Metaphysica Music Theory

I think that music brings coherence to a mere collection of sounds.

originally posted by: Astyanax
There are no specific audio frequencies to which all human bodies resonate. This is because human bodies come in different shapes and sizes, with different-sized and -shaped cavities inside them. No frequency — 432Hz, 440Hz or any other number — can possibly have the same special physical effect on all humans.

What about psychological effects? That's a more subtle question. Still, for all but a few musicians and non-musicians, who are blessed with perfect pitch, the experience of pitch (that is, frequency) is relative, not absolute. You can tell whether one note is higher or lower than another, but you can't tell what frequency (pitch) the note is.

Even someone with perfect pitch would find it hard to tell whether a piece of music was played in an A=432 or A=440-derived scale, unless two otherwise identical pieces in the two different scales were played one after the other. And whether someone has perfect pitch or not, I am willing to bet they couldn't even identify single notes as belonging to one or the other of the respective scales unless some other tones were played for comparison purposes.

You may, of course, argue that the difference is subliminally perceptible. However, there would have to be some proof of this claim (MRI scans showing different activity in the relevant parts of the brain, perhaps?) before it could be accepted.

*

It is untrue to say that music was ever widely made in scales derived from an A=432 reference. There was no standard reference frequency used anywhere in the world before the twentieth century, so instruments (even church organs) were all over the shop as regards pitch. They could vary by over a fifth! This obviously created a big problem for travelling musicians, especially singers, as well as for instrument builders, piano tuners, etc., which is why a standard pitch, A=440, eventually came to be adopted.

The Nazis had very little to do with that, except for the fact that the frequency A=440, a compromise among various proposals submitted to an international conference on the subject held in London, was suggested by the German broadcasting authorities, and Hitler was in power in Germany at this time.

*

My education was in physics with a specialization in musical acoustics, and I have been a musician myself for more than 35 years. In my somewhat informed opinion, there is no merit to the claims made for A=432. Tuning slightly below concert pitch or playing very slightly flat on any instrument does tend to give an apparently 'fuller' and more emotional sound, but this is also an effect of relative pitch (other instruments in the ensemble have to be playing in tune). Besides, it is not associated with any particular frequency or set of frequencies.

Here are the results of a lab experiment conducted by a professor of acoustics to see whether people preferred A440, A432 or another reference frequency. Click the link and see the results for yourself. They will surprise some of you. If you read the whole blog post you will get a few more surprises. You should also read the comments, most of which are from A=432 defenders.

Still not convinced? Here's a (somewhat less scientific) test you can take yourself. What do your ears tell you?

If anyone wishes to debate me on this I am happy to do so, but please don't waste your time and mine by showering me with links to the usual internet twaddle about Nazis, cymatics, stones moved by chanting, Tibetan bowls, chakras, musical cures for cancer, etc, etc, etc. I have read all that, thanks. Genuine experiments or theoretical arguments in acoustics, psychoacoustics or physiology, the results of double-blind listening tests — that's what I'm interested in.

Wow well you have one way of looking at it but its not really a big picture. You may lime to have double blind studies but lets face it its not an important topic to society and if it is it has military implications and those studies are not published.

Here are some fallacies I find in your arguments. Now I dropped out of high school, went to Berklee, and studied to be a luthier, and sound engineer so I have a hands on understanding but there is no phd of physics in front of my name so hopefully you can take me seriously.

1 the body while being of different sizes and shapes still has the same materials making it right? So on the atomic level that material is vibrating the same and being pushed by vibrations the same. If I make a small guitar out of Brazilian rosewood or a big guitar they still resonate the same notes. All that happens with the cavity or position of braces is that certain partials of the fundamental tone are enhanced or not. Changing the materials that make the guitar alters the sound at a greater level than the size (as Lon as we are staying relative)

2 an instrument with sympathetic strings: No matter what size the chamber of the instrument or shape sympathetic strings will resonate with a louder fundamental tone right through the overtone series. The only thing that changes how much is the volume and clarity (how many partials are present) of the fundamental tone.

