# 444hz tuning ( 528hz)



## willy25 (Sep 2, 2017)

I heard that years ago the whole world use to tune differently. After a meeting in london in 1939, most countries accepted 440hz as standard tuning, so we can communicate. So theres a conspiracy theory that 440 was made on purpose , is not a natural tuning, meaning that it hurts our brain unconsciously in many ways, etc..

I been tuning to 444hz for like a month. and i can say that i feel better, more energetic, less stress. I thought it was bull, but i guess not. Or maybe is all mental. But who cares i feel better lol.

Im not saying you should tune 444hz. Just give it a try. And if you do, your not gonna feel a difference right away, give it time. You could give a try to 432 too. Its more popular than 444hz. But i didnt like it that much i felt sad and sleepy lol. Another theory haha, 432 is getting popular to mask the truth of 444hz. But who knows, find wants more comfortable for you.

Some will say, its just an alternate tuning. No its not. Eb, drop d etc.. Are alternate tunings for 440hz. If two musicians want to jam, but one is on 444 and the other on 440, They cant. Now, if both are in the 440 but one is Eb or whatever, yes they can.

If your gonna put something on this post. Please be polite. Theres google if you want a better explanation. Thanks

Any of you guys tune differently?


----------



## lewis (Sep 2, 2017)

so where exactly does it fall if compared to a tuning of 440.
Like is it a quarter way between tunings when changed to 444?. Or like 1/3rd of the way etc?

I remember doing some Machine Head covers years ago that used the Pantera Hz that was different from 440. I cant remember now what it was but that put it basically directly in between tunings if that makes sense.

I will have to give this a try haha


----------



## willy25 (Sep 2, 2017)

lewis said:


> so where exactly does it fall if compared to a tuning of 440.
> Like is it a quarter way between tunings when changed to 444?. Or like 1/3rd of the way etc?
> 
> I remember doing some Machine Head covers years ago that used the Pantera Hz that was different from 440. I cant remember now what it was but that put it basically directly in between tunings if that makes sense.
> ...


 All i know is 4hz higher. I know is Tiny difference, but big difference when you play it and feel the vibrations. More info online. sorry i suck at explaining. Lol

Yeap pantera used a different frequency. John lennon used 444hz ( 528hz)


----------



## iamaom (Sep 2, 2017)




----------



## willy25 (Sep 2, 2017)

iamaom said:


>




I respect his opinion and others that explain 528 and 432. Why star a war to convince? Find what makes you happy and find peace.


----------



## Lemonbaby (Sep 2, 2017)

willy25 said:


> So theres a conspiracy theory that 440 was made on purpose , is not a natural tuning, meaning that it hurts our brain unconsciously in many ways, etc..
> 
> I been tuning to 444hz for like a month. and i can say that i feel better, more energetic, less stress. I thought it was bull, but i guess not.


Glad you made it out alive...


----------



## Demiurge (Sep 2, 2017)

Well, obviously it sounds different, but I would say that whether it sounds better is only a matter of preference. When it gets to the "xxxHz is the frequency of rainforests and unicorn laughter which is why there is an EVIL CONSPIRACY to repress it with 440Hz" part of the discussion (which one sees much with some 432Hz stuff), it just starts to smack of one trying to do something a little different but trying to act like they're re-inventing the wheel. Let's just all agree to make good music and the value of A won't matter.


----------



## willy25 (Sep 2, 2017)

Demiurge said:


> Well, obviously it sounds different, but I would say that whether it sounds better is only a matter of preference. When it gets to the "xxxHz is the frequency of rainforests and unicorn laughter which is why there is an EVIL CONSPIRACY to repress it with 440Hz" part of the discussion (which one sees much with some 432Hz stuff), it just starts to smack of one trying to do something a little different but trying to act like they're re-inventing the wheel. Let's just all agree to make good music and the value of A won't matter.



Yes, its all preference and lets make good music!

Just sharing my personal experience. Not saying is a fact and everyone should turn. Maybe is just all mental? Lol but i feel comfortable with it. Same thing with guitar necks, its all preference


----------



## oc616 (Sep 2, 2017)

iamaom said:


>




"Aesthetically and scientifically it is preferable..."

First one sounded deeper to me, that's about it. I don't buy into this "frequency" mubo jumbo, just seems like another new age con.


----------



## Necris (Sep 2, 2017)




----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 2, 2017)

Willy25, my sister my Christ, I wish you well in resisting the temptation to judge the life you led prior to the epiphany of this guitar tuning too harshly. May the novelty be sustained for ever.


----------



## willy25 (Sep 3, 2017)

marcwormjim said:


> Willy25, my sister my Christ, I wish you well in resisting the temptation to judge the life you led prior to the epiphany of this guitar tuning too harshly. May the novelty be sustained for ever.



Thanks little sister..


----------



## DudeManBrother (Sep 3, 2017)

Why do we want to tune to the most earth friendly frequencies just to write the most evil, destroy everything songs?


----------



## Dropsonic (Sep 3, 2017)

Instead of only aiming for what makes you happy and gives you peace, you should supplement that aim with what is true. 
All the talk about frequencies making you more energetic and less stressful has absolutely no grounds in science (And has been debunked time and time again), and therefore will continue to be mumbo jumbo. There is no truth in it. 

So, by all means, you do you. If you prefer it the 444hz way, please continue with it. But that you feel more energetic and less stressful can be attributed to a number of different factors, and I beg you to keep this in mind. Don't jump on this horse, merely just because you feel like there's a correlation between hz and mood.


----------



## TheTrooper (Sep 3, 2017)

DudeManBrother said:


> Why do we want to tune to the most earth friendly frequencies just to write the most evil, destroy everything songs?


Amen brother


----------



## willy25 (Sep 3, 2017)

Dropsonic said:


> Instead of only aiming for what makes you happy and gives you peace, you should supplement that aim with what is true.
> All the talk about frequencies making you more energetic and less stressful has absolutely no grounds in science (And has been debunked time and time again), and therefore will continue to be mumbo jumbo. There is no truth in it.
> 
> So, by all means, you do you. If you prefer it the 444hz way, please continue with it. But that you feel more energetic and less stressful can be attributed to a number of different factors, and I beg you to keep this in mind. Don't jump on this horse, merely just because you feel like there's a correlation between hz and mood.



Yes i am supplementing it, im not crazy about it and i know whats out there . But the truth is we should not be ignorant about it. And to things in general. All i know is that those frequencies vibrate with us and it heals us. Same thing with urine therapy (eww i know) , and all natural ways. Yes everything has been debunked because they dont want us to know the truth. Ive read stories of people that have cure them selfs in natural ways. And family members too. But yeah we believe on what we watch on tv and what we learn.

Yeah some of you can say im crazy and its bull.( dont care) But just give it a chance , it could take weeks or months. Its not about hearing it for a couple minutes, its about feeling it.

If you want more info about this , research online! Not trying to make anobody do things, just sharing to help others.

