Tune Live to 432,10 Hz (instead of 440) ???

[ambientidm]

A 432 is not bs. It lines up more naturally with the human voice. Let your vocal cords and body tell you the difference instead of new age mysticism. Every vocalist I have done this test with feels the difference in seconds including people who thought this bs initially. The human voice does not have an infinite range thus scales have a sweet spot as far as tuning goes.
Try singing both of these.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDdI7GhZSQA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr9o_Ms4tV0
We need a tuning revolution. 432 resonates deeper in the body (gut level) and is more relaxed. 440 resides more in the chest and has more tension in the voice.

[stringtapper]

A 432 is not bs.

Ok, here we go.

It lines up more naturally with the human voice.

Please explain precisely what you mean by this. Peer reviewed medical literature on human voice physiology is certainly welcome.

Every vocalist I have done this test with feels the difference in seconds including people who thought this bs initially.

Well I'm sorry to inform you that your winning streak has ended.

The human voice does not have an infinite range thus scales have a sweet spot as far as tuning goes.

This sentence doesn't make any logical sense. What you've said is like saying "Humans can only see a certain color spectrum thus French designers prefer mauve."

Try singing both of these.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDdI7GhZSQA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr9o_Ms4tV0

Sang both and both felt great. Test failed.

We need a tuning revolution. 432 resonates deeper in the body (gut level) and is more relaxed. 440 resides more in the chest and has more tension in the voice.

Nope. Again, both felt fine to me.

My guess is your "test subjects" simply felt better because they were singing slightly lower. The same way singers will ask bands to transpose tunes to different keys to fit their range. If you went one further and tuned to A=415.3 (G# in equal tempered A=440) I bet you'd get similar results. Why don't you try it?

The difference between A=440Hz and A=432Hz is about 31.76 cents. That's not even a quarter tone. Paul's voice fluctuates more than that on the first "Hey" he sings.

I've never seen any evidence to suggest that all human vocal folds are exactly the same and thus "resonate" at this one frequency. If anything vocal folds are like fingerprints, and like most things about human physiology are never precisely the same.

[re:dream]

There's a some interesting stuff around the history of tunings: apparently they used to creep up over time, as a result of people tuning instruments slightly sharp to be heard above the others.

Loudness wars before EQ and compression, kind of.

But I agree with stringy: there's nothing better about 432. It's a standard, agreed on. Like a, what's that thing you have in the US? A "yard", yes. Is running a hundred "yards" more natural than running a hundred metres?

[eyeknow]

Eb sounds the best of all the guitar tunings, but I'm just too into the standard tuning.

[Angstrom]

A 432 is not bs. It lines up more naturally with the human voice. Let your vocal cords and body tell you the difference instead of new age mysticism. Every vocalist I have done this test with feels the difference in seconds including people who thought this bs initially. The human voice does not have an infinite range thus scales have a sweet spot as far as tuning goes.

Such bollocks.

Some questions...
Q1: Do singers have different singing ranges?

Q2: if different singers have different ranges then how do all these different voices and body shapes "centre" on anything? Do they all wear the same size shoes too? For the soprano it is her lowest note, but for the bass it is nearly his highest. How is A432 their centre?

Q3: many proponents say that 432hz is important because ...EG

if we take 8Hz as our starting point and work upwards by five octaves (i.e. by the seven notes in the scale five times), we reach a frequency of 256Hz in whose scale the note A has a frequency of 432Hz.

So, the proponents of 432hz say it is important because its the 6th note of the C scale . The Major 6th.

But that calculation uses the even tempered scale! So the number is wrong. A natural Just intonation 5th is the octave frequency X 1.5, but the artificial Even Tempered 5th sits at octave frequency x 1.49831
Even tempering is unnatural but it is what we use to accomodate key changes, nevertheless it is not natural.

Just tempering is the way harmonics work, Even tempering is the fudge we did to make instruments work passably.

DRUMROLL PLEASE.
So, if you are following nature ...

When In Just intonation (natural harmonic doubling) and when C=256hz the Major 6th A=426.752hz

The idea that A=432hz when C=256hz is only correct if you use our completely artificial and non-natural tuning called the Even Tempered Scale. How can you say there is a natural frequency of the brain at 8hz and use harmonic theory to get to 256hz, but ignore harmonic relationships and get the wrong number for A !!!

The natural A above middle C in your own supposed natural system is actually A= 426.752hz

You calculated your magic number incorrectly. Your new magic number is 426.752hz . Now how magically in touch with nature do you feel looking wt that number? 432 seemed so pleasant didn't it compared to this lumpy beast, 432 just rolled off the tongue. But thats because Hz are cycles per second, and who do you think invented seconds, clue: not mother nature.

