The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Surely you mean A4 at 440 Hz? Middle C is 261.6 Hz in modern tuning.

I, too, prefer A=432 Hz tuning myself, btw.

Thanks for the correction, of course you are right. I made the same mistake last time we discussed this several years ago.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: Shoule a person be loyal to someone who has helped them but has hurt many others?

I don't have any "faith" in Hubbard either. But I do find a lot of his stuff very workable and until I find something better to replace it I will continue to use it.

The faults of the man himself are of no consequence to me at all.

Leon, your last sentence above would be food for a separate thread, i.e. "the faults of the man himself oare of not consequence to me at all."

Purple Haze, often says that the bigger a person's beingness and abilities are, which she calls his "Front Side", the bigger the person's aberations will be, which she call his "Back Side". I see a lot of truth in this statement though I don't see it as 100% true in all cases.

Someone such as Abraham Lincoln had an enormous Front side and yet we saw very little back side to Lincoln. Ditto for Gandhi and Nelson Mandela, etc.

At first, when I left CoS, I thought that Hubbard was one of the greatest men who ever lived and that he was a great genius in many fields. Slowly at first and then accelerating with time, his faults and flaws began to be revealed and my opinion of Hubbard began to change.

A person has to be held accountable for his faults when his actions ruin people's lives. Certain misdeeds are capable of being overlooked or forgiven, especially if there are compensating actions which benefitted a lot of people. However, for me, there are some areas which I hold sacrosanct. If a man screws up in those areas, I am just not willing nor able to look the other way.

I can only speak for myself and not for others so here are a few of those sacrosanct areas, which if violated, will turn me against a man or a woman:

#1. His treatment of children, his or her children in particular as well as children in general.
#2. His handling of women, especially his wive or wives and his daughters.
#3. His level of honesty and truthfulness. Does he speak the truth, does he honor his word, etc.
#4. When it is time for him to depart this life, does he provide as best he can, to make things as good as he can for his family, friends and followers?.

Sadly and unfortunately, in all 4 of the above critical areas which measure a person's character, Hubbard was a failure, not just a minor failure but almost a COMPLETE failure. Now the question arises, if a person who fails totally in these 4 areas did some things in his life which helped you personally, do you sort of look the other way and excuse his failures? A closely related question would be, if such a person produced some technology which helped you personally would you still continue to use it? If so, would you still promote that technology to others?

I don't believe there is any absolute right or wrong on this question. Whatever decision a person makes has to be considered right for them. They alone have their own memory, they alone know how much or how little such a person's help influenced their own life and they alone can evaluate for themselves if it is better to use technology from this individual in their present life circumstances and if so, whether they should promote this technology to others.
Lakey

 

[JustSheila]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Great post, Lakey.

Re. Lincoln (and you can look this up), btw, as a lawyer, he was a pompous, insufferable, arrogant ass and often publicly belittled and humiliated others in local publications.

One day, as a young lawyer, he was challenged to a duel. He would have lost that duel (he had little expertise with firearms) and sent his assistant to call it off.

After that, he was a changed man. My point is, he did not lead his entire life as the angelic great leader, the suffering man of integrity he became. Experience and personal reflection made him into the Lincoln we knew. Life-threatening experiences can give anyone a new outlook and opportunity to become the best we can.

I tend to think that most people have both a good and bad side and are a mix of both, but there are exceptions that are rabid dogs who treat compassion as weakness. There are those who lie, cheat and use others as a way of life and never give a thought to anyone but themselves.

Your rules are great. Every decent person has boundaries, not just for themselves, but for what is and is not acceptable in their friends and groups. Those that hold the line firmly on integrity despite any personal loss develop character. Despite all opposition and majority opinions otherwise, Lincoln united a nation and rid it of slavery. It cost him his life - but how much better to have died a loved, respected man of integrity leading a nation, than to have died the self-centered, arrogant, nasty man he was if he had not had the humility to back down from that duel and think anew about the direction of his life.

Food for thought.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Great post, Lakey.

Re. Lincoln (and you can look this up), btw, as a lawyer, he was a pompous, insufferable, arrogant ass and often publicly belittled and humiliated others in local publications.

One day, as a young lawyer, he was challenged to a duel. He would have lost that duel (he had little expertise with firearms) and sent his assistant to call it off.

After that, he was a changed man. My point is, he did not lead his entire life as the angelic great leader, the suffering man of integrity he became. Experience and personal reflection made him into the Lincoln we knew. Life-threatening experiences can give anyone a new outlook and opportunity to become the best we can.

I tend to think that most people have both a good and bad side and are a mix of both, but there are exceptions that are rabid dogs who treat compassion as weakness. There are those who lie, cheat and use others as a way of life and never give a thought to anyone but themselves.

Your rules are great. Every decent person has boundaries, not just for themselves, but for what is and is not acceptable in their friends and groups. Those that hold the line firmly on integrity despite any personal loss develop character. Despite all opposition and majority opinions otherwise, Lincoln united a nation and rid it of slavery. It cost him his life - but how much better to have died a loved, respected man of integrity leading a nation, than to have died the self-centered, arrogant, nasty man he was if he had not had the humility to back down from that duel and think anew about the direction of his life.

Food for thought.

