432HZ ?

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:44 am

Ah yes. No I was thinking more in terms of creative timbre-based tuning perceptions.

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm

Bringing up microtonal synthesis was my way of pointing out that there's a lot more to alternate tunings than just reverting to an 'old standard' for pseudo-scientific reasons and upholding it as the One True Tuning. Of course I guess I could have just stated that outright.

Ah, I see what you mean. I thought you were referring to the more recent ones like just intonation, etc. that would have more of an effect on how waveforms interact in a chord.

But ya, I think before people had a clear understanding of the physics behind waveforms, tuning and temperament were more or less "evolved" through common practice and therefore had locality. In terms of tuning, I'm much more interested in temperament, rather than just shifting everything up and down. Equal temperament at 440, 432, or 1000 for that matter, would still have the same physical effect because the 12 tone relationship is still the same.

I play lots of piano recently, and still can't get my head around the IV not being where my brain expects it to be.

Post by **garyb** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:08 pm

tunings are tempered for things like harmonics and the behavior of metal and wood as the pitches are changed on an instrument as well as the resonance of the entire harp on a piano. it wasn't because people were stupid. it was because it sounded better(more consonant), even if it was less technically correct.

valis · Post by **valis** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:23 pm

And the classical cathedrals I referred to were often tuned to the material of the pipes used in the organ and the hall they were in, and so players tuned to that as well. Also in addition to the materials and immediate environment, one might suggest that things like the elevation and general cimate (barometric pressure) have had some impact on tunings across regions as well.

To go the other direction from the linked article, we could discuss to what degree the 12 tone system (the so called "pythagorean tuning" which might have even been present in Babylonian texts) is really a 'pure' system in some physical or metaphysical sense, and how much that's actually influenced by cultural bias. There are other systems that descend from non-western cultures where there are completely different tunings altogether.

A good example of this is a Gamelan assembly using the pélog tuning system, because while it does typically use 7 notes, in most cases only 5 notes are present in the Gamelan assembly and the intervals are a good counterpoint to the discussion of just intonation. In the chromatic scale (or diatonic scale) when an instrument is tuned to just intonation (or by using Hermode tuning in electronic instruments) the idea is to avoid the 'beating' that occurs when the intervals aren't simple ratios (3:2), especially with chords. However in the Gamelan assemblies the intervals are tuned not to avoid the beatings but rather to create the beating. In fact pélog tuning is setup so that the beating is actually constant across the 5 note range of the Gamelan assembly, so that no matter what notes (or chords?) are played the beating is constant and gives what is usually described as a 'shimmering' effect. And of course the Gamelan comes to us from Bali and Java, Indonesian cultures.

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:12 am

tunings are tempered for things like harmonics and the behavior of metal and wood as the pitches are changed on an instrument as well as the resonance of the entire harp on a piano. it wasn't because people were stupid. it was because it sounded better(more consonant), even if it was less technically correct.

right, I was a bit unclear. I totally agree. I was trying to say that there is something wrong with equal temperament which is supposed to be technically correct, and that there were many historical temperaments that sounded much better. Equal temperament is full of compromises and incorrect intervals.. but since it allows for transposition.. ya know, I really wonder. I still think IV is. It's a little more flat that what I think it should be. I've done the math before, maybe I can revisit it it since I remembered I figured out why.

Post by **garyb** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:46 am

it's maddening, no? some things still somehow defy logic. music's perfectly mathematic and yet the experience of it...

valis · Post by **valis** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 10:15 am

kensuguro wrote:
tunings are tempered for things like harmonics and the behavior of metal and wood as the pitches are changed on an instrument as well as the resonance of the entire harp on a piano. it wasn't because people were stupid. it was because it sounded better(more consonant), even if it was less technically correct.
right, I was a bit unclear. I totally agree. I was trying to say that there is something wrong with equal temperament which is supposed to be technically correct, and that there were many historical temperaments that sounded much better. Equal temperament is full of compromises and incorrect intervals.. but since it allows for transposition.. ya know, I really wonder. I still think IV is. It's a little more flat that what I think it should be. I've done the math before, maybe I can revisit it it since I remembered I figured out why.

No you weren't unclear, I was just using your example of equal temperament being 'not perfect intervals' to bring up the idea that this might be as much cultural bias as it is 'musically perfect' or something 'beyond'.

