If you ask me, the 440Hz standard simply sounds cleaner. 432Hz sounds to me like it's somewhat "blurred", not so sharp. That's probably why it's easier to listen to. It's like the works of Picasso vs. those of da Vinci.

For me that's pretty straightforward. Just pick the one you like. I find it surprising that people try to attribute some kind of mystical significance to it. Religious, even. I've seen it called a conspiracy. I don't want to offend anyone here who might believe that kind of stuff but suffice it to say that to me that's utter rubbish.

So far https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDu9YhBoWV4 this sound much better.

I think it is bull.
For one thing the measure of cycles per second is completely arbitrary

I don't "get it" I guess - the guitar example just sounds like it's keyed lower and everything is slightly dark as a result. What's the "mystical benefit" of this? (I do know that dark speakers tend to be an easier sell as they're more forgiving/easy-listening, so maybe that's got something to do with it)

As far as comparing Daft Punk - the YT version linked, aside from having awful compression artefacts, is just out of pitch compared to the original - neither thing is a benefit to it imho. But supposedly there's whole generations of youngsters these days who actually find compression ringing, phase/pitch shifts, etc comfortable/natural sounding (as the theory goes, due to familiarity since a lot of digitally distributed music is not the highest quality (and before anyone comes after me: yes I am aware of HDTracks and other high resolution sources)), so maybe there's something to it for some folks. Either way - nothing to get in a fuss about; if you like your toast buttered up or buttered down it makes no nevermind to me.

I also can't help but wonder if an end-user couldn't accomplish the same "smooth listening experience" with a little help from an EQ, the right speakers, and perhaps a nice beverage - versus making the musicians go to all the trouble of re-recording everything. 😊

"omega 432"....... like Omega fish/snake oil?

leileilol wrote:

"omega 432"....... like Omega fish/snake oil?

Hold on... when an article presents the question of frequency standards as some battle between "luciferian influences" and "Christ", and slips in Saturn, the Church and "international bankers", are you saying that you don't take every single one of its uncited "scientific facts" as absolutely 100% credible?!

VileRancour wrote:

leileilol wrote:

"omega 432"....... like Omega fish/snake oil?

Hold on... when an article presents the question of frequency standards as some battle between "luciferian influences" and "Christ", and slips in Saturn, the Church and "international bankers", are you saying that you don't take every single one of its uncited "scientific facts" as absolutely 100% credible?!

I know I certainly did. 🤣

No but seriously, A-432 (and other various pitch tunings) apparently has roots in history that can actually be documented - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A440_%28pitch_standard%29

And here: http://pbosf.blogspot.com/2010/01/story-of-mo … oque-pitch.html (since Wikipedia cites a book that I doubt anyone has)

Looking around on the web for "a-432" though returns some stuff that's uh...pretty wild. 😲

That website is the last thing i would read, i just posted it because thats one of the places where the 432Hz idea originates 😀

I experimented with some Reggae songs from Bob Marley, and they sound more natural with 432Hz (the way its meant to sound). I have also read somewhere that his band originally played all concerts using 432Hz as tuning frequency.

[E]

Using a global pitch change of 1.818% will damage the vocals. Some instruments do sound more natural, while others do not.
While reading more on that it seems that simply doing this conversion wont gain much, and in most cases will only make a song sound weird.
Its best to produce music with every instrument tunned properly.

I should experiment with some tracker program.

I thought tuning was all relative.

Stojke wrote:

Using a global pitch change of 1.818% will damage the vocals. Some instruments do sound more natural, while others do not. While […]
Show full quote

Using a global pitch change of 1.818% will damage the vocals. Some instruments do sound more natural, while others do not.
While reading more on that it seems that simply doing this conversion wont gain much, and in most cases will only make a song sound weird.
Its best to produce music with every instrument tunned properly.

I should experiment with some tracker program.

Indeed... those youtube "comparisons" are mostly bull, because resampling (and compression artifacts) are going to change the character of the audio in different ways than recording the same song with an alternative tuning.

Sample-based trackers are going to have the same "issue", by the way. When you downtune an existing sample, you won't get the same result as sampling the same instrument with a different tuning. You may want to experiment with a pure analog synth, or acoustic instruments.

Anyone's free to use any pitch they want, but in the end it comes down to preference. Besides, most people's consumption of music these days is shaped by other, well-documented factors - dynamic range compression, lossy data compression, aiming for low-end/mobile listening equipment, mutated perception of the human voice via auto-tune, etc. etc. I'll wager that these things have *way* more undesirable side-effects than a <2% difference in pitch.

And what is a second again? How long is it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_period

Earth's rotation period relative to the Sun (its mean solar day) is 86,400 seconds of mean solar time. Each of these seconds is slightly longer than an SI second because Earth's solar day is now slightly longer than it was during the 19th century due to tidal acceleration.

Or can someone explain to me the magic of

the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom

?

obobskivich wrote:

I don't "get it" I guess - the guitar example just sounds like it's keyed lower and everything is slightly dark as a result. What's the "mystical benefit" of this?

Me neither. The 432 Hz merely sounds lower, but whether it's better or not is arguable. In fact, the 432 Hz sounds less detailed to me.

obobskivich wrote:

(I do know that dark speakers tend to be an easier sell as they're more forgiving/easy-listening, so maybe that's got something to do with it)

Indeed. Bass sells. It doesn't mean dark speakers are more accurate, though. Me, I'd rather listen to bright-yet-detailed speakers rather than laidback, easy-to-listen speakers. I want to hear all those details!

432 is a little lower and that's it. For true harmonic sound (integer ratio intervals), read up on Just intonation.