# 432 Hz



## olsta (May 25, 2008)

Fellow brothers and sisters

It is my honour to present this information to you.

432Hz

Its true, it does sound and feel better, brighter (yet a bit lower) , sustains more.

I implore you, if you have a tuner that goes to 432 Hz, please try it.

My 7 came to life. clean or distorted to hell, it doesnt matter.


----------



## ibznorange (May 25, 2008)

Hrm. i actually use 444hz, just cause i sorta did it by accident, and it stuck  
ill try it out sometime. i dunno if it will make a huge difference though


----------



## D-EJ915 (May 25, 2008)

cool stuff, I'll get a better tuner sometime and check it out


----------



## Metaljim (May 26, 2008)

My tuner goes to 432Hz. I'm going to try it out later.


----------



## Durero (May 26, 2008)

I definitely support the idea of being free to experiment with tunings and changing your reference pitch.

If tuning down to 432 sounds better to anyones taste they should go for it. 

But the reasons given on that site are utter nonsense to me.



432Hz said:


> In 1939 Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels dictated 440Hz as the standard tuning pitch. This to let people think and feel in a certain manner, and to keep them a prisoner of a certain consciousness. This in spite of that Professor Dussaut from the Paris Conservatory wrote a referendum that was signed by 23,000 French musicians who all were for the preservation of the A= 432Hz





Wikipedia said:


> In 1936, an international conference recommended that the A above middle C be tuned to 440 Hz. This standard was taken up by the International Organization for Standardization in 1955 (and was reaffirmed by them in 1975) as ISO 16. Since then it has served as the audio frequency reference for the calibration of pianos, violins, and other musical instruments.






432Hz said:


> Music on a basis tone of A=432Hz is more transparent, more marked, clearer, gives an obvious musical picture and the Overtones and undertones moves more freely and can multiply themselves more. Music based on 440Hz represents emotions and locks up the head. By lowering the pitch 440Hz - 8Hz to 432Hz, the music changes. Which first was painful to the ear changes into a beautiful, warm music whereby relaxation is natural. Overtones are decisive for the sound, this holds for instruments as well as the human voice. The piano tuned in A= 440Hz creates an artificial clarity and strengthens the high stress levels of today. The instruments on which Mozart and Verdi composed their masterpieces were in 432Hz -is the same as C=256Hz- pitched. The original Stadivarius violin was developed to resonate at 432Hz.


Again, if whoever wrote this finds these subjective qualities to be true for them then fine, but claiming those qualities are universal is nonsense imo.


----------



## DefinedInSilere (May 26, 2008)

I agree with Durero, that is very subjective. To each their own, but this wouldn't work when playing with synth instruments or standard piano. 

Mind controlling 440Hz conspiracy theory anyone?


----------



## NegaTiveXero (May 26, 2008)

What if I don't want my music to be warm and relaxing?

Besides, I listened to that crappy Bobby dude's music that they links to and it kinda made me feel angry, not relaxed.


----------



## DefinedInSilere (May 26, 2008)

We hear A as 440 and 432 seems a bit flat to our ears. I think some hear this and think about it too hard. This link was really cool though. Summary

anyone here about the violinist playing sub-harmonics?


----------



## ibznorange (May 26, 2008)

Durero, my thoughts exactly. youre just way more vocal about it 
its really like tuning, and being a bit flat is all. i dont see how it would make a huge difference. Other than it just sounding better to your ear (i prefer the sound of a C# ot that of an E), i dont see there being an actual resonance difference. I mean, the resonant peaks of 2 similar pieces of mahogany vary enough to make that non viable


----------



## Naren (May 26, 2008)

Durero, I agree 100%.

I thought that what the guy was saying was absolute nonsense. If you prefer 432 to 440, then use it, but don't believe that guy's rambling:



> Music on a basis tone of A=432Hz is more transparent, more marked, clearer, gives an obvious musical picture and the Overtones and undertones moves more freely and can multiply themselves more. Music based on 440Hz represents emotions and locks up the head. By lowering the pitch 440Hz - 8Hz to 432Hz, the music changes.


----------



## olsta (May 26, 2008)

thats fair enough,

just spreading the knowledge amigos 

432 is the natural resonance of the body (and other things), 440 hz is not liked by many singers because over time 440 can tear vocal chords, many opera singers sing in 432 as it is the natural pitch.

Stradivarius violins were crafted to 432 hz.


----------



## Drache713 (May 26, 2008)

What I would like to hear is the A=432 hz reference pitch used in an aggressive, fast, heavy (read: metal) context. All the clips I have listened to have been mellow styles and it worked fine for those, but how does it work in a heavy and aggressive context? That's what I want to know.


----------



## olsta (May 26, 2008)

Drache713 said:


> What I would like to hear is the A=432 hz reference pitch used in an aggressive, fast, heavy (read: metal) context. All the clips I have listened to have been mellow styles and it worked fine for those, but how does it work in a heavy and aggressive context? That's what I want to know.



- Music

there you go bud, Lacuna coil is on there


----------



## Drache713 (May 26, 2008)

olsta said:


> - Music
> 
> there you go bud, Lacuna coil is on there


That wasn't exactly what I had in mind... dark yes, but that's in a sludgier gothic sense, not what I was really talking about. My gut instinct would be that this 432 reference wouldn't be as effective or noticable on more aggressive faster songs.


----------



## olsta (May 26, 2008)

Drache713 said:


> That wasn't exactly what I had in mind... dark yes, but that's in a sludgier gothic sense, not what I was really talking about. My gut instinct would be that this 432 reference wouldn't be as effective or noticable on more aggressive faster songs.



yeah its noticeable even on ear melting distortion and multiple guitars.

lol sorry that was the only link that didnt have mellow music on it


----------



## Metal Ken (May 26, 2008)

FWIW, Candlemass' first disc was Eb where A=423. (Twenty three, i'm not typoing)


----------



## Durero (May 26, 2008)

With respect for your enthusiasm for this tuning olsta - I love seeing musicians (and people in general) questioning given standards and exploring alternatives - I don't buy the reasons you're listing here. But again, if you simply prefer 432Hz to anything else that's totally cool 



olsta said:


> 432 is the natural resonance of the body (and other things)


Who's body and which body part? I can't think of any examples of physical resonance in the body which would be the same frequency in two different people.



olsta said:


> 440 hz is not liked by many singers because over time 440 can tear vocal chords,


Yes 440 is a tiny bit higher than 432 so it could be a tiny bit harder on vocal chords when singers are singing at the top of their range, but by that reasoning anything lower than 432 would be even better.



olsta said:


> many opera singers sing in 432 as it is the natural pitch.


How is it natural?



olsta said:


> Stradivarius violins were crafted to 432 hz.


Stradivarious far predated any pitch standardization and fixed pitch instruments from that time (organs, pitchpipes) have been found to vary anywhere from 380Hz - 480Hz, do you know of any evidence for this claim?


The linked articles in this thread mention Rudolph Steiner (Rudolf Steiner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) as being a proponent of 432Hz. If Steiner said 432Hz is good for some kind of mystical reasons then I'm open to that idea, even if only because I've experienced first-hand the products of the type of farming he developed (bio-dynamic) and he certainly knew what he was doing in that area.


----------



## Naren (May 26, 2008)

^Another excellent post by Durero.  Good points on everything.

There is nothing magical about 432 Hz. Also, 432 Hz is only the designation for one note. Does making the A above middle C 432 Hz suddenly make all notes relative to that mystically beautiful?

And, if 432 Hz is the "natural resonance of the body," then I guess the body only resonates when you play the A above middle C at 432 Hz.


----------



## stuh84 (May 26, 2008)

Given that guitars all have different construction, made from different woods etc, it is INCREDIBLY unlikely that they all resonate at 432hz. I think the original poster needs to look into resonant frequencies.


----------



## darren (May 26, 2008)

I highly doubt that ANY instrument can be "built to resonate at XXX Hz". If your instrument was designed to resonate at a particular frequency, that one note would either sound amazing or shit.


----------



## keithb (May 26, 2008)

darren said:


> I highly doubt that ANY instrument can be "built to resonate at XXX Hz". If your instrument was designed to resonate at a particular frequency, that one note would either sound amazing or shit.



Indeed. This sort of resonance results in wolf tones, which instrument makers usually strive to avoid.


----------



## cev (May 26, 2008)

> Music on a basis tone of A=432Hz is more transparent, more marked, clearer, gives an obvious musical picture and the Overtones and undertones moves more freely and can multiply themselves more.



Wow, total epic fail. What the hell does this even mean? Seriously, I'm trying to critique this statement but it's so nonsensical that anything I can write just sounds retarded too.

I mean, if you prefer the sound of A432, I've got no problem with that, but pretty much everything written on that page is total BS.


----------



## newamerikangospel (May 26, 2008)

A man was once told that his practicing medicine was "full of snake oil"


He responded with, "Snake oil is full of omega 3 fatty acids"


Its all in the "ear" of the beholder, as it were.


----------



## darren (May 26, 2008)

It sounds like it could be an excerpt from _Tone Secrets "They" Don't Want You To Know About_ by Kevin Trudeau.

