432hz

[Blumlein 88]

Should these numbers be corrected for density altitude effects? Probably have higher hz in hotter, thinner air.

Maybe 440 hz is good for many cities, but on sea level you need 432 hz. Winter and summer matters too.

 

[Julf]

Should these numbers be corrected for density altitude effects? Probably have higher hz in hotter, thinner air.

Maybe 440 hz is good for many cities, but on sea level you need 432 hz. Winter and summer matters too.

And are they analog or digital Hz?

 

[Blumlein 88]

And are they analog or digital Hz?

Definitely analog.

 

[kschmit2]

I wonder how the frequencies were actually determined for tuning instruments during Renaissance and the earlier baroque epoch.

Before 1711 there were no tuning forks and even after they were available how would they have been "calibrated" (i.e. against which readily available "standard")?
With the multitude of measurement systems in place especially in Europe in those periods it would be more than surprising if an accepted "standard" in e.g. Florence would match the accepted "standard" in Venice or Pisa, or Paris, or one of the many German states or principalities.

Beethoven as a representative of the late Baroque epoch, seems to already have been in possession of a tuning fork (resonating at around 455 Hz), see here: https://blogs.bl.uk/music/2017/03/beethovens-tuning-fork.html.

An interesting essay on the topic of different tunings (pitch and tuning systems) regarding Johann Sebastian Bach can be found here in German: http://bachdiskographie.de/stim/stimmtonhoehe-uebersicht.html The text ist linguistically challenging (it's in desperate need of a editing), so even DeepL will struggle with the translation. But native speaker should find its content valuable.

 

[GrO]

I see that I've joined the long list of people you've chosen to quote out of context in this thread, but never mind that, it happens.

Anyway, I went back to the first post, which refers to Maria Renold. Renold was a disciple of Rudolf Steiner, the famous esotericist. He was an advocate of A=432 because it was based on "the fundamental resonance of the Universe" - so yes, the Schumann resonance again. Previously. Steiner had advocated C-128 (which of course sets the C an octave higher at 256) for different, esoteric reasons. Both these ideas predate Steiner.

Verdi was convinced to switch from A=435 to A=432 by a theorist, Charles Meerens, who in turn supported A=432 because of a relationship with C=256 (which is not a direct relationship, but contrived) - again, attempting to unify these two esoteric pitches. Following Verdi's conversion to 432, it was adopted by the Italian armed forces and became known as "Italian pitch". Some Italian nationalists are still fighting this battle.

Returning to Renold, simply shifting pitch from 440 to 432 is a gross oversimplification of her work as well. it has to be placed in her work on temperament, which in itself looks in part to that relationship between A=432 and C=256, and proposes different temperaments to closer approach the relationship. You can't just "adopt" the full meaning of 432 without the temperament and the 256 relationship by forcing modern recordings into it.

It turns out that the "scientific" pitch of A=432 and the relationship to C=256 are about esoteric science, not what we would consider as physics today. In particular, some esoteric traditions relate 256 to those comments about calm being "sun-like".

Your history misses out other conventions and results, such as the Vienna convention of 1885 which adopted A=435, the French supported pitch of the time.

So, we have a mixture of esoteric beliefs, Schumann resonance, Steiner and Italian nationalism behind pretty much all advocacy of 432 - just so you understand the origins of what you are supporting. Not that there is anything necessarily wrong with any of this: obviously I'm not a believer, but composers and musicians were, and some still are, influenced and inspired by such ideas in their art, and would have been more so in the high Romantic era.

On the other hand, there is no reason in any of this to start wrecking the work of modern musicians playing at A=440 (or in the case of the Berlin Philharmoniker, A=445 - and other orchestras, I read, also push things up slightly) to fit to these alternative notions of tuning.

If you want to support A=432, then why not play or support the playing of relevant or new music in that tuning yourself with like-minded musicians? For me, that would be a proper expression of the belief.

I usually quote the lines I'm referring to and there's nothing wrong in it, but if you want to be on some list so much then you could be placed on a list of banters.

However I should thank you for a nice piece of detailed information that I didn't actually know, but I've never said the method I use is perfect or that it's the same as playing with A4=432Hz, so you could just read few pages back instead of assuming some things incorrectly about my person.

I don't think that lowering the pitch is wrecking anything while you could also say that to anyone that uses EQ to their liking. I will listen sounds the way I want to and no one will ever change that until it will be my desire to do so.

 

[MRC01]

Should these numbers be corrected for density altitude effects? Probably have higher hz in hotter, thinner air.