Nice post yourself, Shiela, you make some very interesting points. In fact, I was not aware of Lincoln's dark side. You know, the way things worked out, I don't think that any one man in the USA could have got the Emancipation Proclamation through Congress. Near the end of the Civil War, the South was offering to surrender if only they could keep slavery. Any other politician probably would have accepted those terms. Lincoln, alone was the one man who could have turned down that surrender offer. He had some kind of epiphany and realized that for the USA to be true to its Declaration of Independence and its Constitution and BIll of RIghts, slaver had to go. He was the right man at the right time, the only man who could have successfully gotten slavery repealed.

Looking for other right men or women at the right time, I see Winston Churchill as the only man in the UK who could have stood up to Hitler after Hitler had conquered France. After the fall of France, Hitler wanted a quick end to the war so he could consolidate his gains and make his next move, probably an attack on the USSR. Hitler made a generous peace offer to England. I don't know the prevailing sentiments in England at that time but probably, most Britts were in favor of calling off the war. Churchill saw the menace to the world which Nazi Germany was. I don't even think Churchill pondered the matter, he just slammed the door in Hitler's face and took England to war with Germany. Churchill knew all along that he would only win if the USA joined the war with him and he was determined to make that happen. Anyway, Churchill, like Lincoln, was the right man at the right time. He stood up to Hitler and turned down his peace offers. I don't believe that any other person in England at that time could have pulled that off.

You know, besides the point which Leon's comments about Hubbard brought up, there is the reverse side of those comments as well. Does scoring well on those 4 traits which I mentioned in my last post suggest conclusively that a leader or opinion leader with a technology which he created should automatically be followed and supported?

For example, look at Henry Ford, he put America on wheels. gave is the assembly line for mass producing things and doubled the pay of many of his factory workers. It turned out that Henry Ford was not a complete genius, his genius was extremely limited and basically applied to only one period in his life and only one field, the Automobile. If somebody decided to follow Henry Ford because of those achievements which he made in his younger years, they would have not made out very well. After he reached his zenith, pretty much everything he did after that point was mediocre to poor.
Lakey

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Great posts here from you two about Lincoln, Churchill etc, but on Lakey's four points I've got a more morally compromised example to ponder than the ones you give. How about Jack Kennedy? If his biographers are correct, Kennedy was pretty much a satyr (the male equivalent of a nymphomaniac) but he held his nerve, made the right calls and steered us all to safety during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. There have been more morally upright presidents (such as Jimmy Carter) who made much more of a hash of dealing with the crises which confronted them during their period in office.

I'd argue that sex may be in a different category, because I suspect that a strong and dominant personalty and a talent for leadership often goes with a strong sex drive. There are examples, though less egregious ones than Kennedy perhaps, in British politics too; Lloyd George kept a mistress when he was prime minister.

Britain's attitude towards Churchill; don't forget that we in the UK had lost over a million men in WW1, and for a lot of the intelligentsia, poets etc. it all looked like senseless slaughter. It was much like the way Americans saw Vietnam fifty years later, only the scale of the slaughter was far greater - tens of thousands of soldiers could be mown down in a single day on a battlefield in France. Pacifist sentiments were very strong in England after that time and continued long into the 1930's, with an Oxford debating society one year in the early 30's passing a motion that they would not fight for King and Country.

Also, and more disturbingly perhaps, much of the British ruling elite and even our King at one time (Edward VIII) was frankly pro-Hitler and saw him as a bulwark against the one thing they feared above all - a Bolshevik revolution in Europe.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Here is Pachelbell's Cannon in d in 432 megahertz:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJsPmOMaiVc

Here is Pachelbell's Cannon in d in 440 megahertz:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Af372EQLck

Take a test drive and see what you think. To me, the difference in sound is like night and day. In the 432 Hz version, every chord of the music penetrates deeply into my psyche, I am almost trembling with every note.

The 440 Hz, calibrated with middle C vibrating at its modern standard frequency of 440 Hz for me, packs about half the beauty and half the emotional impact.

There were several on this thread attacking me visciously for voicing my personal observations and opinions. I have an extremely keen ear for music and I sense an enormous difference in the two performances. You wouldn't believe what lengths these jerks went to try and insist that the two performances were identical and there was no perceivable difference between them. Maybe that was true for them but they went all out to enforce their views on me.
Lakey

I listened to both. I liked the glossiness of the individual notes in the 432 Hz. But I also liked the other due to the tempo, if that is the right word and found myself liking that; except I noticed that the instruments were different which ruined the 440 Hz example as the piece continued and the offending tones entered from those instruments. Actually I would prefer a tempo somewhere in between the two examples. I wished the same instruments by the same players could be used to make the comparison since I felt the tempo was too much for me in the first and disliked the playing/instruments (some) in the second.

ps I always was the princess in princess and the pea so I tend to notice irrelevant tiny details.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Great posts here from you two about Lincoln, Churchill etc, but on Lakey's four points I've got a more morally compromised example to ponder than the ones you give. How about Jack Kennedy? If his biographers are correct, Kennedy was pretty much a satyr (the male equivalent of a nymphomaniac) but he held his nerve, made the right calls and steered us all to safety during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. There have been more morally upright presidents (such as Jimmy Carter) who made much more of a hash of dealing with the crises which confronted them during their period in office.

