|
Post by ianh on Aug 21, 2018 9:29:24 GMT
Hey, now we have my subject for the Halifax lecture, I could spend the whole three days telling you about seismology and the way the earth vibrates, I have spent my whole life studying it! Don't bother bringing a guitar, just your note books and best brain cells. Halifax is going to be such fun. If I knew it also included Milankovich cycles, I'd be there like a shot.....
|
|
colins
Luthier / Guitar Maker
Posts: 2,320
|
Post by colins on Aug 21, 2018 9:47:44 GMT
I can add a piece about the Milankovich cycles if you want, see you there.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2018 10:01:05 GMT
I find this all a bit odd, but sufficiently odd that I did a bit of googling to find out more. The most useful piece I found (from a website known as Attuned Vibrations. I kid you not.) is this: "On the musical scale where A has a frequency of 440Hz, the note C is at about 261.656 Hz. On the other hand, if we take 8Hz as our starting point and work upwards by five octaves (i.e. by the seven notes in the scale five times), we reach a frequency of 256Hz in whose scale the note A has a frequency of 432Hz. According to the harmonic principle by which any produced sound automatically resonates all the other multiples of that frequency, when we play C at 256 Hz, the C of all other octaves also begins to vibrate in “sympathy” and so, naturally, the frequency of 8Hz is also sounded. This is why (together with many other mathematical reasons) the musical pitch tuned to 432 oscillations per second is known as the “scientific tuning.” This tuning was unanimously approved at the Congress of Italian musicians in 1881 and recommended by the physicists Joseph Sauveur and Felix Savart as well as by the Italian scientist Bartolomeo Grassi Landi." At least that answers the very pertinent comment from @robbiej about the basic maths of it...... Fascinating! But the article talks about 432 not 442? Confused! Also according to that article, we will only be able to be in sympathy with the earth if we play everything in C !!!!!!! Lord knows what happens to the earth when we play anything in B or (heaven forbid) Db!! Which brings me on to a slightly different, but not unrelated topic, those luthiers who choose to ‘tune’ their instruments to a certain frequency (you know who you are). Again, surely by tuning the top of an instrument to a certain frequency, you are going to have a majorly different response when playing in keys which do not contain that frequency? Oooh, being a mathematician, I am finding this topic fascinating 🙂 Robbie
|
|
|
Post by andyhowell on Aug 21, 2018 10:03:37 GMT
Hey, now we have my subject for the Halifax lecture, I could spend the whole three days telling you about seismology and the way the earth vibrates, I have spent my whole life studying it! Don't bother bringing a guitar, just your note books and best brain cells. Halifax is going to be such fun. Don't you dare ;-)
|
|
|
Post by ianh on Aug 21, 2018 10:05:13 GMT
I find this all a bit odd, but sufficiently odd that I did a bit of googling to find out more. The most useful piece I found (from a website known as Attuned Vibrations. I kid you not.) is this: "On the musical scale where A has a frequency of 440Hz, the note C is at about 261.656 Hz. On the other hand, if we take 8Hz as our starting point and work upwards by five octaves (i.e. by the seven notes in the scale five times), we reach a frequency of 256Hz in whose scale the note A has a frequency of 432Hz. According to the harmonic principle by which any produced sound automatically resonates all the other multiples of that frequency, when we play C at 256 Hz, the C of all other octaves also begins to vibrate in “sympathy” and so, naturally, the frequency of 8Hz is also sounded. This is why (together with many other mathematical reasons) the musical pitch tuned to 432 oscillations per second is known as the “scientific tuning.” This tuning was unanimously approved at the Congress of Italian musicians in 1881 and recommended by the physicists Joseph Sauveur and Felix Savart as well as by the Italian scientist Bartolomeo Grassi Landi." At least that answers the very pertinent comment from @robbiej about the basic maths of it...... Fascinating! But the article talks about 432 not 442? Confused! Also according to that article, we will only be able to be in sympathy with the earth if we play everything in C !!!!!!! Lord knows what happens to the earth when we play anything in B or (heaven forbid) Db!! Which brings me on to a slightly different, but not unrelated topic, those luthiers who choose to ‘tune’ their instruments to a certain frequency (you know who you are). Again, surely by tuning the top of an instrument to a certain frequency, you are going to have a majorly different response when playing in keys which do not contain that frequency? Oooh, being a mathematician, I am finding this topic fascinating 🙂 Robbie And of course Eb is the devil's music..... I completely get your concerns with this one, Robbie. I like to believe that any resonance is better than no resonance (or, put another way, music of any kind has therapeutic properties....)
|
|
francis
C.O.G.
