It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NWO is responsible for concert pitch A-440hz

page: 10
143
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:41 AM
link   
this is not concrete proof but it is a start

files.abovetopsecret.com...

at least it shows that goebels was indeed in charge of the music propaganda.




posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maya432
this is not concrete proof but it is a start

files.abovetopsecret.com...

at least it shows that goebels was indeed in charge of the music propaganda.

wow ..poor quality..i`m still trying to get decent screenshots.
sorry ...i`ll try to fix it



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Fuggle
 


I'm with you on this. I see lots of numbers but raw data does nothing to explain what the take away is from that. I imagine if one uses their little orphan Annie decoder ring, the secret message will read - make sure to drink more Ovaltine.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Maya432
 


If anything, wasn't he(they) trying to establish that their Teutonic, Aryan, background was superior, and as such was trying to set the musical standard? Perhaps not, but just a thought. Could it be that the propaganda aspect was in the composition and lyrical content, and not the resonant frequency that A was tuned to? You still haven't establish Goebbels link with the NWO(or is that just a generic group, that all elitists fall under)?



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Not so sure on the NWO connection, but this thread contains some very interesting links and info. Thanks to the OP for posting it!

Definitely an area I am going to be investigating further.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I expanded my table to include the whole scale from 100Hz to 10kHz including ones based on C 256Hz and F 342Hz just to show there's really nothing odd or magical to be noticed in them. The only thing I could say about C 256 is that it's an exact power or 2 (2^8) so it will be an integer at every octave from 1Hz to infinity if that's what was being suggested. It doesn't mean anything really - it's just maths after all. The NWO didn't invent binary maths and boolean algebra I hope lol