The Gamelan was a perfect example of this because not only are there a zillion different tunings used for it (depending on the island you visit etc) but one of the main 2 systems that has descended into being used in modern Indonesian cultures specifically goes the opposite direction of what we consider perfect tuning, and reinforces the beating aspect when things are not in a 'pure' interval. Of course they build in that with their own sort of purity, choosing intervals that provide the same rhythmic beating no matter what notes are played.

I think it's interesting that as time goes by our musical palette simply opens up more & more. First with notes and chords that were considered 'weak' in one era defining popular forms of music later (Blues & rock for instance), and then later with the introduction of middle & far eastern 'exotic' instrumentation into western music during the last century (and vice versa of course), up to today where you can fire up Logic and choose the tuning system of your preference, or even use plugins & external instruments that let you individually define tunings so that their interaction provides texture beyond what might have once been considered "musically perfect" (that whole microtonal synthesis example again).

So while the topic parent's link might be a bit daft, using it to run counterpoint and point out alternatives or even supporting (and hopefully less poorly phrased) ideas makes for good conversation that isn't even really all that off-topic for a music forum.

Neutron · Post by **Neutron** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:08 pm

also you can get magic stones that make your sound more transparent when you touch your cd with them.

you can buy $34000 speaker cables and super expensive "interconnects"(patch cables) which do not sound different unless the person listening knows how much they cost.

Key ways to spot this nonsense are words such as:
"transparent"
"pace"

valis · Post by **valis** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:49 am

According to a Tape Op interview, Pink Floyd used those shakti stones strategically located in the million dollar audio network that lies under the flooring of their Waldorf Astoria boat/studio.

One has to wonder if it's because of actual improvements in sound or just because they can.

Neutron · Post by **Neutron** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:32 am

valis wrote:According to a Tape Op interview, Pink Floyd used those shakti stones strategically located in the million dollar audio network that lies under the flooring of their Waldorf Astoria boat/studio.

One has to wonder if it's because of actual improvements in sound or just because they can.

they probably needed ballast in their boat. random useless rocks and stones are often used.

valis · Post by **valis** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 1:08 pm

Nope, these were Shakti Stones and the wiring was some super-duper oxygen free 'magical number of twists per inch' copper allow etc etc brand.

Also this is their (as of the article) CURRENT recording studio, which means it's used for recording Gilmour & gang as well as visiting artists.

FrancisHarmany · Post by **FrancisHarmany** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 1:51 pm

well if the vibe of the artists change due to the stones (or believing in an effect) it can be _FELT_ in the music....

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:12 am

there's also the eternal balance of cow dung, and what's real, in propagating music. I'm sure all music have certain hooks, but if it was recorded with so-and-so technology, being innovative and doing "never been done" things, it gives it an extra conceptual hook that can be picked up by people who would otherwise miss the audio hook. And besides, it looks darn great in text!

So, it may affect the artist's vibe, but ultimately, it may be the reason why people hear the song. Now that's a big effect.

But I think this really defines my position on the topic. If a certain tuning system is used for clear audio benefits, sure, that's cool. If it speaks to your artistic mind, that's cool too. But most often than not, it seems to be used just as a conceptual hook to make something more attractive than it is. I see that all too often in academic music.. where people are required to have some sort of conceptual / logical hook that makes their work important. At the end of the day, it's just another form of marketing, and usually doesn't result in better music.

I mean, look at the original website. The simple message is that by using this specific tuning system, the person is trying to validate it on several different political issues, and even claiming that it makes water taste better. That's a direct try to appeal to a diverse audience, using non musical conceptual hooks to make something look attractive. Same thing.

Post by **garyb** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:04 am

bravo Ken! a proper synopsis....

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:04 am

Neutron wrote:also you can get magic stones that make your sound more transparent when you touch your cd with them.

you can buy $34000 speaker cables and super expensive "interconnects"(patch cables) which do not sound different unless the person listening knows how much they cost.

Key ways to spot this nonsense are words such as:
"transparent"
"pace"

Sounds right to me. Without unwanted noise or colouration...

Maybe we should discuss the misuse/abuse of terms & phrases?

sharc · Post by **sharc** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:14 am

stardust wrote:I think the argument with the physics when playing a string instrument strikes.

If you're talking about 'physical modelling' of string instruments Stardust, I would have to agree (or did you mean re: the resonant 432Hz issue). There's a lot of good work been done there. It's still a rough approximation, but at least the underlying science is sound. The same could be said for other forms of physical modelling of course. I suppose some forms are just 'rougher' than others.