Lots of people like the sound and feel of instruments when they're tuned a little lower than "standard" tuning. Look at the number of players who have recorded and play live tuned down a half step or a whole step. And of course, the trend toward playing guitars with seven, eight or more strings, to enhance the tonal range of the instrument. I don't think there's anything magic about the A=432 Hz tuning.


----------



## thedonutman (May 26, 2008)

I got the two Lacuna Coil tracks and cut them up randomly on Cubase, so its sometimes 432 and sometimes 440

432test.mp3 - File Shared from Box.net - Free Online File Storage







Listen/watch for yourself.

Personally, I can't notice any difference in tone, I just think it sounds a little out of tune now and again. Maybe I'm just not at that stage of musical understanding where I can appreciate stuff like this......


----------



## philkilla (May 26, 2008)

432 HZ is just slightly flat of whatever your relative tuning already is.

Dimebag ALWAYS tuned 1/4 step lower than whatever tuning he was already using: Walk- 1 and 1/4 step down. New Level- Drop D plus 1/4 step down.

I'm not sure how much 1/4 step relates to as far as HZ goes though.


Also, sort of off-topic. Have you noticed that the dial tone of a phone is in the pitch of A=440? 

Quick tuning trick.


----------



## Tiger (May 26, 2008)

Ive never heard Mozart play, so Im not sure that I'd want to tune like him.


----------



## keithb (May 26, 2008)

philkilla said:


> Also, sort of off-topic. Have you noticed that the dial tone of a phone is in the pitch of A=440?
> 
> Quick tuning trick.



Just be careful - the dial tone (like most telephony signal tones) is made up of two interfering tones: 350Hz and 440Hz (iirc) - don't tune to the wrong one


----------



## olsta (May 27, 2008)

darren said:


> I highly doubt that ANY instrument can be "built to resonate at XXX Hz". If your instrument was designed to resonate at a particular frequency, that one note would either sound amazing or shit.



course it can, but guitars (due to frets make it more complicated

Kunath Instrumentenbau - Sonnenflöte Sonnenflöte

check the recorder made at 432 hz

each to their own. The information is out there, interpret it how you best think, all is good


----------



## Trespass (May 27, 2008)

Interesting, but I don't think magical. Also, I'd like to see proof in the body resonating at 432hz


----------



## Metal Ken (May 27, 2008)

olsta said:


> course it can, but guitars (due to frets make it more complicated
> 
> Kunath Instrumentenbau - Sonnenflöte Sonnenflöte
> 
> ...



Thats the pitch that the open note is, not the frequency the flute resonates at.


----------



## olsta (May 27, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> Thats the pitch that the open note is, not the frequency the flute resonates at.




The A on the Sun Recorder is tuned to this pitch


----------



## TomAwesome (May 28, 2008)

Interesting, but I'd need more and different info than that to be convinced that it's really at all better. I've been tuning to A447 lately myself.


----------



## Naren (May 28, 2008)

My tuner goes from 438-448. I tried 445 once, but it just sounded like a sharp A.


----------



## JeddyH (May 28, 2008)

lol my tuner goes to 433hz dammit


----------



## Metal Ken (May 28, 2008)

olsta said:


> The A on the Sun Recorder is tuned to this pitch



Exactly. But the instrument itself does not resonate at that frequency is what im getting at.


----------



## TomAwesome (May 28, 2008)

I tried A432 on my acoustic earlier. It worked fine, but had kind of a loose, almost sloppy in a way (for lack of a better word), kind of sound. I might have just been lazy and not tuned it just right, though. I tried it at 435 and liked it a lot more. Even moreso, though, I was surprised I could really tell any difference between 432 and 435. I might mess with it more later on. The main thing I noticed about 432, though, was that it had this distinctive "old" kind of sound to it. I guess that makes sense, though, since older music used to be tuned closer to that area than 440. Again, though, I'm surprised to have been able to tell any difference other than, "Eh. It sounds flat," so it might all just be in my head.


----------



## Digital Black (May 29, 2008)

For Pantera and Van Halen; was a lot of the guitar work slighly flat because of the Tape type recording there were using at the time?

I'd think a perfectly tuned and intonated guitar would sound "lush" no matter what the reference pitch ( excluding body wood and electronics)


----------



## Naren (May 29, 2008)

Digital Black said:


> For Pantera and Van Halen; was a lot of the guitar work slighly flat because of the Tape type recording there were using at the time?
> 
> I'd think a perfectly tuned and intonated guitar would sound "lush" no matter what the reference pitch ( excluding body wood and electronics)



Pantera was flat because Dimebag liked to tune 1/4 of a step below whatever he was tuning to. The bass player tuned relative to Dimebag.

I have heard that Van Halen also tuned slightly down on some songs.


----------



## FortePenance (May 29, 2008)

Digital Black said:


> For Pantera and Van Halen; was a lot of the guitar work slighly flat because of the Tape type recording there were using at the time?



Wasn't that one of the Metallica albums?


----------



## Metal Ken (May 29, 2008)

FortePenance said:


> Wasn't that one of the Metallica albums?



Ride the Lightning was slightly sharp cause the tape was sped up a bit.


----------



## Naren (May 29, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> Ride the Lightning was slightly sharp cause the tape was sped up a bit.



Exactamundo. One of the arisable problems of analog recording.


----------



## Drew (May 29, 2008)

> Freedom of choice in bringing back the frequency of the earth is what it's all about today.



 

That's absolute crap.  Tune what you want to, but put down the water bong first, you know?


----------



## Groff (May 29, 2008)

I can't hear any difference in tone differences between the clips provided. One sounds a tiny bit flatter than the other. Besides a change in pitch, it makes no difference to me.  I'll maybe experiment with it later tonight just to hear it through my own equipment.


----------



## 432hz tuning (May 5, 2009)

I think us musicians should have a serious look at changing International concert pitch 


if you would like to hear the difference between 432hz and 440hz music 
visit the main omega432.com website here:

The Importance of 432hz Music

Peace
Brian T Collins


----------



## ShadyDavey (May 5, 2009)

> 432hz vibrates on the principals of the golden mean PHI and unifies the properties of light, time, space, matter, gravity and magnetism with biology, the DNA code and consciousness.


Brian, in case you weren't aware - drugs are bad, m'kay? A relaxing 432hz does not fit with our overall schemes of Djent, Symphonic Destruction, World Domination or other matters related to food substances the merest mention of which will lead to a permanent ban and enforced chemical neutering.

However, I would most sincerely like to thank you for taking the time to remind us that in times of reflection we can expand the universal consciousness, bring about World peace and eventually enter the realm where light becomes heat, _just by flicking a button on our digital tuners._

Peace out 
Dave T Volkswagen-Porsche

(PS - Necro Bumping makes baby Jesus a sad panda  )


----------



## GRUNTKOR (May 5, 2009)

432hz tuning said:


> I think us musicians should have a serious look at changing International concert pitch
> 
> 
> if you would like to hear the difference between 432hz and 440hz music
> ...



get out!


----------



## Æxitosus (May 5, 2009)

Groff said:


> I can't hear any difference in tone differences between the clips provided. One sounds a tiny bit flatter than the other. Besides a change in pitch, it makes no difference to me.  I'll maybe experiment with it later tonight just to hear it through my own equipment.


kinda what I was thinking...


----------



## Trespass (May 5, 2009)

Mr. Collins,

I'm of the opinnion that if it is a more relaxing set of overtones you seek, you should instead change the makeup of the notes, and not simply shift the same construction down 8hz.

I find equal temperament itself to be fundamentally flawed. All twelve notes are equal. I'm fully aware of the detriments of meantone temperament and well-temperament, but at least there is a differentiation between keys. And this is undeniably what composers from the baroque and classical period were using.

Personally, I'm a fan of just intonation and the Partch tonality diamond.

Prent Rodgers (Just Intonation composer): SoundClick artist: Prent Rodgers - Microtonal Music by Prent Rodgers. Made with Csound.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (May 5, 2009)

The tension a string is at does effect the tone that it produces, so microtuning a bit sharp or flat purposely will have a slightly different timbre, whether it's "better" or "worse" is entirely subjective.


----------



## Rick (May 6, 2009)

Wow, that was pointless.


----------



## Harry (May 6, 2009)

I actually enjoyed the 440Hz version better than the 432Hz version


----------



## EliNoPants (May 6, 2009)

y'know, to my ear, the 432hz tuning does sound better, but then again, i prefer the pitch of D over the pitch of E, and A sounds better to me than B does, i really doubt that simply switching from 440 to 432 is going to make music sound better in every possible way (and open my third eye? WTF?)...if you want everything to sound perfect all the time, you go fretless and develop some insane finger discipline and technique

for the lazy assholes like me, i'd LOVE to try out one of the True Temperament necks...alas, i am a poor boy from a poor family, spare me my life from this monstrosity (whoa, what? no killing me!!!)
True Temperament - Fretting systems
now THAT gives me a boner even harder than the all Bloodwood guitar i saw earlier today


----------



## Koshchei (May 6, 2009)

I use 415Hz or 440Hz.


----------



## Nats (May 6, 2009)

i just use 666Hz and call it a day


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 14, 2010)

thought I'd revive the 432 discussion, seeing as there aren't any other threads about it on internet.