Note: i still play in 440. Need to play some covers lol
Again do your own research! if your thinking about it and are interested keep posting, if you dont believe just move on and dont reply! Let this post dissapear or something


----------



## diagrammatiks (Sep 3, 2017)

you do whatever you need to do to keep xenu at bay man.


----------



## Dropsonic (Sep 3, 2017)

willy25 said:


> Yes i am supplementing it, im not crazy about it and i know whats out there . But the truth is we should not be ignorant about it. And to things in general. All i know is that those frequencies vibrate with us and it heals us. Same thing with urine therapy (eww i know) , and all natural ways. Yes everything has been debunked because they dont want us to know the truth.



Aaah, and so the conspiracy theories being. I have nothing more to say to you. Ignorance is bliss as they say. But in this case, I thoroughly disagree.


----------



## bhakan (Sep 3, 2017)

willy25 said:


> Yes everything has been debunked because they dont want us to know the truth.


This sentiment is such bullshit. Where do you propose "they" are preventing the truth from getting out? I work at a pharmaceutical company and have had some limited experience with research in academia and I have no clue how "they" are stifling the truth. Academic research is very independent and pharmaceutical research, while undoutedly profit driven, has to take accuracy and ethics very seriously because if regulatory agencies catch the slightest wiff of "cheating" we're in deep shit. 

If it truly does take weeks or months to really notice, the number of other things that have changed in your life/around you in that time makes drawing any legitimate conclusions hard. If I had started tuning to 444hz 1 month ago, I would definitely feel more relaxed and happy now, but that's not because of some wavelength of the universe tuning, its because things have calmed down at my job and the weather has shifted from being hot and disgusting to beautiful.


----------



## willy25 (Sep 3, 2017)

bhakan said:


> This sentiment is such bullshit. Where do you propose "they" are preventing the truth from getting out? I work at a pharmaceutical company and have had some limited experience with research in academia and I have no clue how "they" are stifling the truth. Academic research is very independent and pharmaceutical research, while undoutedly profit driven, has to take accuracy and ethics very seriously because if regulatory agencies catch the slightest wiff of "cheating" we're in deep shit.
> 
> If it truly does take weeks or months to really notice, the number of other things that have changed in your life/around you in that time makes drawing any legitimate conclusions hard. If I had started tuning to 444hz 1 month ago, I would definitely feel more relaxed and happy now, but that's not because of some wavelength of the universe tuning, its because things have calmed down at my job and the weather has shifted from being hot and disgusting to beautiful.


money and power rules to hide allot of truth. Like mariguana ( a natural healing medicine) why they dont make it legal in all countries?simple, the industry will lose $$$$


----------



## willy25 (Sep 3, 2017)

Also to some, i never said that i felt connected to the universe, see unicorns, harmony etc... Im human and i get angry too is part of life and i know whats out there..

In my own words, there was no change in my life, at work , etc.. After trying these frequencies i feel more energetic and less stress. Meaning no more monster or coffee in the morning and no more antidepressants! Also i didnt payed attention to it, all my instruments stayed in 444hz not because a guy said it will cure me or its connected to the earth vibrations. Because i like how it sounded. And the moment i felt different (after a month), i was thinking to my self maybe is not bull, and i stop being ignorant and more open minded.


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 3, 2017)

More power to you. I never would have guessed, from your posts in this thread, that you'd gone off your meds.


----------



## Grindspine (Sep 3, 2017)

Iamaom, great post with that video! If one can get through the sarcastic first portion, the rest is very informative.

Willy, if you prefer a different tuning standard, go for it! Many common tuners (Snark and Peterson) let you set a reference range. My only warning is that it may make it difficult to jam with other musicians if they are not using the same reference. For jamming with other musicians, equal temperament is going to be the most compatible.

Peterson (the manufacturer of some of the most accurate strobe tuners made) has researched what they call "sweetened tunings", which are slight offsets to make chording on stringed instruments less dissonant. The GTR Sweetened tuning is focused toward shorter scale instruments like Les Pauls and Telecasters, both of which are particularly PITA guitars to intonate properly. After using this tuning standard to tune and intonate thousands of guitars, my ears have become accustomed to it. I cannot even tell how many Hz each string pitch offset is, but it is a very small amount per string. Chording on a freshly intonated guitar reveals little to no dissonance. I tune and intonate guitars to Peterson's GTR Sweetened tuning as much as possible based on this personal experience. However, between this and equal temperament, there is a very small difference that most people will not notice. My preference for the Sweetened tuning is based on getting an individual guitar to sound its best to the customer.

If you play covers, tuning your reference to the original artist will work best. Dime often used 425 Hz in Pantera. Machine Head tunes just a hair sharp of baritone tuning. Trying to use standard temperament with those recordings sounds terrible.

Unless you play guitar in a vacuum, your best tuning reference will be the context in which you are playing.

_edit for adding reference: _Here is a link to Peterson's blogs on Sweetened tunings. These do include world and historic temperaments too! https://www.petersontuners.com/beyond/?cat=4

The information on historic tunings here really points out the flaws in each of them. Equal temperament is now often used to avoid the major (pun intended) tuning flaws in these. https://www.petersontuners.com/beyond/?p=799


----------



## willy25 (Sep 3, 2017)

Grindspine said:


> Iamaom, great post with that video! If one can get through the sarcastic first portion, the rest is very informative.
> 
> Willy, if you prefer a different tuning standard, go for it! Many common tuners (Snark and Peterson) let you set a reference range. My only warning is that it may make it difficult to jam with other musicians if they are not using the same reference. For jamming with other musicians, equal temperament is going to be the most compatible.
> 
> ...


Thank you and ill check the links.


----------



## coreysMonster (Sep 3, 2017)

iamaom said:


>



I'm glad I kept watching after he spouted all that nonsense at the beginning, because of course it's all new-age baloney, and he says so himself about 2 minutes in.


----------



## mdeeRocks (Sep 3, 2017)

I tune to 666Hz. I feel much less stressed etc..


----------



## A-Branger (Sep 3, 2017)

watch till the end


----------



## willy25 (Sep 3, 2017)

A-Branger said:


> watch till the end



I respect his opinion. I dont like 432hz to flat. But one thing i disagree in most videos, will xxxhz make you a better musician , compose good music? Their answer is no. Tell that to Pantera, they used a different frequency. If you like a frequency. Than go and make good music.


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 4, 2017)

I don't know, man - You saw what happened to Dime.


----------



## willy25 (Sep 4, 2017)

marcwormjim said:


> I don't know, man - You saw what happened to Dime.



it sucks. i wish he was still here to make good music. Pantera is the only band that me ears dont get tired of listening too.


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 4, 2017)

It's a bummer, man. I'm going to have to listen to a 1.76khz sine until I feel better.


----------



## willy25 (Sep 4, 2017)

marcwormjim said:


> It's a bummer, man. I'm going to have to listen to a 444hz sine until I feel better.


 yes it is. and love your sarcasm, it deserves a trophy.


