I don't think the actual number of vibrations per minute assigned to the A note matter as much as having all instruments in a group in tune with one another. I'd be happy if the guitarist was able to keep six strings in tune most of the time.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Anyone tuning at 432hz?
- Thread starter lucianoxrp
- Start date
-
- Tags
- earth frequencies music tuner tuning
Since someone way back in the thread raised the question of tuning when you have no tuner available, I'll leave a couple of facts here that will help them get close. Using the A=440 standard, B1=61.74 Hz. Use any source of 60 cycle hum to tune B1 and you will be "close". If you play in a country with 50 cycle AC, then G1 is your "close" target (49 Hz).
For the A=432 crowd, you can actually get a little closer using this method. (B1=60.61 Hz) (G#1/Ab1=50.97 Hz).
For the A=432 crowd, you can actually get a little closer using this method. (B1=60.61 Hz) (G#1/Ab1=50.97 Hz).
Standard is to tune to A = 440hz, but there are several voices saying that we should be tuning to 432hz as was done in the past, to sync all harmonics to the base earth frequency of 8hz.
If anyone is doing it, have you felt any difference? Do you know availabe tuners in the market to tune at 432?
Please, be gentle
Not sure what time it was in Los Angeles when you posted this thread, but here in Australia, it says you posted it exactly 4:32pm yesterday... coincidence?
@lucianoxrp Dude, was this actually planned??
Awesome!!
Last edited:
We're all overlooking the obvious rebuttal to this. If 432 is supposed to be superior to standard 440 just because it is divisible by 8, which is supposed to have some connection to an earthly frequency, then think about what you get when you add another 8 to 432.
D
This "earth frequency" is an ELECTROMAGNETICAL resonance that is usually excited by lightning. Sure there can be interaction between electromagnetical and mechanical (sound) waves but that would involve loss of energy (generation of heat/light). An 8 Hz electromagnetical wave doesn't "translate" into an 8 Hz sound wave. The whole concept of tuning to an "earth frequency" is about as ridiculous as tuning your bass to the ceiling light. Plus the "earth frequency" isn't constant but affected by several things like disturbances in the ionosphere. And it's not even 8 Hz but normally somewhere around 7.83 Hz, depending on various conditions.
I suspect a lot of people misunderstand the scientific concept of "earth frequency" because it is said to resonate within a "cavity". We're not talking about resonances inside the earth here. The "cavity" in question is an electromagnetical cavity located between the surface of the earth and the ionosphere. The resonating cavity is ABOVE you, not below you. And it's not about sound at all, it's about electromagnetic waves. Maybe if you plugged your bass into a 100 billion watt amp that produced electromagnetical waves instead of sound...
Please note: I'm not suggesting that tuning to other frequencies than 440 Hz is ridiculous. Far from it! I'm just saying that doing it because of some "earth frequency" is pure fantasy. And let's face it, 432 Hz tuning was used long before anyone had the technology to measure any "earth frequency".
...I might add that my priorities for tuning are 1) everyone should be in tune with each other and 2) ideally the instruments should be tuned to the pitch they are designed for, meaning I don't see the point of tuning an electric guitar to some historical pitch unless there are very good artistic reasons for it, like reason 1).
I suspect a lot of people misunderstand the scientific concept of "earth frequency" because it is said to resonate within a "cavity". We're not talking about resonances inside the earth here. The "cavity" in question is an electromagnetical cavity located between the surface of the earth and the ionosphere. The resonating cavity is ABOVE you, not below you. And it's not about sound at all, it's about electromagnetic waves. Maybe if you plugged your bass into a 100 billion watt amp that produced electromagnetical waves instead of sound...
Please note: I'm not suggesting that tuning to other frequencies than 440 Hz is ridiculous. Far from it! I'm just saying that doing it because of some "earth frequency" is pure fantasy. And let's face it, 432 Hz tuning was used long before anyone had the technology to measure any "earth frequency".
...I might add that my priorities for tuning are 1) everyone should be in tune with each other and 2) ideally the instruments should be tuned to the pitch they are designed for, meaning I don't see the point of tuning an electric guitar to some historical pitch unless there are very good artistic reasons for it, like reason 1).
Last edited:
I've tried experimenting with 432, but it didn't really do much for me.
In one band we tune to 438 or 437 during rehearsals because we use an actual concert piano that's a bit problematic.
In one band we tune to 438 or 437 during rehearsals because we use an actual concert piano that's a bit problematic.
woow! That's a real discovery!Not sure what time it was in Los Angeles when you posted this thread, but here in Australia, it says you posted it exactly 4:32pm yesterday... coincidence?
View attachment 3520052
@lucianoxrp Dude, was this actually planned??
Now I'm sure there's a conspiracy behind this.
If you don't hear anything from me in a while, please spread my message.
I see two black suv's parking on my front door, I'm going to see what's about and will be back...
Yikes. Then A=432 must be an Illuminati trick. I'd originally have suspected the French, but they like A=435. Surely, though, we should have a metric A=500 or something, as that would mean an octave up would be a perfect A=1000?
woow! That's a real discovery!
Now I'm sure there's a conspiracy behind this.
