[Elegiac]

It spins me right round, baby, right round.

 

[Ghoostknight]

well, lets get away from the astronaut thing since there is no "reliable" source for astronauts using the schumann frequency in space but here are some studys on 432hz vs 440hz tuning

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1550830718302763?via=ihub
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0361923017300047?via=ihub
https://www.jendodon.com/article/S0099-2399(16)30287-4/fulltext
https://turcomat.org/index.php/turkbilmat/article/view/3538/3021
https://www.researchgate.net/public...Heart_Rate_and_Decreases_Sympathetic_Activity
https://www.mattioli1885journals.com/index.php/actabiomedica/article/view/12915

i mostly just read the conclusion and they seem overall positive towards 432hz tuning

another "interesting" thing is the picture of water exposed to 440hz vs 432hz ( https://www.watersoundimages.com/news/432hz.htm ) overall the water exposed to 432hz seems to better "resonating" which might be happening in our body to some extend to

 

[Ghoostknight]

interesting things i noticed with 432hz tuning:
1. yes its more calming and it sounds short "better/more harmonic" (and i think it has quite similar benefits of 7.83hz binaural/monaural beats and isochonic tones)
2. if you have speakers fairly loud (75-85db) and you hear normal 440hz music and pause at a loud part you feel this kind of "interruptive" edge if you pause/unpause, this "effect" is surprisingly fairly reduced with 432hz tuning, esoteric voices call this "more in harmony with nature" i guess, i think this is atleast a good demonstration and kinda fairly good audible effect of 432hz tuning
3. distortion seems to be (a bit) more audible with 432hz tuning, my guess is that 440hz sounds quite "edgy" on its own so distortion goes kinda under in this "edgy" sound
also (or because of this) 432hz tuning doesnt work quite as good on rock/metal/electronic

one "interesting" song i found is "One Note Symphony - Alan Parsons", im not sure if this is 432hz tuning but it sounds similar to 7.83hz binaural/monaural beats and isochonic tones and funny enough he sings about "7.83hz" at one point i think this is a good "test" song without repitching yourself to 432hz tuning

 

[gregorio]

interesting things i noticed with 432hz tuning:

They’re not “interesting things”. You might find them “interesting” because you made them up but for the rest of us they’re no more interesting than any of the other made-up nonsense on internet.

G

 

[Ghoostknight]

They’re not “interesting things”. You might find them “interesting” because you made them up but for the rest of us they’re no more interesting than any of the other made-up nonsense on internet.

you are free to believe that
atleast the studys show that there is probably more to it, which YOU might find more "interesting" than my expierence (or your own...)

 

[gregorio]

the studys show that there is probably more to it

Which studies? The studies by the same people, by people who don’t seem to know the difference between tuning and pitch-shifting, who don’t know how instruments or ensembles are tuned or are you talking about the study on rats’ appetites? What about studies that do not support the hypothesis and how does all this lead to “probably more to it”?

G

 

[Ghoostknight]

by people who don’t seem to know the difference between tuning and pitch-shifting

explain, if you pitchshift a 440hz tuning to 432hz you get pretty much the same outcome as a native 432hz tuning

who don’t know how instruments or ensembles are tuned

why is this even important if you know its 432hz or 440hz tuning?

or are you talking about the study on rats’ appetites?

no i mostly talk about the 5 other studys that came to the conclusion that for example 432hz tuning has a effect on hearthrate and blood pressure on humans(!)

What about studies that do not support the hypothesis

for example?

and how does all this lead to “probably more to it”?

well, if recent(!) studys show that this has a effect on for example blood pressure and this is not "common knowledge" than there is probably more to it, maybe more than even just the blood pressure

---

overall it seems objectivists or in particular you are not unbiased at all, they try to support their own beliefs which isnt a percent better than what its said about subjectivists

 

[gregorio]

explain, if you pitchshift a 440hz tuning to 432hz you get pretty much the same outcome as a native 432hz tuning

No, you don’t. With pitch-shifting, everything (fundamentals, harmonics and balance between harmonics) is identical, it’s all just shifted. However, with tuning, if you record a string instrument tuned to 440Hz and then detune it to 432Hz the tension of the string is less. This will result in a slightly different production or balance of the harmonics, same for a skinned instrument (certain drums for example). Other instruments such as brass instruments rely on resonant freqs and the harmonic series, which can also be affected by such a detuning.

why is this even important if you know its 432hz or 440hz tuning?