----------



## Necris (Sep 4, 2017)

DudeManBrother said:


> Why do we want to tune to the most earth friendly frequencies just to write the most evil, destroy everything songs?



I say we abandon all pretense and just bombard the listeners with Infrasound and Ultrasound in unison, make them feel an implacable primal fear as their hearing is destroyed.


----------



## A-Branger (Sep 4, 2017)

willy25 said:


> I respect his opinion. I dont like 432hz to flat. But one thing i disagree in most videos, will xxxhz make you a better musician , compose good music? Their answer is no. Tell that to Pantera, they used a different frequency. If you like a frequency. Than go and make good music.



well that was kinda the point on his video. The Hz means nothing, its the music you play what counts. He tricked you to believe a certain song was a certain Hz, then he shows he was way off in order to proove you just liked it better "because", not for some magic Hz number


----------



## willy25 (Sep 4, 2017)

A-Branger said:


> well that was kinda the point on his video. The Hz means nothing, its the music you play what counts. He tricked you to believe a certain song was a certain Hz, then he shows he was way off in order to proove you just liked it better "because", not for some magic Hz number


sorry i was aiming more to the topic of the video. but yeah its a good point.


----------



## willy25 (Sep 4, 2017)

Necris said:


> I say we abandon all pretense and just bombard the listeners with Infrasound and Ultrasound in unison, make them feel an implacable primal fear as their hearing is destroyed.


wow your talking about hurting people? you have a problem. i hope your just fooling around.


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 4, 2017)

Let's reserve judgement until we know what frequency he's fooling around in.


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 4, 2017)

Oh my god - It's *frequent.*


----------



## willy25 (Sep 4, 2017)

marcwormjim said:


> Let's reserve judgement until we know what frequency he's fooling around in.


just keep trolling dude. do you think it bothers me? no way. may i ask, what do you win by doing it? joy, is it? or something else? if you see an opinion about something that you dont agree, comment, but show respect and move on.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Sep 4, 2017)

Brought to you by the people that brought you "9/11 no planes," "reptilians run the world," and "flat earth theory," we bring you "440hz is killing you!1`12"



And I play in 435hz, but for no other reason other than it sounds more natural to my ears.


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 4, 2017)

3 pages in, 'n I get no respect, lemme tell ya.


----------



## A-Branger (Sep 4, 2017)

willy25 said:


> sorry i was aiming more to the topic of the video. but yeah its a good point.


see the video all the way till the end. All the examples that he shows where he plays the same song in 440Hz vs 432Hz at the end he shows that none of them where that, or they either where flipped, or they were 550Hz vz 420Hz or stuff like that. That was his point, to trick you


----------



## willy25 (Sep 4, 2017)

A-Branger said:


> see the video all the way till the end. All the examples that he shows where he plays the same song in 440Hz vs 432Hz at the end he shows that none of them where that, or they either where flipped, or they were 550Hz vz 420Hz or stuff like that. That was his point, to trick you


Yeah i watched it, it was really interesting. Thanks


----------



## willy25 (Sep 4, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Brought to you by the people that brought you "9/11 no planes," "reptilians run the world," and "flat earth theory," we bring you "440hz is killing you!1`12"
> 
> 
> 
> And I play in 435hz, but for no other reason other than it sounds more natural to my ears.


Lol the reptilians and world is flat xD if people believe that, dont care. 9/11 inside job? Who knows. 440hz kills you? I dont think so, But some people believe it hurts you unconsciously without knowing, even if you enjoy the song. Example: getting mad at things that dont matter, Having negative thoughts etc..

For me what sounds more natural to me, 444hz
Second comes 440 and last 432. Ill give a try to 435.


----------



## Grindspine (Sep 4, 2017)

...This thread Hertz my brain.


----------



## Kwert (Sep 4, 2017)

Since some time in the 1900s, at least in North American orchestras, A=440hz was your standard tuning reference pitch. Many still use this, but it's been creeping higher and higher. 441, and 442 are pretty standard (442 is standard throughout all of Quebec) in most places. In Germany/Austria it's not uncommon to hear anywhere between A=444hz and 446hz. This is pretty absurd to me, especially for stringed instruments. I find my cello starts to feel choked at anything above 442, and it feels amazing at A=415 (though you won't find this tuning much outside of a Baroque ensemble...)


----------



## CrazyDean (Sep 4, 2017)

Kwert said:


> Since some time in the 1900s, at least in North American orchestras, A=440hz was your standard tuning reference pitch. Many still use this, but it's been creeping higher and higher. 441, and 442 are pretty standard (442 is standard throughout all of Quebec) in most places. In Germany/Austria it's not uncommon to hear anywhere between A=444hz and 446hz. This is pretty absurd to me, especially for stringed instruments. I find my cello starts to feel choked at anything above 442, and it feels amazing at A=415 (though you won't find this tuning much outside of a Baroque ensemble...)



Well, at some point you're not even in A anymore. If A is set at 440Hz, Ab is 415.305Hz. I mean, you could still call it A, but it's the same as Ab to anyone else.


----------



## bulb (Sep 5, 2017)

yes, let's change the completely arbitrary way we tune our instruments to something equally arbitrary and pretend it makes us feel better

if i could find a way to package this, i'd sell it


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Sep 5, 2017)

bulb said:


> yes, let's change the completely arbitrary way we tune our instruments to something equally arbitrary and pretend it makes us feel better
> 
> if i could find a way to package this, i'd sell it


Call it Djenticles. Maybe it can be a sustainer type pickup, or something.


----------



## HeavyMetal4Ever (Sep 5, 2017)

Everyone's ears are slightly physically different, therefore it's entirely plausible that individuals will find certain specific reference pitches more or less pleasant.

No mystic explanation required.


----------



## p0ke (Sep 5, 2017)

How is this off topic though? Shouldn't this thread be under the general music section?


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 5, 2017)

HeavyMetal4Ever said:


> Everyone's ears are slightly physically different, therefore it's entirely plausible that individuals will find certain specific reference pitches more or less pleasant.
> 
> No mystic explanation required.



A cogent one would be a luxury, around here.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 5, 2017)

I've been tuning the octave into 19 notes for years now, and I can honestly tell you that no one gives a shit how you tune your guitar until you make some really interesting music.

There was a conspiracy to tune to 440 Hz, but it had nothing to do with nefarious plots or Illuminati, so just stop. It was just to make life simple for musicians who traveled on tour to different nations and didn't want to have to buy a new tuning fork for each country.


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 5, 2017)

"Tuning" fork - or _Lance of Longinus?

#loosechange
#DanBrown_


----------



## bostjan (Sep 5, 2017)

What if you were blindfolded and a tone was played for you - either 440 Hz, 444 Hz, 448 Hz, 452 Hz, or 436 Hz? Do you think you could tell me which one it was? If not, then I think the entire basis of the story that one is so much better than the others falls apart at its foundation. Can we get James Randy on this topic?


----------



## willy25 (Sep 5, 2017)

HeavyMetal4Ever said:


> Everyone's ears are slightly physically different, therefore it's entirely plausible that individuals will find certain specific reference pitches more or less pleasant.
> 
> No mystic explanation required.


