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.
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.
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]
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
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.
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]
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]
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?
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]
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.
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]
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).