[font=Courier New]
2^(1/12) = 1.059463094359

.. C 256 F 342 A 432 A 440 A 447

Ab 101.59 101.68 101.94 103.83 105.01
A. 107.63 107.72 108.00 110.00 111.25
A# 114.04 114.13 114.42 116.54 117.87
B. 120.82 120.92 121.23 123.47 124.87
C. 128.00 128.11 128.43 130.81 132.30
C# 135.61 135.72 136.07 138.59 140.17
D. 143.68 143.79 144.16 146.83 148.50
D# 152.22 152.34 152.74 155.56 157.33
E. 161.27 161.40 161.82 164.81 166.69
F. 170.86 171.00 171.44 174.61 176.60
F# 181.02 181.17 181.63 185.00 187.10
G. 191.78 191.94 192.43 196.00 198.22
G# 203.19 203.35 203.88 207.65 210.01
A. 215.27 215.45 216.00 220.00 222.50
A# 228.07 228.26 228.84 233.08 235.73
B. 241.63 241.83 242.45 246.94 249.75
C. 256.00 256.21 256.87 261.63 264.60
C# 271.22 271.45 272.14 277.18 280.33
D. 287.35 287.59 288.33 293.66 297.00
D# 304.44 304.69 305.47 311.13 314.66
E. 322.54 322.81 323.63 329.63 333.37
F. 341.72 342.00 342.88 349.23 353.20
F# 362.04 362.34 363.27 369.99 374.20
G. 383.57 383.88 384.87 392.00 396.45
G# 406.37 406.71 407.75 415.30 420.02
A. 430.54 430.89 432.00 440.00 445.00
A# 456.14 456.52 457.69 466.16 471.46
B. 483.26 483.66 484.90 493.88 499.50
C. 512.00 512.42 513.74 523.25 529.20
C# 542.45 542.89 544.29 554.37 560.66
D. 574.70 575.17 576.65 587.33 594.00
D# 608.87 609.37 610.94 622.25 629.33
E. 645.08 645.61 647.27 659.26 666.75
F. 683.44 684.00 685.76 698.46 706.39
F# 724.08 724.67 726.53 739.99 748.40
G. 767.13 767.76 769.74 783.99 792.90
G# 812.75 813.42 815.51 830.61 840.05
A. 861.08 861.79 864.00 880.00 890.00
A# 912.28 913.03 915.38 932.33 942.92
B. 966.53 967.32 969.81 987.77 998.99
C. 1024.00 1024.84 1027.47 1046.50 1058.39
C# 1084.89 1085.78 1088.57 1108.73 1121.33
D. 1149.40 1150.35 1153.30 1174.66 1188.01
D# 1217.75 1218.75 1221.88 1244.51 1258.65
E. 1290.16 1291.22 1294.54 1318.51 1333.49
F. 1366.88 1368.00 1371.51 1396.91 1412.79
F# 1448.15 1449.35 1453.07 1479.98 1496.80
G. 1534.27 1535.53 1539.47 1567.98 1585.80
G# 1625.50 1626.84 1631.01 1661.22 1680.10
A. 1722.16 1723.57 1728.00 1760.00 1780.00
A# 1824.56 1826.06 1830.75 1864.66 1885.84
B. 1933.05 1934.64 1939.61 1975.53 1997.98
C. 2048.00 2049.68 2054.95 2093.00 2116.79
C# 2169.78 2171.56 2177.14 2217.46 2242.66
D. 2298.80 2300.69 2306.60 2349.32 2376.01
D# 2435.50 2437.50 2443.76 2489.02 2517.30
E. 2580.32 2582.44 2589.07 2637.02 2666.99
F. 2733.75 2736.00 2743.03 2793.83 2825.57
F# 2896.31 2898.69 2906.14 2959.96 2993.59
G. 3068.53 3071.06 3078.95 3135.96 3171.60
G# 3251.00 3253.67 3262.03 3322.44 3360.19
A. 3444.31 3447.14 3456.00 3520.00 3560.00
A# 3649.12 3652.12 3661.50 3729.31 3771.69
B. 3866.11 3869.29 3879.23 3951.07 3995.96
C. 4096.00 4099.37 4109.90 4186.01 4233.58
C# 4339.56 4343.13 4354.29 4434.92 4485.32
D. 4597.60 4601.39 4613.21 4698.64 4752.03
D# 4870.99 4875.00 4887.52 4978.03 5034.60
E. 5160.64 5164.88 5178.15 5274.04 5333.97
F. 5467.50 5472.00 5486.06 5587.65 5651.15
F# 5792.62 5797.38 5812.28 5919.91 5987.18
G. 6137.07 6142.11 6157.89 6271.93 6343.20
G# 6501.99 6507.34 6524.06 6644.88 6720.39
A. 6888.62 6894.29 6912.00 7040.00 7120.00
A# 7298.24 7304.24 7323.01 7458.62 7543.38
B. 7732.22 7738.58 7758.46 7902.13 7991.93
C. 8192.00 8198.74 8219.80 8372.02 8467.15
C# 8679.12 8686.26 8708.57 8869.84 8970.64
D. 9195.21 9202.77 9226.41 9397.27 9504.06
D# 9741.98 9750.00 9775.04 9956.06 10069.20


[edit on 28/12/2007 by Pilgrum]

[edit on 28/12/2007 by Pilgrum]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Just couldn't seem to achieve neat column formatting above - sorry about that



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maya432
reply to post by ben91069
 

what I do to correct sound files is this:
first I need a point of reference...um an a-432 tuning meter would do.
i have a software that emulates guitar amps ..its called "LINE6 gearbox"
anyway it has a built in tuning meter that goes to 432(apparently tuners that go to 432 are very rare) hhhhhhhhmmmmmmmm.
ok so I tune my guitar then i import the song into an editor
and start dropping the pitch until it rings true with my guitar and my ears.

now if your not a musician you would need the right number
in percentages or what ever to recalibrate.
sorry I actually don`t know the numbers but I will try to find out as fast as I can
-Bobby

ps this ajustment is actually done by ever so slightly slowing down the file....
IT IS NOT A PITCH SHIFT(tried it and the sound comes out very poor).