Good point!


----------



## willy25 (Sep 5, 2017)

bostjan said:


> What if you were blindfolded and a tone was played for you - either 440 Hz, 444 Hz, 448 Hz, 452 Hz, or 436 Hz? Do you think you could tell me which one it was? If not, then I think the entire basis of the story that one is so much better than the others falls apart at its foundation. Can we get James Randy on this topic?



Ear trained? The ones that know how to identify notes, chords etc.. By ear, will know which one is 440hz. They wont know which is 444hz 432 etc..


----------



## DudeManBrother (Sep 5, 2017)

After trying to read up a little on the frequency debate: I have gathered that going from 440hz to 444hz is roughly 16 cents (100 cents is a semitone) higher than standard. With the way guitars are tuned, however, it is very difficult to achieve and keep any frequency in tune. Even if you perfectly tune your A string to 444hz, fretting an A note from your E string will not be 444hz, it will be sharp. James Taylor utilizes an alternative tuning to help fretted chords stay in tune better.



Utilizing certain frequencies for resonance patterns will certainly create different patterns, some more intricate than others; but it would be incredibly difficult to recreate consistently with a stringed instrument. If you're jamming alone or your band wants to tune together then it would work just fine.

If there really was a conspiracy with tuning to a dissonant frequency, it would most likely effect pop style genres with electronic music, so just turn off your radio. I'd bet people are more damaged by worrying about North Korea, terrorism, and other shit regurgitated on the news, than listening to Katy Perry.


----------



## Necris (Sep 5, 2017)

Threads on 432hz used to be closed on sight because they ultimately contribute nothing of value, that this one is still open is a wonder, maybe the new number saved it.

A syntonic Comma (81:80 or ~21.51 cents) is the smallest difference in pitch that an untrained listener can recognize. The difference between A=440 and A=444 is ~16 cents, which is well below the aforementioned threshold. By comparison the difference between 440 and 432 is ~32 cents, above the threshold and thus audible to the untrained ear. As it happens I have a guitar which is fretted for ~36 cent note intervals (normal guitars are 100 cent intervals) and if I chose to I could play all of my music in close-but-imperceptably-off approximation of 432 hz without retuning from 440 by merely shifting my finger down one fret and could play well above 444 by moving my finger up a single fret. I also have a fretless guitar, which should allow me to determine the ideal reference pitch for my ears down to the n-th decimal point, yet here I am still using 440, or 439 if I accidentally press the wrong button on my tuner.

(Why can I change my reference pitch through an accidental button press on a commercially available tuner if there is such a grand conspiracy for 440?)
The idea that 440hz is unnatural is utterly laughable, it's a frequency. Is 440.01 hz natural? 440.02 hz? 439.99998?

There is a rabbit hole that can be fallen down, and the whole debate seems akin to two people looking at color hex codes and trying to claim that #0000FE blue is more "natural" than #0000FF blue. It's utterly pointless and crosses the boundary into being downright idiotic without ever needing to bring conspiracy theories about the Third Reich in to play.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 5, 2017)

16 cents is pretty big, in terms of tuning stability.

I kind of like the idea of tuning such that some of my notes are harmonic overtones of 60 Hz hum. I can take A down to 420 Hz...or you can take A up to 444.97 Hz and achieve the same with Ab. So, I've actually done this before, although I was 0.97 Hz sharp on A.



Necris said:


> Threads on 432hz used to be closed on sight because they ultimately contribute nothing of value, that this one is still open is a wonder, maybe the new number saved it.
> 
> A syntonic Comma (81:80 or ~21.51 cents) is the smallest difference in pitch that an untrained listener can recognize. The difference between A=440 and A=444 is ~16 cents, which is well below the aforementioned threshold. By comparison the difference between 440 and 432 is ~32 cents, above the threshold and thus audible to the untrained ear. As it happens I have a guitar which is fretted for ~36 cent note intervals (normal guitars are 100 cent intervals) and if I chose to I could play all of my music in close-but-imperceptably-off approximation of 432 hz without retuning from 440 by merely shifting my finger down one fret and could play well above 444 by moving my finger up a single fret. I also have a fretless guitar, which should allow me to determine the ideal reference pitch for my ears down to the n-th decimal point, yet here I am still using 440, or 439 if I accidentally press the wrong button on my tuner.
> 
> ...



34-EDO?

I'd say that in a chord, even a casual listener can differentiate intervals 5 or 6 cents different, pretty universally, but if you tune everything up an arbitrary number of cents, I really don't think people would notice. Hell, in my cover bands, we would often transpose songs up or down a half step, and sometimes a whole step, and people wouldn't know the difference unless they were not drunk enough AND trying to sing along. 

The idea of an ideal reference pitch does have some merit when it comes to vocal performances, but has nothing to do with guitar. There is not a single double-blind test on Earth that can determine a universally idea reference pitch, period.


----------



## willy25 (Sep 5, 2017)

Necris said:


> Threads on 432hz used to be closed on sight because they ultimately contribute nothing of value, that this one is still open is a wonder, maybe the new number saved it.
> 
> A syntonic Comma (81:80 or ~21.51 cents) is the smallest difference in pitch that an untrained listener can recognize. The difference between A=440 and A=444 is ~16 cents, which is well below the aforementioned threshold. By comparison the difference between 440 and 432 is ~32 cents. As it happens I have a guitar which is fretted for ~36 cent note intervals (normal guitars are 100 cent intervals) and if I chose to I could play all of my music in close-but-imperceptably-off approximation of 432 hz without retuning from 440 by merely shifting my finger down one fret and could play well above 444 by moving my finger up a single fret. I also have a fretless guitar, which should allow me to determine the ideal reference pitch for my ears, yet here I am still using 440, or 439 if I accidentally press the wrong button on my tuner.
> 
> There is a rabbit hole that can be fallen down which is akin to two people looking at color hex codes and trying to claim that #0000FE blue is more "natural" than #0000FF blue. It's utterly pointless and crosses the boundary into being downright idiotic.


I have 3 guitars , 1st one 440hz, than the others ones 444hz and 432hz. And i cant find the same notes on either of them around the fretboard. 

So it will be impossible to jam with someone. How i said before every frequency has its own alternative tuning. It sounds weird. Someone in E standard 440hz can jam with someone in Eb flat 440hz. Theres better explanation online. You guys that have multiple guitars try the test and see if you find any notes that match.


----------



## Necris (Sep 5, 2017)

The reason you can't jam with someone tuned to 440 or 432 Hz when you are tuned to 444 is no grand mystery. Your guitar is tuned 16 cents sharp compared to the 440hz tuned guitarist's instrument and 48 cents sharper than the 432hz guitarist's instrument. 48 cents is 2 cents short of what is known as a Quarter Tone (50 cents). You've unwittingly entered the realm of microtones, if your guitar were fretted for 24-EDO rather than 12-EDO you would simply have to move your playing down one fret (1 quarter tone) to play with the 432hz guitarist while tuned to 444.