I love 432Hz. It gives the feeling of total immersion into the music you are playing, and though it could be argued that this is a subjective observation, I feel there is some math behind it that further supports the use of 432Hz.

We're all familiar with the Wave equation and inverse-square law, which governs how waves travel in our room (the strength or freq is inversely proportional to the square of the distance). This is essentially a binary logarithm system (log2n) where the frequency bandwidth doubles or halves depending on the intensity of the frequency.

so frequencies would be allocated the following bandwidth: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048 .........

If we use A-440Hz, the wavelength of c0 is 2100cm, c1 is 1050cm (each octave is half of the previous wavelength)

If we use A-432Hz, the wavelength of c0 is 2048cm, c1 = 1024, c2 = 512, etc etc..

so with A-440 our note has to occupy more of the frequency spectrum, and all of a sudden we are creating more noise for the harmonics (that are based on half or double the frequency). With A-432 we have wavelengths that can be allocated in less "bits" so to speak. Which leaves room for other frequencies and causes less reflection/freq cancellation in my opinion.


----------



## sami (Mar 14, 2010)

Someone told me a long time ago that things naturally resonated at 428Hz. Never heard anything from anyone/anywhere ever since.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Mar 14, 2010)

I have perfect pitch, so anything not A440 bugs the shit out of me.

Also, I've yet to hear a convincing reason to switch to it. Sure if it sounds better to you, do it, but any particular tonal benefits are subjective.


----------



## xtrustisyoursx (Mar 14, 2010)

there is so much bs in this thread it's absurd lol


----------



## tr0n (Mar 14, 2010)

I'm veeeeeeery skeptical about all this after reading through most of this thread. There is also something very 'new agey' about that website (The Importance of 432hz Music) that I really don't like. And I think it's quite telling that it's asking you to listen to 432Hz first and 440Hz afterwards. Of course 440Hz is gonna sound wierd, because if you listened to 432 first then that is going to be your reference. For this reason, I listened to 440Hz first and 432 after. I preferred neither to be honest, I easily settled into listening to either. And those quotes underneath each audio player widget are designed to set up expectations in your mind. A "fair" test would be to encourage the listener to listen to each, perhaps without even telling them which is which, and maybe even suggesting a minute break between listening to each one.

I firmly believe our brains are comparative when it comes to listening to sound. For instance, a guitar can be in tune with itself if you tune each string to each other, and only in extreme cases will you notice a difference from 440Hz standard tuning. Compared to a guitar tuned to an actual tuner, you may then discover the guitar tuned to itself is in fact flat or sharp on every string. We set up expectations and references all the time, so listening to 432Hz prior to 440Hz will probably lead us to prefer 432Hz, and vice versa would lead us to prefer 440Hz.

As for the mathematics behind it which Gandalf has explained, I'm a little bit skeptical about that also, as I imagine things such as air humdiity and reflections are likely to alter such nuances of wavelength and frequency.


----------



## tr0n (Mar 14, 2010)

TemjinStrife said:


> I have perfect pitch



 /cry

Out of interest, do you believe it is possible to 'learn' perfect pitch?

EDIT: apologies for the double post, I forgot automerge has been disabled with the recent updates.


----------



## bulb (Mar 14, 2010)

I prefer 1.21 Gigawatts myself!


----------



## S-O (Mar 14, 2010)

^Which is funny, I recall reading that the concert pitch has been all over the place throughout history, with there never being a standard pitch until fairly recently. Like 20th century recently. 19somethingorother.

So, I always found it hilarious that people with perfect pitch would pitch a fit if someone was a hair sharp in band.

If I recall, parts of Europe tune to 442 and 445 I think, at least Germany seemed to.

I think there may be some reason to use different standard pitches, as in our western tempered system, things are not "in tune", certain intervals are pretty damn close, like the fifth, but in a given key, say B, the notes are not in tune as they should be, given what B should actually by Hz wise.

Also, music therapy wise, I am sure there are plenty of reasons, I am not wellread on it, but I remember &totse pushing I-Doser back in the day, a program that played low frequencies, slightly off to produce varying beat frequencies, in an attempt to reproduce effects of drugs by fucking with brain waves.

So. I think it is all relative, and as you pointed out, subjective. People certainly found Pantera to be bad ass, but they were not always tuned "right".



Edit, gah, took too long to write, now I am pointing at Mr. Bulb, which is also funny. Meant to point at TemjinStrife.


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 14, 2010)

Well, i reckon part of the reflection is there because the waves are too long at 440Hz. All the old school prodigies tuned their pianos to 432 tho. Strad violins resonate at 432 (and they know their string instruments). In a couple days I get my piano down to 432 so shall have to record some before/afters.


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 14, 2010)

yeah i hate the fact that all the new age dudes are preaching this too. i'm more curious about using 432Hz to tweak the room instead.


----------



## Demiurge (Mar 14, 2010)

I'll have to hand it to those promoting this idea, of all the high church music voodoo "I've chosen to make an arbitrary change in an already-arbitrary musical practice that makes me appreciate music so much more and if you don't agree then it's probably because your mainstream, homogenized, conformist senses aren't as keen as mine" stuff, this has been the most persistent.

At the heart of it all, people need to focus on composing good music. A bad song isn't going to be a better song if it's 8Hz flatter.


----------



## Rogueleader (Mar 15, 2010)

It makes me feel better about not having perfect pitch knowing that it was an invention of the nazis.


----------



## Metal Ken (Mar 15, 2010)

GandalfDaBlack said:


> We're all familiar with the Wave equation and inverse-square law, which governs how waves travel in our room (the strength or freq is inversely proportional to the square of the distance). This is essentially a binary logarithm system (log2n) where the frequency bandwidth doubles or halves depending on the intensity of the frequency.



We're familiar with this? break this shit down for me, cause I'm not familiar with it. You post a bunch of numbers and don't tell us what they mean.


----------



## Bakerman (Mar 15, 2010)

GandalfDaBlack said:


> If we use A-440Hz, the wavelength of c0 is 2100cm, c1 is 1050cm (each octave is half of the previous wavelength)
> 
> If we use A-432Hz, the wavelength of c0 is 2048cm, c1 = 1024, c2 = 512, etc etc..



Wavelength varies inversely with frequency. Wavelengths will increase, not decrease, going from A440 to A432.


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

yea, good point. guess i shouldnt have typed this at 3am in the first place. It made more sense then. 

But... there's a chart of musical frequencies here
Frequencies of Musical Notes

Using the table above, i added another column for their freq at 432.

.Note.	Frequency (Hz)	Freq A-432
C0	16.35	16.05
C1	32.7	32.11
C2	65.41	64.22	
C3	130.81 128.43
C4	261.63 256.87
C5	523.25 513.74
C6	1046.5 1027.47
C7	2093	2054.95
C8	4186.01 4109.9

so perhaps it's the frequency that doesn't drift too far from log2n then.


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

Some dude (Brendan Bombaci) mentions something about the log2 thing over at A-432Hz (Known as Verdis A) vs A-440hz, A Sonic Experiment

Further on in the comments of that article:


> ps: aside from all of this, when one tunes music to 432Hz, the C note automatically becomes any number of multiples relative to 256: 512,1024, or opposingly, 128, 64 (like binary cellular or solar sequencing), 32, and all the way DOWN TO THE WONDERFUL NUMBER 1&#8242; FOR THE FIRST OCTAVE.


----------



## loktide (Mar 15, 2010)

the numeric (log2) arguments are plain bullshit. intervals are defined by the ratio of two different superimposed frequencies and not by absolute numeric values. the arabic numbering system is nothing but a language humans came up to be able to express mathematics. it could also have been based on a completely different numbering system, maybe even a non-decadic one, without altering the content of what's being described. it's just like different languages. there is no _right_ one. they all serve the purpose of communication.

altering the numeric frequency values means shit. sound waves does not have to perfectly fit odd/even numbers, nor whole numbers to propagate 

tune to whatever the fuck sounds right to you. i personally think it makes sense to have a standardized pitch in music. hearing those 432Hz tracks right after the 440Hz one (or viceversa) makes them sound out of tune to my ears during the first seconds until my ears adapt, which is pretty fucking annoying


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

> altering the numeric frequency values means shit. sound waves does not have to perfectly fit odd/even numbers, nor whole numbers to propagate



true, but for the purpose of recording I'd like to achieve a smoother wave with less noise and anomalies caused from harmonics (and their harmonics) being offset 8Hz in the first place. The thing I find troubling is that while all the greats were tuning to 432Hz, at some point in time we decided to change that to 440Hz for no good reason.


----------



## Durero (Mar 15, 2010)

As loktide is pointing out, the "arguments" being used here to support 432Hz as having some special quality that are so arbitrary as to be meaningless. 



GandalfDaBlack said:


> ps: aside from all of this, when one tunes music to 432Hz, the C note automatically becomes any number of multiples relative to 256: 512,1024, or opposingly, 128, 64 (like binary cellular or solar sequencing), 32, and all the way DOWN TO THE WONDERFUL NUMBER 1&#8242; FOR THE FIRST OCTAVE.


The "wonderful number 1" refers to 1 Hz which means one cycle per _second_. The length of one second of time is as arbitrary a definition as they come. It is defined as:


Wikipedia said:


> "The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom"


My point here is that by changing the length of a second by a tiny amount you can make any definition of the note A reducible to 1 Hz and nothing said so far has shown why the length of a second is special or the octaves of 1Hz are special.


