432hz

[j_j]

You know how 'wikipedia' works? You probably don't so I'll explain it for you. Every single word is being verified there, either by the moderators and by the developers which in this case are Bell, Fraunhofer, Dolby, Sony, Nokia, LG Electronics, NEC, NTT Docomo, Panasonic, and your idol Shepherd has nothing to do with AAC.

Now that's utter Bollox, lad. I can very comfortably say that editing in both the MP3 article and the AAC article is very often wrong, and very often contains information that is at best "imaginary".

You should also apologize to Ian, but in fact AAC is a product of AT&T Research, FHG, Sony, and Dolby.

Wikipedia, in detailed subjects on which I can claim expertise is most often wrong, and I've given up trying to correct it. People must have their fantasies.

 

[Ron Party]

Wikipedia, in detailed subjects on which I can claim expertise is most often wrong, and I've given up trying to correct it. People must have their fantasies.

I never forgot the line, though I do forget who wrote it. It was over on AVS, years and years ago: Wikipedia is the cheese wiz of knowledge. Cracked me up when I read it... still does, even as I type it.

 

[Grooved]

So you contradict what it's developer states? Okay.

Advanced Audio Coding - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

[This page was last edited on 22 November 2021, at 19:31 (UTC).]

I didn't mean no 'bluetooth' while I don't use it and I always advice people not to use it also, and you can confirm this by watching my video tutorial on the 5th page of this topic.

I can even make 512 kbps AAC (screenshot), but it's just a placebo.

You could even convert 64 kbps MP3 into 1411 kbps WAV but all you would achieve is a bigger container with the same sound quality, so it's better to use lossless FLAC or ALAC and be sure you don't lose anything. I thought a person with 350 likes at 'audio science' forum would be aware of such a basics.

Considering that 'iTunes' makes money I am not surprised they fool people, but I am sometimes surprised by a level of naivety of some users.

Even if it would be possible to force 2-channel-AAC to stream at a real 320 kb/s you still can't compare it with lossless 1411 kb/s, and now think about all those people listening that flat lousy 128 kb/s pseudo sound on 'youtube' everyday.

View attachment 167744

So, let's go

First :
- did I say that AAC 320 is in the developer statements, or would be better than AAC 256 ?
Never, I only told you that Tidal was using AAC 320 VBR until now
(which may change as they start to use 160 now that they are seperating turning Hifi into AAC+FLAC(and MQA 16bit) and Hifi Plus AAC+FLAC+MQA (16 and 24bit)+Atmos+360°)
- did I say that converting a 64kbps to a 256kbps file would give a better file ? or do I need to understand that ?
Never, because it would be stupid to think so, and it doesn't prove anything between a 256 and a 512 file (you have to use a higher original one, not a lower one).
So, try to prove what you want, you're free to do it, but please, stop playing with words to make people saying something they didn't

Second, better (and faster in this case) than reading a lot of papers : a test that may not be perfect, but that you could have easily done yourself before assuming other people are wrong (when again, they never said such a thing, because I never did this test before) :

1 - I took the first FLAC I found in my computer, a 24/192 file (not sure if it's the best to test, as/but it adds downsampling in the conversion process). If needed, I can do it again with a 16/44.1 FLAC file.

2 - I used Foobar (it uses iTunes library if I'm not wrong) to convert it to 4 AAC files with different bitrates : VBR320 - VBR256 - CBR512 - CBR256.
I also did VBR in case it'd be needed later, but the last two (in bold) are the one to test as you said there is no difference between AAC 256 and AAC 512, which is certainly right (it may be worst, would need a test to confirm it) if you convert a AAC 256 to a AAC 512 as it won't recover any information lost at first, but may be wrong from FLAC to AAC 512 and AAC 256
So let's see the files : as the original was a 192kHz file, the conversion gave 48kHz AAC files
It appeared that the bitrate of the CBR512 was actually 320kbps, so maybe it doesn't go over 320 even if we select 512.