 This is a piece of music composed by Ivan Wyschnegradsky which has 2 pianos playing a quater tone apart - in other words it is a piece in 24-EDO.


----------



## willy25 (Sep 5, 2017)

Necris said:


> The reason you can't jam with someone tuned to 440 or 432 Hz when you are tuned to 444 is no grand mystery. Your guitar is tuned 16 cents sharp compared to the 440hz tuned guitarist's instrument and 48 cents sharper than the 432hz guitarist's instrument. 48 cents is 2 cents short of what is known as a Quarter Tone (50 cents). You've unwittingly entered the realm of microtones, if your guitar were fretted for 24-EDO rather than 12-EDO you would simply have to move your playing down one fret (1 quarter tone) to play with the 432hz guitarist while tuned to 444.
> 
> This is a piece of music composed by Ivan Wyschnegradsky which has 2 pianos playing a quater tone apart - in other words it is a piece in 24-EDO.




I was aiming more to find its octaves, not the exact pitch frequency of a note. couldnt find any.

All pianos come in A=440hz right? Grab an 88 key piano or digital, and tune your guitar to 444hz, and go to the higher notes on the piano to see if you find a match or an octave. Same thing goes for 432hz( i think but i havent tried it). You wont find any, its just a tiny difference, thats why theres no match or any octaves.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 5, 2017)

willy25 said:


> I was aiming more to find its octaves, not the exact pitch frequency of a note. couldnt find any.
> 
> All pianos come in A=440hz right? Grab an 88 key piano or digital, and tune your guitar to 444hz, and go to the higher notes on the piano to see if you find a match or an octave. Same thing goes for 432hz( i think but i havent tried it). You wont find any, its just a tiny difference, thats why theres no match or any octaves.



I get the impression from this comment that you don't really begin to know how tuning works.

Any two instruments tuned to arbitrarily different reference pitches are going to sound horrible playing together.


----------



## TedEH (Sep 5, 2017)

bostjan said:


> a universally idea reference pitch


Even if there were such a thing- it's very unlikely that the reason it's ideal has anything to do with how "natural" it is, or any kind of nonsense involving resonating with the frequency of the universe or something like that.


----------



## willy25 (Sep 5, 2017)

bostjan said:


> I get the impression from this comment that you don't really begin to know how tuning works.
> 
> Any two instruments tuned to arbitrarily different reference pitches are going to sound horrible playin
> Of course they will sound horrible playing together.


----------



## willy25 (Sep 5, 2017)

willy25 said:


> Of course they will sound horrible playing together.


----------



## Necris (Sep 5, 2017)

You don't seem to understand what I was saying. Of course the octaves won't match, because, as simply as possible: You're tuned sharp to varying degrees in either scenario. The secondary point I was making that there exist alternative systems in which you could match octaves despite different reference pitches being used.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 5, 2017)

"Octaves" have nothing to do with it. 

The frequency of a hydrogen atom de-exciting from the first excited state above ground to ground state is 2 466 006 893 147 980 Hz. If A = 560.705 Hz, then the A 42 octaves above reference frequency is exactly the First Lyman Series frequency. If someone else uses A=440 Hz, then the two play together, it's going to sound awful. If the 560.705 Hz guy says, my tuning is too high, I should go an octave down, then the result is going to be exactly equal in how awful it sounds. If the guy transposes everything down a major third to the closest match, it's still going to be horribly off.

If you are talking about overtones or whatever, then I think your point might just not be relevant either way. There is simply no reason to prefer one tuning over another aside from convention.

And that convention is kind of a big deal - it's why we have "in tune" and "out of tune." I'm all for challenging that, in fact I have a bunch of microtonal instruments that fly right in the face of conventional tuning, but I don't promise anyone that any of the notes on those instruments are any more profound. It's just a fun way to venture into an alternative take on how music can work - all the while understanding deep in my heart that it's unconventional, and never trying to sell it as unlocking the secrets of the universe or anything like that.

Here's the raw honesty, brace yourself:

The whole "I use A = xxx Hz because it is better than A = 440 Hz" always falls into the same pitfall. It does not matter in the least, except that you are using a different reference standard than everyone else. 

It's exactly like deciding that one inch should be 26 mm instead of 25.4 mm. All it does is throw off everyone else using the standard. If you make some spec parts, they won't fit in other people's machines, and it's just going to cause all sorts of nonsense confusion for nothing. If you only make parts for your own machines, then everything will look fine on the surface, but nothing is going to work any better or worse.

I recall ages ago, Novax made some sort of claim that their scale lengths were specially tuned to some sort of resonant frequency of the guitar string. I'm pretty sure they removed all references to that white paper off of their site now, because it obviously just played off of a fallacy. The string's resonant frequency is determined by the length of the string - not the other way around.

It's like people think that just throwing around terms like "Hz" and "octaves" then attaching numbers and some handwaving and abracadabra, and there is some sort of conspiracy theory or a fundamental fact of science that somehow only this person is aware of, and no one else knows. Upon any further inspection, though, all that's there is someone who is confused about something and became overconfident that he knew what he was talking about.

You want to tune to A = 1000 Hz, that's fine. But no one really cares.


----------



## willy25 (Sep 5, 2017)

bostjan said:


> "Octaves" have nothing to do with it.
> 
> The frequency of a hydrogen atom de-exciting from the first excited state above ground to ground state is 2 466 006 893 147 980 Hz. If A = 560.705 Hz, then the A 42 octaves above reference frequency is exactly the First Lyman Series frequency. If someone else uses A=440 Hz, then the two play together, it's going to sound awful. If the 560.705 Hz guy says, my tuning is too high, I should go an octave down, then the result is going to be exactly equal in how awful it sounds. If the guy transposes everything down a major third to the closest match, it's still going to be horribly off.
> 
> ...



Great explanation. Also i want to apologize from bringing this up. I know its a forum to talk about music. I was just sharing that its sounds natural to my ears , and 440hz doesnt it gets me tired , but only when i play an instrument not listening to music. Who knows why? But yeah lets just keep our beliefs to our selfs etc.. How you said, if someone wants to tune differently nobody cares.


----------



## Necris (Sep 5, 2017)

With regards to Octaves, what I understood him looking for is as follows:
Tune to E Standard at 432, then Tune to E Standard at 444. The "E"s (or whatever note) between the two guitars won't match, the next octave up of the same notes don't match between the two guitars. I'm not sure why he's surprised. They don't, and will not match.

The secondary part was basically a tangent. In the case of 432 vs 444 you have a difference for +/- 48 cents. I brought up quarter tones because of this, because it struck me that you could bridge that gap, albeit imperfectly, with a quarter tone instrument. E2 on a 444hz referenced instrument and and E2 on a 432hz referenced instrument still would not be equivalent, but you could find a notes of roughly the same frequency between the two instruments - you'd probably just be sharp or flat 2 cents. Unless my mental math is failing me, which is entirely possible these days.