[edit on 23-12-2007 by Maya432]


I use gearbox too


I see how it starts out at 440 as the standard. I think I'll play around with the 432. Until your post I really never thought about it. I'm not into the whole NWO conspiracy always trying to do the wrong thing, but once I saw the patterns I did think of crop circle (ones that could be real) and it would be interesting if those shapes were compared to sound shapes at 432.

We might even get a new Brittney tune out of them. JKing



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maya432
reply to post by Pilgrum
 

oh ....and you know when you hear a really good singer live in concert and he seems to be a bit flat..hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
It is because he is usung his natual artistic abilities and it is coming up a bit flat with the music. double hmmmmmmmmmmmmm ..see what I mean?
-Bobby


I respectfully disagree with this statement. It's called the "doppler effect".
Musicians will sometimes refer to it as "stage gremlins", etc.. The reason someone sings "flat" is because there's a time difference between the sound coming from the actual guitar amps on stage & what the singer is hearing through the monitors. The true pitch can sometimes be tough to discern & therefore comes out a bit off. This is why you see someone "plug" their ear with a finger or shut their eyes while singing. It's not always chalked up to everything being so loud they cannot hear! This anomaly is intensified the bigger the stage gets, but is at the same time slowly being diminished thru new technology. Many singers now use wireless headset monitors which help to thwart this phenomenon.

source

I have played live music since the 80's & can tell you with 100% assurance that bands tune down a 1/4 - 1/2 step because it is easier to sing over & the audience will never know the difference! BUT- A lead vocalist required to sing 40+ songs over three sets will tell you that it makes a world of difference. People have been doing this for years. . .

2PacSade-


fixed link

[edit on 28-12-2007 by 2PacSade]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Parabol
reply to post by Maya432
 


How about posting some verifiable research? Have they tested their programs with the 432 and 440 to compare the differences? As a musician with a degree in psychology, I'll be the first to say that music is healing but can it be proven, in a statistically significant manner, that 432 'heals' greater than 440? If so, please direct me to a peer reviewed paper or journal. Also, link you provided and a google search did not say what field her Ph.D is in or what universities she attended.


Wouldn't this fall into the category of "temporal" beats or sounds?

2PacSade-



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Hey Maya432-

Here's some food for thought. Maybe you can use this info to prove your NWO connection. . .

Did you know that North American "dial tone" is a compilation of two notes? 350hz & 440hz!

source

If you don't have a tuner you can use it to get your "A" string pretty close. Been there, done that.


2PacSade-



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade

Originally posted by Maya432
reply to post by Pilgrum
 

oh ....and you know when you hear a really good singer live in concert and he seems to be a bit flat..hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
It is because he is usung his natual artistic abilities and it is coming up a bit flat with the music. double hmmmmmmmmmmmmm ..see what I mean?
-Bobby


I respectfully disagree with this statement. It's called the "doppler effect".
Musicians will sometimes refer to it as "stage gremlins", etc.. The reason someone sings "flat" is because there's a time difference between the sound coming from the actual guitar amps on stage & what the singer is hearing through the monitors. The true pitch can sometimes be tough to discern & therefore comes out a bit off. This is why you see someone "plug" their ear with a finger or shut their eyes while singing. It's not always chalked up to everything being so loud they cannot hear! This anomaly is intensified the bigger the stage gets, but is at the same time slowly being diminished thru new technology. Many singers now use wireless headset monitors which help to thwart this phenomenon.

source

I have played live music since the 80's & can tell you with 100% assurance that bands tune down a 1/4 - 1/2 step because it is easier to sing over & the audience will never know the difference! BUT- A lead vocalist required to sing 40+ songs over three sets will tell you that it makes a world of difference. People have been doing this for years. . .

