (and hence the tension), I don't find that it sounds thin. When done to the level that the change is audibly perceptible, I have a feeling the results will run counter to the implied claim.
Who makes this assumption!?
Is it possible that it might have been someone other than you?
Using quotes could relieve my sensitivity
Since you seem to want feedback about your post, I can't exactly concur that increasing string tension results in a sound that is thin and harsh. If you constrain the scale and pitch of the instrument but increase the string gauge (and hence the tension), I don't find that it sounds thin; quite the opposite.
That's another point. AFAIK lifting the string's tension creates more upper harmonics - so the overall balance shifts towards the bright. Compare the sound of a streel string to that of a nylon string. Of course the steel string guitar has a larger corpus which better amplifies the fundamental and lower harmonics.
Maybe it's my use of the word sonorous which caused confusion. Possibly it has a slightly different meaning in German where is means "deep, dark, full"?
AFAIK lifting the string's tension creates more upper harmonics - so the overall balance shifts towards the bright.
See, I was going to assume that more harmonics would be
sonorous, while bright would produce an increasingly pure tone and harsher sound.
OK, here is what my nylon string guitar says:
[a href="http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/684/spectrumg.jpg/" target="_blank"]
Revise the experiment with different gauge strings using the
same scale. You also need to make sure the material on which the string is terminated is also the same, otherwise you're bringing more variables into the equation. Further, there can also be differences in resonances and overtones depending on where the string is in relation to the instrument.
Btw. did you notice that my guitar is tuned to A-432Hz?
...indicating a fundamental problem with your presentation as it relates to the topic. You should really be comparing the overtones of the same open string tuned to two different notes.
I'd also be interested in a similar test with steel strings, seeing that it may allow more accurate extrapolation to other stringed instruments that do not use nylon.
Maybe it's my use of the word sonorous which caused confusion. Possibly it has a slightly different meaning in German where is means "deep, dark, full"?
Could easily be. In my circle of English-speaking peers thin/thick/full does not mean the same thing as bright/dark.
I don't believe that jazz and blues guitar players use thicker gauge strings to sound thin and harsh.
You also need to make sure the material on which the string is terminated is also the same, otherwise you're bringing more variables into the equation.
I'll happily neglect this. It really doesn't make much of a difference when I do the same with a fretted F4.
You should really be comparing the overtones of the same open string tuned to two different notes.
Agreed! I'll do this when I find some time.
I'd also be interested in a similar test with steel strings, seeing that it may allow more accurate extrapolation to other stringed instruments that do not use nylon.
Noted. I don't expect a fundamental difference though, as the same physical laws apply.
I don't believe that jazz and blues guitar players use thicker gauge strings to sound thin and harsh.
If you are refering to what I said in post #24, you should note that the construction of steel string guitars differs from classical guitars in several ways: they are build much stiffer and most importantly have an adjustable steel truss rod which bears the strings' tension. If you use thicker gauge strings and/or lifted tunings you have to adjust the truss rod accordingly. That's not possible with a nylon string guitar.
AFAIK most jazzies prefer lighter gauge strings, because they are easier to bend and have a mellower sound. Fingerpicking blues and folk guitarist (like myself ) use medium gauge (.12) to get more sustain and a more brilliant sound. Heavy gauge is used for strumming because you won't do delicate fingerwork and get lots of overtones, making your strummed chords sound even fuller.
I'll happily neglect this. It really doesn't make much of a difference when I do the same with a fretted F4.
Apparently you aren't neglecting this since you are now ensuring strings are terminated in the same way. I don't particularly care if the strings are played open or not.
Still you aren't constraining enough variables; at least not enough to satisfy my take on the situation. Scale is extremely important.
...whatever, I think it's fair to say that differences on materials, construction, scale and string gauge come into play just as establishing a reference frequency on which to base a note all have a bearing on the sound of stringed instruments.
I can replicate the extra overtones on the open string vs the fretted string on all strings on my simple bass with, apparently, .045-.105 stainless steel (http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f16/yamaha-bb414-strings-292756/#post3592058) roundwounds. Basically every successive higher string has more overtones than the previous. That doesn't seem too surprising.
I'm not entirely sure what problem we're trying to solve again, but hey, here's the data.
It has been felt at various periods in history that the key of a piece affects the mood (see here (http://biteyourownelbow.com/keychar.htm)) but even if it is the case a difference of 35 cents or so (8Hz @ 440Hz) is relatively small.
So the real test here is to evaluate the differences, if any, between notes 35 cents apart. To complicate matters - assuming a guitar is being used - the chosen note would need to be played on the same fret/string, plucked at exactly the same point between nut and saddle, with the same finger/thumb/pick, using the same angle of attack, at exactly the same intensity with the instrument at exactly the same distance and angle from the mic (assuming an acoustic instrument). That's not as easy as it sounds especially as you will need to put the guitar down after the first note, retune and then pick it up to play the second note
AFAIK most jazzies prefer lighter gauge strings, because they are easier to bend and have a mellower sound.
Have you looked at the the string diameters on a pack of strings labeled jazz from a company like D'Addario? Jazz light typically starts at 120 mils; jazz medium at 130 mils. Compare this with non-jazz-labeled gauges which start at 100 mils and 110 mils, respectively. Jazz players bend only very rarely, if at all.
Heavy gauge is used for strumming because you won't do delicate fingerwork and get lots of overtones, making your strummed chords sound even fuller.
If you're saying heavier gauge strings sound less thin then we definitely agree, otherwise we'll have to agree to disagree since I really don't have anything to prove here.
Basically every successive higher string has more overtones than the previous. That doesn't seem too surprising.
Let's not move the goal posts here.
To be clear, I took exception to the following:
I've experiented with alternate tunings on my guitar but if you tune the strings of a concert guitar more than two semitones above standard tuning the instrument begins to sound thin and harsh because the added tension inhibits too many lower resonances.
Tuning strings implies a change in tension with the scale remaining constant. Tests which do not hold the scale constant and adjust the tension constant are not relevant. Furthermore, the claim is talking about the inhibition of lower resonances. If this is to include overtones, it had better also include the fundamental.
@botface: I appreciate your reply. That said, I'm done with this matter.
Let's not move the goal posts here.
Right, missed a sentence earlier.
anybody heard about foobar plugin to adjust pitch with 3 decimal places precision?
I found two but only with 2 decimal places to adjust.
I'm already tried -0.32, perform blind tests and I'm really surprised.
Did some of you tried blind tests on 432 vs 440? Definitely it should be the first step before going into discussion
[a href='index.php?showtopic=42705']foo_input_avs[/a].
BassAudioSource("<filename>.flac")
TimeStretch(pitch=432.0/4.4)
ConvertAudioTo16bit()Save as *.avs and feed to foobar2000.
But since that's not really practical for one's audio collection, I made a request, amongst other reasons, for [a href='index.php?showtopic=96929']foo_dsp_avs[/a] (without succes so far).
I haven't done any listening-tests, but [a href='index.php?showtopic=84544']Pitch Shift[/a] @ -0.32 semitones has been one of my standard DSPs for a couple of years now, and I like it very much.
Did some of you tried blind tests on 432 vs 440? Definitely it should be the first step before going into discussion
To determine
what? I don't think anybody here doubts that they sound a little different.