Posts: 2,391
My main instrument is: Whatever I'm building...
|
Post by francis on Aug 21, 2018 10:11:51 GMT
Hey, now we have my subject for the Halifax lecture, I could spend the whole three days telling you about seismology and the way the earth vibrates, I have spent my whole life studying it! Don't bother bringing a guitar, just your note books and best brain cells. Halifax is going to be such fun. A day for each type of wave - I can go with that (them ) mind you they're probably more types since I last did my OU course...
|
|
|
Post by Onechordtrick on Aug 21, 2018 10:34:37 GMT
<snip) Which brings me on to a slightly different, but not unrelated topic, those luthiers who choose to ‘tune’ their instruments to a certain frequency (you know who you are). Again, surely by tuning the top of an instrument to a certain frequency, you are going to have a majorly different response when playing in keys which do not contain that frequency?</snip> Which means that you "need" a different instrument for each key that you intend to play in Best excuse for a new instrument I can think of!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2018 10:50:32 GMT
Been thinking about this in the shower.
Now, let’s assume that what Andy really meant was a tuning of 432- I have never ever heard a suggestion for 442.
So 432 divided by 8 is 54. If we use prime factor decomposition to find its prime factors we get 3cubed times 2 (3,3,3,2). The prime factors of 8 are of course 2 cubed.
Now let’s look at 440. 440 dived by 8 is 55, whose prime factors are 11 and 5. Just two factors.
Now, interesting that the prime factors in the first calculation are in the Fibonacci sequence, and also the ratio of 3 divided by 2 is 1.5 (remember that if we take the ratio of consecutive pairs of numbers in the Fibonacci sequence that get closer and closer to the golden ratio).
So, possibly, 432 would seem to be a more “natural” tuning to 440 because the prime factors of both 432 and 8 are in the Fibonacci sequence.
Then again it might all be a load of bollocks.
Robbie
|
|
ocarolan
Global Moderator
CURMUDGEONLY OLD GIT (leader - to join, just ask!)
Posts: 33,967
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"c0cfe1"}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 182a3f
Mini-Profile Text Color: 733a1c
|
Post by ocarolan on Aug 21, 2018 10:53:39 GMT
........................ Then again it might all be a load of bollocks. Robbie ....which is where we came in.....
|
|
davewhite
Luthier / Guitar Maker
Luthier
Aemulor et ambitiosior
Posts: 3,544
|
Post by davewhite on Aug 21, 2018 10:59:11 GMT
........................ Then again it might all be a load of bollocks. Robbie ....which is where we came in..... Or maybe you have to get your bollocks in a Fibonacci sequence
|
|
|
Post by hughesy on Aug 21, 2018 11:00:07 GMT
I tuned my guitar to 432 for a while and it did resolve a slightly dead/wolf note at F on the 5th string. But now I am back at 440 and the problem is gone now at that frequency as well.....maybe because the guitar is a bit more played in.
|
|
|
Post by scorpiodog on Aug 21, 2018 11:06:12 GMT
Now, let’s assume that what Andy really meant was a tuning of 432- How very dare you, Robbie. That fine upstanding man (as we all know) carefully proof reads all of his posts. It is simply inconceivable that he meant 432 when he wrote 442.
|
|
ocarolan
Global Moderator
CURMUDGEONLY OLD GIT (leader - to join, just ask!)
Posts: 33,967
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"c0cfe1"}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 182a3f
Mini-Profile Text Color: 733a1c
|
Post by ocarolan on Aug 21, 2018 11:17:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Onechordtrick on Aug 21, 2018 11:17:53 GMT
Been thinking about this in the shower. Now, let’s assume that what Andy really meant was a tuning of 432- I have never ever heard a suggestion for 442. So 432 divided by 8 is 54. If we use prime factor decomposition to find its prime factors we get 3cubed times 2 (3,3,3,2). The prime factors of 8 are of course 2 cubed. Now let’s look at 440. 440 dived by 8 is 55, whose prime factors are 11 and 5. Just two factors. Now, interesting that the prime factors in the first calculation are in the Fibonacci sequence, and also the ratio of 3 divided by 2 is 1.5 (remember that if we take the ratio of consecutive pairs of numbers in the Fibonacci sequence that get closer and closer to the golden ratio). So, possibly, 432 would seem to be a more “natural” tuning to 440 because the prime factors of both 432 and 8 are in the Fibonacci sequence. Then again it might all be a load of bollocks. Robbie I just retuned to 432 and it sounded terrible. Ignoring the the fact that I sounded terrible before because I don’t think it’s particularly relevant I think we can agree with your conclusion
|
|
ocarolan
Global Moderator
CURMUDGEONLY OLD GIT (leader - to join, just ask!)
Posts: 33,967
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"c0cfe1"}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 182a3f
Mini-Profile Text Color: 733a1c
|
Post by ocarolan on Aug 21, 2018 11:23:57 GMT
Reading further down this article (there's a lot of it!) I learn that in 1989 the European Common Market selected A435 as the standard for all Europe. it seems we've been out of tune with the rest of Europe all along. Why did this never get mentioned in the Brexit talks?
|
|