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

well, yeah, at the end of the day they're just numbers and i'm sure 1 can even be broken down some more. For the purpose of resonance, IF (and i'm in no means trying to bring in the metaphysical bullshit of Earth resonance and being one with the planet) we are interacting with the environment and say it does resonate at 432Hz, then syncing our musical clock to this system may produce more harmonious tones overall. Kinda like that difference in sound quality you get when one your guitarists is just slightly out of tune, except this time I'm jamming with the room and we're both in tune.


----------



## wannabguitarist (Mar 15, 2010)

GandalfDaBlack said:


> so with A-440 our note has to occupy more of the frequency spectrum, and all of a sudden we are creating more noise for the harmonics (that are based on half or double the frequency). With A-432 we have wavelengths that can be allocated in less "bits" so to speak. Which leaves room for other frequencies and causes less reflection/freq cancellation in my opinion.



So by this same argument wouldn't anything lower than 432 sound better?


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

maybe. depends on the temperament. I think for equal tempered stuff the classical pianists preferred 432Hz, as it's what sounded natural to them.


----------



## Durero (Mar 15, 2010)

GandalfDaBlack said:


> true, but for the purpose of recording I'd like to achieve a smoother wave with less noise and anomalies caused from harmonics (and their harmonics) being offset 8Hz in the first place. The thing I find troubling is that while all the greats were tuning to 432Hz, at some point in time we decided to change that to 440Hz for no good reason.



Gandalf, with respect I have to say that it doesn't sound like you really understand the physics terminology you're using nor the historical developments of standard pitch.

Firstly, what do you mean by "smoother wave"? The shape of a soundwave determines it's timbre or color (eg. the different timbre of the note C4 played on a particular piano vs the same C4 played on a particular flute.) regardless of its frequency. 

What do you mean by "anomalies"? Noise is a term I understand, but if you mean to say that any particular frequency is noisier than any other that's completely meaningless unless you talk about some arbitrarily specific case (eg. this particular pitch caused a noisy resonance in some loose drywall on the ceiling of my basement when I cranked my amp with these particular tone settings with the speakers positioned in this particular way. Sure changing the pitch would eliminate this noise, but then so would moving the speakers, changing the shape of the room, change amp settings, etc.)


Secondly, the A440 standard is just a convention, used for convenience by musicians whenever they choose to. It has never ever been even close to being universally used, even to this day. There has already been several examples of contemporary non-A440 bands & recordings listed in this thread.

There was never ever a situation where "all the greats" were all tuned to A432. If you have any doubts on this point please read this: (while keeping in mind that the entire article is listing it's huge variations in pitch just within the tiny confines of western Europe, disregarding the innumerable pitch variations in the rest of the world.) Pitch (music) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Metal Ken (Mar 15, 2010)

GandalfDaBlack said:


> All the old school prodigies tuned their pianos to 432 tho.


Just saw this. 

Tuning forks from Bachs time and area suggested that his organs were tuned to A=480, and Handel's at A=422. Apparently, many players now days use A=415.
Edit: Kinda sorta ninja'ed by Durero 

Its all relative. All you're doing is moving the same ratios between frequences up and down a line. they don't change.


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

well I'll admit I don't know the physics terminology, so forgive me if i'm not using the right lingo here. But I do have what I think is a pretty good ear for hearing clashing overtones during the recording/mixing process. And by anomalies I mean frequencies that shouldn't be there, as a result of the room, or the instrument. Sure you could change the settings on your amp, but you would have probably introduced some other frequency in the process that shouldn't be there. I think 432Hz minimizes on this effect, consistently, across the instrument. Verdi used tuning forks in 432Hz, he was a great composer. I'm sure today he would still prefer to use 432 instead of 440. But then now it's like getting into the same argument as to whether 50Hz phase is better than 60Hz with A/C.

If you haven't tried recording or performing in 432Hz, give it a go. I would love to hear everybody's opinions on it after testing it out.


----------



## Durero (Mar 15, 2010)

I want to reiterate to all of the proponents of A432 posting in this thread, despite clearly stating my opinion that the pseudo-scientific arguments in support of A432 presented so far are completely nonsensical, I do sincerely think anyone who wants to use A432 tuning or any other tuning should just go ahead and do so.

If you want to use A432 is there really any need to justify it at all?

If you have faith that there is really something special about A432 that affects the performer, listener, planet, or universe in a positive way then fantastic. Seriously. No one can fault you for your intentions; and if you're right then the music you make will have it's positive affect and draw more people to use that tuning.

There are far far worse motivations for creating music (advertising, propaganda, commercialism, pop into my mind.)


----------



## Metal Ken (Mar 15, 2010)

GandalfDaBlack said:


> If you haven't tried recording or performing in 432Hz, give it a go. I would love to hear everybody's opinions on it after testing it out.



As stated by one of my earliest posts in this thread, the first Candlemass album, Epicus Doomicus Metallicus is in Eb, at A=423. I've jammed in that tuning, on more than a few occaisions, listening to that record, and it really doesnt do anything for me, aside from let me jam to candlemass. 



Here's a song from it, for reference.


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

well, switch off the cd, get a bunch of musicians in the room, and then see if you don't all achieve that musical nirvana moment. once they get a taste for it they'll want more.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Mar 15, 2010)

I'd hate to tell you, dude, but there aren't going to be any "anomalies" due to using A440 as a pitch standard. If you hear something undesirable in your recording, check your room for feedback, check that the EQ curves on your mics and monitors are as flat as possible, check if you have standing waves going on, and check that your electricity and equipment are good. I'm willing to bet that _if_ anything is wrong in your recording, it's either operator error or something that could be corrected without regards to pitch. Learn about pitch inflation, too. There's a history behind standard tuning.

The only advantages I can think of for having a flatter standard pitch are fewer broken strings and an extremely miniscule (i.e.: you won't hear it) increase of tone during digital recording.


----------



## jymellis (Mar 15, 2010)

i use 435


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

right dudes. hey, just mentioning that 432Hz is worth trying. I've tried it and I think it's better than 440Hz. In fact, I'm going to try these other wonderful reference tones as well, like 415Hz. I'm not getting feedback problems when I currently record in 440. I'm talking about the stuff that you're saying I won't hear. you can hear it, and you can feel it too.

it's like when you resample from 96kHz -> 44kHZ, suddenly there is a lot of chaotic artificial stuff in there that you can hear.


----------



## Spondus (Mar 15, 2010)

I don't see how any of these arguments make any sort of scientific sense. Take the log to base 2 argument (which people seem to be writing as log2n, which is wrong to begin with as that would imply log to base 10 of a number doubled). Ok, it's convenient that you get powers of 2 out of 432Hz, but everyone knows what the unit hertz means right? Its the number of complete waves per second. The second however is a completely arbitrary unit of time measurement and thus any relationship between it and this argument over whether 432Hz is in any way superior is equally arbitrary.

I suppose in a way this is analogous to people searching for secret messages and codes in books like the bible. If you look for long enough you could find as many relationships like this as you want, but their just coincidental.


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

sure it's a completely arbitrary unit of time, but we're comparing 440/x with 432/x so it's still fixed really. It's the powers-of-2 thing I like about it, and not in a weird kaballah sort of way. But because of overtones and harmonics which are also based on powers of 2. It's like when they made us switch from Imperial to Metric. you can divide by 2,3,4,6 in imperial, but only 2's and 5's in metric. which is more useful? depends on the math you need to apply to it.


----------



## Spondus (Mar 15, 2010)

GandalfDaBlack said:


> sure it's a completely arbitrary unit of time, but we're comparing 440/x with 432/x so it's still fixed really. It's the powers-of-2 thing I like about it, and not in a weird kaballah sort of way. But because of overtones and harmonics which are also based on powers of 2. It's like when they made us switch from Imperial to Metric. you can divide by 2,3,4,6 in imperial, but only 2's and 5's in metric. which is more useful? depends on the math you need to apply to it.



Metric is the answer to that question. Ask a physicist, engineer, mathemetician, climatologist etc etc what they'd rather work in, imperial or metric and guaranteed they'd say metric. Metric units are the standardised units (except the second of course) because they are easier to work with and make more logical sense.

Exactly what overtones and harmonics are based on powers of two? Moreover why does this matter? By changing your reference frequency you change everything else relative to it because it is by definition a _reference_. Equally if you changed your unit of time (ie made the unit time shorter or longer) the frequency referenced by 432Hz and 440Hz would change and everything you say about 432Hz working in convenient powers of 2 would become equally true of another distinct frequency. So how could this possibly result in 432Hz sounding better?

Also, earlier you mentioned that 432Hz will occupy 'less of the frequency spectrum' than 440Hz. Now, I'm no physicist (but I have studied quite a lot of seismology and wave physics as part of my degree) but this seems to make no sense to me. It doesn't even make qualitative sense, how can a reference frequency based on an arbitrary system of units occupy any more or less of a 'spectrum' than any other?


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

> how can a reference frequency based on an arbitrary system of units occupy any more or less of a 'spectrum' than any other?



by being in a different/more compatible base. e.g the number 11 occupies two powers in base 10, but only 1 in say base 16, base 12...



