432Hz... Let's Get It On...

[Barracuda]

Did you guys watch that Ben Verellen class? He must have said "nerd alert" 20 times. It's my new favorite phrase.

I wanted to, but had to work... worth buying the stream?

[Doctor X]

so a 'second' is a 'day' divided up into 24 hours, then each hour divided into 60 minutes, then each minute into 60 seconds,
then we measure a certain frequency as 432 or 440 cycles per 'second' - per '86,400th of a day'.

how did we come up with that particular length of time to be called a 'second'? dividing a rotation of the earth by 24, then 60, then 60 (total 86.400)?
i dont think there's is any 'natural' feeling for the passing of a minute or an hour, just for the long time unit - a 'day' - and a shorter one that we can count.
the current 'second' is a slow counting speed and you have to add elephant or similar. i think its a bit slow for that so lets speed it up a bit and make it more metric at the same time.

so why not divide a rotation of the earth into 10 hours, then 100 mins per hour, then 100 seconds per minute.
that gives us 100,000 new value 'seconds' per day, instead of the current 86.400.
they're slightly quicker so better for counting, and we are used to counting in base 10 in our everyday lives, rather than 24s and 60s.

what number will that make the current frequency of 432hz? and 440hz?

[Barracuda]

432 (1/seconds) * ((86400 seconds) / (100,000 new seconds)) = 373.248 1/new seconds

440 (1/seconds) * ((86400 seconds) / (100,000 new seconds)) = 380.16 1/new seconds

[rustywire]

Don't forget that the unit of time we base Hertz on is arbitrary. So whether the diatonic scale can be expressed as integers or not is irrelevant because the time unit is not related to anything musical or particularly awesome, unless you like caesium atoms at sea level and they are important for your guitar. Which they might be.

While hertz may be tied to time, a unit of measure that is not (necessarily) is cs, or cycles. The number of times a vibration, or oscillation fully extends through the positive and negative sides of an equilibrium.
1 cycle = 360 degrees (180 per side)

AC power mains standards are represented as both hz or cs; meaning for every second there's 50 or 60 complete cycles of push-pull current flowing at whichever voltage.

So while the unit of measure, w/r/t time may be arbitrary and can be represented as x, the formula and resulting ratios are the determining factor. 3x : 2x etc *maths*

[Barracuda]

Don't forget that the unit of time we base Hertz on is arbitrary. So whether the diatonic scale can be expressed as integers or not is irrelevant because the time unit is not related to anything musical or particularly awesome, unless you like caesium atoms at sea level and they are important for your guitar. Which they might be.

While hertz may be tied to time, a unit of measure that is not (necessarily) is cs, or cycles. The number of times a vibration, or oscillation fully extends through the positive and negative sides of an equilibrium.
1 cycle = 360 degrees (180 per side)

AC power mains standards are represented as both hz or cs; meaning for every second there's 50 or 60 complete cycles of push-pull current flowing at whichever voltage.

So while the unit of measure, w/r/t time may be arbitrary and can be represented as x, the formula and resulting ratios are the determining factor. 3x : 2x etc *maths*

Cycles, or cycles per second is the same as Hz, Hertz, per seconds, or 1/seconds. You could eliminate time in the unit by measuring in terms of wavelength if you wanted, but then you're tied to length.

[rustywire]

Cycles, or cycles per second is the same as Hz, Hertz, per seconds, or 1/seconds. You could eliminate time in the unit by measuring in terms of wavelength if you wanted, but then you're tied to length.

Right, hertz is defined as cycles per second; which is the same thing implied by the unit "cs". But hertz and cycles aren't the same.
In sound, the units are intended to represent the speed of the oscillating wave passing the equilibrium. Not the duration of the signal. We're always tied to length, we experience the world in 3d.
Because time is not linear, and we only perceive it to be such; therefore speed, and distance is inherently easier to measure in certain terms, much more so than duration. For duration we have open notes to 1/128th maybe higher...but those too are arbitrary and time-based. Here we are again, in a circle. Or cycle
IDK, I still feel like this all raises more questions than it answers.