Let's forget about VBR, and just look at the 256 and 512 (which is actually only 320) : DeltaWave difference test :

To compare, doing a Digital->Analog then Analog-Digital loopback recording with one of my audio interfaces gives me more than twice a better result than that...
Would it be heard by all people, I don't know and it's not the subject of what you were saying, but regarding the "no difference" like you said, it appears that there are differences (unless I made a big mistake )

 

[GrO]

I am amazed how much knowledge and confidence a 21 yo drummer has accumulated! And how high self esteem after just one day at ASR. He fights against every other one here without hesitation and shyness!

GrO

Rock, Rock Progresywny, Nu Metal, Perkusja, Wokal

muzykuje.pl

https://www.youtube.com/user/gros2ek/videos

...you're a good detective but I've never tried to hide who I am, otherwise I wouldn't share such information on the web. I'm not only a drummer regarding the music but I don't want to spoil your fun as a detective. As a matter of fact I don't know why you think that young man and fresh member shouldn't share the truth and the knowledge he has, also from the other not-so-young people.

 

[Grooved]

I'm just sharing the facts, the real ones, not trying to impress anyone, especially not someone who's unable to use the logic. You've totally misread me and I find you the most cranky member of this forum so far...

The problem is that you told that to someone, while I just proved you in my post above that :
- at least one of your "facts" were wrong
- you're saying that someone totally misread you, but you don't seem to understand that you can misread someone too, and I show it to you in my post above too.

It's not an age or new member problem, and a lot of people here are not only in this forum, it was just your attitude in your posts. I may not define you in reality, but some of your posts were just like trolling, because of misreading, changing what other said to match your desire to tell a fact that is not always one. It can happen to anybody in his life, on a bad day or something like that, but keeping this attitude, I don't understand

 

[Slayer]

You know how 'wikipedia' works? You probably don't so I'll explain it for you. Every single word is being verified there,

Man if you believe that, you should have been a comedian and not a drummer.

 

[BDWoody]

not trying to impress anyone

That definitely worked out...

 

[Galliardist]

Actually Wikimedia Foundation acknowledges themselves that a lot of inaccuracies and even false claims get through.

Anyway, we have (or at least had) JJ Johnston (one of the main developers of the AAC standard) here on ASR, so I suggest checking with him.

Wikipedia is excellent for some subjects and wrong for many others. It can be a great starting point to get at the truth, though, where you can follow the references and they are good or at least point to other information.

One of the regular sins is out of context quotes, another is simply a reference that points to something completely different. And you will find those offences regularly in peer-reviewed literature and academic texts.

As for editors, well printed encyclopedias were/are just as bad. Remember Encyclopedia Britannica had Piltdown Man as fact for over 40 years after the fraud was exposed, for example.

 

[GrO]

I thought we were discussing about the maximum bitrate of AAC? Why are you suddenly mentioning the bitrate of uncompressed CD quality PCM?

The screenshot you've attached was just unclear and it wasn't mentioned that it treats about AAC and that's why I've just misunderstood it.

First, I cited an article. Then, you didn't trust the author. After that, I mentioned the author's credentials to show that the source is legit. When did I treat him like an idol?

I've just got such impression, did it really hurt you so much?

By the way, you realize that trying to win an argument with a barrage of logical fallacies and distortions of other's quotes looks really pathetic?

I'm not trying to win anything here and my logic is very pure. I also didn't distort any of the quotes so you should prove it at the first place instead of spreading more disinformation.

You've referred to the Wikipedia article a few times. Can you quote the specific part of the article that says AAC allows max 256 kbs for stereo stream? I may be missing something but I'm not seeing it.

Yes, you're right, I've just rechecked it and I erred at that part, so I have to thank you for correcting me, while I like to be correct and aware of the actual facts. I've read lots of different articles recently and I've just confused some of'em with the following part:

iTunes can be set up to rip a CD to 320kbs AAC files. What would you say that it is actually doing?