2PacSade-


fixed link

[edit on 28-12-2007 by 2PacSade]

The Doppler effect makes singers sing flat???
lol he he he ha ha h
thats just plain DUMB



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   
There's a number of reasons why loud live vocal performances sound flat compared to a studio effort. Probably the most significant one is the non-linear performace of the human ear IE a constant pitch appears to change as the volume increases - like a 'doppler' effect. All the instruments are tuned to each other ok but the vocalist has to rely on his ear and that tells him false truths
. The only way to listen to live performanaces is up close and very loud so your ears are 'bent' the same as the singer's ears. At a distance the singers usually sound terrible no matter how good they actually are.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I expanded my table to include the whole scale from 100Hz to 10kHz including ones based on C 256Hz and F 342Hz just to show there's really nothing odd or magical to be noticed in them. The only thing I could say about C 256 is that it's an exact power or 2 (2^8) so it will be an integer at every octave from 1Hz to infinity if that's what was being suggested. It doesn't mean anything really - it's just maths after all. The NWO didn't invent binary maths and boolean algebra I hope lol

[font=Courier New]
2^(1/12) = 1.059463094359

.. C 256 F 342 A 432 A 440 A 447

Ab 101.59 101.68 101.94 103.83 105.01
A. 107.63 107.72 108.00 110.00 111.25
A# 114.04 114.13 114.42 116.54 117.87
B. 120.82 120.92 121.23 123.47 124.87
C. 128.00 128.11 128.43 130.81 132.30
C# 135.61 135.72 136.07 138.59 140.17
D. 143.68 143.79 144.16 146.83 148.50
D# 152.22 152.34 152.74 155.56 157.33
E. 161.27 161.40 161.82 164.81 166.69
F. 170.86 171.00 171.44 174.61 176.60
F# 181.02 181.17 181.63 185.00 187.10
G. 191.78 191.94 192.43 196.00 198.22
G# 203.19 203.35 203.88 207.65 210.01
A. 215.27 215.45 216.00 220.00 222.50
A# 228.07 228.26 228.84 233.08 235.73
B. 241.63 241.83 242.45 246.94 249.75
C. 256.00 256.21 256.87 261.63 264.60
C# 271.22 271.45 272.14 277.18 280.33
D. 287.35 287.59 288.33 293.66 297.00
D# 304.44 304.69 305.47 311.13 314.66
E. 322.54 322.81 323.63 329.63 333.37
F. 341.72 342.00 342.88 349.23 353.20
F# 362.04 362.34 363.27 369.99 374.20
G. 383.57 383.88 384.87 392.00 396.45
G# 406.37 406.71 407.75 415.30 420.02
A. 430.54 430.89 432.00 440.00 445.00
A# 456.14 456.52 457.69 466.16 471.46
B. 483.26 483.66 484.90 493.88 499.50
C. 512.00 512.42 513.74 523.25 529.20
C# 542.45 542.89 544.29 554.37 560.66
D. 574.70 575.17 576.65 587.33 594.00
D# 608.87 609.37 610.94 622.25 629.33
E. 645.08 645.61 647.27 659.26 666.75
F. 683.44 684.00 685.76 698.46 706.39
F# 724.08 724.67 726.53 739.99 748.40
G. 767.13 767.76 769.74 783.99 792.90
G# 812.75 813.42 815.51 830.61 840.05
A. 861.08 861.79 864.00 880.00 890.00
A# 912.28 913.03 915.38 932.33 942.92
B. 966.53 967.32 969.81 987.77 998.99
C. 1024.00 1024.84 1027.47 1046.50 1058.39
C# 1084.89 1085.78 1088.57 1108.73 1121.33
D. 1149.40 1150.35 1153.30 1174.66 1188.01
D# 1217.75 1218.75 1221.88 1244.51 1258.65
E. 1290.16 1291.22 1294.54 1318.51 1333.49
F. 1366.88 1368.00 1371.51 1396.91 1412.79
F# 1448.15 1449.35 1453.07 1479.98 1496.80
G. 1534.27 1535.53 1539.47 1567.98 1585.80
G# 1625.50 1626.84 1631.01 1661.22 1680.10
A. 1722.16 1723.57 1728.00 1760.00 1780.00
A# 1824.56 1826.06 1830.75 1864.66 1885.84
B. 1933.05 1934.64 1939.61 1975.53 1997.98
C. 2048.00 2049.68 2054.95 2093.00 2116.79
C# 2169.78 2171.56 2177.14 2217.46 2242.66
D. 2298.80 2300.69 2306.60 2349.32 2376.01
D# 2435.50 2437.50 2443.76 2489.02 2517.30
E. 2580.32 2582.44 2589.07 2637.02 2666.99
F. 2733.75 2736.00 2743.03 2793.83 2825.57
F# 2896.31 2898.69 2906.14 2959.96 2993.59
G. 3068.53 3071.06 3078.95 3135.96 3171.60
G# 3251.00 3253.67 3262.03 3322.44 3360.19
A. 3444.31 3447.14 3456.00 3520.00 3560.00
A# 3649.12 3652.12 3661.50 3729.31 3771.69
B. 3866.11 3869.29 3879.23 3951.07 3995.96
C. 4096.00 4099.37 4109.90 4186.01 4233.58
C# 4339.56 4343.13 4354.29 4434.92 4485.32
D. 4597.60 4601.39 4613.21 4698.64 4752.03
D# 4870.99 4875.00 4887.52 4978.03 5034.60
E. 5160.64 5164.88 5178.15 5274.04 5333.97
F. 5467.50 5472.00 5486.06 5587.65 5651.15
F# 5792.62 5797.38 5812.28 5919.91 5987.18
G. 6137.07 6142.11 6157.89 6271.93 6343.20
G# 6501.99 6507.34 6524.06 6644.88 6720.39
A. 6888.62 6894.29 6912.00 7040.00 7120.00
A# 7298.24 7304.24 7323.01 7458.62 7543.38
B. 7732.22 7738.58 7758.46 7902.13 7991.93
C. 8192.00 8198.74 8219.80 8372.02 8467.15
C# 8679.12 8686.26 8708.57 8869.84 8970.64
D. 9195.21 9202.77 9226.41 9397.27 9504.06
D# 9741.98 9750.00 9775.04 9956.06 10069.20


[edit on 28/12/2007 by Pilgrum]

[edit on 28/12/2007 by Pilgrum]


ok now your numbers are just numbers dude,if you don`t get the concept then its not my problem.....this info is for those who are actually interested in expanding their ...you obviously do not
have a clue here...so why bother...
and about nwo...yes they go back thousands of years undere many names
so yes they are resposible for hidding alot of info about the nature of reality.
"a" an octave down is not 215.27 your math is flawed..or you are not using the correct math... or what ever..
I do not need to prove it..its already been by the scientists...geesh what part of that don`t you understand?



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maya432
ok now your numbers are just numbers dude,if you don`t get the concept then its not my problem.....this info is for those who are actually interested in expanding their ...you obviously do not
have a clue here...so why bother...
and about nwo...yes they go back thousands of years undere many names
so yes they are resposible for hidding alot of info about the nature of reality.
"a" an octave down is not 215.27 your math is flawed..or you are not using the correct math... or what ever..
I do not need to prove it..its already been by the scientists...geesh what part of that don`t you understand?


Very disappointed that you can't listen to reason

But you're forgetting the most basic principles of musical relationships which just HAVE to be obeyed regardless of what base tuning you want to work with or whose diabolical plot it is to stop us playing the magical notes.

IE the factor by which semitones are separated which I already said enough about (2^1/12).

Could you evaluate (2^1/12)^12 for me? It's very easy really

When you have that answer apply it to the A 215.27 to find what frequency A an octave higher will be (or an octave lower for that matter). I'm not perfect so please point out any errors I made in those tables (I spent 5 minutes in Excel so it's no huge loss).



