-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
432hz
- Thread starter Ron Party
- Start date
I mean the ability to use those transposed tracks in some media player or to record them on a CD in example, then it requires you to resample every single track didn't you know that?
Then why did you mention the studies? You wanna tell us you knew all this before you've ever read them? Then why did you read them at all?
Didn't I mention the batches? You know what they are? The quality is also the case and you didn't say anything about their algorithms and the final audio quality. You didn't even say what programs you had in mind thus such information represents no value at all.
In this case you're the one who doesn't make any sense and again I just want to talk with someone more logic and reasonable or just make a research of my own which will be always better than talking to some bantering guy. Be well.
Oh yes. We used that term back when mainframes were the thing.
I get that English is not your first language, but do you have reading comprehension issues? You were insinuating (without any rationale or evidence) that the algorithms used by audacity (a specific program) had sound quality issues. I pointed out that it is one of the better ones. You didn't ask for alternatives. If you are interested, I suggest looking at the Infinite Wave sample rate converter comparison page.
Last edited:
Goodness, gracious. He's making perfect sense, and you're insulting him.
Again.
Your difficulties come from an obvious lack of information on your part. Perhaps you might try engaging, rather than insulting people. And, so we are clear on this, any sample rate convertor is running software. ANY ONE. They are ALL software, just some are put into a bit of hardware.
Frankly, the better SOFTWARE ones are the best, you can set a quality setting on some, and be assured of all errors being, say, under 24 bits, or some other similar number.
As to "doing albums" and the like, you're simply not accustomed to the facilities readily available.
I am sorry, I realize that I have been making assiumptions about the level of knowledge and understanding of audio, music and physics among the participants here, and I seem to have communicated on too high a level for you to understand. I will try to express me clearer, and explain even the simpler concepts, so that you have a chance to learn.
Let me summarize:
Some instruments have very fixed tunings that are hard to change (pipe organs, for example). On the other hand, some instruments have little absolute pitch reference, relying on the auditory feedback of the performer to "calibrate" the pitch. The extreme example would be the Theremin, but also, in a limited degree, instruments such as trombones and violins, belong in this category. Most instruments are somewhere in between.
Due to built-in resonances most instruments probably sound best at the pitch/tuning they were originally designed and built for, but changing the tuning (and transcribing the music accordingly) can sometimes be used as an effect.
While there are many tuning systems with regards to the relative frequencies of notes, some more "natural" than others, there is no "natural" absolute pitch. The pitch reference is totally arbitrary from the point of physics. It doesn't matter if you tune for a=440 Hz, a=432 Hz or a=437.6782653 Hz. Sure, someone with absolute pitch sense will heare a difference, but one is not more "natural" than the others.
This can be demonstrated by pitch shifting by simple sample rate conversion - a reasonably simple operation that changes both pitch and timing. Shifting pitch without changing timing is much harder, and will easily cause audible artefacts - autotune anyone?
By the way, I see from your video that you use VLC - a media player tool primarily intended for video. Do you know what sample rate conversion algorithm VLC uses?
Just read what I wrote, I've admitted I need to learn about those string vibrations etc., and he started insulting me while I didn't even ask him anything. He's just very unfriendly in my opinion, he provokes all the time and you know him longer, that's why you're always taking his side - kind of self centered circle - seen that many times. How do you want new people to donate the forum when you're so unfriendly for them?
I understand your point of view, but he insulted me first this time and there really was no reason. We can explain things we're familiar with without saying who makes sense and who don't, especially when they admit they need to learn about some things.
...another insult. -.-
I'm aware of those methods but lower sample rate equals the lower quality, and I know that time-stretching effect disturbs the sound a lot.
Videos include sound too and no I didn't read about VLC's algorithms but I have a very sensitive hearing, I also use lossless or uncompressed sources only, sometimes even 'hi-res' audio and I hear that the quality is still at a very good level playing with rate=0.981818, or rate=0.978496.
You're making my day man, really funny.
I could keep going, but why bother.
Actually, you were being overly aggressive and stubbornly wrong. A maddening situation for those who are trying to help, but get garbage like what I clipped above in response.
Maybe it's a language thing, but whatever it is, take the edge off.
No, it doesn't, as long as the sample rate is high enough. If you take a recording sampled at 96 kHz, and lower the sample rate by 2%, you won't hear a difference in quality.
How so? How do you "know" that?
Uh uh.
Lossless OK, but uncompressed vs compressed makes no difference.
Anyway, thanks for confirming what I wrote above.
Hmm? Didn't you just write it? I've used that feature many times and it requires some really good hardware sound processor to do it in good quality.
Maybe you didn't know but that's called 'time-stretching'.
Maybe you didn't know but that's called 'time-stretching'.
I actually try to define what I am talking about - that is why I specifically used "Shifting pitch without changing timing". "Time stretching" is a term that isn't well defined, it means different things to different people, and is used differently in video and audio. In audio the most common usage seems to be "the process of changing the speed or duration of an audio signal without affecting its pitch" the opposite of how you use it.
Galliardist
Major Contributor
Um. The 432 business is actually related, for a lot of supporters, to the Schumann resonance business. Since that actually changes over time, any claim for 432 being special would depend on the Schumann resonance being constant, just as for other devices depending on it (there are various hifi related devices that supposedly strengthen the Schumann resonance and they have been roundly criticised here).
The thing is, that the Schumann resonance varies over time. So to take advantage of it if it had any relevance or magic power, we'd need a tuning device that allowed us to tune not to 432 but to whatever the multiple of the Schumann resonances leads to having the magic power at that time.
In other words, this is just more pseudoscientific bunkum. Put it away and just listen to the music as it was recorded.
The thing is, that the Schumann resonance varies over time. So to take advantage of it if it had any relevance or magic power, we'd need a tuning device that allowed us to tune not to 432 but to whatever the multiple of the Schumann resonances leads to having the magic power at that time.
In other words, this is just more pseudoscientific bunkum. Put it away and just listen to the music as it was recorded.
Galliardist
Major Contributor
As an aside, the traditional method for tuning a lute or early guitar was to tune the highest pitch note or chanterelle as high as you could get it to play and sound good, then tune the lower courses to that note. In other words, the pitch for these instruments was related to the quality of the strings available rather than a particular pitch. If playing with other instruments, you had to tune to their pitch, and hope that your strings were good enough for decent intonation. There was never a special magical pitch that gave the magic powers of the modes or keys, full stop.
Edit - I meant highest string, not highest pitch note, in the first sentence. Adding this as a note because this post already has likes and I don't want to change the sense.
Edit - I meant highest string, not highest pitch note, in the first sentence. Adding this as a note because this post already has likes and I don't want to change the sense.
Last edited:
You're right here, it's the most common usage, but it can also be used in the opposite way with e.g. Sony's 'élastique timestretch' feature.
Similar threads