According to my updated knowledge about AAC after you pointed my mistake out I agree it's not a placebo conversion, but it's still just a little bit better than 320-kbps-MP3 regarding the sound quality. Main purpose and advantage of AAC over MP3 is the similar quality with much higher compression level, so I'll just stay with lossless, uncompressed, and 'hi-res' audio.

After all I'm not surprised while it's possible to generate 512-kbps-2ch-AAC file as I've already shown in some previous message:

did I say that AAC 320 would be better than AAC 256 ?

I have never said you did, I just thought it's a placebo conversion as it is when someone converts MP3 into e.g. WAV thinking it'll give something more while it's just getting bigger in a file size. I've already admitted that I've confused some articles while I've never used AAC because I've jumped from MP3s to lossless and uncompressed formats at once, and I don't intend to change that.

did I say that converting a 64kbps to a 256kbps file would give a better file ?

I have never said you did, I was just "pulling your leg" because I was kinda irritated.

1 - I took the first FLAC I found in my computer, a 24/192 file (not sure if it's the best to test, as/but it adds downsampling in the conversion process). If needed, I can do it again with a 16/44.1 FLAC file.

2 - I used Foobar (it uses iTunes library if I'm not wrong) to convert it to 4 AAC files with different bitrates : VBR320 - VBR256 - CBR512 - CBR256.
I also did VBR in case it'd be needed later, but the last two (in bold) are the one to test as you said there is no difference between AAC 256 and AAC 512, which is certainly right (it may be worst, would need a test to confirm it) if you convert a AAC 256 to a AAC 512 as it won't recover any information lost at first, but may be wrong from FLAC to AAC 512 and AAC 256
So let's see the files : as the original was a 192kHz file, the conversion gave 48kHz AAC files
It appeared that the bitrate of the CBR512 was actually 320kbps, so maybe it doesn't go over 320 even if we select 512.

You did some good job there with testing but maybe we should create another topic about AAC while we went way too far off topic.

Would it be heard by all people, I don't know and it's not the subject of what you were saying, but regarding the "no difference" like you said, it appears that there are differences (unless I made a big mistake )

Yes, now I know that but it's still better for the music and for the listener to use lossless and uncompressed formats, don't you think so?

 

[mSpot]

Back on topic (432 Hz)...

I don't have an opinion about whether music played at 432 tuning sounds better or has a special quality. However, I feel uneasy about the idea of altering the pitch of an original performance unless it is the artist's intention.

Suppose that you retuned Glenn Gould's Goldberg Variations to 432 Hz. It's possible that it might sound fantastic and some might even prefer it to the original. However you wouldn't be able to say, "this is Glenn Gould playing the Goldberg Variations at 432 Hz tuning", because it isn't. Musicians adjust their performance to the sound from their instrument. A pianist playing something on a 440 piano will play the same piece differently when they sit down at a 432 piano because of the different quality of sound.

The tuning pitch isn't something that stands alone — it affects the performance. A retuned recording doesn't represent how the musician would actually play the music at that pitch.

 

[GrO]

It's a age or new member problem, and a lot of people here are not only in this forum, it's just your attitude in your posts. I may not define you in reality, but some of your posts are just trolling, because of misreading, changing what other said to match your desire to tell a fact that is not always one. It can happen to anybody in his life, on a bad day or something like that, but keeping this attitude, I don't understand

You may believe it or not but I never intended to troll anyone here, and the only thing I was wrong about was the talk about AAC's bit rates where I've confused some articles I have recently read, I have no problem to admit that, while I've never used AAC and I don't intend to.

Man if you believe that, you should have been a comedian and not a drummer.

Did you ever tried to make wiki article or edit something there? I know that mistakes happen but it does not mean no one has verified that. Mistakes also happen in scientific literature did you know that?

That definitely worked out...

So tell that to someone who actually cares. At least I participate in a constructive debate instead of releasing frustration as you just did. Spam like that adds nothing to the conversation so ask yourself if you did impress someone now.

Wikipedia is excellent for some subjects and wrong for many others. It can be a great starting point to get at the truth, though, where you can follow the references and they are good or at least point to other information.

