the whole problem with "natural" tuning is, the second is an invention of man. Nature has no idea what a second is. Therefore nature has no idea what a hertz is either. Or 2 hz, 4 hz, 8hz, 16hz, or 32 hz. There is nothing more natural about 256hz than 243.596hz.
I'm sure many of you WANT there to be a "natural" tuning. But no matter how you slice it, hertz's are man-made.
@Grassapelli an arbitrarily chosen fraction is not a "natural harmonic," whatever that is supposed to mean. It's entirely an accident that ancient people decided to divide the day by 24, then 60, then 60 again. The result is just an arbitrary value with no meaning at all other than counting fractions of earth's rotation.
another thing : you can't make music using just the C .. you can, but it would be so boring!.. and notes relate with each other, in terms of frequency, by a factor of 12ª root of 2 .. it's an irrational number.. i mean, if middle C-256 is in "natural tuning", all other notes will be "unnatural tuning" .. notes are just names for sounds with specific tones.. and names are arbitrary. why the C need to be natural?
@arthurtabbal The classical composers used C-265. When music is performed at the new modern pitch A-440 it throws off the voice register, Singing will place emphasis on notes not intended by the composer. Instrumental music was intended to simulate the human voice, thus performance will be thrown out of wack also. The Amadeus Quartet often demonstrated the difference and it is quite remarkable.
@charkee1 Any piano tuner first starts tuning with a set note, usually C. The rest of the notes are ratios of the original C. Thus tuning using 2, 3, 4 and 5ths one can arrive at all 12 notes in a scale all mathematically perfect. But the various scales or keys don't have quite the same ratio when compared to the first C tuning. Thus the art of tempering or give a little here and taking a little there, helps the different scales to fit with each other.
@charkee1 My point is: If we used another system of reference to measure time, for instance, 1 period of the orbit of the Moon instead of 1 second, it would not change the way we hear things, but it would change the way we measure frequencies. So "C = 256 oscillations per second" would be written in another way, maybe "C = 4215,3434 oscillations per moon period" wich wouldn't be "mathematically perfect", but it would sound the same to us, be it good or bad.
@charkee1 The same would happen if someone wrote a song in A-440 , intended to be played/sing like that, and someone try to play it in C-256. It would throw off voice register and put emphasis on different frequencies. It would not be the way the composer intended. So, yes, there is a difference between tunings. One is lower than the other. But how could you say that one is better or worse than the other?
when you talk about frequency (cycles per second) you're talking about time.. when you talk things that happen according to time, you have to set coordinates in the timeline to make sense.. 1 second it's just that.. there is nothing special about it, despite of the fact that we use it a lot. but it's something created by humans. besides it, 1 day isn't EXACTLY 24 hours and 1 year isn't EXACTLY 365 days.. science is all about aproximations and corrections.
the whole problem with "natural" tuning is, the second is an invention of man. Nature has no idea what a second is. Therefore nature has no idea what a hertz is either. Or 2 hz, 4 hz, 8hz, 16hz, or 32 hz. There is nothing more natural about 256hz than 243.596hz.
I'm sure many of you WANT there to be a "natural" tuning. But no matter how you slice it, hertz's are man-made.
kozmon0t 1 week ago
@kozmon0t The word "second" is an invention. Even so, the second is a natural harmonic of the daily rotation of the earth. It's a matter of physics.
Grassapelli 1 week ago
@Grassapelli an arbitrarily chosen fraction is not a "natural harmonic," whatever that is supposed to mean. It's entirely an accident that ancient people decided to divide the day by 24, then 60, then 60 again. The result is just an arbitrary value with no meaning at all other than counting fractions of earth's rotation.
kozmon0t 1 week ago
Things are suppose to get easier. But making videos has become much more difficult. I don't know what's going on.
Grassapelli 1 month ago
Another story for another time? Is that time coming soon?
pwnayr 1 month ago
They are harmonious. 256 is 2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2 and 432 is 3x3x3x2x2x2x2.
Grassapelli 4 months ago
How do 432 and 256 correlate with one another?
macrplus 4 months ago
another thing : you can't make music using just the C .. you can, but it would be so boring!.. and notes relate with each other, in terms of frequency, by a factor of 12ª root of 2 .. it's an irrational number.. i mean, if middle C-256 is in "natural tuning", all other notes will be "unnatural tuning" .. notes are just names for sounds with specific tones.. and names are arbitrary. why the C need to be natural?
arthurtabbal 4 months ago
@arthurtabbal The classical composers used C-265. When music is performed at the new modern pitch A-440 it throws off the voice register, Singing will place emphasis on notes not intended by the composer. Instrumental music was intended to simulate the human voice, thus performance will be thrown out of wack also. The Amadeus Quartet often demonstrated the difference and it is quite remarkable.
charkee1 2 months ago
@charkee1 Any piano tuner first starts tuning with a set note, usually C. The rest of the notes are ratios of the original C. Thus tuning using 2, 3, 4 and 5ths one can arrive at all 12 notes in a scale all mathematically perfect. But the various scales or keys don't have quite the same ratio when compared to the first C tuning. Thus the art of tempering or give a little here and taking a little there, helps the different scales to fit with each other.
charkee1 2 months ago
@charkee1 My point is: If we used another system of reference to measure time, for instance, 1 period of the orbit of the Moon instead of 1 second, it would not change the way we hear things, but it would change the way we measure frequencies. So "C = 256 oscillations per second" would be written in another way, maybe "C = 4215,3434 oscillations per moon period" wich wouldn't be "mathematically perfect", but it would sound the same to us, be it good or bad.
arthurtabbal 2 months ago
@charkee1 Sorry typo C=256
charkee1 2 months ago
@charkee1 The same would happen if someone wrote a song in A-440 , intended to be played/sing like that, and someone try to play it in C-256. It would throw off voice register and put emphasis on different frequencies. It would not be the way the composer intended. So, yes, there is a difference between tunings. One is lower than the other. But how could you say that one is better or worse than the other?
arthurtabbal 2 months ago
when you talk about frequency (cycles per second) you're talking about time.. when you talk things that happen according to time, you have to set coordinates in the timeline to make sense.. 1 second it's just that.. there is nothing special about it, despite of the fact that we use it a lot. but it's something created by humans. besides it, 1 day isn't EXACTLY 24 hours and 1 year isn't EXACTLY 365 days.. science is all about aproximations and corrections.
arthurtabbal 4 months ago
Maybe C-256 is so out of phase with normalcy that anyone unused to it spins out of context just confronting it. I dunno.
Grassapelli 7 months ago
@2:35 for the middle C (shortcut)
abledanger6 7 months ago
Comment removed
cangjie12 7 months ago
For me this thread is completely unraveled.
Grassapelli 8 months ago
432 views?
guitarzite 8 months ago
I'm not seeing robocop's view of things, and I'm not catching the weird background noise. But then, I miss a lot.
Grassapelli 10 months ago
interesting video, but what is with the quality? it's like im viewing you through robocop's visor, and there is some weird background noise
piemanjeez 10 months ago
Thank you that is so cool
irondawson 1 year ago