> because they are easier to work with and make more logical sense


in what way do they make logical sense? cause of the adding the extra 0 thing? ever find you need to divide by 3 lots and end up with recurring digits that cannot be expressed accurately?


----------



## Spondus (Mar 15, 2010)

Metric makes more sense because they are based on powers of ten (I'll assume that's what you mean by adding an extra 0) . For example one kilometre is 1*10^3 metres, so it's easy to convert between the two, I think you'll find that imperial lacks this elegance. If this needs any more confirming take an example of 123456789 metres in kilometres, this is a calculation you can do in your head as its just a matter of moving a decimal point by three powers of ten based on the conversion I stated earlier making it 123456.789 kilometres. Try converting 123456789 or any other awkward number from yards to miles in your head and I guarantee it will take you a while. Have you not noticed that our entire numeric system is already based on powers of ten? When counting, we don't exactly count up to 12 and then start the pattern again do we?

Even so your argument about frequencies occupying different number systems still makes no sense. I'll state again that if the unit measure of time were changed, everything you say about 432Hz could be made true of 440Hz.


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

> Have you not noticed that our entire numeric system is already based on powers of ten? When counting, we don't exactly count up to 12 and then start the pattern again do we?



not really. it used to be base 60 in babylonian days. then 12, now we're at 10. Express prime numbers in base 6 and you will see that suddenly they're not too unpredictable. The even-tempered scale follows base 12. guess they should "metricfy" that soon as well. bad enough we already have quarter tuning.


----------



## Durero (Mar 15, 2010)

GandalfDaBlack said:


> sure it's a completely arbitrary unit of time, but we're comparing 440/x with 432/x so it's still fixed really. It's the powers-of-2 thing I like about it, and not in a weird kaballah sort of way. But because of overtones and harmonics which are also based on powers of 2. It's like when they made us switch from Imperial to Metric. you can divide by 2,3,4,6 in imperial, but only 2's and 5's in metric. which is more useful? depends on the math you need to apply to it.





GandalfDaBlack said:


> by being in a different/more compatible base. e.g the number 11 occupies two powers in base 10, but only 1 in say base 16, base 12...



Sounds like you value the numerology of 432 above all else. Many composers use number patterns which appeal to them as compositional tools to make their art; perfectly good thing to do.

The connection to any scientific physical explanation for the superiority of A432 is not working at all, but then I don't see why you'd need it to.


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

sorry, how does this sound like numerology? we're talking multiples and factors and bases of real values. 

edit - I've just realized you would be having this same argument with Verdi and Mozart right now. Do you think they are numerologists too because they used 432? nah man, these guys understood the math behind music in ways that we can not conceive.


----------



## Durero (Mar 15, 2010)

GandalfDaBlack said:


> sorry, how does this sound like numerology? we're talking multiples and factors and bases of real values.


You agreed in a previous post that the length of one second is an arbitrary value.

Therefore the real physical phenomenon of the pitch set based on 432 cycles per second is arbitrary. That is to say that the real physical soundwaves of that frequency can only be assigned to the number 432 when the length of one second is defined exactly as we do - which is an arbitrary length.

You're left with the fact that a specific physical frequency of sound can have any number assigned to it until you define a non-arbitrary unit of measurement. You've already agreed that this is not the case with Hz (cycles per second.)




GandalfDaBlack said:


> edit - I've just realized you would be having this same argument with Verdi and Mozart right now. Do you think they are numerologists too because they used 432? nah man, these guys understood the math behind music in ways that we can not conceive.



I don't for a moment buy the idea that Verdi and Mozart used only one tuning and it was 432, but even if we assume they did, that would contribute nothing towards any scientific explanation for the superiority of 432. It's just an appeal to authority.


----------



## Solstafir (Mar 15, 2010)

From a guitarists point of view and perspective, nearly no A-pitch makes perfect sense, because compared to a piano, we are practically always slightly out of tune (unless someone uses a true temperament fretted instrument, or a fretless). 

Second, do not forget that ears have memory. When most of us are used to listening to A=440 pitched music, the ears compensates to it (just like it does with Volume) and "adapts" to it, gets used to it. 

If I hear an A435 pitched instrument, it will sound out of tune to the music I am used to making/listening. 

the term "out of tune" is completely relative.

Many bands in the past have slightly detuned, I remember years agom i was trying to do a cover of "Zombie" by The Cranberries and it sounded like shit, to find out they were tuned lower. 

Have in mind, that, as there are many numeric, metric systems, there is also Byzantine music with completely different notation and "note-frequency". 

Nazi-numerology and lol-math (ie. 432 is 4 and 23 BaKwArdZ!) is naive to say the least. 


Last, if 432 was so imba, PAIN OF SALVATION WOULD;VE ALREADY DONE IT  

(i love em, don;t mean to disrespect them)


----------



## hide (Mar 15, 2010)

GandalfDaBlack said:


> For the purpose of resonance, IF [...] we are interacting with the environment and say it does resonate at 432Hz[...]


"Environment" doesn't resonate at a given frequency. Different objects made from different materials and put together differently resonate at different frequencies, so hoping that a room with all the objects inside it resonate at any given frequency all together is out of question. IF you could tune an entire environment to a precise frequency, and it's not possible, it wouldn't matter which one you chose in the first place. 
Anyway, as I (we) don't play true tempered instruments, don't compose in a single tuning, still have to go through amplifiers to produce and transducers to capture the sound, use a finite (sampled and quantized) representation for recordings, have a limited hearing range with non neutral response, can't fine tune my cranial bones to a given frequency, and generally have a thing for dirty obnoxious sounds, I woudn't care about it too much.


----------



## helly (Mar 15, 2010)

This concept is completely nonsense. Not to say it's invalid to suggest that A=432 is a worse or better idea than A=440, but to say it's somehow mathematically validated is a joke, dude.

Whoever said it was numerology is right. There's no math here, because math involves a problem that requires solving, and has a clear beginning and end. This is just playing with numbers for the sake of playing with numbers, and then claiming results based on an arbitrary start and end point.

If you think it makes you sound better, great, use it. Did some prodigies use it? Possibly, maybe even probably. Did they know some secret we don't? Fuck no. It was chosen either at random, or with a completely nonsensical snake-oil need for a magical tone upgrade, which is all this is.


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

> You're left with the fact that a specific physical frequency of sound can have any number assigned to it until you define a non-arbitrary unit of measurement. You've already agreed that this is not the case with Hz (cycles per second.)



no, I was answering dude's question as to how something that occupies more space in one system can occupy less in another.

Another way of occupying less space is to do a shift so the frequencies are aligned with the space allocated for them.

consider this:
if i'm playing the c chord I am essentially adding the frequencies of c, g, e to make up a single value in Hz.

this single value still contains specific information about the 3 notes I played, at that moment in time. Depending on the nature of the numbers used, there is complete coherency and you can break down that single value back to the individual 3 notes. 

eg if c0 were 2Hz, g0 = 8Hz, and e1 =16Hz

the additive affect of these 3 in a chord would be 26Hz
if there is a binary logarithm going on then immediately we know that 26 can only be derived from 16 + 8 + 2.

if we don't use bit-compatible values for the notes then there is no coherency and one single value could represent a multitude of notes (26 could be 14 + 12, or 20 + 6). But because there is intelligence in the wave forms, they must be lined up in terms of powers. Using 432 makes it such that the frequencies line up where they are supposed to be, mathematically speaking (A=432Hz, then your values for C0...C7 are at 16Hz,32Hz,64,128,256,512,1024, 2048Hz..) And there would be other reference tones where this would work too.

but hey I ain't going to push this any more. my piano tuner gets here soon, he has 88 x 3 strings to tune. On another note I would like to say that the last time I had this piano tuned was 5 years ago, at 440Hz. Today, each note is a lot closer to 432 (give or take anywhere from 6-30cents), which is another reason why i feel 432 is more natural (because the strings have been affected by the period of a bigger body of greater mass (earth). guess that's what they meant by natural tuning.

i won't even dare use the word entrainment as that is another one all these healers like to throw out there, but if you've ever taken two metronomes, set them up to be the same bpm but start them out of sync with each other, you will see that both metronomes end up syncing with each other. I reckon this is also the reason why things go out of tune. because they are syncing with another wave system.

ps - i still don't see how 432 is numerology. is it because of the way the numbers descend? yeah that's pretty.


----------



## hide (Mar 15, 2010)

GandalfDaBlack said:


> We're all familiar with the Wave equation and inverse-square law, which governs how waves travel in our room (the strength or freq is inversely proportional to the square of the distance). This is essentially a binary logarithm system (log2n) where the frequency bandwidth doubles or halves depending on the intensity of the frequency.
> 
> so frequencies would be allocated the following bandwidth: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048 .........


What? Explain this to me, please. 



GandalfDaBlack said:


> If we use A-440Hz, the wavelength of c0 is 2100cm, c1 is 1050cm (each octave is half of the previous wavelength)
> 
> If we use A-432Hz, the wavelength of c0 is 2048cm, c1 = 1024, c2 = 512, etc etc..


