432hz tunning more musical? 440 is Nazi

[nashvillebill]

432, 440, I fail to see how any harmonic can be affected up or down. Harmonics are purely ratios. Half of 440 is 220. Half of 432 is 216. Twice 440 will be 880. Twice 432 will be 864. Big whoop, no matter what number you start with, there still will be divisions or multiples. Music notes are merely divisions of an arbitrary starting point.

Ever had an old turntable? You know, the kind with a pitch control? Try turning it. The pitch changes, no magic harmonics pop out.

So I call BS on this whole thing.

[fdeck]

Those two graphs just show windowing artifacts. Look up the Fourier series expansions for various common waveforms.

[Frank Tuesday]

Originally Posted by BogeyBass

There is nothing wrong with the analysis tool.

There is plenty wrong with the analysis tool. The most significant is:

1) You aren't generating square and triangle waves. You are generating an approximation of each, based on the limitations of the circuit. What is the real shape of the wave that you are analyzing? What high frequency component is present?

Every measurement and analysis tool has inherent error. I you don't know what is wrong with your tool, you can't get meaningful information out of it.

[Rockman]

Originally Posted by BogeyBass

Anyhoo these are FFT comparisons over a timeline of 10seconds

10 seconds? Thats quite excesive, you can accurately calculate the Fourier transform with as little as 1 period. How many samples? Whats the sample rate? I pose the question again what program is this and what is the input. A fourier transform is a mathematical relationship and a square/triangle/sawtooth will have similar relationships, that is the basis of signals analysis. If this is a built in transform tool of a DAW then I wouldn't be too sure of its accuracy. If it is a mathematical analys tool like Matlab or similar then I will.

[dhsierra1]

Originally Posted by nashvillebill

432, 440, I fail to see how any harmonic can be affected up or down. Harmonics are purely ratios. Half of 440 is 220. Half of 432 is 216. Twice 440 will be 880. Twice 432 will be 864. Big whoop, no matter what number you start with, there still will be divisions or multiples. Music notes are merely divisions of an arbitrary starting point.

Ever had an old turntable? You know, the kind with a pitch control? Try turning it. The pitch changes, no magic harmonics pop out.

So I call BS on this whole thing.

in terms of pure mathematical analysis of waveforms, you're right. The problem is we're dealing with vibrating air columns (for woodwinds and brass instruments) and strings which have dynamic mechanical parameters of the material at different tension (loading) interacting with applied force and their "modulus of elasticity", or simply put "tension".

Think of how an E string of .105 inch diameter sounds at a scale length of 34 inches. Then you tune it down to D. Play the E note on the 2nd fret. Sounds like it has different overtones than when it was played open and tuned to E, yes?

It's a complex interaction of the string's material composition, construction, geometry (I'm referring primarily to the diameter and length of the string), stress (tension), and force applied to that stressed state (ie plucking or bowing) that gives the difference in harmonics, partials, overtones, etc. In short, it's dynamic mechanical phenomena that's in action, not a mathematical model of pure waveforms that we're dealing with when we talk about different harmonics and overall sound when we change the pitch and holding everything else constant.

[Bass Unique]

There is a lot of misleading information here.

The "harmonics" will be in the same relative positions for each tuning assuming it is a pure electrical signal (not mechanical overtones as discussed earlier).

So, for example, at 440Hz the second harmonic would be 880 Hz. At 432 Hz the second harmonic would be at 864 Hz. The relative level of each should be the same and there should be the same number of harmonics present.

Just because harmonics don't fall on an integer does not mean that are not present! If you do an FFT with a certain sample size, you will see that the harmonics may fall on a single sample, showing them to be large or, across two samples equally, showing them to be smaller. With an FFT analysis, you can pretty much show what you want to show depending on the sampling frequency and artifacts generated. Actual values are unaffected.

The effects of tuning differently on your instrument would however affect how the woods, strings and other natural frequencies of the instrument respond so it is quite possible that one tuning would sound nicer than the other. This is because it is either exciting the natural frequencies in the instrument ( live) or these frequencies are absorbing the notes (dead). Every instrument will be slightly different but in general when one note sound better, another would sound worse.