I'd argue that sex may be in a different category, because I suspect that a strong and dominant personalty and a talent for leadership often goes with a strong sex drive. There are examples, though less egregious ones than Kennedy perhaps, in British politics too; Lloyd George kept a mistress when he was prime minister.

Britain's attitude towards Churchill; don't forget that we in the UK had lost over a million men in WW1, and for a lot of the intelligentsia, poets etc. it all looked like senseless slaughter; much like Americans saw Vietnam fifty years later, only the scale of the slaughter was far greater - tens of thousands of soldiers could be mown down in a single day on a battlefield in France. Pacifist sentiments were very strong in England after that time and continued long into the 1930's, with an Oxford debating society one year in the early 30's passing a motion that they would not fight for King and Country.

Also, and more disturbingly perhaps, much of the British ruling elite and even our King at one time (Edward VIII) was frankly pro-Hitler and saw him as a bulwark against the one thing they feared above all - a Bolshevik revolution in Europe.

Thanks for the great post, Cat!! I'll tell you something which is my opinion but an extremely strong opinion. If Churchill hadn't stood up against Hitler, the Nazi Reich would have gone after the USSR and defeated them. They then would have consolidated those gains, giving the Nazi's vast oil reserves and mineral reserves, etc. They would have connected up with Japan much closer and would have gone after England anyway. I can't believe the British didn't learn anything from the "peace" pact which Neville Chamberlin made with Hitler in Munich. There was no way to do business with Hitler, as Chamberlin thought was the best thing to do.

The pacifist are still at it in their dealings with Iran. Just sit down with the religious and governmental leaders of Iran, have a spot of tea with them and treat them with respect and they will cut a fair deal with us. Obama and Kerry still believe that this is the way to go and they are extremely naive. The leaders of Iran march to a totally different drummer than we do. I believe that their beliefs call for them to lie, cheat and deceive western governments and the roadway towards destroying them. If Iranians don't do that, then they consider they are dishonoring Allah. It is trite to say the following but it is true, the only thing Muslim extremists appreciate in their negotiation with a foe is his strength and military power. Trying to pussy foot around with the Iranian government and appealing to their kinder nature is really fools play. Among the Iranian mullahs the primary goals are first the total destruction of Little Satan, the Jewish state of Israel and once that is achieved, the next thing on their agenda is to bring down the Great Satan, which is the USA>

By the way, a WWII with Germany, USSR, Japan, and Italy versus the US and UK probably would have favored the Nazis and their allies. That would have been the case had not Hitler turned on the USSR and broken his treaty with them. I think the best we could have hoped for in such a battle was a stalemate. Meanwhile every Jew in Europe would have been exterminated. Sooner or labor, the Nazi's and their allies would have come after the USA. As far as the UK, Hitler had a soft spot in his heart for them because he thought of the British as being Aryans and also he respected their sea power and that fact that they had created such a large empire.

The USA, on the other hand, was "a cocktail of Jews, Blacks and Irishmen and Hitler despised the way the USA was governed, having to elect a new president every 4 years and having a system with 3 branches of government with each having checks and balances against the other two.

The way things played out, Hitler easily out negotiated Chamberlin and when the dust settled, the British stood alone against the Nazi Empire. Britain showed great skill and resolve in getting the best of the Nazi's in the air battle of Brittain but sooner or later, the Nazis would have broken through and over run the British. Hitler, threw away victory by tearing up his treaty with the USSR and that gave Britain more breathing room and then when Japan attacked the USA, and Hitler also declared war against the USA, Hitler was the one who was finished. There is no way that Germany, Japan and Italy were ever going to defeat the combination of the USA, USSR and UK. In fact once that war got started, in December of 1941, it only took the allies 3 1/2 years to completely destroy the Axis Powers.

On JFK, I see him as a great president and great man. The nation united under him. The Kennedy family was all the rage, not just here but world wide. Probably the drive he had for sexual indulgence also helped him in being a strong executive. Jimmy Carter, a nice enough guy but a weak and terrible president. Compare Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter. Truman made stands took actions, did what he set out to do and never passed the buck and blamed someone else for any failings which might occur. Jimmy Carter was wishy washy, not able to take a firm stand on anything, blamed others for his failings, etc. He appears to be a nice enough person but as a national leader he did not cut it.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I listened to both. I liked the glossiness of the individual notes in the 432 Hz. But I also liked the other due to the tempo, if that is the right word and found myself liking that; except I noticed that the instruments were different which ruined the 440 Hz example as the piece continued and the offending tones entered from those instruments. Actually I would prefer a tempo somewhere in between the two examples. I wished the same instruments by the same players could be used to make the comparison since I felt the tempo was too much for me in the first and disliked the playing/instruments (some) in the second.

ps I always was the princess in princess and the pea so I tend to notice irrelevant tiny details.

I am going to attempt to post the same version in both 432 and 440:

I found my original post regarding on the Apollo thread on Sept 7, 2012

Here is what I wrote then:

lkwdblds
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoTi View Post
Yes, I knew this. But what about the person who made the machine in the video I posted recently? This looks like a different machine, Lakey.
First I want to correct a typo I missed in my last post. Howard Johnson was born in 1923, died in 2008. I don't know which video you are talking about. The video I posted many weeks ago is the one to which I am referring. This motor was modeled on Howard Johnson's motor. The have no idea if the guy who built that motor is still alive. He should be, he looked to be in his 40's and the video was made recently so I assume that he is still be alive.