Do your math 



GandalfDaBlack said:


> so with A-440 our note has to occupy more of the frequency spectrum, and all of a sudden we are creating more noise for the harmonics (that are based on half or double the frequency). With A-432 we have wavelengths that can be allocated in less "bits" so to speak. Which leaves room for other frequencies and causes less reflection/freq cancellation in my opinion.



..and your poor subharmonics?


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

yeah i should have done it in terms of frequency. if A=432Hz, then your values for C are at 16Hz,32Hz,64,128,256,512,1024, 2048Hz...

love the great attitude on here. Hey, music is an exploration, I'm really excited about trying out these different tunings. Sit there and poke fun at that if you want mate. or flame, or whatever. But I would much rather have somebody who's actually tuned to 432 tell me why this is all nonsense.


----------



## hide (Mar 15, 2010)

GandalfDaBlack said:


> consider this:
> if i'm playing the c chord I am essentially adding the frequencies of c, g, e to make up a single value in Hz.
> 
> this single value still contains specific information about the 3 notes I played, at that moment in time. Depending on the nature of the numbers used, there is complete coherency and you can break down that single value back to the individual 3 notes.
> ...


This is wrong on so many levels


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

which part? adding waveforms?
or adding in terms of powers?
then tell me how you do it.

Tell me how you think music works. because I've given you my take on it but am dying to hear yours. Unless you think bitwise calculations is numerology too.


----------



## hide (Mar 15, 2010)

GandalfDaBlack said:


> yeah i should have done it in terms of frequency. if A=432Hz, then your values for C are at 16Hz,32Hz,64,128,256,512,1024, 2048Hz...
> 
> love the great attitude on here. Hey, music is an exploration, I'm really excited about trying out these different tunings. Sit there and poke fun at that if you want mate. or flame, or whatever. But I would much rather have somebody who's actually tuned to 432 tell me why this is all nonsense.



I'm not saying 432 is worse than 440, or 666 for what matters. Your arguments just do not make sense, in every mathematical/phisycal/logical way. I happen to like flatter tunings better, so does most of the people, statistics say. How 431 would sound worse that 432 is just beyond my comprehension.


----------



## hide (Mar 15, 2010)

GandalfDaBlack said:


> which part? adding waveforms?
> or adding in terms of powers?
> then tell me how you do it.
> 
> Tell me how you think music works. because I've given you my take on it but am dying to hear yours. Unless you think bitwise calculations is numerology too.


In a computer you don't represent 2^6Hz with 2^6 in binary. It's simple as that. 
Also, a sum of pitches doesn't merge into a single higher pitch.


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

hide said:


> In a computer you don't represent 2^6Hz with 2^6 in binary. It's simple as that.
> Also, a sum of pitches doesn't merge into a single higher pitch.




i'm not talking computers. I'm talking about bases and powers and deciphering information from them in a bit-like approach. Prime numbers work great for this sort of stuff too. Any number can be broken down into a sum of primes, for example. It works because no other number can be a prime, just as no other value can represent any other bit.

And yes, you do add freqs to create a complex wave. 
See Sound waves for some theory on the matter.


----------



## hide (Mar 15, 2010)

If you have 2 instruments playing a single note at 440hz, you don't percieve a 880hz note, just a stronger (in terms of power) 440hz one. I hope I made myself clear enough.


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

depends what the note is, doesn't it?


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

no, i think you need to read that sound theory link, or provide me with one that proves that adding waves is wrong on so many levels.


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

but yeah you would get a 440Hz note with double the amplitude, or they might cancel out if they are off phase. (and amplitude is on another axis than frequency)


----------



## hide (Mar 15, 2010)

No, it doesn't matter what note you choose 
Check this out, it's a good read, and I think you could find it useful:
Wiley-VCH - Benvenuto, Nevio / Corvaja, Roberto / Erseghe, Tomaso / Laurenti, Nicola - Communication Systems


----------



## Spondus (Mar 15, 2010)

GandalfDaBlack said:


> i'm not talking computers. I'm talking about bases and powers and deciphering information from them in a bit-like approach. Prime numbers work great for this sort of stuff too. Any number can be broken down into a sum of primes, for example. It works because no other number can be a prime, just as no other value can represent any other bit.
> 
> And yes, you do add freqs to create a complex wave.
> See Sound waves for some theory on the matter.



No. You do not add sound waves, you combine them. This is not the same, earlier you summed the frequencies together giving you a higher frequency this is quite simply not how it works. If it was every time you played a chord all you'd get is a single tone, and (I hope you realise) this isn't true. 

We're not flaming you, we're pointing out why you're wrong. You don't seem to understand any of the science or maths you're quoting. You equally don't seem to understand that while this particular frequency may give certain numerological curiosities, this proves nothing when applied to the real world as it is all the result of abitrary number systems and units.

Fair enough, some people may prefer the sound of 432Hz but trying to prove why mathematically is simply absurd. Its like trying to prove why some people prefer different shades of colours based on the light frequencies they contain. It's both impossible and an utter waste of time.


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

nah I think you don't really know what you are on about too actually. hey i understand it, the feeling's mutual I'm sure. But I did give you a link about sound, as we are discussing sound.


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

> Fair enough, some people may prefer the sound of 432Hz but trying to prove why mathematically is simply absurd. Its like trying to prove why some people prefer different shades of colours based on the light frequencies they contain. It's both impossible and an utter waste of time.



so you're saying music has absolutely no relationship to math? you can mathematically pick out complementary colours btw.


----------



## loktide (Mar 15, 2010)

Spondus said:


> Fair enough, some people may prefer the sound of 432Hz but trying to prove why mathematically is simply absurd.



Amen.


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

i'm pretty sure you just add frequencies, and if I'm wrong I stand corrected, and please send along a link about how waveforms get combined.


----------



## hide (Mar 15, 2010)

Take this pitch/frequency conversion chart:
Frequencies of Musical Notes
A0=27.50hz
A2=110hz
In your calculation A0+A2= 137.50hz, which is a slightly flatter C3#.


----------



## hide (Mar 15, 2010)

Read anything about Fourier/Laplace/Z transforms.


----------



## Spondus (Mar 15, 2010)

Yes you can pick complimentary colours mathematically. Great. What does that have to do with preference? I'm not saying that music has nothing to do with mathematics, but none of your arguments actually state any reason why a person would prefer the sound of 432Hz. At all. You've been straight up wrong on nearly all the physical principles you've tried to use to argue your point.

The article you posted about sound is perfectly correct. You'll notice that there is a section on combining waves. Based on your previous logic the addition of two waves of frequencies 500Hz and 300Hz would give a _single _wave of 800Hz. If you actually read said article and understood it, you'd know that statement to be false. I mean it's actually there represented graphically by a complex wave which quite clearly doesn't have a frequency of 800Hz.


----------



## Spondus (Mar 15, 2010)

hide said:


> Take this pitch/frequency conversion chart:
> Frequencies of Musical Notes
> A0=27.50hz
> A2=110hz
> In your calculation A0+A2= 137.50hz, which is a slightly flatter C3#.


Ninja'd like a pro


----------



## hide (Mar 15, 2010)

Spondus said:


> Ninja'd like a pro


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

ah, yeah guess that makes sense. but still, even if there's a transform it still uniquely represent those three notes in the C chord right?


----------



## loktide (Mar 15, 2010)

GandalfDaBlack said:


> consider this:
> if i'm playing the c chord I am essentially adding the frequencies of c, g, e to make up a single value in Hz.



'adding' really is the wrong term for this, man.

a Cmaj chord is composed of a C (root), E (maj 3rd) and G (5th). when you play the chord, it does NOT result in one frequency corresponding to the sum of all chord notes. a chord is a superposition of all chord note frequencies involved: this results in a wave with the average frequency, with an amplitude envelope that varies according to the frequency difference


----------



## Spondus (Mar 15, 2010)

loktide said:


> 'adding' really is the wrong term for this, man.
> 
> a Cmaj chord is composed of a C (root), E (maj 3rd) and G (5th). when you play the chord, it does NOT result in one frequency corresponding to the sum of all chord notes. a chord is a superposition of all chord note frequencies involved: this results in a wave with the average frequency, with an amplitude envelope that varies according to the frequency difference


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

> A0=27.50hz
> A2=110hz
> In your calculation A0+A2= 137.50hz, which is a slightly flatter C3#.



ok so it wouldn't be added, combined rather. but there is still coherency in the notes. perhaps when using a different reference pitch there is a possibility to introduce some "confusion" during this combining of tones.


----------



## loktide (Mar 15, 2010)

GandalfDaBlack said:


> perhaps when using a different reference pitch there is a possibility to introduce some "confusion" during this combining of tones.



i find you are introducing enough "confusion" into this thread 


seriously dude, not trying to be a dick, but you should do some basic reading of the physics behind acoustics and the whole 432Hz mojo will clarify itself


----------



## Spondus (Mar 15, 2010)

GandalfDaBlack said:


> ok so it wouldn't be added, combined rather. but there is still coherency in the notes. perhaps when using a different reference pitch there is a possibility to introduce some "confusion" during this combining of tones.



That is just a statement. I can see no possible reason why, can you? There is no reason why the waves would behave any differently when referenced to a different frequency. All the wave theory being applied here is based upon physical laws. These laws aren't going to simply change to accomodate you wanting 432Hz to be superior. Seriously dude, let it drop.