440Hz is quoted as the standard but that’s not always the case, different ensembles commonly tune to different freqs. This can also be important due to the point mentioned above, it’s not just the fundamental but also the harmonics produced.

for example?

I was referring to the statement in your first linked paper “Some theorists and musicians claim that the 432 Hz tuning has better effects on the human body, but there are no scientific studies that support this hypothesis.”

if recent(!) studys show that this has a effect on for example blood pressure and this is not "common knowledge" than there is probably more to it, maybe more than even just the blood pressure …

How so? Most music isn’t in the key of A (440hz), how do you know the difference shown wouldn’t also occur if the same pieces of music were played a semitone lower, say in A flat (415Hz) for example? The first/principal study you linked to stated that the music wasn’t just pitch-shifted but also proportionally slowed down, how do you know it wasn’t the speed difference rather than the frequency difference? There are some apparently obvious faults with the conclusions, although I can’t read the whole paper. Lastly, you imply “recent(!)” studies are somehow more reliable or have higher confidence, actually the opposite is typically the case.

overall it seems objectivists or in particular you are not unbiased at all …

Of course we’re not unbiased, this is the sound science forum, so we are biased towards the tenets of science, which dictates critical thinking and skepticism. The studies you posted were either inapplicable or cherry-picked to support your claims and indicate poor understanding, methodology and bias (although again, I only have access to the parts on the link).

they try to support their own beliefs

No, it’s the exact opposite way around; our “own beliefs” are based on the most reliable objective evidence. We’re not supporting beliefs, just stating facts.

which isnt a percent better than what its said about subjectivists

Huh, it’s miles better because we are not trying to support beliefs.

G

 

[Ghoostknight]

No, you don’t. With pitch-shifting, everything (fundamentals, harmonics and balance between harmonics) is identical, it’s all just shifted. However, with tuning, if you record a string instrument tuned to 440Hz and then detune it to 432Hz the tension of the string is less. This will result in a slightly different production or balance of the harmonics, same for a skinned instrument (certain drums for example). Other instruments such as brass instruments rely on resonant freqs and the harmonic series, which can also be affected by such a detuning.

well i dont think every "note" counts and fundamentals are probably more important than harmonics...

440Hz is quoted as the standard but that’s not always the case, different ensembles commonly tune to different freqs. This can also be important due to the point mentioned above, it’s not just the fundamental but also the harmonics produced.

hmm i think this is pretty common knowledge, i havent said pitchshifting works on all material, but probably on 80-90%, kinda depending on the genre tho

I was referring to the statement in your first linked paper “Some theorists and musicians claim that the 432 Hz tuning has better effects on the human body, but there are no scientific studies that support this hypothesis.”

i just posted a few posts ago a few studys, im not sure where this statement you mentioned comes from

Most music isn’t in the key of A (440hz), how do you know the difference shown wouldn’t also occur if the same pieces of music were played a semitone lower, say in A flat (415Hz) for example?

well, thats what i dont understand (but it sill works)
i guess you could argue that just the A of all Octaves fall on a "desired tone" that is more "harmonic with nature" and deviding all octaves into 12 semitones is pure luck that the other notes fall under a certain desired note or that just playing A has a "effect" .... idk i questioned this to myself too to get a logic answer, tho i understand not much about notes, im not a musician
beside that... C in all octaves also falls on a "desired note" with 432hz tuning

The first/principal study you linked to stated that the music wasn’t just pitch-shifted but also proportionally slowed down, how do you know it wasn’t the speed difference rather than the frequency difference?

the speed difference is 1,818181818%,
so a 300 seconds (6minutes) song is 305,454545454 seconds long after strechting it from 440hz to 432hz, or 18,18181818ms longer per second,
i dont even think this is noticable and if this would really matter there would be studys for it already

Lastly, you imply “recent(!)” studies are somehow more reliable or have higher confidence, actually the opposite is typically the case.

that makes no sense to say if you rely heavly on studys to make a conclusion, why are older studys more reliable? because they support your beliefs more?
there are probably bad studys for "all times" but atleast with recent studys there goes more knowledge and better testing equipment into it