If you don't hear anything from me in a while, please spread my message.
I see two black suv's parking on my front door, I'm going to see what's about and will be back...
Conspiracy? I wouldn’t go that far... but it sure is a funny coincidence!
Seriously, what are the odds that you happen to post a thread regarding 432hz at 4:32pm!
Perhaps it’s just me but I had a good laugh when I first spotted this
I have always felt that standard pitch is slightly sharp/hyped on vocals when you are in your middle register towards the "break" (second passaggio). Both on my own voice and of many singers I have met through my long "career" as a rock and pop musician playing covers.
I hear this "tightness" och "hype" even when my child listen to the wiggles and such.. The vocals would sound nicer a little tuned down,, The middle parts of the voice gets a little more "chest" resonance into it..
The downturning is not a half step down.. More in line of the -20 cents that puts A4 at 435Hz which was the previous standard in Europe using 12-TET. I tried "scientific" A4 at roughly 430Hz (C4=256Hz),, but found it a little to flat..
435Hz was not taken out of thin air.. A committee in 1859 in France of 6 composers and 2 physicians received maybe 100 different tuning forks form different parts of France and from other countries such as Germany. They settled on a fork that meassured on average 435.3Hz for A4 (it was not termed Hz but frequency could be determined)
This pitch 435Hz was agreed upon as the European standard in 1885 in Vienna,, and confirmed again at the treaty of versailles in 1919.. England had though already converted the French 435Hz to 439Hz by using the temperature as a modifier and in US the work of J.C Deagan in the 1910s and 1920s push the A4 towards 440Hz and this was more or less the US standard for late 1920s..
The main thing is that Verdi and Puccini wrote a lot of the operatic pieces so the singer would be singing a lot around and through the second passaggio a lot. They wrote for 435Hz and not modern 442Hz (typical orchester pitch today).. This has made it particular difficult to find a lot of dramatic voices for Verdi and Puccini today that has the body and power in the lower notes while staying more connected at the second passaggio. (think Luciano Pavarotti),, wide tessitura.. big voice... that goes high and low.
I apply this to rock singers also.. A slightly lower standard pitch -20 (435Hz) to -32 cents (432Hz), could prevent the typical,, "live we play our hits a half step down" syndrome.
I hear this "tightness" och "hype" even when my child listen to the wiggles and such.. The vocals would sound nicer a little tuned down,, The middle parts of the voice gets a little more "chest" resonance into it..
The downturning is not a half step down.. More in line of the -20 cents that puts A4 at 435Hz which was the previous standard in Europe using 12-TET. I tried "scientific" A4 at roughly 430Hz (C4=256Hz),, but found it a little to flat..
435Hz was not taken out of thin air.. A committee in 1859 in France of 6 composers and 2 physicians received maybe 100 different tuning forks form different parts of France and from other countries such as Germany. They settled on a fork that meassured on average 435.3Hz for A4 (it was not termed Hz but frequency could be determined)
This pitch 435Hz was agreed upon as the European standard in 1885 in Vienna,, and confirmed again at the treaty of versailles in 1919.. England had though already converted the French 435Hz to 439Hz by using the temperature as a modifier and in US the work of J.C Deagan in the 1910s and 1920s push the A4 towards 440Hz and this was more or less the US standard for late 1920s..
The main thing is that Verdi and Puccini wrote a lot of the operatic pieces so the singer would be singing a lot around and through the second passaggio a lot. They wrote for 435Hz and not modern 442Hz (typical orchester pitch today).. This has made it particular difficult to find a lot of dramatic voices for Verdi and Puccini today that has the body and power in the lower notes while staying more connected at the second passaggio. (think Luciano Pavarotti),, wide tessitura.. big voice... that goes high and low.
I apply this to rock singers also.. A slightly lower standard pitch -20 (435Hz) to -32 cents (432Hz), could prevent the typical,, "live we play our hits a half step down" syndrome.
Last edited:
That must be the new blue John Deere models, lol.
Nah, I do understood that part. The Atlantis part (which I researched a bit afterwards actually) and mostly the fascists of the 20's and 30's. It'd be interesting if there's any historical references to "432" (or similar ideas) before the past few decades. Seemed like it was new-age hippy mumbo jumbo to me (one reason Atlantis threw me for a spin (you often see this topic associated with the Nazis for some reason)
This is the case.
As a bass players, we should be very aware of that.
In the low registers there are a few chords that will not work. Chords that sound fine played on the 12th fret.
Last edited:
Yep, I misspoke. Once I learned how many cents that diff was, and listened to a tone gen, the diff was obvious.
Last edited:
There's a lot of truth to that.
I earned my bachelors in photography in California in 1982. I grew up learning to see photos and movies with film grain, and both had a certain visual tonality unique to those mediums. When digital still camera came to replace film cameras, and CGI began to make it into films, (the first Shrek), the lack of grain made some things look too different, too perfect, hence fake or unsettling. That effect is called the Uncanny Divide.
Now, when I am visiting someone and they are watching a Sean Connery James Bond weekender festival on their über HD extra sharp big screen with intensely algorithmized originals to get into that über HD, Blue Ray, Space Ray format, I can't even watch them.
Last edited:
