Thanks Anthony,
> although it would indeed seem difficult to explain why 433
> might be the "harmonic frequency of the universe".
BTW - they think it's 432 - one vibe-per-second less than your fork.
These people have elaborate and mathematical explanations on their
websites.
I haven't critically read these explanations yet, so I can offer no
opinion on whether
I think they have any merit. I am not currently a supporter of the
theory, I just know
that it exists.
> Perhaps a piece played at 433 may therefore somehow sound more
relaxed
> (and just as interesting on harmonically rich period instruments),
when on
> compared to 440modern instruments (or period instruments that have
been
> altered tosupport modern string tensions);
It seems to me that if one were seriously going to assess sound at a
different tuning
frequency, then the instrument should be designed and / or set up with
the correct
string tensions for that frequency. I think that simply taking an
instrument designed
and strung for 440Hz and lowering the string tension will obviously
result in different
tonal characteristics. Less tension = less down-bearing on the bridge
(of a violin, or a
guitar for example - slightly different on a lute where there is no
saddle). Less down-bearing
would have the effect of less overall volume plus slightly longer
sustain. Without
embracing scientific method and having a "control group" in a well
designed comparison
all this 432 stuff is pure speculation and personal preference, not
fact.
> ... how those Baroque Strads must have suffered over the years
from
> this almost "Darwinian" striving to be better heard than your
neighbour.
Yes, they have almost all been altered for higher string tensions:
thicker bass bar and
soundpost to support the extra pressure, different tailpiece, longer
neck set at an
angle to allow more playing in high positions, and thicker, higher
bridge for more down -
bearing. Not only are the strings higher tension, they are also
longer. Vuillaume was
one of the first makers to start effecting these alterations for
players like Pagannini.
Interesting thread. Thanks again,
Tom
> Thank you all for your responses, and your detailed explanations,
> Tom.
> I agree that
> "In fact, that's one reason pitch has risen over the past few
> hundred years - more string tension = higher volume and brighter
> sound. Even today some orchestras tune to 442 - 444, to take
> advantage of this effect." and this search for brightness, also
> partly explains the change from gut strung instruments to metal
> strung ones (while of course the fragility of gut stringing might
> perhaps have kept pitch down to save string breakage). I recently
> heard a performance of Stravinsky's Pulcinella on "period brass
> instruments" and a gut strung bowed section by the "Musiciens du
> Louvre-Grenoble" (Mark Minkowski director); MM argued that even in
> 1905 gut stringing was fairly standard. He did not say at which
> pitch they were playing, however, I presume it may have been at
> 433 Hz. The performance was in no way unsatisfactory, as the
modern
> "brightness" was replaced by more harmonic texturing, coming both
> from the gut strings, and from the warmer but also "rougher"
> sounding period brass instruments. While the threads of the music
> remained exceptionally clear, as no instrument type seemed to be
> covering the other. In relation to tuning over high, I seem to
> remember that in an article on tuning, Gordon Gregory suggested
> that relaxed people tend to tune too low, while tense people would
> tend to tune too high (I certainly read that somewhere, but not
> certain it was in Gordon's article). However, this coincides well
> with my own experience, as I always tend to tune too high, if I
> tune by ear (I would certainly not classify myself as relaxed).
> Relative brightness would be associated with increased emotional
> tension, which by some, might be felt as somehow a more exciting
> sound. Tuning too high, as Ed says, does result in
> out-of-tuneness, but it can also be considered as an over-bright
> tonal aberration. In relation to this (and the above), it is
> recorded in many hifi sites that a change from over bright
> distorting resistors and capacitors to better noise performance
> ones, initially results in the hifi enthusiasts feeling that the
> sound is less exciting (something is missing), before they finally
> realize they are suffering less listener's fatigue (could be the
> same with the change to better mics). Perhaps a piece played at
433
> may therefore somehow sound more relaxed (and just as interesting
> on harmonically rich period instruments), when compared to 440 on
> modern instruments (or period instruments that have been altered
to
> support modern string tensions); although it would indeed seem
> difficult to explain why 433 might be the "harmonic frequency of
> the universe". Ed's description of competitive tuning between
> violinists (presumably not gut strung), reminds me of a tale
about
> a televised presidential debate between two candidates here in
> France. One of the contestants was rather short, and his advisers
> kept bringing in cushions to make him look taller, but of course
> those of his taller opponent, began reacting similarly, resulting
> in something of a "Lewis Carrol" moment for my friend who was
> organizing the filming. Back to Ed, how those Baroque Strads must
> have suffered over the years from this almost "Darwinian" striving
> to be better heard than your neighbour. Regards Anthony PS I will
> think of you Tom, if I decide to let it go. When I am back in
Paris
> I will make a photo of the fork with resonator-case. --- En date
de
> : Ven 6.1.12, [email protected] <[email protected]> a
> ecrit :
>
> De: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> Objet: Re: [LUTE] tuning fork at 433Hz?