It _is _fundamentally a nonsensical way of going about things though, both players should simply be tuning to the same reference pitch, rather than needing to craft entirely separate instruments just to come close to being in tune with one another.

For all I care players can tune to the revolutions of Saturn if it gets the creativity flowing.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Sep 5, 2017)

No wonder people just said, "we're all going to agree to use 440, alright? Alright."


----------



## willy25 (Sep 5, 2017)

Necris said:


> With regards to Octaves, what I understood him looking for is as follows:
> Tune to E Standard at 432, then Tune to E Standard at 444. The "E"s (or whatever note) between the two guitars won't match, the next octave up of the same notes don't match between the two guitars. I'm not sure why he's surprised. They don't, and will not match.
> 
> The secondary part was basically a tangent. In the case of 432 vs 444 you have a difference for +/- 48 cents. I brought up quarter tones because of this, because it struck me that you could bridge that gap, albeit imperfectly, with a quarter tone instrument. E2 on a 444hz referenced instrument and and E2 on a 432hz referenced instrument still would not be equivalent, but you could find a notes of roughly the same frequency between the two instruments - you'd probably just be sharp or flat 2 cents. Unless my mental math is failing me, which is entirely possible these days.
> ...



Sorry for misunderstanding.
Of course they wont match if you play the same fret on both guitars. What i meant to say, play a note on the 432hz guitar and try to find it on the 444hz guitar or the 440hz, you wont. you just said it, you will probably be flat or sharp.

I like your quote: For all I care players can tune to the revolutions of Saturn if it gets the creativity


----------



## mongey (Sep 5, 2017)

I did a bunch of messing around with A 432 a couple years back after reading about it online . Is there something to it .Maybe ? but it all goes out the window once we wrangle our notes into shape with equal temperament. your A may the the intergalactic A but your next note isn't in tune with the universe anymore

I post this often . but its a great watch on ET if anyone cares


----------



## willy25 (Sep 5, 2017)

mongey said:


> I did a bunch of messing around with A 432 a couple years back after reading about it online . Is there something to it .Maybe ? but it all goes out the window once we wrangle our notes into shape with equal temperament. your A may the the intergalactic A but your next note isn't in tune with the universe anymore
> 
> I post this often . but its a great watch on ET if anyone cares



Hi, ill watch the video. Besides 432hz, have you every tried 444hz? For me its sounds more pleasant , clean. Dont know how to explain it. Its just preference. I just finish showing it to a friend, in a blind test, and he prefered it over 432 and 440. Nothing to do with the universe. I never said that.


----------



## mongey (Sep 5, 2017)

willy25 said:


> Hi, ill watch the video. Besides 432hz, have you every tried 444hz? For me its sounds more pleasant , clean. Dont know how to explain it. Its just preference. I just finish showing it to a friend, in a blind test, and he prefered it over 432 and 440. Nothing to do with the universe. I never said that.



haven't tried 444 . next time I'm just messing aorund I'll give it a go


----------



## willy25 (Sep 5, 2017)

mongey said:


> haven't tried 444 . next time I'm just messing aorund I'll give it a go



Cool. And theres a debate online 528hz (444hz) vs 432hz about which one resonates with nature, us etc.. some of the 444hz people say that, 432hz has become popular to mask the truth of 444hz. If the theory is true or not. I dont care. I only care about whats pleasant to my ears.


----------



## CrazyDean (Sep 6, 2017)

bostjan said:


> The frequency of a hydrogen atom de-exciting from the first excited state above ground to ground state is 2 466 006 893 147 980 Hz. If A = 560.705 Hz, then the A 42 octaves above reference frequency is exactly the First Lyman Series frequency. If someone else uses A=440 Hz, then the two play together, it's going to sound awful. If the 560.705 Hz guy says, my tuning is too high, I should go an octave down, then the result is going to be exactly equal in how awful it sounds. If the guy transposes everything down a major third to the closest match, it's still going to be horribly off.



What exactly do you mean by that first sentence? Are you saying that the photon released when H de-excites from the first excited state to the ground state will be at a particular energy level which can also be expressed as a frequency? Even if the photon emitted had a frequency of 440Hz, we wouldn't be able to hear it because that's not how our ears work.

P.S. I think this topic is stupid. If you want to play out of tune, do it. I'm pretty sure Willy25 is a troll.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 6, 2017)

CrazyDean said:


> What exactly do you mean by that first sentence? Are you saying that the photon released when H de-excites from the first excited state to the ground state will be at a particular energy level which can also be expressed as a frequency? Even if the photon emitted had a frequency of 440Hz, we wouldn't be able to hear it because that's not how our ears work.
> 
> P.S. I think this topic is stupid. If you want to play out of tune, do it. I'm pretty sure Willy25 is a troll.



Naw, you see different frequencies of light as different colours (in this case, you don't see it because it's ultraviolet), but my comment was heavily sarcastic. Even if you could hear 2.466 PHz, it would have no relation at all to 560.7 Hz, since the order of the harmonic is ridiculous. These golden reference pitch guys always bring up that their tuning is the umpteen millions subharmonic of some universal frequency, like the peak frequency of light from the Sun, or the Planck Radiation frequency, or whatever, and invariably, the mathematics of it never works out quite right anyway. Three lefts make a right, but three consecutive logical missteps doesn't make anything other than a confusing mess.


----------



## p0ke (Sep 6, 2017)

CrazyDean said:


> I think this topic is stupid.



I agree, but this thread is a very entertaining read nonetheless


----------



## schwiz (Sep 6, 2017)

willy25 said:


> I was just sharing that its sounds natural to my ears , and 440hz doesnt it gets me tired , but only when i play an instrument not listening to music.



Coming from the guy who returned his studio monitors to use Logitech PC speakers.

This thread delivers.


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 7, 2017)

I admit, I'm guilty of (for practically my whole life) assuming that my out-of-tune instruments not sounding in-tune with one another was a merely the sole, obvious consequence of being out-of-tune. For the first time, this thread has me wondering whether it may _actually_ instead be something to do with the hidden nature of the universe that _*they *_don't want you to know about, by Kevin Trudeau.


----------



## mongey (Sep 7, 2017)

willy25 said:


> Cool. And theres a debate online 528hz (444hz) vs 432hz about which one resonates with nature, us etc.. some of the 444hz people say that, 432hz has become popular to mask the truth of 444hz. If the theory is true or not. I dont care. I only care about whats pleasant to my ears.



tried it

just sounded a little sharp to me . no better or worse


----------



## A-Branger (Sep 8, 2017)

marcwormjim said:


> assuming that my out-of-tune instruments not sounding in-tune with one another was a merely the sole, obvious consequence of being out-of-tune



have you checked your intonation? maybe thats the problem you have. You are perfectly in tune for the open strings but once you start fretting you are out.