Anyway, as previously stated I'm confident it's the ratios of quantified vibrations, their speed and how they interact (at length) that matters most in this stuff.

Edit: see avatar for more info

[D.o.S.]

College Degrees: You can't put your fist in 'em.

[AxAxSxS]

Did you guys watch that Ben Verellen class? He must have said "nerd alert" 20 times. It's my new favorite phrase.

I wanted to, but had to work... worth buying the stream?

For me,very much so.

[Barracuda]

Did you guys watch that Ben Verellen class? He must have said "nerd alert" 20 times. It's my new favorite phrase.

I wanted to, but had to work... worth buying the stream?

For me,very much so.

Sweet, I am pretty dumb when it comes to setting up guitars. I can do basic intonation, but I don't really know when to be adjusting what for setting string height, truss rod, etc...

Cycles, or cycles per second is the same as Hz, Hertz, per seconds, or 1/seconds. You could eliminate time in the unit by measuring in terms of wavelength if you wanted, but then you're tied to length.

Right, hertz is defined as cycles per second; which is the same thing implied by the unit "cs". But hertz and cycles aren't the same.
In sound, the units are intended to represent the speed of the oscillating wave passing the equilibrium. Not the duration of the signal. We're always tied to length, we experience the world in 3d.
Because time is not linear, and we only perceive it to be such; therefore speed, and distance is inherently easier to measure in certain terms, much more so than duration. For duration we have open notes to 1/128th maybe higher...but those too are arbitrary and time-based. Here we are again, in a circle. Or cycle
IDK, I still feel like this all raises more questions than it answers.

Anyway, as previously stated I'm confident it's the ratios of quantified vibrations, their speed and how they interact (at length) that matters most in this stuff.

Edit: see avatar for more info

It is indeed the ratios of their wavelengths (or equivalently, frequencies) that matter. One can construct the exact frequency relations to make any chord with A=whatever you want (so long as your instrument is capable of it). I'm not sure how to approach the 'time is non-linear' thing, but it does bring to mind this situation... what if someone strikes a chord with A=440 tuning, but you are traveling at a speed away from the source such that, through the Doppler effect, you perceive it to be A=432? Is that good?

[Barracuda]

Giving us a new second that's 15,74% faster than the old. This should work well since we're getting fatter and our hearts are getting weaker, expecting 60 beats per (current) minute for the average person isn't feasible anymore - also having the side-effect of people feeling better they're not statistically "unhealthy" anymore.

I lol'd at work.

[goroth]

In sound, the units are intended to represent the speed of the oscillating wave passing the equilibrium.

Yeah, but speed is the time it takes a certain object to pass a given distance. So unless you are measuring the wave length, as Barracuda mentioned, then you are talking about time.

But you're right, if we talk about ratios then we get rid of the time/length unit of measurement. But then given that most of us play equal tempered instruments it doesn't matter what we start tuning at, the ratios available to use as a player are going to get screwed up sooner or later.

[Doctor X]

i think the good doctor is getting close to something here, but we need to think bigger.

But honestly? let's just attach rockets to the earth and slow it down to 400 days a year. more mathematical imo. and let's speed up the rotational around it's axis so we can get a nice 100 Hz for an A instead, that might just be easier. And then we could do ANOTHER set of remakes of every movie ever made where the only real change is fixing the clocks and the seconds on everything (timers on bombs etc) and michael bay could direct everything.

plus of course we will have to rebuild the pyramids to get them aligned with the new ratios, we will have fake the moon landings all over again, and the illuminati will have to rebuild the twin towers so that the cia/mossad/rothchilds and demolish them again to get the dates in sync with the new number system

[alexa.]

Yeah my conclusion on the "every note 8Hz lower" is sry. Thanks for correcting me.

[tuj]

oh god fuckin' tims and millitims? No fucking way! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_time

[goroth]

it must sound so good it Hz.

I swear you've got some children stashed away somewhere dude, because that is like the best dad joke ever.