> A: [email protected], "Anthony Hind" <[email protected]>
> Date: Vendredi 6 janvier 2012, 23h39
>
> This is very interesting to me, because an old friend recently
> alerted me to
> a new line of thinking claiming that 432Hz OUGHT to be true
concert
> pitch. There are websites devoting a lot of space to articles and
> discussions about this. [1]http://www.omega432.com/music.html
> [2]http://www.solfeggiotones.com/432-hz/
>
[3]http://radicalfilms.co.uk/2007/12/26/a-432hz-vs-a-440hz-a-sonic-
> expe riment-fascinating/
> People claim things like "it FEELS better", or "it's the
harmonic
> frequency of the universe" ...
> ("New Age" / "Airy-Fairey" ...)
> As a piano technician with perfect pitch, I'm pretty locked into
> 440. But it's fun to experiment with other pitches and
temperments.
> Plus, I am human and cannot say that I'm ALWAYS spot on standard
> pitch, although I'm usually so close it doesn't matter. I still
> use a fork to set A4. But when it comes to tuning my lute or
> guitar I just "ear" it. I tune my lute low. Sometimes I tune my
> guitar a smidge higher when playing solo to get a brighter sound.
> In fact, that's one reason pitch has risen over the past few
> hundred years - more string tension = higher volume and brighter
> sound. Even today some orchestras tune to 442 -444, to take
> advantage of this effect.
> Anthony, if you ever decide you'd like to part with your 433
fork
> I'd
> be interested in having it.
> Then maybe I, too, can be in harmony with the universe! (Or close
> to it?)
> Tom
> > Dear luthenists
> > A friend gave me an amusing tuning fork, which is
> clearly of > some age. > I am not (here) in a position to be
> able to load a photo of it, but > it fits into a tight wooden
> case, and at the end of this there is a > hollow metal peg. I
> quickly realized that if you place the case on > a table, and
> set the tuning fork ringing while holding it in the > metal
> peg's hollow, the resonance is amplified. I measure the >
> resonance as 433Hz. Would this be the London Philharmonic
Orchestra
> > pitch of 1826? This is what I read at >
>
[4]http://www.antsmarching.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-84975.html
> > "In 1939, an International Conference met in London and
> unanimously > adopted 440 Hz as the standard frequency for the
> pitch A4, and that > is the almost universal standard at
> present. Previously, the > standard was A=435 (fixed, Paris
> Academy, 1859, as diapason normal; > and confirmed, Vienna
> conference, 1885, as international pitch). > The National
> Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) > broadcasts a
> precise 440 Hz reference tone on its short wave radio > station
> WWV (Along with time data). In the 1800's there was also >
> Philharmonic Pitch, that of the London Philharmonic Orchestra. It
>
> varied from 1826, were A=433 Hz, and in 1845, was raised to
> A=455 > Hz. Historically it has ranged from A=403 Hz to 567 Hz.
> !!!" What > do you think. The fork is unfortunately not
perfect,
> having been > effected by some rust, but I don't think this
> would explain the > 433HZ. I was not intending to use it, but
it
> is an entertaining > looking (if no doubt useless) object.
> Regards Anthony > > -- > > > To get on or off this list see
list
> information at >
> [5]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html Tom
> Draughon Heartistry Music
> [6]http://www.heartistry.com/artists/tom.html 714 9th Avenue West
> Ashland, WI 54806 715-682-9362
>
> --
>
> References
>
> 1. http://www.omega432.com/music.html
> 2. http://www.solfeggiotones.com/432-hz/
> 3.
>
http://radicalfilms.co.uk/2007/12/26/a-432hz-vs-a-440hz-a-sonic-exp
> eriment-fascinating/ 4.
> http://www.antsmarching.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-84975.html
5.
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html 6.
> http://www.heartistry.com/artists/tom.html
>
Tom Draughon
Heartistry Music
http://www.heartistry.com/artists/tom.html
714 9th Avenue West
Ashland, WI 54806
715-682-9362
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