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 8, 2017)

Reddit says I should adjust the truss rod, while the gear page says I need a new nut! Depending on the subforum here, prescriptions for my tuning problem includes BKPs and/or a used Prestige. One guy even took ten paragraphs just to say that it's impossible to have a guitar set up "wrong." Incidentally, he had a lot of responses saying he was doing it wrong. Then _those_ people explained that you need certain woods for my tuning, but none of them remembered what went with standard tuning. Then another guy quoted the ten paragraphs by the other guy, and posted a link to a three hour YouTube video as a rebuttal.


----------



## myrtorp (Sep 8, 2017)

I think the sarcophagus in the Kings Chamber in the Great Pyramid is tuned to A in 438hz, and the chamber itself to F#, so the a is a minor third. Isn't that interesting!

All the healing talk with sound is pretty hippie but interesting nonetheless. It's always easy to be dismissive and skeptic rather than open minded. Maybe there's something to it? maybe not? 

I think im gonna go meditate and drink some green tea lol.


----------



## Demiurge (Sep 8, 2017)

myrtorp said:


> It's always easy to be dismissive and skeptic rather than open minded. Maybe there's something to it? maybe not?



Well, not always. Skeptics [should] address a claim in good faith by applying critical thinking and investigating. And that's more work than truly owed as the person making the claim bears the burden of proof. The facile thing is choosing to adopt _whatever_ because it sounds interesting and it is gratifying to feel like you know the "truth" while everybody else is "wrong" while taking no intellectual responsibility for justifying it. 

I see it like this: the mind is like a dinner party and ideas are like guests- just because a guest may be interesting doesn't mean that it's a good idea if they move-in.

Anyway, in a field that is absolutely brimming with all kinds of you're-doing-it-wrong bully-pulpit bullshit, do we really more of it?


----------



## bostjan (Sep 8, 2017)

myrtorp said:


> I think the sarcophagus in the Kings Chamber in the Great Pyramid is tuned to A in 438hz, and the chamber itself to F#, so the a is a minor third. Isn't that interesting!
> 
> All the healing talk with sound is pretty hippie but interesting nonetheless. It's always easy to be dismissive and skeptic rather than open minded. Maybe there's something to it? maybe not?
> 
> I think im gonna go meditate and drink some green tea lol.


Erm, the box in the upper chamber is tuned to resonate at 117 Hz ± ?

If you call that "A," then the octave is 234 Hz and then 468 Hz. If you call it A#, then A would be 442 Hz.

Do you have a reputable source that states otherwise?

The chamber itself resonates at 121 Hz. Two octaves higher is 484 Hz, about a quarter step higher than the box.


----------



## Bobro (Sep 8, 2017)

The fixed reference pitch doesn't mean a darn thing, so the 432 conspiracy theory thing is almost 100 percent a load of hogwash. Using a 432 A and 12-tone equal temperament, all you get is a transposition down about a quartertone, nothing more than that. I say "almost" because if you have antique and vintage acoustic instruments, they were almost certainly built for a lower overall pitch, and will physically sound better with a lower "A" than 440. I have a vintage and very valuable clarinet that wasn't made for A-440. Then there is the human voice, which tends to get strained and thin singing the highest notes when using a 440 A and higher (in Vienna the orchestras tune about 448 Hz in recent times, so you'll never hear a real balls to the wall Queen of the Night aria anymore there). In the old days, orchestras would shift the whole pitch spectrum up or down to suit the star singers. That's the musical way, and that's how Indian classical music works too- the singer sings the reference pitch and it can change every concert.

Aside from these considerations, where tuning really matters musically is in the _relative_ pitches between the notes. This is a whole world unto itself and makes a huge difference. The worst thing about the 432 Hz nonsense is that it detracts from the very serious and real issue of the actual tuning, which is all about the relative frequencies between tones. Our current 12-tone equal temperament only became "fixed" a hundred years ago, and even then didn't really completely dominate until recently. Neither Bach nor Mozart used 12-tone equal temperament- Bach knew of it and is on record as saying it sucks, and Mozart is on record describing his tuning to one of his students; it's what's called "1/6 comma meantone", and works out to 55 tones to the octave, not 12. Of course he didn't use all 55 tones and keys, only 12 on a keyboard and about two dozen distinct tones for orchestras and choirs.

Western music theory, notation and harmony is based on quarter-comma meantone, which works out to 31 tones per octave. That's why C# and Db are notated differently, even though they are the same pitch on today's keyboards and guitars- originally they were literally different pitches, and harpsichords several hundred years ago often had split keys to reflect that. 

It's a huge topic and tons and tons of work if you get into it. Personally I use 17 unequally spaced tones to the octave and a 416 Hz reference pitch, I think it's well worth it to get away from the 12-tone A-440 system, even though it's tons of work and relearning everything and all that.


----------



## myrtorp (Sep 8, 2017)

I just read it on the web! Might be bullshit tho. Now that you ask I looked it up and only found cheesy websites stating it.

About skeptics, doing a skeptical analysis and really look into something takes time and effort offcource. But just dismissing something out of hand since it sounds too far fetched or stupid is what i mean by easy. 

Then there's the other way around where you absorb info without too much critical thinking like me with the pyramid acoustics just now 
I just love the mystery surrounding ancient structures like the pyramids though. I guess I want there to be some cool connection like that. I have been on a roll about ancient ruins and read and watched so many videos about them. Kind of annoys me to admit I wasn't very skeptical myself haha!


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 8, 2017)

what i mainly dislike from naysayers is how these arrogant skeptics think they can just take an idea or claim presented without evidence and then just dismiss it without evidence. i mean, they kind of have to prove it does not not exist, or else who should we even believe?


----------



## bostjan (Sep 8, 2017)

marcwormjim said:


> what i mainly dislike from naysayers is how these arrogant skeptics think they can just take an idea or claim presented without evidence and then just dismiss it without evidence. i mean, they kind of have to prove it does not not exist, or else who should we even believe?


I'm not sure how serious your posts are, generally speaking, so, feel free to dismiss this if you were only joking.
So, you cannot accept every idea as default, otherwise, you have to accept conflicting assumptions, and, generally, this thought process can be very dangerous. This is evidenced by the present day and age, in which folks are so convinced that they can treat cancer and other dangerous diseases by praying, crystal therapy, magnets, etc., even when there have been studies suggesting that those treatments do nothing to slow the action of the disease- meanwhile there are dozens of effective treatments available but not being used.
So, it's one thing to believe that a particular frequency has positive health effects on an individual, which is fine, but it is another, more dangerous thing to attempt to spread that idea based on zero evidence and no concrete logic.

In this case, there is a preponderance of evidence that neither 432 Hz nor 440 Hz nor 444 Hz has any effect on the human body that the others do not, and there is no evidence whatsoever, that any reference tone in music is universally preferable to any other, except for 440 Hz, merely because it is easily and readily available.