3. Ratios of just intonation have a definite impact on the mind. The prime number ratios that happen in acoustics happen across the cosmos in cell divisions, planet distances, molecular bonds etc. The pitches from overtones have a definite impact of body both physiologically and psychologically. Much more so than equal temperament.

You could say since there is no study its not true. But the world is full of anecdotal evidence to prove otherwise. There are also studies on this subject extensive and profound in India through physics you should find. Their music uses a 22 note scale from the overtone series.

As far as pitch 432 to 440 is what 8 cents that's pretty audible to a trained ear. I can hear the two cent difference between a perfect 5th in just or a perfect fifth in equal if I listen hard.

Resonance is pretty incredible stuff and the acoustic research word is not a big one. Not for the sake of knowledge anyway. More so for weapons, satellites, market research.

The recording industry did brain tests in the 70's and studied pleasure in the brain associated with listening for a marketing strategy. I cant say it worked because pop music has only gotten worse...j/k

Seriously though open your mind up a little.

a reply to: luthier

Hi there. Thanks for your reply. Let's see how far we can get without that double-blind study.

the body while being of different sizes and shapes still has the same materials making it right? So on the atomic level that material is vibrating the same and being pushed by vibrations the same.

That isn't quite how it works. Sound is mechanical vibration. If it is to have an effect on your physical body, it would have to be a mechanical effect. Your body would — and does — vibrate mechanically, i.e. resonate, to the sound.

Different human bodies, being different shapes and sizes, have different frequency responses, which means they resonate with different amplitude (volume) at different frequencies (pitches). This is also true for musical instruments (see below).

The mechanical vibration of material objects, such as the human body, has nothing to do with the vibration of their component molecules, atoms, etc. Those vibrations are measured not in herz but in terahertz and petahertz.

If I make a small guitar out of Brazilian rosewood or a big guitar they still resonate the same notes.

Of course they do, and so does the human body, or at least some part of it that's being made to vibrate. But do they vibrate with equal volume for every note? Of course they don't. Even though, as you know, musical instrument bodies are designed or have evolved to produce as flat a response as possible across their pitch range, they'll be louder on some notes and softer on others. And since no two musical instruments are exactly alike physically, they're never alike sonically either — if we take acoustic guitars, one will have a round, mellow tone with lots of low midrange but a thin top end, while another will have a loud, perfectly articulated top end but lack bass response, and so forth.

The relation between size and pitch is even more clearly illustrated in the classical orchestra, which needs four string instruments of different sizes to cover the whole auditory range — as well as four different woodwinds, four or more different brass pieces, etc. Again, all are of different sizes. The point, again, is that there can't be one particular frequency to which everyone responds physically in the same way.

an instrument with sympathetic strings: No matter what size the chamber of the instrument or shape sympathetic strings will resonate with a louder fundamental tone right through the overtone series.

Exactly. But they don't resonate at equal volumes all the time. Each resonates loudest when its own resonant frequency or some (usually sub-) harmonic of it is struck by the player (or issues from some other nearby source). If it were otherwise, the sound of all the sympathetic strings resonating at once would be an inharmonious bawl.

Ratios of just intonation have a definite impact on the mind.

If you mean that people can tell the difference between just intonation and equal temperament I shall not disagree. But if you are speaking of psychological or metaphysical effects I am afraid I shall have to ask for solid evidence. We all know how easy it is for us to imagine things.

The prime number ratios that happen in acoustics happen across the cosmos in cell divisions, planet distances, molecular bonds etc.

To state the obvious, 432 is not a prime number and a second is an arbitrary interval with no meaning outside Western technological culture. What do you mean by 'prime number ratios'? And could you please explain how they relate to the idea that a A=432 reference frequency is somehow superior to A=440 or A=any other number?

The pitches from overtones have a definite impact of body both physiologically and psychologically. Much more so than equal temperament.

In that case, it should be possible to observe, document and repeat these effects. Where, then, is the evidence? And if you cannot produce any, how will you substaniate your claims?

You could say since there is no study its not true. But the world is full of anecdotal evidence to prove otherwise.

Anecdotes are not studies, unfortunately.

As far as pitch 432 to 440 is what 8 cents that's pretty audible to a trained ear.

The difference is audible if the two are played together or in sequence. But if either were played on its own I seriously doubt whether you would be able to identify the frequency.

I can hear the two cent difference between a perfect 5th in just or a perfect fifth in equal if I listen hard.

Relative pitch again. Not the point.

*

Seriously though open your mind up a little.

Was this necessary? It was certainly unwise. You know absolutely nothing about my mind and its degree of openness. All you know is that I disagree with you; if you think that is 'closed-mindedness', then mine is not the closed mind around here.

a reply to: Astyanax

Again there are fallacies.


1 volume: What does that matter? You quite expertly left out my arguments points. Where as not explaining what happens acoustically to objects of different size. Just because a bigger instrument has the ability reproduce and respond better to the audible range does in know way mean they are not present in the smaller instrument. My point that you either missed or choose to ignore is that response mechanically is much much more effected by the shape/design and materials than the size when they are relative. Which all human bodies are proportionately relative. One is not an elephant the other an ant. But a baby and a dreadnaught are as similar as a big and small person. We could do the math to find the proportion ratios if you don't believe me. Humans have the same design and materials with the same variance as wood.
I can build a guitar with more bass as a baby than a $100 dreadnaught. Materials and relative shape and size. Your argument for the different size of human resonance chambers is not large enough to create a big difference. What you are referring to is the volume of the partials but they are all still present.


Another fallacy is that sound waves have nothing to do with the atomic level. I guess your old school and still believe sound is longitudinal waves? They are not. Lots of info on it. Plenty to find on cyma pics. Did you know you can make sound with light at least something that behaves like sound.



Another fallacy is there are not studies already. There are lots of studies on music and its relationship with brain activity.
How does an electric guitar work? Is it mechanical or electromagnetic? Can a mechanical energy become electromagnetic? Of course. Do you know for sure that mechanical sound waves in the ear drum do not become electromagnetic in the brain and travel through the nervous system?


I don't have a phd in physics. But I do build instruments and record sound. I analyze sound data for hours a day everyday.


Do you think that you have read every study available and if you haven't it can't be true. Your asking me to put together a research project for you when I know there is plenty of info out there.

Relative pitch is just a name for somebody that has to use ear training to have perfect pitch. Some people are born with it other discover it by singing against the same pitch every day. When I studied raga all meaning every of my teachers could guess a note without one being played first. Because in their minds and bodies resonance (Beethoven comes to mind) they have an internal note they can judge the real one from.

I implore you to also use reason and not just wait for studies that may or may not ever be funded. If you do want to explore the effects of music on the body look into the history of torture with sound. There are some pretty conclusive studies to be found maybe not the traditional setup for a double blind experiment but the outcomes are plenty real. Not just audible frequencies that hurt the ears either.

a reply to: luthier

Volume: What does that matter?

Volume or amplitude for a given energy input is a measure of the efficiency of resonance at a given frequency. The frequency at which efficiency is highest — volume is loudest — is the resonant frequency. Resonance at other frequencies will be less. This has to do with the size, shape and yes, the materials of the resonator. Human sizes and shapes vary, and their frequency responses vary too. I am now beginning to repeat myself.

You quite expertly left out my arguments points.

I am under the impression that I responded to all your points. Please tell me what I left out, and I will address it.

Where as not explaining what happens acoustically to objects of different size.

I already explained that resonant frequency varies with the size of the resonator as well as with other variables.

Just because a bigger instrument has the ability reproduce and respond better to the audible range does in know way mean they are not present in the smaller instrument.

I never said otherwise, and besides, it is irrelevant.

My point that you either missed or choose to ignore is that response mechanically is much much more effected by the shape/design and materials than the size when they are relative.

I'm afraid you are wrong. The mass and volume of the resonator are critical in determining its resonant frequency, whether we're talking about a tin whistle or a suspension bridge.

I can build a guitar with more bass as a baby than a $100 dreadnaught.

Since a $100 dreadnaught would be a very cheap, nasty guitar, I do not doubt it. You might have some trouble improving on the bass response of a $1000 dreadnaught, though.

Your argument for the different size of human resonance chambers is not large enough to create a big difference.

The chamber does not resonate. Air inside it does, which transfers its motion to the surrounding body. And human bodies vary in size considerably.

Another fallacy is there are not studies already. There are lots of studies on music and its relationship with brain activity.

Well, produce them, then. The absence of studies doesn't prove me right; it simply fails to prove you right.

Do you know for sure that mechanical sound waves in the ear drum do not become electromagnetic in the brain and travel through the nervous system?

They become electrical signals, certainly. But we have been discussing the physical effects of sound on the body, not its physiological or psychological effects. That music and sound in general have psychological effects based on sense perception is not disputed. All I am disputing is that there can be anything special about a A=432Hz reference frequency for music.

Your asking me to put together a research project for you when I know there is plenty of info out there.

Oh, no. I am asking you simply to substantiate the claims being made. If you do not wish to do so, the matter ends there. I will simply go on holding my current views, whose validity you have been unable to refute.

Relative pitch is just a name for somebody that has to use ear training to have perfect pitch.

You misunderstand the use of the term. What I meant is that a fifth, whether justified or equal-tempered, is a relation between two notes. So there is a relative difference in pitch between the two notes. And yes, I do not doubt that from the quality of the sound produced you can tell the difference betwen the two kinds of fifth intervals, justified and ET. What I am disputing is that you can tell whether a single note, played on its own, is 432Hz, 440Hz, or indeed any other frequency. You could give me a range, maybe — 'between 120Hz and 180Hz' or 'about 2kHz' — but if you can identify frequencies by ear down to the last herz, you're not luthier, you're Superman.

When I studied raga all meaning every of my teachers could guess a note without one being played first.

You mean they could guess which note you were going to play before you played it? Then they weren't musicians, they were magicians. What next? Bug-eyed aliens playing 432Hz trombones in justified nine-part harmony?

a reply to: Astyanax

That's your insult something that doesn't make sense.

In your limited world sound is a longitudinal wave. In reality that is just a 2 dimensional observation. Sound is a bubble wave. Again you completely ignore the points and go on about resonance chambers of a bottle which has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Sound does not only travel in air or do you negate that fact to?

The air chamber of a guitar is not like the air chamber of a flute which is what you are confused about.

Why then when recording can I accurately predict the range of a human cavity and they are all almost identical. Because what you ate talking about are tiny in audible differences. My talk of the partials still be present even though accented is a metaphor you are missing. Just because we resonate differently doesn't mean the same frequencies aren't within they just are at variable volume. It doesn't mean the same frequencies of the materials vibrating (which are bones right not air chambers) aren't the same.

Sound does in fact affect the atomic level. That is how sound is produced in its sound wave bubble.

It is theorized sound can produce light and we know light can produce sound. I suggest reading more cymagraph work with sound. I don't argue per google this is info I have observed through my training as a sound engineer and instrument builder. So I would have to go through actual printed work to find your studies. I am sure I could do the work for you but I really don't care to. You obviously wait for others to do your work and reasoning. Sound effects things mechanically but that's not the only way once the energy is converted.

a reply to: Astyanax


Here are a couple links from a 2 sec google search, I honestly hate to debate this way because it doesn't show the understanding someone has currently. It turns into a regurgitated article fest. But I understand the need for proof.

These examples 1 prove we have no idea what sound is really. We haven't had the intelligence or equipment to full understand it. That is slowly changing across all of science being able to observe and model in 3 dimensions is a big part.

2 if we don't understand the true meaning and quantum events associated with sound and the study of it's cross over into all wave property research from Scalar to em.

Maybe its best to not just crap all over someone's research when experts don't even know what you pretend to.


www.popsci.com...

m.youtube.com...



I wanted to add this since I am sitting waiting to fight a traffic ticket all day.

There is an old story about a man chained to a wall with a fire to his back,..his captors dance around the fire and make shadows on the wall so he assumes that's what reality is...you've heard this one if your an academic.

Let me take it further. That same man when freed gets a heavy brass goblet and smashes his captor in the head with it. It worked so he now assumes he has found a weapon. The same guy the needs to break some coconuts to eat so he then learns it can open food and kill things, one day its raining and his goblet fills with water and he realizes it is also a vessel for drinking.

First step get out of the cave.

a reply to: Astyanax
No one ever said anything about the simplistic physics of one frequency or another, or the almost unnoticeable difference between 8Hz.

It all has to do with the physics of chords. I suggest you read Maria Renolds' book, then get back to us when you understand the physics of chords played by stringed instruments in Equal Temperament. Because that's what we're talking about, not just listening to a single sine wave. Who does that?

Or I dunno, just take the "Solfeggio" hoaxers' advice, tune your bands' guitars up to A444, and tell me how great it sounds being all out of tune with each other all the time. See, I've done both of those things.

Also, 5th fret on my high E on my acoustic will ring out forever at 432, but not at 440 or higher.
And several others I've tried it on.

ETA: I'm not being a smartass either, I really mean that about Maria Renolds' book, as you are one of few people I know who could actually understand it. See, I did publish a book on all of this after years of research, and I now teach an accredited certification course on sound, vibration, color, and light healing. If one doesn't know Maria Renolds work, if you don't know the Nazis had nothing to do with A440, if you don't know Hindu raga and chant pitch, etc., I just can't go back to 1st grade here about it all.

a reply to: luthier

Again, thank you for your replies, luthier. I looked at both of your links. There is nothing in either of them that disproves what I have said up to now. In fact, they are kindergarten stuff, and not very relevant.

Of course sound waves emanate from a point source in all directions, just as ripples radiate in all directions from a stone tossed into a pond. This is basic, basic physics and has nothing at all to do with what we were discussing.

As for converting sound to light, I first did this at the age of about fifteen, when I connected a flashlight battery to the speaker terminals of an amplifier. The bulb was at the focus of a parabolic mirror (like the one in a flashlight), which was directed at a similar mirror a few feet away that had a phototransistor at its focus. The transistor was connected to a second amplifier circuit, which was hooked up to a speaker. When I put a tape in the cassette player I had hooked up to the first amp and turned everything on, music came out of the speaker connected to the second amp. Very simple — child's play, literally. The fi wasn't very hi, but then, it was just a school science-fair demonstration.

And yes, I am acquainted with such things as sonoluminescence from my later studies in physics. I think you are failing to understand that sound is just mechanical movement perceived a certain way. If you bang things together hard enough, you get sparks. There are unanswered questions about sonoluminescence but it is not some cosmic mystery.

I think we have reached the end of our discussion. It is clear you have nothing material to add, and your case remains unproven. I notice that you did not say which were the points you earlier accused me of ignoring, so I won't waste my time asking you to point out where I have insulted you. In fact it is you who have called me closed-minded, accused me of 'crapping all over' things and made out that I am some blind, ignorant idiot, groping in the dark. But that's all right; I've been accused of such things many times, here on ATS. I wish you well with your luthiery.

a reply to: KAOStheory

No one ever said anything about the simplistic physics of one frequency or another, or the almost unnoticeable difference between 8Hz.

Pardon me for contradicting you, but they certainly did:

Originally posted by dezertdog
432 Hz is in harmony with nature 440 Hz is in opposition to it.

You even mentioned it yourself:

Originally posted by KAOStheory
I use only A432Hz in my work.

Why would you do that — and suffer the inconvenience of being out of tune with the rest of the musical world, which uses A=440 — unless you thought there was something special about A=432?

As regards your opening post, or rather posts, well, I prize the human element in music very highly myself. When making music, I like to depend as little as possible on digital aids and information technology. When I'm feeling radical I sometimes argue that recorded music as not really music at all, merely a facsimile of the real thing — the real thing being music performed live to an audience who are physically present at the performance.

I am well aware, however, that 'music' for most people is recorded music played back through speakers or headphones, and that for many kinds of music the use of technology is indispensable. I do not think this invalidates the music made, and I feel your description of different approaches to music-making in your second post is rather puristic and unnecessarily judgemental.