Hey, since people are responding to this topic, I'll try my luck again with music based on middle A vibrating at 432 cycles per second instead of the 440 cps which has been standard since 1939.

I heard a recording of Pachelbel's Canon, a very well known peace of Baroque music from the late 17th century, recorded at 432 cps. This just popped up on my computer screen today when I visited youtube. Youtube recommended it me because I have listened to 432 music in the past.

Pachelbel's Canon is very ethereal and is therefore a great peace to hear in 432.

Here is the link to the piece:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJsPmOMaiVc
What a fantastic piece of music!! IMHO J.S. Bach or Mozart would be proud to have written that piece.

Hear is the same piece in 440 standard scale music

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLKm5txgRmw

IMPORTANT NOTE! The 432 version doesn't exist anymore so I went back and changed both videos. They are both conducted by Neville Mariner conducting the Academy of St. Martin in the Fields!

Lakey back on Sept. 7, 2012



FoTi, you are a very perceptive person, let me know if you like one scale better than the other.

For me, the 432 is like eating an organically grown vegan salad while the 440 is like eating a good non organically grown salad in a nice restaurant.

Both taste good but the organic salad has a subtle tang. zest or brightness to it which the regular salad falls just a little short of.

For other readers of the thread, don't worry, if there is no response, I probably will never bring up this topic on this thread again.
Lakey

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

And then there is this one!

"Uploaded on Sept. 2, 2008 Pachelbel's Canon--the original version based on the earliest original manuscript and performed on instruments from the time of Pachelbel--listen to the authentic baroque sound!"

https://youtu.be/JvNQLJ1_HQ0

I REALLY like this one!

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

And then there is this one!

"Uploaded on Sept. 2, 2008 Pachelbel's Canon--the original version based on the earliest original manuscript and performed on instruments from the time of Pachelbel--listen to the authentic baroque sound!"

https://youtu.be/JvNQLJ1_HQ0

I REALLY like this one!

It is fantastic, what a very nice tone and sound, somewhat different from today's performances.!
Lakey

 

[eldritch cuckoo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I'm scratching my head about the Hertz thing. I've listened to all these pieces now, and to many more on Youtube where the Hertz were noted. I think I can discern them now - for classical, slow pieces anyway. One thing is sure, after having listened to much "440" music, the "432" music sounds seriously "off", if but only for some time...
Side note: I know the physical definition of Hertz. But I can't read musical notes (anymore). Can someone tell me how much that difference of 8 Hertz means, in percentage of a full note?
I decidedly prefer the 432 Hz versions of all songs I found, including the one posted by Lakey here, but it could be the instruments and all that, so I can't be sure...
I still find it hard to compare if not both versions are identical, sterile "synthesizer piano only" pieces (for learning).
I'm lazy and all that, but I suppose being able to sing a "second voice" to any song spontaneously, makes me somewhat "musical", brain wise, which is also what every music teacher and family member ever said. Also, I can remember and reproduce tones, and melodies, even if I can't name the former. In other words tones have an "identity" for me. But some things about notes I find confusing.

One more thing, about which I'm also looking out for opinions... I've recorded many blackbird songs and also made fine cuts of the best of their "song units". They're not on Youtube but if anyone wants that for their phone or such, mail me. Now, I want to put some of them into musical notes, as this seems possible - if but only for this bird. (I'm not the first one to note that.) I've recorded even more nightingale songs - which is quite easy on the "Donauinsel", as in certain weeks they're even singing during the day. I've also made cuts from the most talented of these dudes. I played them very slowly, but I doubt nightingale can be put into musical notes without losing too much. I'm ofcourse referring to something "documentary", not of an "artistic interpretation". Much of what the nightingales do, doesn't seem to be about melody but the way they switch between the single tones, and the noises they make - for example, there could be an unit that sounds like "uiuiuiuiuiiiii - witt-witt-witt - miiiiiiiiiirrrp". So I think that wouldn't come around well in notes, while the blackbirds resort more to creating melodies. Okay, I don't now if that makes sense, not in my troubled English anyways, but it's the impression I got.

I won't get any new stuff before my move which is scheduled in a few months, but after that, when I also got a different desk etc, I intend to get a keyboard (for music I mean), which I'll play with headphones.
I'm looking for a way to re-learn musical notes but still don't really know how. No matter whether later I'll get lessions in a music school or not, I intend to teach the basic stuff, about notes, to myself. Reason: It's somehow embarrassing, I want it for free, and I don't want the journeys, I won't have time for that. If anyone found something really useful in the internet for that, some course or tutorial (with sounds), that explains notes and their rules, please share. It's not a priority for me just now, as I would only be able to practice very little, I suppose with my computer-keyboard set as "piano".
I still don't know if I'll get into an "Altbau", an old building with thick brick walls, which is somewhat better for sound isolation, or a "Neubau", made of concrete, some isolation, and plasterboard, but either way I've no intention to terrorize the neighbors, hence the headphones...

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I'm scratching my head about the Hertz thing. I've listened to all these pieces now, and to many more on Youtube where the Hertz were noted. I think I can discern them now - for classical, slow pieces anyway. One thing is sure, after having listened to much "440" music, the "432" music sounds seriously "off", if but only for some time...
Side note: I know the physical definition of Hertz. But I can't read musical notes (anymore). Can someone tell me how much that difference of 8 Hertz means, in percentage of a full note?
I decidedly prefer the 432 Hz versions of all songs I found, including the one posted by Lakey here, but it could be the instruments and all that, so I can't be sure...
I still find it hard to compare if not both versions are identical, sterile "synthesizer piano only" pieces (for learning).
I'm lazy and all that, but I suppose being able to sing a "second voice" to any song spontaneously, makes me somewhat "musical", brain wise, which is also what every music teacher and family member ever said. Also, I can remember and reproduce tones, and melodies, even if I can't name the former. In other words tones have an "identity" for me. But some things about notes I find confusing.

One more thing, about which I'm also looking out for opinions... I've recorded many blackbird songs and also made fine cuts of the best of their "song units". They're not on Youtube but if anyone wants that for their phone or such, mail me. Now, I want to put some of them into musical notes, as this seems possible - if but only for this bird. (I'm not the first one to note that.) I've recorded even more nightingale songs - which is quite easy on the "Donauinsel", as in certain weeks they're even singing during the day. I've also made cuts from the most talented of these dudes. I played them very slowly, but I doubt nightingale can be put into musical notes without losing too much. I'm ofcourse referring to something "documentary", not of an "artistic interpretation". Much of what the nightingales do, doesn't seem to be about melody but the way they switch between the single tones, and the noises they make - for example, there could be an unit that sounds like "uiuiuiuiuiiiii - witt-witt-witt - miiiiiiiiiirrrp". So I think that wouldn't come around well in notes, while the blackbirds resort more to creating melodies. Okay, I don't now if that makes sense, not in my troubled English anyways, but it's the impression I got.

I won't get any new stuff before my move which is scheduled in a few months, but after that, when I also got a different desk etc, I intend to get a keyboard (for music I mean), which I'll play with headphones.
I'm looking for a way to re-learn musical notes but still don't really know how. No matter whether later I'll get lessions in a music school or not, I intend to teach the basic stuff, about notes, to myself. Reason: It's somehow embarrassing, I want it for free, and I don't want the journeys, I won't have time for that. If anyone found something really useful in the internet for that, some course or tutorial (with sounds), that explains notes and their rules, please share. It's not a priority for me just now, as I would only be able to practice very little, I suppose with my computer-keyboard set as "piano".
I still don't know if I'll get into an "Altbau", an old building with thick brick walls, which is somewhat better for sound isolation, or a "Neubau", made of concrete, some isolation, and plasterboard, but either way I've no intention to terrorize the neighbors, hence the headphones...

Thanks for your opinion, it is very honest and non judgemental and I appreciate that. I'm no expert on the technical side of things but I am going to paste you a copy of a short Wikepedia article on the subject. The thread readers here in 2015 are much friendlier and less judgemental than was the 2012 crowd. This subject of pitch is attracting readers and the readers comments are honest and informative. Here is the Wiki article for you. This should give you some answers to your questions.:

A440 (pitch standard)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see A440.

A440 About this sound Play (help·info).
A440 or A4, which has a frequency of 440 Hz, is the musical note A above middle C and serves as a general tuning standard for musical pitch.

Prior to the standardization on 440 Hz, many countries and organizations followed the Austrian government's 1885 recommendation of 435 Hz. The American music industry reached an informal standard of 440 Hz in 1926, and some began using it in instrument manufacturing. In 1936 the American Standards Association recommended that the A above middle C be tuned to 440 Hz.[1] This standard was taken up by the International Organization for Standardization in 1955 (reaffirmed by them in 1975) as ISO 16.[2] Although not universally accepted, since then it has served as the audio frequency reference for the calibration of acoustic equipment and the tuning of pianos, violins, and other musical instruments.

It is designated A4 in scientific pitch notation because it occurs in the octave that starts with the fourth C key on a standard 88-key piano keyboard. On MIDI, it is note 69.

Piano Keyboard
An 88-key piano, with the octaves numbered and Middle C (cyan) and A440 (yellow) highlighted.
A440 is widely used as concert pitch in the United Kingdom[3] and the United States. In continental Europe the frequency of A commonly varies between 440 Hz and 444 Hz.[4][5] In the period instrument movement, a consensus has arisen around a modern baroque pitch of 415 Hz (A♭ of A440), baroque for some special church music (Chorton pitch) at 466 Hz (A♯ of A440), and classical pitch at 430 Hz.[6] For many decades starting from the 1860s, the French standard pitch was A=435 Hz.[7]

The A above middle C is sometimes referred to as Concert A. (The C above Concert A is called Concert C.)


A440
MENU0:00
3 seconds of sine wave at 440 Hz
Problems playing this file? See media help.
A440 is often used as a tuning reference in just intonation regardless of 1/1 or key. For example, A is common to all stringed instruments.