One of the regular sins is out of context quotes, another is simply a reference that points to something completely different. And you will find those offences regularly in peer-reviewed literature and academic texts.

As for editors, well printed encyclopedias were/are just as bad. Remember Encyclopedia Britannica had Piltdown Man as fact for over 40 years after the fraud was exposed, for example.

I agree, that's why I always look at the references and that's why I use the english version because it usually brings much more information than e.g. polish version which is my native language.

Nevertheless, despite of what some people have said here, wiki is correct regarding the AAC case and brings many references in that subject.

 

[BDWoody]

At least I participate in a constructive debate

Constructive debate? Not sure what was constructive about all that. Was just a lot of aggressive wrongness...

I think you've impressed enough people in this thread. Let's see how it goes in the rest of the forum.

 

[Julf]

Let's forget about VBR, and just look at the 256 and 512 (which is actually only 320) : DeltaWave difference test :

Just chcking, but did I understand correctly that you did a delta between two perceptually encoded files? Doesn't that give a pretty much meaningless result?

 

[Grooved]

Just chcking, but did I understand correctly that you did a delta between two perceptually encoded files? Doesn't that give a pretty much meaningless result?

Even if I answered with this test to the OP while talking about AAC, it's off topic, so I won't add other tests (with different original file) here, but this one was differences and PK metric between one AAC 256 CBR file and one AAC 512 CBR file, both created from the same FLAC 24/192 file.
I think at least both files comes from the same "master" in this case, better than comparing two AAC files bought on different services and not knowing if the source was the same.
Both followed the same path, only the encoding setting changes, so we should be able to compare both files with this method. Don't you think so ?

It was done to test if setting the AAC encoder higher than 256 changes the result, and see if 320 AAC can have more informations than 256 AAC (OP said at this time that higher than 256 would not change anything as AAC encoding would not go higher than 256, even if you can select a higher value, which he said after misreading some information on AAC).

 

[Julf]

Even if I answered with this test to the OP while talking about AAC, it's off topic, so I won't add other tests (with different original file) here, but this one was differences and PK metric between one AAC 256 CBR file and one AAC 512 CBR file, both created from the same FLAC 24/192 file.
I think at least both files comes from the same "master" in this case, better than comparing two AAC files bought on different services and not knowing if the source was the same.
Both followed the same path, only the encoding setting changes, so we should be able to compare both files with this method. Don't you think so ?

It was done to test if setting the AAC encoder higher than 256 changes the result, and see if 320 AAC can have more informations than 256 AAC (OP said at this time that higher than 256 would not change anything as AAC encoding would not go higher than 256, even if you can select a higher value, which he said after misreading some information on AAC).

OK, if the point was just to show that there was a difference, not that that difference was audible.

 

[Grooved]

OK, if the point was just to show that there was a difference, not that that difference was audible.

For sure, and I specified it in the post.
Need an ABX test to know if it can be heard.
Now, stop with AAC here

 

[mSpot]

Can you folks move the AAC discussion to a separate thread?
The main topic (432 Hz) has been derailed for a few pages already.

 

[bennybbbx]

So, I just stumbled onto this concept of 432hz v. 440hz. I've no idea. Is it legit? Are there any valid arguments supporting this concept? Has this been properly vetted?

Per the home page at 432player.com:

Welcome to the world of the 432 Player!
The 432hz community is rising.
Welcome to our home, the home of natural tuning.
Creating the 432 Player together, us as developers and you as listeners.
We will try and answer any question, would love to discuss about anything and everything and take any advice and suggestion to our heart.

When we talk about music, we talk about clean, pure sound.
The 432 Player is the only music player that allows music lovers to listen to their music in the A=432hz tuning, with no adjustments needed, just press play and start feeling the vibes.

Our goal is to share our love for pure tuned vibrations with the 432hz community all over the globe.
We want everyone to enjoy it.
So, we made a version which is completely FREE, no poor half baked app with expensive extras to purchase, just sit back and enjoy.