----------



## 8string (Mar 15, 2010)

I can't stop laughing. did you join this board just to try to convince us of this?
Sorry, but I have to raise one of these


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

yea, guess i need to read up on this stuff a bit more. how it sounds really is subjective eh. sorry about that, lads. and thx for all them links, i will actually be reading them. Seems easier to play music than try to suss it out, that's for sure.


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

8string said:


> I can't stop laughing. did you join this board just to try to convince us of this?
> Sorry, but I have to raise one of these



yeah, first day. thought i'd start out with an ice-breaker to properly introduce myself. thanks for the flag, shall try not to earn one in the future, but hey, never know...


----------



## loktide (Mar 15, 2010)

GandalfDaBlack said:


> yea, guess i need to read up on this stuff a bit more. how it sounds really is subjective eh. sorry about that, lads. and thx for all them links, i will actually be reading them. Seems easier to play music than try to suss it out, that's for sure.


----------



## hide (Mar 15, 2010)

No problem dude!
Another great textbook I used is Signals and Systems (2nd Edition) by Alan V. Oppenheim, Alan S. Willsky, with S. Hamid
It introduces the math behind signal processing in a really clear way.


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 15, 2010)

added to cart, thx.
I have updated my signature as punishment.


----------



## hide (Mar 15, 2010)

GandalfDaBlack said:


> added to cart, thx.
> I have updated my signature as punishment.


----------



## tr0n (Mar 15, 2010)

Wow, these few pages since my last post have been really great to read.  I love a healthy (mass) debate.

One way I think about it is a semitone interval sounds really disonant on it's own, but within a second inversion maj7 chord it is complemented by the additional notes/frequencies and their respective harmonics. Tuning to 432Hz will not make difference, everything will still have same relationship because of the temperament. Changing the temperament then will introduce different relationships. But going from 440 to 432, all you've done is flatted EVERYTHING. I don't doubt that a different reference pitch will sound better in a particular room, but it's purely coincidental. Take it into a different room and it'll be a different story.

I've probably reiterated what has already been said, but I just need to clarify it my head, because temperament confuses me. 

Hey, while we're talking books, check out This Is Your Brain On Music by Daniel Levitin.


----------



## Solstafir (Mar 15, 2010)

hide said:


> No problem dude!
> Another great textbook I used is Signals and Systems (2nd Edition) by Alan V. Oppenheim, Alan S. Willsky, with S. Hamid
> It introduces the math behind signal processing in a really clear way.




I HATE you for bringing up this book, i've spent 2 semesters trying to pass that god damn lesson in Uni


----------



## Durero (Mar 16, 2010)

GandalfDaBlack said:


> added to cart, thx.
> I have updated my signature as punishment.



 Full respect for maintaining a sense of humour through all this.


If you're in the same Vancouver I am (BC, Canada) there are some pretty great courses available at UBC concerning this stuff. There's one called Physics of Music (physics department), and another called Computer Music (in the school of music) which teaches a computer language called Csound which you'd probably love because you get to manipulate all these math equations in any manner you like and according to any frequency for A you like and you get to hear the results immediately. I had a great time taking the course years back.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Mar 16, 2010)

Solstafir said:


> I HATE you for bringing up this book, i've spent 2 semesters trying to pass that god damn lesson in Uni



I'm sure, dude. Acoustic physics is like a horror movie: I get some morbid enjoyment from watching it, but I wouldn't want it done to me.


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 16, 2010)

Durero said:


> Full respect for maintaining a sense of humour through all this.



cheer bro, didn't want to come off as a total dick now. Plus halfway through I had some sort of intervention and realized that i cld just spew shit all day, or actually learn something from you lot. 



> If you're in the same Vancouver I am (BC, Canada) there are some pretty great courses available at UBC concerning this stuff. There's one called Physics of Music (physics department)



Yeah, have a place in Van, but working overseas. That Physics of Music course sounds awesome though, wonder if there's a correspondence course of it. Do a lot of musicians sign up for it, or is it mainly dudes like Bob Moog who are interested in building instruments? I guess sound-engineers too. Csound - may play with that this weekend, i hear you can do all sorts of cool stuff with it, and there's a python lib for it, sweet.

So anyways during my sleep I have been subliminally rehashing this thread. tr0n managed to finally knock it into me skull that yeah, all you're doing is FLATTING everything, no different really than transposing a song to another key. There might be a perceived change in mood for the listener, but that's probably it eh. The decision to use a certain pitch reference seems no different than choosing to paint something in blue or light blue (or on canvas or paper). At the end of the day all your colour/note choices are going to be in relationship with each other anyway. Some songs may have more of an impact at one pitch ref, but there couldn't be one pitch ref that wld work for all songs anyway, otherwise music would just be a dull experience.


----------



## Forresterc (Mar 16, 2010)

A-440hz is just a pitch of reference. I figured it was chosen as a standard to compromise people tuning above and below 440hz. But in equal temperament music, changing what Hz A is at isn't going to make the music sound better, because all the notes will still relate to each other in the exact same way (ratios and all). New age pseudo science should be bitching fort perfect temperament over equal temperament rather than the evil A-440Hz standard made by the European nazis and their evil male penis power.

Unless you have perfect pitch it's all relative..........maybe 440hz was made by evil nazi perfect pitch fella's that kept gettin' pissed off by non-440hz music.


----------



## AngelVivaldi (Mar 16, 2010)

I dont get how people say that there's more emotion in a tuning, just doesn't make much sense to me. Bottom line, if I wanted a warm and relaxing sound to my music I'd just play warm and relaxing music


----------



## Durero (Mar 17, 2010)

GandalfDaBlack said:


> That Physics of Music course sounds awesome though, wonder if there's a correspondence course of it. Do a lot of musicians sign up for it, or is it mainly dudes like Bob Moog who are interested in building instruments? I guess sound-engineers too. Csound - may play with that this weekend, i hear you can do all sorts of cool stuff with it, and there's a python lib for it, sweet.


The Physics of Music course is intended for musicians who need a science credit (3rd year level if I remember correctly) as part of their program. So the physics is relatively easy and all relates to music. I didn't take the course because I already had too many physics credits but I looked into it and it looked really fun for musicians. I remember there being a lot of flexibility in the course in terms of what aspect of music or musical instrument you wanted to study the physics of.

And yeah Csound is a really effective and appropriate tool for exploring tuning, temperament/intonation, synthesis, sample manipulation, etc.



GandalfDaBlack said:


> So anyways during my sleep I have been subliminally rehashing this thread. tr0n managed to finally knock it into me skull that yeah, all you're doing is FLATTING everything, no different really than transposing a song to another key. There might be a perceived change in mood for the listener, but that's probably it eh. The decision to use a certain pitch reference seems no different than choosing to paint something in blue or light blue (or on canvas or paper). At the end of the day all your colour/note choices are going to be in relationship with each other anyway. Some songs may have more of an impact at one pitch ref, but there couldn't be one pitch ref that wld work for all songs anyway, otherwise music would just be a dull experience.


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 17, 2010)

hey all, 

I put up a few recordings of piano tuned to 432Hz.
The Great Gig in the Sky

Pathetique Op. 13

One thing I noticed while playing was that I didn't need to count anymore, but follow the note as the highs and lows seemed to mark the measure and intervals in some sort of natural tempo based on the song's key.

Just wondering what 415Hz would be like now. I think pitch ref has to do with song tempo rather than this earth resonance nonsense.


----------



## helly (Mar 17, 2010)

I'd say that likely has as much to do with the chosen songs as it does with the tuning of A, doesn't it? Those just happen to be piano pieces that are easy to count in that manner, I think. If you want a real test of that, find a recording of George Winston's Moon and lower it. Should be much more difficult to tell without counting.


----------



## Esp Griffyn (Mar 17, 2010)

GandalfDaBlack said:


> Today, each note is a lot closer to 432 (give or take anywhere from 6-30cents), which is another reason why i feel 432 is more natural (because the strings have been affected by the period of a bigger body of greater mass (earth). guess that's what they meant by natural tuning.
> 
> i won't even dare use the word entrainment as that is another one all these healers like to throw out there, but if you've ever taken two metronomes, set them up to be the same bpm but start them out of sync with each other, you will see that both metronomes end up syncing with each other. I reckon this is also the reason why things go out of tune. because they are syncing with another wave system



I have been chuckling all the way through this thread, but when I read this bit I just burst out laughing


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 17, 2010)

> I'd say that likely has as much to do with the chosen songs as it does with the tuning of A, doesn't it?



yeah i think that too - chosen songs, or music of that style/speed (tempo set by key). Though i don't recall being able to count like that at 440Hz (one measure would contain more than 4 cycles of a note, whereas right now each measure is?). Will give Moon a go.


----------



## helly (Mar 17, 2010)

Incase you're having trouble finding it:



I doubt it's the best song to use as an example of "hard to count" but I don't know too much other piano-only slightly abstract music.


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 17, 2010)

just grabbed it off itunes, and listening on repeat. heh shoulda switched to bach tuning for this one, a second piano would be handy about now. Pretty tune, this.