The US time and frequency station WWV broadcasts a 440 Hz signal at two minutes past every hour, with WWVH broadcasting the same tone at first minutes past every hour. This was added in 1936 to aid orchestras in tuning their instruments.[8]

See also[edit]

 

[eldritch cuckoo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Here's a real comparison with samples that are identical except for the tuning - and according to the description they are also played in different "keys" (does that mean octaves??), so that it's more difficult to discern which is which...
The samples start at 1:07. Unfortunately it's made as a quiz, the solution which samples are tuned in which way is displayed at the end. For easier comparison, here's the solution, in white text, so if you don't want to make the quiz, highlight the text on your screen to see it:

Case 1:
Sample A = 440 Hz
Sample B = 432 Hz

Case 2:
Sample A = 440
Sample B = 440

Case 3:
Sample A = 432
Sample B = 440

Case 4:
Sample A = 432
Sample B = 440


[video=youtube;LVoVr9UwOQM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVoVr9UwOQM[/video]

:confused2:



EDIT:
And these are the two frequencies - hint, play them loud (on headphones ) to hear the difference.
They're closer than I thought. I'm not so sure anymore whether any difference/preference I felt wasn't just all about how the music was played, and the used instruments, the octave, and the speed - especially the speed was significantly different in the recently posted various versions of "Pachelbell's Cannon in D". But I'll keep an ear on that.


A = 440 Hz
[video=youtube;rFOl-9SNxLY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFOl-9SNxLY[/video]


A = 432 Hz
[video=youtube;BJ8KdqhHk0w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJ8KdqhHk0w[/video]

 

[MrNobody]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I'm scratching my head about the Hertz thing. I've listened to all these pieces now, and to many more on Youtube where the Hertz were noted. I think I can discern them now - for classical, slow pieces anyway. One thing is sure, after having listened to much "440" music, the "432" music sounds seriously "off", if but only for some time...
Side note: I know the physical definition of Hertz. But I can't read musical notes (anymore). Can someone tell me how much that difference of 8 Hertz means, in percentage of a full note?

That depends where on the tone scale you are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_key_frequencies

A difference of 8 Hz is clearly audible in the let's say 50 - 100 Hz range, but 8 Hz within the 5 - 10 kHz range would be damnn hard to even notice.

I decidedly prefer the 432 Hz versions of all songs I found, including the one posted by Lakey here, but it could be the instruments and all that, so I can't be sure...
I still find it hard to compare if not both versions are identical, sterile "synthesizer piano only" pieces (for learning).

I own a few digital instruments and a few real ones as well. I made a few experiments and apart from the "saggy string syndrome" on one especially sensitive guitar (frets filed down to a minimum, ultra straight neck, ultra low action, ultra light strings, especially adjusted for ultra-precise mega-high-speed runs), there was no audible or measurable difference. IMO, it's all woo and in the old part of this discussion, at least one accomplished professional classical violinist, Smilla, agreed with me.

I'm lazy and all that, but I suppose being able to sing a "second voice" to any song spontaneously, makes me somewhat "musical", brain wise, which is also what every music teacher and family member ever said. Also, I can remember and reproduce tones, and melodies, even if I can't name the former. In other words tones have an "identity" for me. But some things about notes I find confusing.

One more thing, about which I'm also looking out for opinions... I've recorded many blackbird songs and also made fine cuts of the best of their "song units". They're not on Youtube but if anyone wants that for their phone or such, mail me. Now, I want to put some of them into musical notes, as this seems possible - if but only for this bird. (I'm not the first one to note that.) I've recorded even more nightingale songs - which is quite easy on the "Donauinsel", as in certain weeks they're even singing during the day. I've also made cuts from the most talented of these dudes. I played them very slowly, but I doubt nightingale can be put into musical notes without losing too much. I'm ofcourse referring to something "documentary", not of an "artistic interpretation". Much of what the nightingales do, doesn't seem to be about melody but the way they switch between the single tones, and the noises they make - for example, there could be an unit that sounds like "uiuiuiuiuiiiii - witt-witt-witt - miiiiiiiiiirrrp". So I think that wouldn't come around well in notes, while the blackbirds resort more to creating melodies. Okay, I don't now if that makes sense, not in my troubled English anyways, but it's the impression I got.

I'm too "Old Guard" to find cell phones and "Apps" interesting, but I know that there are apps out there that can analyse and write out any melody you play to it. A large, multi-timbral choir might be a problem for that app, but a monotimbral melody should be no problem. Word of caution though, if some of your settings are off, even a very simple melody can be written out as pages and pages of undecypherable gibberish. that happened to me once, when I had the BPM and Resolution settings all wrong in my DAW software.

I won't get any new stuff before my move which is scheduled in a few months, but after that, when I also got a different desk etc, I intend to get a keyboard (for music I mean), which I'll play with headphones.
I'm looking for a way to re-learn musical notes but still don't really know how. No matter whether later I'll get lessions in a music school or not, I intend to teach the basic stuff, about notes, to myself. Reason: It's somehow embarrassing, I want it for free, and I don't want the journeys, I won't have time for that. If anyone found something really useful in the internet for that, some course or tutorial (with sounds), that explains notes and their rules, please share. It's not a priority for me just now, as I would only be able to practice very little, I suppose with my computer-keyboard set as "piano".
I still don't know if I'll get into an "Altbau", an old building with thick brick walls, which is somewhat better for sound isolation, or a "Neubau", made of concrete, some isolation, and plasterboard, but either way I've no intention to terrorize the neighbors, hence the headphones...

Room acoustics can be easily modified by using stone- or wood-reflectors, some thick carpet and a few pieces of fur or so. "Easily" is very relative though, because it takes a bit of experience to know which damper and which reflector needs to go exactly where.