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 8, 2017)

As the cow said by shaking its tits, I disagree udderly. All I know is that guitar players talk down any new idea or old idea the proponent just heard about. Like, instead of tuning your open A to 440, try tuning your 12th fret to 880. You might find you feel a lot better and, besides, who does it hurt? Without deviation, progress is not deviant.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 8, 2017)

marcwormjim said:


> As the cow said by shaking its tits, I disagree udderly. All I know is that guitar players talk down any new idea or old idea the proponent just heard about. Like, instead of tuning your open A to 440, try tuning your 12th fret to 880. You might find you feel a lot better and, besides, who does it hurt? Without deviation, progress is not deviant.


Why not both? And drop-tune? Tune your low A to 110 Hz and then the twelfth fret to 220 Hz and reap the rewards of the best of all three worlds?
Take it one step further and grab a second guitar; tune each string and each fret to a slightly different reference pitch, then compare how the two sound, then decide for yourself which sounds cooler.


----------



## Kwert (Sep 8, 2017)

CrazyDean said:


> Well, at some point you're not even in A anymore. If A is set at 440Hz, Ab is 415.305Hz. I mean, you could still call it A, but it's the same as Ab to anyone else.




That's not exactly true. In the Baroque period there was no real standard for what "A" was. You'd have anything ranging from A=375 all the way to A=444, maybe even more variance on either end. The standardization of "A" is a relatively recent thing.


----------



## DistinguishedPapyrus (Sep 8, 2017)

Really interesting topic. 444 does come off as a more pleasing sound. Sold. This is gonna become my standard tuning now.

Easy way to play around with it:

http://www.szynalski.com/tone-generator/


----------



## A-Branger (Sep 9, 2017)

Kwert said:


> That's not exactly true. In the Baroque period there was no real standard for what "A" was. You'd have anything ranging from A=375 all the way to A=444, maybe even more variance on either end. The standardization of "A" is a relatively recent thing.



true, but it doesnt change the fact that 440 sounds like 440 and 432 or 444 or 325 or whtever sounds like those.

we standarized to 440 to be known as "A", you can call 375 "K" if you want, like Crazy Dean said, at some point you are not in "A" anymore, but not enough to be in "Ab" so you are in "A-$%@b". His point is that its another frequency. Another "note"

to "tune" to 432 or whatever number, is like us now "downtuning", We are using A= 391.995 in order to play songs in "dropC" or "D standard", just that the "A" string now is 391.995, or more commonly known as "G"

same concept applies to the in-between frequencies where is not A but not Ab, its just that we dont have a name for it


The whole "its the universe frequency" thing is bullcrap, because if that were true then we could only be able to play A and all the octaves in order to keep the "sacred number" as the frequencies waveforms are only doubles or halfs. ANY other note played in that whatever A tunned instruemnt would be a random Hz number taht would ahve nothing to do with A.

like you can play a beautiful A chord and everything is harmony, but you can chuck some random note and it wold never sound good with A.


why do we downtune today?, because some songs just sound better in another scale with a lower note, but we jsut want to keep using the guitar as we learn it, not to add more strings and change patterns, so we change our tunning to a different "A" Hz, tecnically we are not downtunning, we are changing our A frequency so we can play our songs the way we learn the instrument with the scales that we feel more comfortable and elt the instrument to transpose it to a "better" scale by changing our "A".

same concept if you tune to A"444", you technically are "up tuning" your guitar, its jsut that its such a small change that it doesnt reach to be A# so we dont have a name for it..... same as 432Hz, you just are "downtuning" to a note we dont have a name for it but it sits in between Ab-A .


----------



## Bobro (Sep 9, 2017)

A-Branger said:


> The whole "its the universe frequency" thing is bullcrap, because if that were true then we could only be able to play A and all the octaves in order to keep the "sacred number" as the frequencies waveforms are only doubles or halfs. ANY other note played in that whatever A tunned instruemnt would be a random Hz number taht would ahve nothing to do with A.
> 
> like you can play a beautiful A chord and everything is harmony, but you can chuck some random note and it wold never sound good with A.



There you've hit upon the problem that has plagued musical tuning for the last 2000+ years. Bu it's not just the octaves of A that will sound good and be "in tune" and blend in harmoniously, but any ratios of simple integer multiples of the fundamental frequency. For example, the pure and "natural" fifth vibrates at 3/2 the frequency of the fundamental, the pure major third at 5/4, the fourth at 4/3. If you tune this way, though, you're pretty much stuck with the root key and sometimes modulating to the fifth, like in Indian music. Otherwise your notes will sound as you describe- totally unrelated to the root tone. This is why we have 12-tone equal temperament these days- everything is off from natural harmonic relationships, technically everything is "out of tune", but in a way that has rhyme and reason to it, and we just get used to it, too. It's easy to hear this on a guitar- compare the difference between a harmonic and a fretted note that's the same note on paper. 12-tone equal temperament (12-tET) is a brilliant (and Chinese Ming dynasty) invention because the fifth is just a fraction of a hair (2 cents) flat of the pure 3:2 fifth you find in "nature", and western music is largely based on fifths, from the "circle of fifths" to power chords. Several hundred years ago, when major thirds were the real focus of western music, western music was tuned to 1/4-comma meantone, which has pure natural major thirds but the compromise was that the fifths were very flat and usually sound like ass to us today. 

There are all kinds of tricky ways to try to get around this inherent conflict between "the music of the spheres" and actual music making, but western culture decided on 12-tone equal temperament and it _is_ very practical and flexible, obviously. The reference pitch itself doesn't mean much, but the tuning means a lot, and that's where these 432 nuts should be concentrating, if they were musically serious at all.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 11, 2017)

Kwert said:


> That's not exactly true. In the Baroque period there was no real standard for what "A" was. You'd have anything ranging from A=375 all the way to A=444, maybe even more variance on either end. The standardization of "A" is a relatively recent thing.




A = 440 Hz is the standard. That is not a wrong statement. Saying "in the Baroque period" doesn't make that any less of a fact. The standardization of A = 440 Hz is a relatively recent thing, but it is a thing.

Please don't jump down someone's throat by saying "That's not exactly true" when what the person said is, at the moment, *exactly true*.


----------



## Necris (Sep 11, 2017)




----------



## Explorer (Sep 14, 2017)

marcwormjim said:


> what i mainly dislike from naysayers is how these arrogant skeptics think they can just take an idea or claim presented without evidence and then just dismiss it without evidence. i mean, they kind of have to prove it does not not exist, or else who should we even believe?


Could one look at the tuning of past instruments, and show the tunings did or didn't automatically cluster around a proposed magic reference frequency? That would show such a cluster did or didn't exist, right?


Kwert said:


> That's not exactly true. In the Baroque period there was no real standard for what "A" was. You'd have anything ranging from A=375 all the way to A=444, maybe even more variance on either end. The standardization of "A" is a relatively recent thing.


In fact, the variation in pitch is a well-established fact. Organs, brass, flutes, etc. all varied over time. 

It's amazing how often pseudoscience gets promoted.


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 14, 2017)

Explorer said:


> Could one look at the tuning of past instruments, and show the tunings did or didn't automatically cluster around a proposed magic reference frequency? That would show such a cluster did or didn't exist, right?



I don't know, maaaan.


----------