Try again
http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~suits/scales.html

[Stromkraft]

432 seemed so pleasant didn't it compared to this lumpy beast, 432 just rolled off the tongue.

432.10 Hz. Those cents makes all the difference. Promise.

[stringtapper]

Such bollocks.

Yep. Again, all of that.

That is the most hysterical part of the 432ruthers' argument isn't it?

They're still playing things in 12tet, which as you say is a complete human fabrication and not the way natural harmonics work, which you can demonstrate pretty easily by dividing a string by pure ratios (e.g. 2:1, 3:2, 4:3, 5:6, etc.) and listening to the results, which are just tuned intervals.

If you're using an equal tempered octave as the basis of your music (which 99.9% of musicians do, A=440 or otherwise) then regardless of which tuning base you use the same relationships between pitches are going to exist. In other words the relative distance between A440 and Bb466.16 is the same as the distance between A432 and Bb457.68, a frequency ratio of about 1.059. So the fact that you're in an equal temperament ensures that the ratios between all intervals will be virtually identical no matter what tuning base you use.

And that's not even getting into the fact that with all complex sounds that have harmonic spectra, their upper harmonics are not going to be in tune with any equal temperament. That's because natural harmonics—the kind that happen in your voice, a guitar string, a tuba, and pretty much anything else that makes a "pitched" noise—are related to their fundamental by integer multiples, i.e. they are just intervals (as in just intonation), not tempered ones.

This is why some composers have begun to prefer just intonation: the temperament is actually more "in tune" with the resonant frequencies (read: upper harmonics) that occur in natural sounds. When you play two pitches a just perfect fifth apart the upper pitch will be at an exact 2:1 ratio with the lower pitch's 3rd harmonic. That doesn't happen with equal temperament.

tl;dr Angstrom is right. The 432ruthers are barking up the wrong tree. The closest thing to some "cosmic resonance" you're going to get is using just intonation, but that's a bit more complicated than simply transposing everything down by 31.76 cents, so faux science and mystical thinking are an easier path to take than knowing what the fuck you're talking about.

[Stromkraft]

Such bollocks.

They're still playing things in 12tet, which as you say is a complete human fabrication and not the way natural harmonics work, which you can demonstrate pretty easily by dividing a string by pure ratios (e.g. 2:1, 3:2, 4:3, 5:6, etc.) and listening to the results, which are just tuned intervals.

Yeah, but this is still just assumptions on our part. It's not Science. That would be if there were scientific experiments done on how different constructed scales affect a group of people in experiments that can be repeated by others and that uses a control group as well as the conductors of the experiment not knowing what type of scale they're testing. So no staff with absolute pitch abilities.

I'd be more interested in studying the effects of using non-tempered scales myself. Would people find it more pleasant? Would they need a "learning" period? And other perhaps more pertinent questions.

So does 432,10Hz mean you can't play a song in G minor?

[stringtapper]

They're still playing things in 12tet, which as you say is a complete human fabrication and not the way natural harmonics work, which you can demonstrate pretty easily by dividing a string by pure ratios (e.g. 2:1, 3:2, 4:3, 5:6, etc.) and listening to the results, which are just tuned intervals.

Yeah, but this is still just assumptions on our part. It's not Science. That would be if there were scientific experiments done on how different constructed scales affect a group of people in experiments that can be repeated by others and that uses a control group as well as the conductors of the experiment not knowing what type of scale they're testing. So no staff with absolute pitch abilities.

I'm not entirely sure you understand my quote above. What I'm talking about is absolutely science and it's science that the Greeks themselves even observed. I'm talking about harmonics occurring in natural bodies like your voice or a flute. Record your voice singing one pitch and bring it into a spectrogram like Isotope RX. You're going to see a fundamental frequency at the bottom and then a bunch of other frequencies above and those frequencies relate to that fundamental in just intervals.

The rest of what you wrote above has literally nothing to do with my quote. I said nothing about "constructed scales affect[ing] a group of people." At all.

So does 432,10Hz mean you can't play a song in G minor?

I think this may show that you don't entirely know what you're talking about in terms of musical practice. Note names like "G" are just labels that were put on pitches in order to organize them into collections. What the base tuning one is using is has no bearing on whether you call a certain note G or anything else. Surely you know that A=440Hz hasn't always been the general standard of tuning? People were playing in G minor before it was and there are plenty of early music groups tuning to non-A=440Hz standards that are playing in G minor right now. So your statement doesn't really make a lot of sense.

In 12-tet you can play any key no matter the base tuning. A=440, A=432, A=357, whatever. All it does is move the goal post of what exact frequency the A in that general register is residing on. There will still be a G two steps below any of those As that can function as a tonic in the key of G minor.

[Stromkraft]

I'm not entirely sure you understand my quote above. What I'm talking about is absolutely science …

The rest of what you wrote above has literally nothing to do with my quote. I said nothing about "constructed scales affect[ing] a group of people." At all.

Fair enough. I should have left out the parts that didn't apply. What I meant was that generally in this discussion here our thoughts on lowering all scales by 1.79% or whatever and the effect that may have or not have is speculation until there has been scientific experiments conducted and evaluated.
Non-verifiable data isn't science. Either the data has been collected and evaluated in a study according to scientific principles or it hasn't. You also need to postulate the relevant questions before you do any research on the matter.

So does 432,10Hz mean you can't play a song in G minor?

your statement doesn't really make a lot of sense.

I meant G# minor. The "#" was lost typing. My point was that if 432.10Hz is so important as a natural resonance, would you then bother within this school of musical practice to play scales without the 432.10Hz base frequency? There is no A in G# minor. Of course overtones might be related to the 432.10Hz frequency also in G# minor.


But you're right I haven't fully grasped what this shift in frequencies is supposed to accomplish. It's a bit wooly to me.

[stringtapper]

Sorry if I was a bit harsh. I'll get back to this in a bit and try to clarify some things.

[stringtapper]

Fair enough. I should have left out the parts that didn't apply. What I meant was that generally in this discussion here our thoughts on lowering all scales by 1.79% or whatever and the effect that may have or not have is speculation until there has been scientific experiments conducted and evaluated.

Non-verifiable data isn't science. Either the data has been collected and evaluated in a study according to scientific principles or it hasn't. You also need to postulate the relevant questions before you do any research on the matter.

Again, you're not talking about anything that I have been talking about. I have only been talking about things that are genuinely verifiable.

The problem with what you've written above is that while it all sounds perfectly reasonable in terms of science the fact is that the very claims surrounding this 432Hz business—that sounds of different frequencies have some holistic effects on humans or are somehow more "in tune" with nature (whatever that actually means—are themselves completely unverified. You can't say "Well these people claimed (with no evidence) that this thing happens, therefore you need to gather data and conduct experiments to prove whether they're wrong or right."

No, science doesn't work that way. The initial data has to come from those who claim to be observing the purported phenomena. Anecdotes about "everyone I've had sing these two tracks think it's great" are meaningless in terms of science.

I still have yet to see any hard evidence supporting the claim that 1) something is actually happening when people tune to 432Hz as opposed to any other tuning and 2) what the cause of such effects would be if they did exist.

Haven't seen it. Would be glad to look at it if someone could show me some hard evidence.

[re:dream]

But stringy, you are only saying this because you are one of the lizard people. The truth is out there. 432 Hz is just more natural.

[Stromkraft]

Again, you're not talking about anything that I have been talking about. I have only been talking about things that are genuinely verifiable.

So? I'm adding a perspective, not responding to you per se even if I quoted you for context. Admittedly, I should have made the join more clear. I'm sorry about that.
I responded more to the whole discussion but probably tried to actually reply to what was in my quote of you, but then I found what I wrote there less interesting. Should have kept the quote out, but I missed that.

The problem with what you've written above is that while it all sounds perfectly reasonable …

No, science doesn't work that way.

On the contrary. It sounds reasonable because it is reasonable to always keep a scientific attitude towards whatever claims of the sort I think we're discussing here. If claims have been made the scientific mindset is to inquire how those claims can verified or dismissed. General thinking or assumptions are not research, even if you need sound thinking in order to set up and conduct research or understand the results.

Of course it's perfectly reasonable to refer to prior knowledge that can be argued can be verified (if one feel so inclined) or more directly by referring to research or other scientific results.

What you cannot do is to dismiss beyond personal opinion various claims on the basis that you don't believe in it or claim it can't work because you made a non scientific experiment out of it.

Now I've seen nothing pointing in the direction that any claim about the benefits of 432.10Hz based scales can be verified. My only point is that either someone somewhere have already done or will do the research or they won't. Thinking that research is unnecessary is a point of view and is not scientific data in itself. Whether that is correct or not is beside the point.

Until research is done those claims are simply likely or unlikely (to some degree) in the view of the person expressing those judgements. That in itself doesn't prove one iota no matter how intelligent or knowledgable that individual person may happen to be.

[Stromkraft]

Anyone happen to know what the .... is meant with a "more natural" scale? It would seem to me an untempered scale would be "more natural" in a sense, as have already been touched on previously. But that doesn't seem to be the focal point of the 432.10Hz ideas.