Tuning higher would mean less harmonics are audible in your hearing range so there are bigger spaces between each (but only relevant for extreme harmonics such as square waves). This may have a psychoacoustic effect of causing less masking and better clarity (more brightness). Downtuning may create a nicer mix and softer sound as some upper harmonics are more likely to mask each other (but you would see no difference on a measurement except the upper orders are at a lower fequency).

So, I can only see one effect of tuning differently. you will be out of tune with the other instruments! :-)

[Stealth]

Originally Posted by Bass Unique

There is a lot of misleading information here.
The "harmonics" will be in the same relative positions for each tuning assuming it is a pure electrical signal (not mechanical overtones as discussed earlier).
So, for example, at 440Hz the second harmonic would be 880 Hz. At 432 Hz the second harmonic would be at 864 Hz. The relative level of each should be the same and there should be the same number of harmonics present.

Just because harmonics don't fall on an integer does not mean that are not present! If you do an FFT with a certain sample size, you will see that the harmonics may fall on a single sample, showing them to be large or, across two samples equally, showing them to be smaller. With an FFT analysis, you can pretty much show what you want to show depending on the sampling frequency and artifacts generated. Actual values are unaffected.

Thank you! That's exactly the reason why I mentioned bumping both the sample rate and the bit-rate. It's just an inherent problem of DFT (FFT) versus a continuous FT - aliasing will distort some of the measurements, quantization will do the rest. At least higher sample rate and bit-rate make it that much closer to a CFT - not exactly, but close enough for accuracy.

Not quoting the rest of your text there's plenty of it, but I agree wholly - it's a mechanically resonant instrument, thus, it might sound better or worse depending on its resonant frequencies.

BogeyBass Please, do bump it to 32bit 96kHz, and if your software allows for it, a Lanczos window instead of the current Blackman window, and then a Blackman-Harris window. The first gives frequency accuracy, the other, dynamic range accuracy.

It's a shame I don't have my Matlab license anymore - if I had it, I'd just give you a wavelet analysis of the whole shebang and that'd dispel any myths.

[mongo2]

[treekiller]

Go listen to any of the albums produced by Tom Dowd(Allman Bros. Fillmore East is a good example) and then try to play to it and you will notice that they are all sharp. The best example of this is "Les Brers in A Minor" from Eat a Peach where the intro is standard, but the rest of the song is slightly sharp...... was Tom Dowd part of the conspiracy???

It drives me nuts when I'm trying to learn a song that is supposed to be standard and it ends up being off slightly, I have a bass tuned to Eb for all the SRV, Jimi, etc. slack-tuned stuff.

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by BogeyBass

yes guys, I understand you are expecting to see something. And when you see, what you dont want to see. The immediate response is to somehow discredit it.

It's not about what I expect or want to see. You're making an elementary mistake by assuming that the FFT is a faithful decomposition of the input signal. It's not. The FFT is a useful analysis method, but the spectra have to be interpreted with an understanding of the limitations of the method.

Math is math. I suggest familiarizing yourself with the math underlying the measurements that you're making.

You don't even need a FFT to analyze this. A periodic signal has an exact Fourier series decomposition. There is no stuff in between the harmonics. What appears between the harmonics in an FFT analysis of a periodic signal is an artifact of performing the FFT on a finite data set, and is affected by the data array size, windowing function, and the sampling rate of the analyzer.

Understand that this is a FFT comparison of 2 square waves over a time line. What you are wanting to see is, that no matter what frequency the square wave is at. The harmonic content would be the same. And the graphs should look exactly the same and only shift slightly on the frequency scale.

No. What I expect to see is a different set of artifacts for the two frequencies. I am seeing what I would expect.

[Marley's Ghost]

I read once that Hitler's mustache was tuned to 440.