 

[Hatshepsut]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Don't forget the Studillac beloved by James Bond.

http://flemingsbond.com/studillac/

Wow! Great magazine Terril.

What a mess of parts under the 'Commander's' hood.

https://youtu.be/PSVbnhL55J4

 

[Hatshepsut]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

This is interesting

Fleming was on shaky ground when he tried inventing a car. In Diamonds are Forever, Leiter introduced Bond to his Studillac explaining: “You couldn’t have anything better than this body. Designed by the Frenchman Raymond Loewy. Best designer in the world.” It was not complete invention. It was really a disguised Studebaker Avanti Fleming was coaxed into by the showy Loewy. The car was a disaster. I tested one in the 1960s, found Loewy’s plastic bodywork pretentious, and it suffered from nightmare axle tramp, slithering scarily in the wet on skinny tyres. An engraved plate reminded the driver that the tyres were suitable only for “ordinary motoring”. The Paxton belt-driven supercharger wafted a light breeze through the carburettor and it managed a perilous 120mph and 11mpg. It was no surprise Studebaker went out of business.

http://ericdymock.blogspot.com/2012/10/bentley-for-bond.html

http://commanderbond.net/16931/happy-anniversary-aston-martin.html

From Sean Connery to Daniel Craig, every James Bond has been driving an Aston, except for Roger Moore (who made up leeway in his role as James Bond wannabe in “Cannonball Run II”). Connery drove the aforementioned DB5, George Lazenby pursued his future wife Tracy in a DBS, Timothy Dalton had optional extras installed in his V8 Vantage Volante, and Pierce Brosnan had again a DB5 as his personal car and the “invisible” Vanquish. Present day Bond Daniel Craig drove a DBS V12 as company car, and won his DB5 in a poker game against Alex Dimitrios. Apparently, he handed that car over to Q branch to have some of the extras of the Goldfinger car installed.

Below:

http://jamesbond.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_vehicles

 

[Rmack]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

This is interesting

They should of had the headlights open and the machine gun barrels sticking out.

 

[eldritch cuckoo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

All the fuss about 440/432 Hz made me test my headphones, and ears.
Just look on Youtube for "bass test" and/or "hearing test". And read the comments.
Note: don't crank up the volume if you first don't hear anything because of your ears (age!), and/or headphones/speakers. At some point, you'll hear it and then it will be loud!
Apparently my Sennheiser HD 438 headphones were worth their, IIRC, 100+ €.
I could hear the tone up to 15000 Hz and, with the volume cranked up a bit, heard the Youtube compression taking away the tone at that frequency. (Ofcourse before I've read about that, I thought it's my ears. )
I could clearly hear the sinus tone below 20 Hz, down to approximately 15 Hz. I still heard a little "something" below that but can't discern whether that was the actual tone. All above that range clearly was the real tone, not some noise, overtone, audio artifact from failing headphones. However I can't be completely certain whether anything between 18 and 15 Hz also wasn't really an artifact. I got plenty of them at tests with 1-20 Hz samples when I increased the volume, so I know how they sound, it's just that at the very quiet, very low tones I can't discern what it was that I heard.
When playing, for example, 10 Hz at high volume (a frequency no human can hear), one gets a mere "wopwopwop" or crackling sort of sound, especially with cheap headphones/speakers. If you get something other than a clear tone at a frequency well over 20 Hz (50 Hz, 100 Hz,...), your equipment is crap.

That depends where on the tone scale you are:

I'd say I'm at "games". Why, where are you? What are your crimes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_key_frequencies

A difference of 8 Hz is clearly audible in the let's say 50 - 100 Hz range, but 8 Hz within the 5 - 10 kHz range would be damnn hard to even notice.

Interesting, I'll test it.

I made a few experiments and apart from the "saggy string syndrome" on one especially sensitive guitar (frets filed down to a minimum, ultra straight neck, ultra low action, ultra light strings, especially adjusted for ultra-precise mega-high-speed runs), there was no audible or measurable difference.

Wot you say? Did I mention that I can't read notes, and have no instruments? :smoking:

I'm too "Old Guard" to find cell phones and "Apps" interesting, but I know that there are apps out there that can analyse and write out any melody you play to it. A large, multi-timbral choir might be a problem for that app, but a monotimbral melody should be no problem. Word of caution though, if some of your settings are off, even a very simple melody can be written out as pages and pages of undecypherable gibberish. that happened to me once, when I had the BPM and Resolution settings all wrong in my DAW software.

Cool, I'll look into that. In case anyone got a wrong picture, I simply made the recordings with my compact camera from RICO, it's not that I have the bucks, or patience, to stalk birds with a directional microphone. At normal (or slightly cranked up) volume, some have a bit of background noise - other birds, wind, etc, not that much electronic "noise" from the camera itself. Some are quite clear; most of these are recorded at the bridge to a remote peninsula between Vienna and Klosterneuburg.
It just wouldn't make much sense to use these programs before I can read notes, as I wouldn't be able to test the outcome for its accuracy - or only very clumsily, using technical detours.
I suppose when feeding it with nightingale, the result would be gibberish in any case no matter what the settings are. :confused2:
I suppose a good test for these programs would be to feed them with the bird that makes just a clear three-tone "wutt-wett-witt" the whole day, the same... three... tones. I don't know its name (for now, to me it's the "ABC-bird") but if you're camping there and it sits in the tree over you, with no other birds around, it's annoying as fuck.