Maybe 440 hz is good for many cities, but on sea level you need 432 hz. Winter and summer matters too.

With winds, pitch increases with temperature because the keyholes fix a wavelength and as the speed of sound increases with temperature, that wavelength becomes a higher frequency. Strings go the opposite way as the materials relax/expand with rising temperature, reducing string tension and thus pitch.

 

[MRC01]

I wonder how the frequencies were actually determined for tuning instruments during Renaissance and the earlier baroque epoch.
Before 1711 there were no tuning forks and even after they were available how would they have been "calibrated" (i.e. against which readily available "standard")?
...

Good question. I suspect they adjusted each instrument to be in tune with itself at whatever air conditions (temperature, etc.) were present. For example with a flute you overblow the full closed tube "C" then play that same note with all holes open and adjust the headjoint length until the 2 pitches match. The headjoint changes the pitch of the open hole note twice as much as it does the full closed tube note. So there is only 1 position in which the instrument is in tune with itself. You can easily set that by ear, takes less than a minute, and you're ready to go.

So any ensemble could have one player do this, then everyone else tune to that person. No tuning forks, etc. needed. This would give a slightly different "A" each time, depending on temperature, but that would not matter as they'd be relatively in tune.

 

[Galliardist]

I usually quote the lines I'm referring to and there's nothing wrong in it, but if you want to be on some list so much then you could be placed on a list of banters.

However I should thank you for a nice piece of detailed information that I didn't actually know, but I've never said the method I use is perfect or that it's the same as playing with A4=432Hz, so you could just read few pages back instead of assuming some things incorrectly about my person.

I don't think that lowering the pitch is wrecking anything while you could also say that to anyone that uses EQ to their liking. I will listen sounds the way I want to and no one will ever change that until it will be my desire to do so.

Actually, apart from a reference to Verdi and "science", you've not really said why you want me to listen at A=432 at all. Perhaps you'd like to explain. Especially if it's not about esoteric meanings or the claimed "sense of calm".

As far as "wrecking" goes, for casual listening it only seems a bit weird. But if I'm listening more critically, a problem turns up fairly quickly. I listen a lot to solo instrumental music and small groups. While I can't have a "live" experience from a recording, I can with a good system perceive things like the acoustic the players are performing in, and things around the instruments that are fixed, like box resonances on harpsichords and guitars. A lot of this information is at low frequencies. A change of 8Hz is a lot more at 50 Hz than at 440, the room and the instruments themselves sound "different". A sensitive musician responds to such things when playing, and all that low level information is what is moved around too much.

EQ to render playback more accurate to the original recording, or even to ones personal taste, is far less destructive.

 

[Julf]

A change of 8Hz is a lot more at 50 Hz than at 440

I am assuming @GrO is not shifting everything by 8 Hz, but by 1.8%, so the change at 50 Hz would be 0.9 Hz.

 

[Galliardist]

I am assuming @GrO is not shifting everything by 8 Hz, but by 1.8%, so the change at 50 Hz would be 0.9 Hz.

I’ll take back “wreck” then. Though I still think this change is bad.

 

[parubets]

It's not possible to convert 440 music into 432 music by simply changing speed or doing time-stretch, because it requires to change distance between semitones as written in Maria Renold book.
The best example of proper tuning you can hear in this video

 

[Galliardist]

I've seen this video before. As I take an interest in "historically informed performance" I found it interesting, but from that viewpoint it's a fiction - while Debussy may have required A=432 (he had an interest in the esoteric, even making it into the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail books) Renold's tuning post dates the writing of the works detailed here. And it makes no real argument for A=432 itself, rather for a different temperament that suits a rarely used key better, probably at the expense of others.

The thing with pianos - like guitars, for example - is that they have fixed note values. That means they will never be in tune across all keys, and resonances will vary for different notes and keys with temperament. So, Renold's temperament may work for this piece, but not be as good with a piece in C major. Then you have to allow for modulation - no piece of real artistic value in our major/minor world stays in the same key throughout.

Sensitive players of the past knew this. Part of the reason for now-dead techniques like dislocation of notes in time, and indeed changing and dropping notes that don't work on the piano in front of the performer, was to cover for this kind of issue, because a contemporary piano of 1890 would still have been different from one of Beethoven's time. Hi-fi helped to kill that, a generation of record reviewers and critics with scores in their hands and not so much in their heads demanded the right notes in the right place to approve the performance, despite what it sounded like in practice.

Many, many more people have enjoyed and emotionally connected to Debussy in equal temperament at A=440 than ever have or will at A=432 in his preferred temperament, for all we can argue the case though - the same for all the other keyboard composers of whatever era that we appreciate today when performed on piano. I guess we're all Philistines now.