More to the point, I am deeply sceptical about what you term the 'spiritual' aspects of music. Personally, I prefer the term psychoacoustics; and although I am well aware that there is a largely unanalyzed praxis in music concerning the production of different reactions, feelings and states of consciousness in listeners — I refer to the repertoire of rabble-rousing tricks used by shamans, composers and performers — I do not believe it has anything to do with the various spiritual and New Age theories bruited about the internet.

Indeed, I am quite suspicious of people who claim to be musicians, yet appear to be more interested in producing and investigating these effects than in producing and enjoying music for its aesthetic and emotional qualities.

I suggest you read Maria Renolds' book, then get back to us when you understand the physics of chords played by stringed instruments in Equal Temperament.

My dear fellow, it is you and your A=432 friends who are trying to prove a point, not I. If you cannot or do not wish to provide the substantiating evidence, that's fine by me; I shall continue to think of the A=432 cult as a superstition indulged in by people who have little knowledge of physcial acoustics and a susceptibility to magical thinking. Nothing on this thread has given me any reason to think otherwise.

I happened across this on Facebook a while back, and for those who have not seen it, well, its awesome. The power of sound is remarkable.

a reply to: bluemooone2

I watched that. What is it supposed to prove and why do people think it's a big deal? it's pretty, but hardly wondrous.

a reply to: Astyanax

Im not going to say its all that informative. I know very little about this , but I still love sound and music. Take this for what its worth I guess, but if we really get some real science done I am thinking we may be able to preform things that even today would be confused with miracles.

a reply to: Astyanax

Again, what you showed is an single A432Hz sine wave vs an A440hz sine wave, not MUSIC played IN those as a PITCH STANDARD. There is a HUGE difference between a sine wave, and the dissonances created in Equal Temperament by chords played on piano, strings, and wind instruments.
You are missing the point ENTIRELY.

a reply to: Astyanax

Look I do cymatics too. There are SO many variables that it can most certainly be geared to show whatever results desired. Emoto, in my opinion, was a fraud. I can change the weight of the medium by hardly a noticeable amount, and the pattern will change drastically. I don't sit around listening to Butruff talk about numerology, and I don't assume to know everything about physics without actually reading a book that's NOT found online, or doing some simple experiments myself.

I was quoted from my website in an article called "Why You Should Retune Your Instruments to A432Hz."
I had to email the author and explain at least 5 reasons you most certainly should NOT do that.
(It's really funny when my friends share that on my FB page, obviously not having read it to see I'm quoted in it.)
There's a lot of BS out there about it. Why do you suppose that is? The physics stand on their own, the calculator doesn't lie.

Why do you suppose the Solfegggios hoax exits? They want people to tune up to A444Hz. Do you know why singers and string instrument players protested A440, and why higher pitch is worse? It's called simple physics, not even metaphysics, or opinions on what sounds better. It's a strain on the voice and strings. I mean, really, thanks for making me state the obvious yet again here. And, the higher the pitch, the worse the brainwave entrainment pulses created from the dissonances of the chords. Why do you think militay marching bands tune to A444 or higher, but Hindu Ragas are A432? It's just obvious if you really knnow anything about the Pitch Game, and how long it's been going on.

So I don't care, tune down to the French A435 then. That's better too. The metaphysics only come in if you believe in the Chakra correlations to the 7 colors of the solar spectrum, and the C# and B theories of Om and the Schumann Earth Resonance. I do, so if you believe these things, fine, let's talk. If not, I could care less about your opinion on A432. It doesn't change the fact that in Equal Temperament, A440 is too high, and A444 sure the hell is.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: KAOStheory
Why would you do that — and suffer the inconvenience of being out of tune with the rest of the musical world, which uses A=440 — unless you thought there was something special about A=432?

I'm actually really surprised that you of all people would ask such a question.

