Re: [MMM] Why from G? Why not A=440? - & associated thoughts on standards.

> 2) The planet is slowing, hence 440Hz
> changes.

Actually, 440Hz does not change, by definition. The length of a second
isn't defined by planetary rotation, it's defined elsewise. The
international agreement about the length of one second is the duration of
9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition
between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133
atom. But that's all way off topic for the list...

As for reference pitches... I use 12 edo middle-C simply for my convenience.

Rick

When someone tried to get Erv to retune all his instruments to Partch's ET G, he remarked that Partch would have chosen a different G
had he been able to find or get a tuning fork in the G he wanted , but could not. He was sure that Partch was not happy with having to make this one and only concession to 12 ET.
But more to the point of this conversation, he remarked that different standard will ensure that the music will be able to develop independently.
He does use A=440 but is attached to the just F and C for placing many of his tunings. Although, like myself, finds their favorite key in the Eb range

Rick McGowan wrote:

>>2) The planet is slowing, hence 440Hz
>>changes.
>> >>
>
>Actually, 440Hz does not change, by definition. The length of a second >isn't defined by planetary rotation, it's defined elsewise. The >international agreement about the length of one second is the duration of >9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition >between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 >atom. But that's all way off topic for the list...
>
>As for reference pitches... I use 12 edo middle-C simply for my convenience.
>
> Rick
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

These posts made me wonder just what a universal, non-arbitrary pitch reference could be like - I thought of the Planck frequency, which is the fundamental frequency of oscillation of the space-time continuum, if I can say that without sounding too Star Trek. The oscillation is around 1.8551 x 10^43 Hz, which I just worked out is 135 octaves above an A tuned to 425.9... Hz, i.e. very close to the harmonic mean of modern A=440 and baroque A=415!

Best --Jon

Kraig wrote, quoting Rick McGowan:

> When someone tried to get Erv to retune all his instruments to Partch's
> ET G, he remarked that Partch would have chosen a different G
> had he been able to find or get a tuning fork in the G he wanted , but
> could not. He was sure that Partch was not happy with having to make
> this one and only concession to 12 ET.
>>
>> Actually, 440Hz does not change, by definition. The length of a second
>> isn't defined by planetary rotation, it's defined elsewise. The
>> international agreement about the length of one second is the duration of
>> 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition
>> between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133
>> atom. But that's all way off topic for the list...

well we should be tuning to plank , don't you think, since we are tuning to it anywise

Jon Wild wrote:

>These posts made me wonder just what a universal, non-arbitrary pitch >reference could be like - I thought of the Planck frequency, which is the >fundamental frequency of oscillation of the space-time continuum, if I can >say that without sounding too Star Trek. The oscillation is around 1.8551 >x 10^43 Hz, which I just worked out is 135 octaves above an A tuned to >425.9... Hz, i.e. very close to the harmonic mean of modern A=440 and >baroque A=415!
>
>Best --Jon
>
>Kraig wrote, quoting Rick McGowan:
>
> >
>>When someone tried to get Erv to retune all his instruments to Partch's
>>ET G, he remarked that Partch would have chosen a different G
>>had he been able to find or get a tuning fork in the G he wanted , but
>>could not. He was sure that Partch was not happy with having to make
>>this one and only concession to 12 ET.
>> >>
>>>Actually, 440Hz does not change, by definition. The length of a second
>>>isn't defined by planetary rotation, it's defined elsewise. The
>>>international agreement about the length of one second is the duration of
>>>9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition
>>>between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133
>>>atom. But that's all way off topic for the list...
>>> >>>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Hello,

I've been actually tuning to Planck frequency since Gene Ward Smith
suggested this to me on the short-lived microtuning-list which was
active when tuning-list was down.

There are actually two choices for Planck frequency. It can be
calculated from Planck constant h or from h-bar = h/(2*pi).

I use the one calculated from the plain h.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Jon Wild <wild@m...> wrote:
>
>
> These posts made me wonder just what a universal, non-arbitrary pitch
> reference could be like - I thought of the Planck frequency, which
is the
> fundamental frequency of oscillation of the space-time continuum, if
I can
> say that without sounding too Star Trek. The oscillation is around
1.8551
> x 10^43 Hz, which I just worked out is 135 octaves above an A tuned to
> 425.9... Hz, i.e. very close to the harmonic mean of modern A=440 and
> baroque A=415!
>
> Best --Jon

>There are actually two choices for Planck frequency. It can be
>calculated from Planck constant h or from h-bar = h/(2*pi).

What are they?

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>
> >There are actually two choices for Planck frequency. It can be
> >calculated from Planck constant h or from h-bar = h/(2*pi).
>
> What are they?
>
> -Carl

If you mean the Planck frequencies they are

7.40056 x 10^42 for h and 1.85504 x 10^43 for h-bar

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle Aho" <kalleaho@m...>
wrote:

> I've been actually tuning to Planck frequency...
> >
> > These posts made me wonder just what a universal, non-arbitrary
pitch
> > reference could be like - I thought of the Planck frequency,..
>

Planck had "a harmonium built with 104 tones in each octave", but it
doesn't say what frequencies

http://tinyurl.com/dguwz

Clark

>>>There are actually two choices for Planck frequency. It can be
>>>calculated from Planck constant h or from h-bar = h/(2*pi).
>>
>> What are they?
>
>If you mean the Planck frequencies they are
>
>7.40056 x 10^42 for h and 1.85504 x 10^43 for h-bar

The latter is the one Jon gave. I get ~ 340 for the former (octave
reduced). But are the units right?