Room acoustics can be easily modified by using stone- or wood-reflectors, some thick carpet and a few pieces of fur or so. "Easily" is very relative though, because it takes a bit of experience to know which damper and which reflector needs to go exactly where.

No, I think that was a misunderstanding, so let me clarify. This wasn't about acoustics, it was about noise isolation. If I don't use headphones, I get neurotic about the volume. I'm a quiet neighbor, and that's how I like it. I got a super long cable and use headphones in any case, except when, say, watching a movie with a visitor.


Tl;dr; but for whoever is bored:

The habit of using headphones actually came by the following way: years ago, I still didn't understand spoken English all too well but dearly wanted to watch my favorite movies in their original versions, with English subtitles if available, and sometimes also watched the few English channels I got (CNN etc). First I noticed that I didn't understand shit of the fast talking in movies and news with the built-in speakers, no matter how loud. Okay, I thought that's how it is and I just have to listen more. However, with the headphones (expensive Sennheiser too) I got a surprise - I would hear all the sibilants I didn't hear before, which apparently had screwed up my understanding. I tried it once, at some late hour, just to spare the neighbors, and was totally surprised - "shit, suddenly I can understand!!!" That problem of not hearing the sibilants was true for my cheapy "cube" TV set and the "a bit" more expensive one (without extra speakers) I meanwhile have (see below). I just love, love, love my Sennheisers! I know that Youtube stuff above doesn't really tell much but some years ago, I've made a real hearing test, and my ears were so far okay.

Here as well, I don't have any speakers except the built-in speakers of the laptop (which are shit ... but still better than the real crap in the last laptop), and the built-in speakers of the computer screen and the TV. The computer screen's speakers are surprisingly good and were nice to use when it was a bit too hot for the large headphones. I don't say "good" as an "audiophile", it just means for me that voices don't sound metallic and don't crackle.
However: the built-in speakers of the computer screen, and my plasma TV (" ") are directed at the wall, which is really shit for the neighbors, generally spoken. Such a stupid, asocial idea, for whatever it's worth (for getting some sort of simulation of surround sound, or making the devices more narrow). Speakers that are directed at the wall. When most people are living in apartments with thin walls. WTF.

Some more technical details. I had to connect that screen to the last computer via an external graphic card as the built-in couldn't get up to full-HD resolution, and had to connect it via a USB 2.0 cable because there was no USB 3.0 or HDMI port on that computer. (Lucky I'm no gamer - CorelDraw was behaving unbearably jerky at higher zoom, which wouldn't be the case when using the laptop with the built-in screen.) To get the sound via the screen speakers, which I did sometimes, I connected them via an extra cable at the "headphones" plug, which I would switch when using headphones. Then on the new computer, I could connect the screen via HDMI, which is ofcourse a good thing. The problem now was: the HDMI cable sends the sound signal as well, so WTF, my headphones wouldn't ever work! No music at night! After quite a while, I managed to set it right, so that the screen speakers are now permamently disabled. (Don't misunderstand: I don't want to use them at all! I have no need for them and they must stay disabled!) Just that now I don't remember how I did it. Actually, I never found out. I could anyways swear that I did just the same thing many times and once when restarted the x-th time, it was right and suddenly, when I already had lost hope, I would get sound over the headphones and not the screen. I so hope that not some update ruins it. It's not the "system" settings, I know them, it's an extra, black, differently looking "audiomanager" window that pops up whenever I plug in the headphones and where - as I could swear - my very clear entry got the according result after I must have done it the 10th time - plus re-starting, removing and plugging in again the external screen, setting the screen's speaker's volume to "0", and whatever else in whichever combination that I hoped would help.

 

[Leon-2]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I didn't like the Beethoven 6 at all in the 432 version. Scratchy. Strident. The 440 has richer tones and more body, which this music needs.

The Beatles number is pretty though the dope-head commie sentiments he sings puts me off.


addendum

I've just listened to the tones you posted and can hear that the 440 is a higher note than the 432 (duh). Never noticed that in the music.

 

[MrNobody]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

All the fuss about 440/432 Hz made me test my headphones, and ears.
Just look on Youtube for "bass test" and/or "hearing test". And read the comments.
Note: don't crank up the volume if you first don't hear anything because of your ears (age!), and/or headphones/speakers. At some point, you'll hear it and then it will be loud!

<snip>

You might want to use an oscilloscope to verify that there is indeed a frequency which you can't hear. Otherwise, you could be just misinterpreting silence. Then you'd need a good, correctly calibrateable frequency generator, preferably one that can at least produce Sine-, Square-, and adjustable Triangle-waveforms. From then on: Happy experimenting with frequencies!

Of course, that kind of equipment might set you a few thousand bucks short, but there's a simpler and more affordable solution: Download the free software "Visual Analyzer 2011". For the 1st experiments and with the relatively low quality sound an average computer provides, that should be more than sufficient.

Side note: My original reply took a long time to write and addressed every single point in your post and had quite a few tips, hints and ideas for you. Of course, the ESMB forum software logged me off and while trying to re-login, all my beautiful work was lost.