[Frank Tuesday]

Originally Posted by BogeyBass

... I understand you are expecting to see something.
And when you see, what you dont want to see.
The immediate response is to somehow discredit it.

Asking questions about the method and tools used is not attempting to discredit. It is trying to understand how the results were achieved. If your results can't stand up to valid questions, they aren't meaningful results. That is a fundamental principle of the scientific method.

[Toastfuzz]

All that science stuff is fun and dandy but can we get to the mind controlling powers and manipulation of time space?

You guys ever hear of (a few years back) this outfit that sold digital stereo generated white noise that was supposed to trigger your brain to induce the effects of certain drugs / brain manipulating substances? I guess they tested the effects of substances on the brain and then tried to engineer white noise that would trigger the same effects, some of my friends thought it kinda worked but I figured it was a placebo more than anything else. But it was pretty popular for a minute there.

It was a sound of oscillating modulated white noise, and the frequencies were supposed to cause brain reactions... not saying I buy it but its related I guess to the idea that music at 432hz would somehow put you in a different state of mind than 440hz. And if the military is bumping theirs up beyond standard, I'm sure theres a $10 million study to back up that decision.

[mongo2]

[Toastfuzz]

Originally Posted by BogeyBass

Well from our last adventure maybe Im not a good source to relay the information.

But what you are talking about is called Binaural beats.

and the white noise method is a rather ancient annoying way of doing it. Most the time has limited effects.

otherwise depending on what beat frequency is produced you can stimulate different states of the brain
such as Beta , Alpha , Theta and Delta
And it can take up to 20 to 45 minutes for it to have a effect, if at all to the brain.

also keep in mind if you do that famous google search you will most likely find more "tin foil hat" websites
rather than anything informative about it.

Oh I know. In my dabbling research to figure out how to master mind control and take over the human race, I thought it had promise, but I scratched that theory. Apparently 432hz is where its at... I need some test monkeys to see if I can finally tune the perfect "brown note."

In all seriousness though, from a layperson's perspective your graphs and assumptions make sense, seeing the slight peak differences on paper that are largely inaudible to the human ear, but thats what subliminal content's all about. I didn't expect you to prove or disprove their theory at all... I thought the analysis was really cool and informative, and more accurate scientific data than anything the original linked websites provided.

[nashvillebill]

Originally Posted by Bass Unique

There is a lot of misleading information here.

The "harmonics" will be in the same relative positions for each tuning assuming it is a pure electrical signal (not mechanical overtones as discussed earlier).

So, for example, at 440Hz the second harmonic would be 880 Hz. At 432 Hz the second harmonic would be at 864 Hz. The relative level of each should be the same and there should be the same number of harmonics present.

Just because harmonics don't fall on an integer does not mean that are not present! If you do an FFT with a certain sample size, you will see that the harmonics may fall on a single sample, showing them to be large or, across two samples equally, showing them to be smaller. With an FFT analysis, you can pretty much show what you want to show depending on the sampling frequency and artifacts generated. Actual values are unaffected.

The effects of tuning differently on your instrument would however affect how the woods, strings and other natural frequencies of the instrument respond so it is quite possible that one tuning would sound nicer than the other. This is because it is either exciting the natural frequencies in the instrument ( live) or these frequencies are absorbing the notes (dead). Every instrument will be slightly different but in general when one note sound better, another would sound worse.

Tuning higher would mean less harmonics are audible in your hearing range so there are bigger spaces between each (but only relevant for extreme harmonics such as square waves). This may have a psychoacoustic effect of causing less masking and better clarity (more brightness). Downtuning may create a nicer mix and softer sound as some upper harmonics are more likely to mask each other (but you would see no difference on a measurement except the upper orders are at a lower fequency).

So, I can only see one effect of tuning differently. you will be out of tune with the other instruments! :-)

Thank you, this is a well worded explanation.

[theNecatoR]

[TDSLaBassiste]

Screw tunings and convention, quartertones all around! Bring down the new world order!

[gigslut]

By Godwin's Law, this thread was over before it started.