Of course we’re not unbiased, this is the sound science forum, so we are biased towards the tenets of science, which dictates critical thinking and skepticism.

hmm then i guess this is why objectivists STILL heavly rely on decade old studys and measurments show it all

The studies you posted were either inapplicable or cherry-picked to support your claims and indicate poor understanding, methodology and bias

well show us studys that show us the opposite, till then i rely on the information "i have/found", specially if i can also feel the effects, maybe i will even measure my own hearthrate/blood pressure

No, it’s the exact opposite way around; our “own beliefs” are based on the most reliable objective evidence. We’re not supporting beliefs, just stating facts.

yea you can also believe that...


overall, this will be probably the last post again towards you, i have no time (well i have time but wanna spent it in a better way) arguing endlessly with you
i guess it still comes down to that we both have our own beliefs even if you suggest otherwise

 

[gregorio]

well i dont think every "note" counts and fundamentals are probably more important than harmonics...

It’s the harmonics which allow us to tell the difference between a piano and a violin or a tuba from a fridge and without the harmonic series a trumpet for example would only be able to play 4 different notes. But regardless of what you “think”, the study you quoted did not appear to know this difference between tuning and pitch-shifting, which indicates a serious lack of knowledge/understanding.

hmm i think this is pretty common knowledge, i havent said pitchshifting works on all material, but probably on 80-90%, kinda depending on the genre tho

It is pretty common knowledge, so why did the study you quoted not know something that is pretty common knowledge? And, do you have any reliable evidence to support your claim of “probably on 89-90%” or is that just a guess?

i just posted a few posts ago a few studys, im not sure where this statement you mentioned comes from

Huh, it’s quoted from the first study you posted!

well, thats what i dont understand (but it sill works)

What still works? There are several variables at play, the study you quoted does not appear to know about or isolate those variables but nevertheless concludes that one of them is responsible for the observed effect. On the face of it, this therefore appears to be a fallacious conclusion!

i guess you could argue that just the A of all Octaves fall on a "desired tone" that is more "harmonic with nature"

Science isn’t based on what you “guess you could argue”!

the speed difference is 1,818181818%,
so a 300 seconds (6minutes) song is 305,454545454 seconds long after strechting it from 440hz to 432hz, or 18,18181818ms longer per second,
i dont even think this is noticable and if this would really matter there would be studys for it already

And why don’t you “even think this is noticeable”, do have have reliable evidence or is this just another guess? Regardless of what you think, this is a variable that should have been eliminated BEFORE concluding that the pitch-shift was responsible for the observed effect and it would have been easy to do so. This is a serious methodology failure!

that makes no sense to say if you rely heavly on studys to make a conclusion, why are older studys more reliable? because they support your beliefs more?

Ah, you don’t seem to know one of the most basic tenets of science! Namely, that for a published study/paper to be accepted as science it MUST be repeatable.

there are probably bad studys for "all times" but atleast with recent studys there goes more knowledge and better testing equipment into it … hmm then i guess this is why objectivists STILL heavly rely on decade old studys and measurments show it all

Older studies have had time to be examined and/or repeated by others in the scientific community and thereby either confirmed/validated as science or discredited (and therefore not science). Your “guess” is therefore wrong, we “heavily rely on decade old studies and measurements” that ARE science, IE. Have been confirmed independently and have not been discredited. It’s surprising you don’t realise this basic tenet of science but nevertheless come to science discussion forum and argue about it!

well show us studys that show us the opposite

Another basic tenet of science you don’t seem to know; science cannot prove a negative. According to your own linked study there apparently are studies which do not support the hypothesis but of course the burden of proof lies with those proposing the hypothesis. Another basic tenet of science!

yea you can also believe that...

It has nothing to do with my belief and everything to do with the tenets of science, EG. Skepticism and reliable evidence. For you though it is about belief: Cherry-picked (and apparently seriously flawed studies), guesses and what you think!

overall, this will be probably the last post again towards you

That’s not a surprise. You’re not going to get anywhere arguing your beliefs/guesses in a science discussion forum, so not replying again is a wise choice!

G

 

[BobG55]

 

[LisaShayBrown]

It’s the harmonics which allow us to tell the difference between a piano and a violin or a tuba from a fridge and without the harmonic series a trumpet for example would only be able to play 4 different notes. But regardless of what you “think”, the study you quoted did not appear to know this difference between tuning and pitch-shifting, which indicates a serious lack of knowledge/understanding.

It is pretty common knowledge, so why did the study you quoted not know something that is pretty common knowledge? And, do you have any reliable evidence to support your claim of “probably on 89-90%” or is that just a guess?

Huh, it’s quoted from the first study you posted!

What still works? There are several variables at play, the study you quoted does not appear to know about or isolate those variables but nevertheless concludes that one of them is responsible for the observed effect. On the face of it, this therefore appears to be a fallacious conclusion!

Science isn’t based on what you “guess you could argue”!

And why don’t you “even think this is noticeable”, do have have reliable evidence or is this just another guess? Regardless of what you think, this is a variable that should have been eliminated BEFORE concluding that the pitch-shift was responsible for the observed effect and it would have been easy to do so. This is a serious methodology failure!

Ah, you don’t seem to know one of the most basic tenets of science! Namely, that for a published study/paper to be accepted as science it MUST be repeatable.

Older studies have had time to be examined and/or repeated by others in the scientific community and thereby either confirmed/validated as science or discredited (and therefore not science). Your “guess” is therefore wrong, we “heavily rely on decade old studies and measurements” that ARE science, IE. Have been confirmed independently and have not been discredited. It’s surprising you don’t realise this basic tenet of science but nevertheless come to science discussion forum and argue about it!

Another basic tenet of science you don’t seem to know; science cannot prove a negative. According to your own linked study there apparently are studies which do not support the hypothesis but of course the burden of proof lies with those proposing the hypothesis. Another basic tenet of science!

It has nothing to do with my belief and everything to do with the tenets of science, EG. Skepticism and reliable evidence. For you though it is about belief: Cherry-picked (and apparently seriously flawed studies), guesses and what you think!

That’s not a surprise. You’re not going to get anywhere arguing your beliefs/guesses in a science discussion forum, so not replying again is a wise choice!

G

lol and people wonder why no one comes here.

Hello,

i know this post will get me in trouble... but i wanna try anyway, maybe im not the only one who noticed this

well since some time i noticed in songs rather strange "effects" (tho i just noticed this heavly on my studio monitors, not with headphones) and in very commercial songs as well, no "niche" stuff,
so something must be going on that is somewhat general knowledge under musicians which is rarely/never spoken off (i guess one reason is that if you tell people this without them having expierenced this is that they think you go crazy...)

and i tried to research a little the last few days, of course you just find stuff like binaural beats and solfeggio frequencys

one thing i noticed myself is "monaural beats" are waaaay more effective (there are also studys that support this) than the common "binaural beats" everyone thinks about
correct me if im wrong, but binaural beats played on loudspeakers automaticly become "monaural" beats, since you hear both tones on both ears, which would kinda explain why the effects seem so dramatic on speakers for me compared to headphones

and i should also say that for me they work either as monaural beat OR as single frequency, so for example 16hz will give you a somewhat scary feeling, this works as single 16hz frequency OR as monaural beat with for example 40hz and 56hz

Easy Website to try stuff onlinetonegenerator.com (just open two tabs for monaural/binaural beats)

Bass:
7.83hz - will leave you feel very normal, maybe "more normal" than usual
16hz - scary, uncomfortable feeling
18.98hz - also a somewhat scary feeling , but it feels, funny said, like there is a "higher presence" aka ghost in the room
...

Solfeggio Freqencys:
639hz - you get a somewhat "warm" feeling, like there is a low power infrared heater nearby (i think its used in Christina Aguilera - Dirrty , where she funny enough sings about "heaters" lol)
...

Songs:
i should also notice here, most effects are kinda consistent with lyrics

Nick Cave - O Children
sometimes you get a "numb/sleepy" feeling, and there is around the end a huge effect i never expierenced in any other song like this, atleast not in this strength, you get tingles all over your body (and i litereally mean all over your body, legs, back, head) and its consistent for me every time i listen to this song, tho i noticed this effect dissappears if you listen to the song twice, not sure why
if you look at youtube, everyone says how sad this song is and that its all about holocaust, but with the effects and played on good speakers i cant really agree, its more of a story

Nonpoint - Paralyzed
like the title suggest, tho for me the effects are "minor" compared to other songs

Disturbed - Open Your Eyes
well guess, you are kinda forced (not really "forced" but if you are relaxed it will work without being painfully loud or something like this) to blink, tho im not sure how they do this, maybe dynamic?