Google gives h as 6.626068 × 10^-34 m^2 kg / s.

Wikipedia gives 6.626068 J*s, and since joules are kg*m^2/s^2
that agrees with Google.

Where does 7.40056 come from?

-Carl

>>>>There are actually two choices for Planck frequency. It can be
>>>>calculated from Planck constant h or from h-bar = h/(2*pi).
>>>
>>> What are they?
>>
>>If you mean the Planck frequencies they are
>>
>>7.40056 x 10^42 for h and 1.85504 x 10^43 for h-bar
>
>The latter is the one Jon gave. I get ~ 340 for the former (octave
>reduced). But are the units right?
>
>Google gives h as 6.626068 × 10^-34 m^2 kg / s.
>
>Wikipedia gives 6.626068 J*s, and since joules are kg*m^2/s^2
>that agrees with Google.
>
>Where does 7.40056 come from?

This page may be helpful

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

but we should probably continue this over on tuning-math.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> Where does 7.40056 come from?

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PlanckTime.html

The Planck frequency is the multiplicative inverse (reciprocal) of
Planck time.

1/(1.35125 x 10^-43) is approximately 7.40056 x 10^42.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "threesixesinarow"
<CACCOLA@N...> wrote:

> Planck had "a harmonium built with 104 tones in each octave", but it
> doesn't say what frequencies
>
> http://tinyurl.com/dguwz

He was a student and friend of Helmholtz, so one can guess schismatic
temperament as one possibility. Using pure fifths gives three step
sizes in a reasonably even pattern; using 1/8-schisma tempered fifths
gives
three step sizes still, but the two smaller sizes are now close
together in size and the whole thing is more MOS-like. The two smaller
steps are in fact the two step sizes of the 118-MOS, and the larger
step is the product.

All guesswork, of course.

>> Where does 7.40056 come from?
>
>http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PlanckTime.html
>
>The Planck frequency is the multiplicative inverse (reciprocal) of
>Planck time.
>
>1/(1.35125 x 10^-43) is approximately 7.40056 x 10^42.

Great! For those at home, that's...

h frequency = 340 Hz. (near F = 349 Hz.)
h-bar frequency = 426 Hz. (near G# = 415 Hz.)

...the two truly universal frequencies.

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:

> Great! For those at home, that's...
> > h frequency = 340 Hz. (near F = 349 Hz.)
> h-bar frequency = 426 Hz. (near G# = 415 Hz.)
> > ...the two truly universal frequencies.

At risk of giving this more legitimacy than it deserves, plain h frequency is the one to go for. The h-bar frequency is the same thing in radians per second instead of cycles per second.

Graham

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@g...> wrote:
>
> Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> > Great! For those at home, that's...
> >
> > h frequency = 340 Hz. (near F = 349 Hz.)
> > h-bar frequency = 426 Hz. (near G# = 415 Hz.)
> >
> > ...the two truly universal frequencies.
>
> At risk of giving this more legitimacy than it deserves, plain h
> frequency is the one to go for. The h-bar frequency is the same thing
> in radians per second instead of cycles per second.

Yep, that's exactly how Gene argued for the plain h frequency and
that's why I'm using it instead of h-bar.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>
> >> Where does 7.40056 come from?
> >
> >http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PlanckTime.html
> >
> >The Planck frequency is the multiplicative inverse (reciprocal) of
> >Planck time.
> >
> >1/(1.35125 x 10^-43) is approximately 7.40056 x 10^42.
>
> Great! For those at home, that's...
>
> h frequency = 340 Hz. (near F = 349 Hz.)
> h-bar frequency = 426 Hz. (near G# = 415 Hz.)
>
> ...the two truly universal frequencies.

These are the frequencies you get when you reduce with *pure* octaves.
But I think it makes the most sense to reduce the Planck frequency
with the frame interval of the scale one is tuning. It might be a TOP
tempered tritave for example.

Kalle

>> >> Where does 7.40056 come from?
>> >
>> >http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PlanckTime.html
>> >
>> >The Planck frequency is the multiplicative inverse (reciprocal) of
>> >Planck time.
>> >
>> >1/(1.35125 x 10^-43) is approximately 7.40056 x 10^42.
>>
>> Great! For those at home, that's...
>>
>> h frequency = 340 Hz. (near F = 349 Hz.)
>> h-bar frequency = 426 Hz. (near G# = 415 Hz.)
>>
>> ...the two truly universal frequencies.
>
>These are the frequencies you get when you reduce with *pure* octaves.
>But I think it makes the most sense to reduce the Planck frequency
>with the frame interval of the scale one is tuning. It might be a TOP
>tempered tritave for example.
>
>Kalle

True enough. -C.