 

[Mnyb]

Thanks for the heads-up if the likes of Rudolf Steiner gets cred here i think i unsub this tread anthroposophy or what Steiners modern disicples where you live call thier cult today is a much bigger problem than all audiophile nonsense put together . They are the OG antivaxxers and have frankly dangerous ideas about alternative medicine. They are worse than homeopathy ( who’s medicines are actually nothing not poisonous substances ) they run a scam here in Sweden with an alternative cancer therapy clinic

Next topic levy lines ... Quija boards so we can ask the spirits of past audiophiles for advice .

If these 432Hz ideas originated with the esoterics back in the day ,” fundamental resonance of the universe “ I’m convinced that this nonsense must stop here , this is of historical interest for sure but make it clear from the starts what this is, don’t spread this under the disguise of science please .

By all means music written for this tuning can have artistic merit . But for all music ? Just why for real now ?

 

[GrO]

Actually, apart from a reference to Verdi and "science", you've not really said why you want me to listen at A=432 at all. Perhaps you'd like to explain. Especially if it's not about esoteric meanings or the claimed "sense of calm".

I've also never said that I want to persuade anyone to anything, and for more information you may want to check this video:

A change of 8Hz is a lot more at 50 Hz than at 440, the room and the instruments themselves sound "different". A sensitive musician responds to such things when playing, and all that low level information is what is moved around too much.

8Hz difference applies to A4 note only.

EQ to render playback more accurate to the original recording, or even to ones personal taste, is far less destructive.

It's a quite controversial statement.

I am assuming @GrO is not shifting everything by 8 Hz, but by 1.8%, so the change at 50 Hz would be 0.9 Hz.

That's right but the value of 1.8% seems a bit rounded compared to the playback ratio of 0.981818. Anyway, thanks for the explanation on my behalf.

I’ll take back “wreck” then. Though I still think this change is bad.

I admit the method is not perfect, I said that several times already, but why do you say it's bad? Did you ever try it on your superior audio system with PC connected?

 

[Julf]

That's right but the value of 1.8% seems a bit rounded compared to the playback ratio of 0.981818.

Oh well, yes, actually 1.8182%, if it matters...

 

[Julf]

I've also never said that I want to persuade anyone to anything, and for more information you may want to check this video:

TL;DW - would you have a textual transcript for those of us who don't have the patience for videos?

 

[Galliardist]

I've also never said that I want to persuade anyone to anything, and for more information you may want to check this video:

I admit the method is not perfect, I said that several times already, but why do you say it's bad? Did you ever try it on your superior audio system with PC connected?

Bit of contradiction there... you are trying to convince me specifically to try it.

It's a quite controversial statement.

I don''t see how. We're talking classical performance here - so you are breaking the recording of the conditions the performers or conductor reacted to, and changing the sound of the instruments in a way that EQ won't. Messing to get 432 is so obviously a bigger change than EQ.

 

[Galliardist]

@GrO So, I watched the video, it appears to be aimed at my comments, and the only argument you put is that 432 is more "relaxing" than 440 because it is a lower frequency. No, you are still in the land of the esoterics arguing for 432. Why not 431.5?

If 432 is more relaxing than 440. then 415 should be more relaxing still,. but for most of my adult life I've been dancing to vigorous, exciting music played by musicians tuned in that sort of area and sometimes below 400. Shouldn't I be falling asleep instead of vigorously stamping to historically informed performances of the Canarios, by this argument?

If 432 is more relaxing... your video music is Dream Theater, credited at the end. Well, quite a lot of their music is meant to invoke different emotions - anger, disturbance, even violence... so do they have to stop and retune their instruments between the quiet more melodic sections and the more metal-influenced sections of the same song to invoke those different emotions? That could be a bit of a problem playing live.

When it comes to any sort of convincing reason to switch to 432 you've given me nothing.

 

[Julf]

@GrO So, I watched the video, it appears to be aimed at my comments, and the only argument you put is that 432 is more "relaxing" than 440 because it is a lower frequency. No, you are still in the land of the esoterics arguing for 432. Why not 431.5?

Or why not just pick music that is more relaxing, if that is what you want? And why would lower frequencies be more relaxing per se? Rhythm and beat, yes, but pitch?

 

[mhardy6647]

... sounds like another case of shrinkflation to me

Beware Of 'Shrinkflation,' Inflation's Devious Cousin

Products are shrinking. Only some people are noticing.

www.npr.org

"I want my 8 Hz back, man!"