Yet another 432hz thread

On 2014-01-04 05:44, Colin OOOD wrote:

Quote:

On 2014-01-04 03:17, ansolas wrote: But you cant play Chords when Pitch bends are involved

One instance per voice; one chord note per instrument track. You'd need multiple instances but it would be relatively simple. Write your chords on one instance of the sound, and then separate them out onto individual tracks each with a copy of the same instrument, each playing a different monophonic line of the chord sequence and each one with a MicroTuner (or whatever). Bit cumbersome but it would work. I'd imagine you'd group the individual chord notes into a subgroup so you could process the chord as a whole, although it would also open up the option of treating each voice individually.

it is a system of musical tuning in which the frequency ratios of all intervals are based on the ratio 3:2, "found in the harmonic series."
This ratio, also known as the "pure" perfect fifth, is chosen because it is one of the most consonant and easy to tune by ear.

Leo Gunther[clarification needed] wrote, that "the Pythagorean system would appear to be ideal because of the purity of the fifths, but other intervals, particularly the major third, are so badly out of tune that major chords [may be considered] a dissonance."[

On 2014-01-04 20:38, ansolas wrote:
Just found this related page here:
http://www.roelhollander.eu/en/432-tuning/432-music-players/

IMPORTANT! - Do keep in mind that the change of Concert Pitch alone is not "432 Tuning".
432-Tuning is Concert Pitch A4=432Hz + "Pythagorean Temperament".

On 2014-01-04 05:55, frisbeehead wrote:

Quote:

On 2014-01-04 05:44, Colin OOOD wrote: Quote: On 2014-01-04 03:17, ansolas wrote: But you cant play Chords when Pitch bends are involved One instance per voice; one chord note per instrument track. You'd need multiple instances but it would be relatively simple. Write your chords on one instance of the sound, and then separate them out onto individual tracks each with a copy of the same instrument, each playing a different monophonic line of the chord sequence and each one with a MicroTuner (or whatever). Bit cumbersome but it would work. I'd imagine you'd group the individual chord notes into a subgroup so you could process the chord as a whole, although it would also open up the option of treating each voice individually.

some instruments have the option to load a tunning file into them. is it any different from the files you load to this plug-in you pointed out to us? (thanks) or is it the same? 'cause if it is, then you could play your chords just like you would any given day...

On 2014-01-05 17:42, daark wrote:
I still want my monitor tuned to 432hz That would be proper television watching
And my microwave too for making cosmic popcorn

On 2014-01-05 18:32, frisbeehead wrote:
yeah, based on the (rare) videos I've seen - not pretending to be an expert here at all! - I'd say tuning middle A to 432Hz was it!

@Colin

so what's your honest take on this whole thing?

if I read between the lines, you're saying 432Hz tuning by itself produces so little a difference that it's barely noticeable. that's the only part I've tested myself, and indeed it produces a very subtle difference, more noticeable in solo instruments, almost impossible (at least for me) to notice the difference on a busy mix.

but tuning middle A to 432Hz is actually the right approach to this, isn't it?

anyway, is this pythagorean temperament thing a new argument that's emerged because simply tuning to 432Hz doesn't make much of a difference? I admit to being a bit lost in translation here XD

On 2014-01-03 12:56, Colin OOOD wrote:
I love the way someone asks a question about 432 and someone else answers it with a post about just intonation. The two are completely separate things.

On 2014-01-07 20:47, Colin OOOD wrote:

Quote:

On 2014-01-05 18:32, frisbeehead wrote: yeah, based on the (rare) videos I've seen - not pretending to be an expert here at all! - I'd say tuning middle A to 432Hz was it! @Colin so what's your honest take on this whole thing? if I read between the lines, you're saying 432Hz tuning by itself produces so little a difference that it's barely noticeable. that's the only part I've tested myself, and indeed it produces a very subtle difference, more noticeable in solo instruments, almost impossible (at least for me) to notice the difference on a busy mix. but tuning middle A to 432Hz is actually the right approach to this, isn't it? anyway, is this pythagorean temperament thing a new argument that's emerged because simply tuning to 432Hz doesn't make much of a difference? I admit to being a bit lost in translation here XD

My 'honest take' is what I wrote in my post above, sorry if I wasn't clear in presenting my opinion. You're correct in your understanding of what I wrote. As for what the 'right' approach is, I'm not sure if I understand to what exactly you're referring to. You can retune or use an alternative temperament or both, but if you're going to use both then both need to be specified in whatever shorthand you use, eg. "432Hz Pythagorean". It takes very little extra effort and to do otherwise is dishonest IMO, especially if you're just slipping the temperament in there as a new 'requirement' for your alternative tuning.

And was curious what you think about the whole thing