Why 432hz and Why 432 Player

There is a recent movement within the musical fields which has been initiated by a small yet rather passionate group of young people who advocate a change of musical tuning from 440Hz to 432Hz. Those in favor claim that tuning the music to this specific and particular tuning is going to result in a more natural sound which could reveal numerous advantages. Right off the bat, it’s supposed that this would make all of us happier as well as healthier and more peaceful. In any case, the movement also lays out series of rational explanations as to why 440Hz tuning is actually negative.

A Hypothesis Already Proven

In any case, a music scholar – Maria Renold described the way she tested out the actual impact of 432Hz tuning to people. By plating solfeggio tones to thousands of people for the last 20 years, she managed to come to the stunning conclusion that over 90% of all the people to whom she played the music preferred the 432Hz tuning. Interestingly enough, when asked about how what they’ve heard, people used words such as correct, peaceful, sun like and completed to describe the overall sensation that the music gave them.

The 432Hz Player Application

By taking into consideration all of the above and relying on the stunning and already proven qualities of 432Hz tuning, we’d like to bring to your attention this 432Hz App called “432 Player”. It is specifically designated to work on both Android and iOS devices.
This 432HZ Player is going to pitch-shift music from the regular 440Hz to the far better 432Hz tuning on the fly.
The application is incredibly easy to use, and you should literally press one button in order for it to start working. It’s fast, responsive and convenient and you can convert any song to the far more beneficial 432Hz frequency.

the player maybe add distortions in highfreq. try play a sine tone and measure distortion. or play a measure impulse thru the 432 hz player and look at result. better use normal player and use an (aural build the first) exciter to add some high freq distortions. the exciter use a diode to create distortion. there can choose the frequency from 1 khz upto 10 khz and above the exciter create harmonics.

 

[j_j]

The 432 vs. 440 vs. 412 vs. ... should consider two things.

1) Instrument voicing (where are the active formants of the instrument in question
and
2) Hearing. There is very little difference in different frequency bases for a given kind of tuning as far as the ear is concerned. It's a frequency analyzer that is more or less continuous in frequency, so shifting everything up a bit sounds a "bit higher", but that's about it. Pushing second/third/fourth harmonics around in the ear canal resonance range can make some timbre differences, but there's no magic.

People with perfect pitch, of course, may twitch at weird tuning, just like those of us with strong relative pitch will twitch at unusual tunings, modes, etc. But I'm not going into Jacobsen in this thread.

 

[mSpot]

The 432 vs. 440 vs. 412 vs. ... should consider two things.

1) Instrument voicing (where are the active formants of the instrument in question
and
2) Hearing. There is very little difference in different frequency bases for a given kind of tuning as far as the ear is concerned. It's a frequency analyzer that is more or less continuous in frequency, so shifting everything up a bit sounds a "bit higher", but that's about it. Pushing second/third/fourth harmonics around in the ear canal resonance range can make some timbre differences, but there's no magic.

People with perfect pitch, of course, may twitch at weird tuning, just like those of us with strong relative pitch will twitch at unusual tunings, modes, etc. But I'm not going into Jacobsen in this thread.

The popular interest in 432 is about psychoacoustics rather than the mechanics of sound and hearing. Just as people respond to major and minor chords, it has been claimed that 432 Hz tuning has a special effect on peoples mood and well being. Various studies suggest that 432 is more calming than 440.

Music Tuned to 440 Hz Versus 432 Hz and the Health Effects: A Double-blind Cross-over Pilot Study - PubMed

The data suggests that 432 Hz tuned music can decrease heart rate more than 440 Hz tuned music. The study results suggest repeating the experiment with a larger sample pool and introducing randomized controlled trials covering more clinical parameters.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I don't doubt that lower pitch is generally more calming than higher pitch, but I have my doubts that there is something special about 432 Hz in particular (as opposed to, say 430 or 433). People latched onto the number 432 for various historical reasons. There are also more dubious claims about 432 having healing powers and being in harmony with the body.