----------



## Metal Ken (Mar 17, 2010)

GandalfDaBlack said:


> Though i don't recall being able to count like that at 440Hz (one measure would contain more than 4 cycles of a note, whereas right now each measure is?). Will give Moon a go.



Well a measure is determined by your time signature not your tuning. Perhaps you just got better and dont need to count?


----------



## Forresterc (Mar 17, 2010)

GandalfDaBlack said:


> hey all,
> 
> I put up a few recordings of piano tuned to 432Hz.
> The Great Gig in the Sky
> ...



I don't think that the Hz would have much effect on your timing in music. How the music is composed will be the cause of "the highs and lows seemed to mark the measure and intervals ".

What might be cool is if you manage to have the tonic of the key of piece tuned in such a way that the waves it produces will be in perfect sinc with the tempo. Like in 440hz: play in A minor at a tempo of 60 or 120 or 180. Every quarter note contains exactly 440 waves.

In normal music this probably has no effect, but you could try some stuff where u tune two instruments to less than 20Hz apart, and play the same thing together. You could compose the percussion to accent the beats you'd feel/hear.


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 17, 2010)

> Perhaps you just got better and dont need to count?



heh definitely not that. more like the period of the wave matches with the length of the measure. if i play a whole note, for example, i just have to hold it for 4 cycles (u can hear the note rise up and down at each cycle) instead of playing the note and counting 4 beats at a specific bpm. In the Pathetique recording for instance, when i play the first whole note chord you can hear a beat as the chord rings. After 4 of these beats i played the next chord. In 440, with the higher pitch I have to adhere to the bpm instead, if I counted 4 cycles the song would sound a bit fast.

Anyways, just something i noticed while playing it. The audio files are up there if anybody wants to inspect the waveforms and do all that other fun stuff, like dust for vomit.


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 17, 2010)

Forresterc said:


> What might be cool is if you manage to have the tonic of the key of piece tuned in such a way that the waves it produces will be in perfect sinc with the tempo. Like in 440hz: play in A minor at a tempo of 60 or 120 or 180. Every quarter note contains exactly 440 waves.



maybe that is the effect I'm hearing in this current tuning, for these particular pieces. So yeah I could do something similar at 440 so long as the bpm was at 60, 120, 180 right? Just wondering if this was the reason why certain reference tunings were used during composition of the song, to better match a bpm they were meant to be played at.


----------



## GandalfDaBlack (Mar 17, 2010)

Found a cool article here about pitch/tempo relationships and playing in the tempo of a particular key. Would love to know what your thoughts are on it.

Pitch/Tempo relationships


----------



## Forresterc (Mar 19, 2010)

GandalfDaBlack said:


> maybe that is the effect I'm hearing in this current tuning, for these particular pieces. So yeah I could do something similar at 440 so long as the bpm was at 60, 120, 180 right? Just wondering if this was the reason why certain reference tunings were used during composition of the song, to better match a bpm they were meant to be played at.



Well, tuned to 432Hz, ud just hear 432 waves per ever quater note at 60bpm. I just said 60 because you get even waves no matter what Hz. I think the wave interactions are where it's at.


----------



## Vorax (Nov 19, 2010)

I can confirm that tuning A432hz causes your music to resonate at the fundemental cosmic frequency. I have experieinced.

Hovever, there is a way that you can align your music to align with the universe in a much more profound way so that you will experieince it in more harmonious glory that you could ever have thought imaginable! This may be hard to believe for the more sceptical among you, for whom I feel deeply sorry, but please try this before you reject it on the basis of your misguided and aspiritual white-mans science.

Its really easy, and you don't even need to retune to A432 - as long as all notes are relatively tuned.

All you have to do is, half an hour before tuning up, drink some rescure remedy, massage your aura about you 3rd and 8th chakras, and stick some crystals up your arse!

You can prove this scientifically as well. If you think that the speed of light is a constant - simply differentiate this by a factor of phi (god's ratio) and you will get the exact diameter of your rectal passage in the spot where it has been distended to fit the crystals that you have inserted!

Boo to the unbelievers!


----------



## Ben.Last (Nov 19, 2010)

Vorax said:


> I can confirm that tuning A432hz causes your music to resonate at the fundemental cosmic frequency. I have experieinced.
> 
> Hovever, there is a way that you can align your music to align with the universe in a much more profound way so that you will experieince it in more harmonious glory that you could ever have thought imaginable! This may be hard to believe for the more sceptical among you, for whom I feel deeply sorry, but please try this before you reject it on the basis of your misguided and aspiritual white-mans science.
> 
> ...



Can you also confirm that people who necrobump for no reason are supreme douche nozzles?


----------



## Demiurge (Nov 19, 2010)

Vorax said:


> You can prove this scientifically as well. If you think that the speed of light is a constant - simply differentiate this by a factor of phi (god's ratio) and you will get the exact diameter of your rectal passage in the spot where it has been distended to fit the crystals that you have inserted!
> 
> Boo to the unbelievers!



So, what would be the calculation to fit their head up the ass?

If we're going to revisit this topic now, might I submit another idea here? Music only sounds bad when it's comprised of bad musical ideas. Voodoo like this is the refuge for those who are out of ideas, or for those looking for a way over-sell their "talent."

Take someone without musical creativity and give them an instrument with whatever alternate reference pitches or alternate temperments you'd like- it's not going to make them better players or writers or make their music more listenable.


----------



## Vorax (Nov 19, 2010)

Lern2swim said:


> Can you also confirm that people who necrobump for no reason are supreme douche nozzles?



Sorry if this has occluded your chi my brother. I hope the positive virbations I'm sending out to you will help rebalance your chakras!


----------



## Vorax (Nov 19, 2010)

Demiurge said:


> So, what would be the calculation to fit their head up the ass?
> 
> If we're going to revisit this topic now, might I submit another idea here? Music only sounds bad when it's comprised of bad musical ideas. Voodoo like this is the refuge for those who are out of ideas, or for those looking for a way over-sell their "talent."
> 
> Take someone without musical creativity and give them an instrument with whatever alternate reference pitches or alternate temperments you'd like- it's not going to make them better players or writers or make their music more listenable.



I agree that many people look for shortcuts in ife via alternative beliefs, be that shortcuts to creating great music, or shortcuts to health and well being. Howver, most of us are also guilty of this when we buy new gear and all sort of other shit, and it's debatable that a lot of the apparent improvements from expensive gear are a result of our expectations influencing our perception.


I think this is actually a key point in relation to the current topic: that our subjective experieince is hugely influenced by our expectations. SO anyone with a predisposition to believe in all this cosmic fanny magic will be likely to have their subjective perceptions of music they are told is recorded at 432hz influenced accordingly. In a similar way, alternative therapies have much more of a placebo affect on 'believers' than someone who thinks it all a a big crock.

However, if it works for someone then great (alternative therapies or cosmic standard tuning), I'm all for it. The problem is when people confuse their subjective experieince with empirical fact. I just find it hilarious when this is justified and evangelised with naive and irrational pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo.

Apologies to anyone who takes offence at the resurrection of this thread. I hadn't seen it and found it interesting, so figured there may be others who might be interested too.


----------



## Varcolac (Nov 19, 2010)

Vorax said:


> Sorry if this has occluded your chi my brother. I hope the positive virbations I'm sending out to you will help rebalance your chakras!



Aspiritual white-man science trapped antimatter in a bottle and you're shovin' crystals up your butt. Just sayin'.

Edit: wait, was that trolling? I'm so confused.


----------



## Vorax (Nov 19, 2010)

Varcolac said:


> Aspiritual white-man science trapped antimatter in a bottle and you're shovin' crystals up your butt. Just sayin'.
> 
> Edit: wait, was that trolling? I'm so confused.



It was an attempt to make a point in a humourous way using sarcasm. In my book that is quite different from Trolling as my inteniton was to contribute to the debate, rather than just piss people off and get a reaction. I'm sorry if that caused offence, as none was intended.


----------



## -One- (Nov 19, 2010)




----------



## Demiurge (Nov 19, 2010)

Vorax said:


> I agree that many people look for shortcuts in ife via alternative beliefs, be that shortcuts to creating great music, or shortcuts to health and well being. Howver, most of us are also guilty of this when we buy new gear and all sort of other shit, and it's debatable that a lot of the apparent improvements from expensive gear are a result of our expectations influencing our perception.



I concede that point to an extent. I think we all search for that piece of gear that sort of "puts it all together," and invariably our stables grow proudly and become evidence of our search. 

The difference is that gear acquisition can have utility in that we can have guitars set to different tunings, guitars with different-sounding electronics, and gear that really suits the given context. Tone is subjective in terms of "good" vs. "bad," but differences can still be observed. I don't think that anyone hopes that a piece of gear will make them a better player unless there is an ergonomic benefit.

Now, if someone is going to argue that tuning whichever instrument 8Hz flatter is going to have an over-arching, quasi-spiritual improvement to the aesthetics of the music, I think that it's way further into bullhucky territory than the "basswood vs. alder/whatever" or any other tone argument could ever hope to be.


----------



## technomancer (Nov 19, 2010)

*Vorax you're new here, don't bump old thread to post bullshit again or you'll get a vacation from the site

The rest of you brain children, use the report button instead of feeding the trolls *


----------