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
more info on the harmonic structure..
like I said people...I didn`t make this stuff up....its just there

www.youtube.com...://www.antigravitymovie.com/pages/harmonic.htm

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
of course the nwo connection will be more ellusive to find..
should i knock on rockeffellers door
and ask him or mabey invite the rothchilds to dinner so they can fill me in.

I`m not some kinda super agent or something?
I`m just a guy looking for answers to a relaly big mystery.




[edit on 28-12-2007 by Maya432]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade

Originally posted by Maya432
reply to post by Pilgrum
 

oh ....and you know when you hear a really good singer live in concert and he seems to be a bit flat..hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
It is because he is usung his natual artistic abilities and it is coming up a bit flat with the music. double hmmmmmmmmmmmmm ..see what I mean?
-Bobby


I respectfully disagree with this statement. It's called the "doppler effect".
Musicians will sometimes refer to it as "stage gremlins", etc.. The reason someone sings "flat" is because there's a time difference between the sound coming from the actual guitar amps on stage & what the singer is hearing through the monitors. The true pitch can sometimes be tough to discern & therefore comes out a bit off. This is why you see someone "plug" their ear with a finger or shut their eyes while singing. It's not always chalked up to everything being so loud they cannot hear! This anomaly is intensified the bigger the stage gets, but is at the same time slowly being diminished thru new technology. Many singers now use wireless headset monitors which help to thwart this phenomenon.

source

I have played live music since the 80's & can tell you with 100% assurance that bands tune down a 1/4 - 1/2 step because it is easier to sing over & the audience will never know the difference! BUT- A lead vocalist required to sing 40+ songs over three sets will tell you that it makes a world of difference. People have been doing this for years. . .

2PacSade-


fixed link

[edit on 28-12-2007 by 2PacSade]

wikipedia is your source?......ok then
and no I have not met another band that tunes down a 1/4 tone.
a 1/2 tone ...yes....but I`m not saying it doesn`t happen....just I haven`t come across it myself,
and doppler may come into effect on very large stages but.......
I still think its a bunk explanation.
a 1



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maya432
ya ya one thing at a time...don`t get your panties in a bunch.
theres alot of ground to cover here and I will give the info as i get it.


Ten pages into your thread and you can't back your claim up?


Originally posted by Maya432
of course the nwo connection will be more ellusive to find..
should i knock on rockeffellers door
and ask him or mabey invite the rothchilds to dinner so they can fill me in.

I`m not some kinda super agent or something?
I`m just a guy looking for answers to a relaly big mystery.
[edit on 28-12-2007 by Maya432]


No but you shouldn't start threads claiming to have uncovered a conspiracy when you have NOTHING to prove it. You have not provided one shred of evidence that links the NWO to 432. Goebbels being in charge of the music doesn't mean anything in terms of a global conspiracy.

Don't make claims you can't back up. The only big mystery is how you came up with the NWO connection....period.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by Maya432
ok now your numbers are just numbers dude,if you don`t get the concept then its not my problem.....this info is for those who are actually interested in expanding their ...you obviously do not
have a clue here...so why bother...
and about nwo...yes they go back thousands of years undere many names
so yes they are resposible for hidding alot of info about the nature of reality.
"a" an octave down is not 215.27 your math is flawed..or you are not using the correct math... or what ever..
I do not need to prove it..its already been by the scientists...geesh what part of that don`t you understand?




Very disappointed that you can't listen to reason

But you're forgetting the most basic principles of musical relationships which just HAVE to be obeyed regardless of what base tuning you want to work with or whose diabolical plot it is to stop us playing the magical notes.

IE the factor by which semitones are separated which I already said enough about (2^1/12).

Could you evaluate (2^1/12)^12 for me? It's very easy really

When you have that answer apply it to the A 215.27 to find what frequency A an octave higher will be (or an octave lower for that matter). I'm not perfect so please point out any errors I made in those tables (I spent 5 minutes in Excel so it's no huge loss).


no...you are going to have to ask a quantum physicist who deals
in these maths to look over your numbers...
I`M NOT THE SCIENTIST




top topics



 
143
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join