---

since i upgraded my setup some while ago these effects are kinda far from "subtil" for me

should i expand this list? and how you guys feel about this?

it's very possible. the brain operates at certain frequencies through waves. some neuroscientists believe it helps synchronize functions in different areas of the brain.

 

[LisaShayBrown]

There has been a bunch of studies on the influence of music in restaurants. Most of what I recall is quite old and I have no idea how reliable it was. Nowadays most studies about music are really just the data group within Spotify giving them stats(which is great for sample size, but seems to have become the only source of data and that is a problem too).
Anyway, I remember music linked to everything(no prisoner) from how fast people would eat, how happy they were, and even how much more they would spend.
I know I'll walk faster listening to Money For Nothing than the lullaby from Brahms.

I'm not sold on one frequency having much meaning(The audio relaxation or concentration stuff inevitably makes me sleepy). If I want to focus I'll put on elevator musi... I mean Albinoni(I do love the 2 pieces everybody claims he didn't write).
I don't know about effect on the human body but I've been told in confidence that "music soothes even the savage beast".

music is one of the only things that gets nearly all parts of the brain firing at once. it's powerful stuff to the brain, even if we don't understand why yet.

 

[bigshot]

music is one of the only things that gets nearly all parts of the brain firing at once. it's powerful stuff to the brain, even if we don't understand why yet.

I think that has to do more with the patterns than the frequency of the sound. Music is organized and it leads us through a melody phrase by phrase to a resolution. The best music does that in a way that isn't totally predictable. It adds variations that makes each verse a little different. Following that keeps a listener engaged and on his toes. It's like listening to a conversation without words... a language we were born understanding and as time goes by with more experience, understand even better.

The world seems so random to us a lot of the time. When we listen to music (or look at art) we are seeing organization being used to reveal something true. That gives us hope that the world may not be as random as it seems. Bach said, "The sole purpose of music is the glorification of God." I find the crystalline perfection of the organization in his music to be a human scaled model of what a grand universal force controlling everything might look like.

 

[Ghoostknight]

It’s the harmonics which allow us to tell the difference between a piano and a violin or a tuba from a fridge and without the harmonic series a trumpet for example would only be able to play 4 different notes. But regardless of what you “think”, the study you quoted did not appear to know this difference between tuning and pitch-shifting, which indicates a serious lack of knowledge/understanding.

im not a musician and understand little from creating music, but i cant say that violins or tubas sound like a fridge while pitch shifting it -32 or -37 cents
and my guess would be that the "harmonic composition" is still the same with it being pitch shifted... its just pitchshifted...
but maybe you are right this harmonic composition changes maybe a bit by different string tensions, maybe thats also a reason why "native" 432hz tuned music sounds -even a bit more- relaxing, again "my guess" would be that higher string tension also leads to overall "more" harmonics

It is pretty common knowledge, so why did the study you quoted not know something that is pretty common knowledge? And, do you have any reliable evidence to support your claim of “probably on 89-90%” or is that just a guess?

no i havent analyzed or studied the worldwide collection of music... it was obviously a guess but "i guess" you keep trolling
atleast with my collection of music (i mostly dont listen to orchestras, which seem to be derivating the most from 440hz tuning) i can hear that all but a very few songs seem to be 440hz tuning

it's very possible. the brain operates at certain frequencies through waves. some neuroscientists believe it helps synchronize functions in different areas of the brain.

related to 7.83hz/432hz tuning i also come across a few times about mentions that the brain trys to sync to the schumann frequency to devirate our body functions like hearthbeat from it, so if its true that 432hz tuning is more in line with nature and the schumann frequency it could be the reason why our hearthbeat/blood pressure raises with 440hz tuning, atleast its a "interesting" and somewhat logical conclusion if its true that we have higher hearthrate/blood pressure (as some studys suggest) with 440hz tuning

tho instead of saying these are "facts" people should just try it for themself if they are curious