Maybe you should read my thread about the Solfeggio hoax and learn the real reason why A440 is even a "standard," as well as why it's been ignored by Hindus - and marching bands and symphonies, who tune sharp...again, I await your response as to why you think that is.
Coincidence? Really? I mean, ALWAYS though? Doubtful.

It's a crap pitch theory totally misunderstood by all involved. Again, a little bored with repeating myself here...

Once on here, someone asked if C528 "Solfeggio Love Frequency" (lmao) would help their hip pain or something.
I said, "Ever seen 2001: A Space Odyssey? Because that's in A444 pitch, and it's a C- G- C at the beginning- so the C is 528. Did your hip feel better? Then yea, no."

a reply to: KAOStheory

You are missing the point ENTIRELY.

No, my friend, I am not. The proportionate relations between tones, i.e. frequencies, played by an instrument or ensemble remain the same no matter what reference frequency the instrument or instruments are tuned to.

There are, as you correctly point out, other good practical reasons for not setting your reference frequency too high (or too low): difficulties with tuning, vocal pitching, and so on. But in this regard there is really not very much to choose between 432Hz and 440Hz.

I do cymatics too.

That's very interesting. Cymatics, a branch of physics, isn't exactly cutting-edge science these days, so I imagine you mean somethind else — something like what we saw in bluemooone2's video, perhaps? Using cymatic effects to create audio-visual art or entertainment? I imagine it would be quite difficult to pull off effectively, like pyrotechnics and stage magic.

Why do you think militay marching bands tune to A444 or higher, but Hindu Ragas are A432?

I should be very interested to see reliable evidence for either of these claims, especially the latter. That, at least, should be easy to provide — if it exists. You understand, of course, that somebody merely saying it's so on the internet isn't reliable evidence.

The metaphysics only come in if you believe in the Chakra correlations to the 7 colors of the solar spectrum, and the C# and B theories of Om and the Schumann Earth Resonance. I do, so if you believe these things, fine, let's talk.

I don't give any credence to that sort of thing at all, so let's not. Thank you for your replies.

a reply to: Astyanax

Ok, first, when I say I "do cymatics," I mean I use a varitey of transducers and amplifiers, as well as a software program which allows you to change plate width, sand wetness, etc. in the virtual realm. So people who believe Emoto and say "A440 is ugly and A432 is pretty" I'm guessing have never done ANY of this themselves, to see how easy it is to change the pattern by altering one or more of the numerous variables even slightly.

Second, if you want to discuss pitch at all, i suggest you get a pitch app, like PitchLab, it's free. Then, when the Solfeggio jerks try to tell you that Gregorian Chants are all in "Solfeggio," you can pull one up on YouTube and SEE that it's really just a C major scale in either A432Hz or A440Hz. This will also show you the same with the Ragas, of just pull up a Ravi Shankar video and try to play a keyboard with it. You will be sharp. Again, repeating myself - my references are listed in the references section in the back of my book. I'm not going to recap 5 years of research in an internet forum.

You could read the official US War Department Manual on physics to read your "proof" of marching bands and most symphony orchestras tuning high, or ask some members of one, as I did. The same manual will tell you that C256 is proper scientific pitch.

You can ask you doctor to see his medical tuning fork the next time you go for a checkup, then ask him why it's got 256Hz stamped on it, and why the whole medical industry of the entire planet would "chose to be out of tune."

I'd be curious as to their answer to that one.

And since you don't give any credence to ANY of the METAPHYSICAL aspects, that's fine, but we all now have to wonder why you are involved in a discussion where that's the FIRST word in the title. I think this is what the mods call being "off topic," no?

I didn't even mention A432 in my OP.

It wasn't until a member linked an article and asked me about it, did I explain that I actually know all about it, and attached my charts for him, simply for his convenience. Apparently, I made a mistake by doing that.

The last time I posted about UFOs, people tried to argue that the Schumann Resonance was not a "note" for 3 pages simply because I mentioned the Integratron.

Every time I try to share some info with folks here, someone starts changing the subject, repeating things already discussed over and over on here in other threads already.

I thought we had a rule about that too, but I guess not.

a reply to: KAOStheory

i switched of at :

analyze some mp3's.