Tuning Forks

Hello, list!

A few years ago I met a woman who had a set (!) of JI tuning forks
oriented to C=128/256 Hz.

Does anyone here have a resource for such a thing?

I'd just like to get a C, or an A=432 Hz.

Cheers,

Pete

hi Pete,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "ambassadorbob" <ambassadorbob@y...>
wrote:

>
> Hello, list!
>
> A few years ago I met a woman who had a set (!) of JI
> tuning forks oriented to C=128/256 Hz.
>
> Does anyone here have a resource for such a thing?
>
> I'd just like to get a C, or an A=432 Hz.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete

http://www.usneurologicals.com/tf.html

-monz

For whatever it's worth (perhaps not much), C=256Hz absolute pitch reference is one of Lyndon LaRouche's hot buttons.

Among other things, he claims that it's the natural choice because a G in that tuning is exactly a (rather large) whole number of octaves above the rotational frequency of the Earth on its axis. As I recall, A=440Hz tuning is closer to that (assuming 12TET tuning at least). His main claim though is that using a C=256Hz reference puts the register breaks of "the human voice" in the correct places for bel canto singing (accented notes/words where each register is strongest). That as if biology could place register breaks in a human voice to such high precision across all humans, and as if bel canto singing is the only style of singing that matters.

It all sounds like your basic load'o'crap to me, but perhaps it's worth pointing out that if you tout C=256 tuning, you may find a bunch of LaRouchies agreeing with you.

Another argument in favor of C=256Hz was mentioned by George Secor in the past months upon our conversation about Spectral Notation and color-pitch correlation. 256 is a convincing number since it is hexadecimal (16*16) and adaptable to computers easily.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Morrison
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 16 Şubat 2005 Çarşamba 14:29
Subject: [tuning] C=256Hz

It all sounds like your basic load'o'crap to me, but perhaps it's worth
pointing out that if you tout C=256 tuning, you may find a bunch of
LaRouchies agreeing with you.

Holy Cow! A built-in market for my music? Outstanding!

I just started tuning my 12-ET guitars to A=432 (=256 X 27/16) and it seemed to me they got kind of "happy", for lack of a better word. I also heard an argument that the rise of 12-ET necessitated a higher pitch to smooth it out.

But if it (256 Hz) has the potential to bring compassion and brotherly love back into the universe, I guess that could be OK, too... ;-)

As the sage Nick Lowe once noted, What's So Funny 'Bout Peace, Love And Understanding?

But, I'll be sure to include a disclaimer that have not now, nor ever expect to endorse LL for any public office, or similar influential position.

Good one Gary, thanks!

I've read about the 'cosmic' attributions etc, I guess it's kind of fun, if you don't take it TOO seriously...

Gary Morrison <mr88cet@austin.rr.com> wrote:

For whatever it's worth (perhaps not much), C=256Hz absolute pitch
reference is one of Lyndon LaRouche's hot buttons.

Among other things, he claims that it's the natural choice because a G
in that tuning is exactly a (rather large) whole number of octaves
above the rotational frequency of the Earth on its axis. As I recall,
A=440Hz tuning is closer to that (assuming 12TET tuning at least). His
main claim though is that using a C=256Hz reference puts the register
breaks of "the human voice" in the correct places for bel canto singing
(accented notes/words where each register is strongest). That as if
biology could place register breaks in a human voice to such high
precision across all humans, and as if bel canto singing is the only
style of singing that matters.

It all sounds like your basic load'o'crap to me, but perhaps it's worth
pointing out that if you tout C=256 tuning, you may find a bunch of
LaRouchies agreeing with you.

You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.

Yahoo! Groups Links

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Monzo!

monz <monz@tonalsoft.com> wrote:

hi Pete,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "ambassadorbob"
wrote:

>
> Hello, list!
>
> A few years ago I met a woman who had a set (!) of JI
> tuning forks oriented to C=128/256 Hz.
>
> Does anyone here have a resource for such a thing?
>
> I'd just like to get a C, or an A=432 Hz.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete

http://www.usneurologicals.com/tf.html

-monz

You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.

Yahoo! Groups Links

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

>For whatever it's worth (perhaps not much), C=256Hz absolute pitch
>reference is one of Lyndon LaRouche's hot buttons.
>
>Among other things, he claims that it's the natural choice because a
>G in that tuning is exactly a (rather large) whole number of octaves
>above the rotational frequency of the Earth on its axis.

I just read this article about the tsunami...

http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/050208_sumatra_quake.html

...which claims that the fundamental vibrational wavelength of the
planet (as in, earthquake) is 3200 seconds. 20 octaves later, we
arrive at E=327.68, compared to E=329.63 at A440 in 12-tET. But 3200
looks like only 2 significant digits, and the current E=329.63 leads
to a 3,181-second fundamental. So say a prayer every time you play
an E!

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Gary Morrison <mr88cet@a...> wrote:

> For whatever it's worth (perhaps not much), C=256Hz absolute pitch
> reference is one of Lyndon LaRouche's hot buttons.

Never heard of him before. Some kind of obscure politician?

> Among other things, he claims that it's the natural choice because
a G
> in that tuning is exactly a (rather large) whole number of octaves
> above the rotational frequency of the Earth on its axis.

I don't understand why so many people base things on our home
planet. Even the metric system was originally based on the quadrant
of the Earth. This is geocentrism.

In my opinion the most natural (in the real sense of the word)
reference frequency is the Planck frequency which is the reciprocal
of Planck time.

To quote Max Planck's 1899 paper:

...ihre Bedeutung für alle Zeiten und für alle, auch außerirdische
und außermenschliche Kulturen notwendig behalten und welche daher
als »natürliche Maßeinheiten« bezeichnet werden können...

...These necessarily retain their meaning for all times and for all
civilizations, even extraterrestrial and non-human ones, and can
therefore be designated as "natural units"...

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Gary Morrison <mr88cet@a...> wrote:

> For whatever it's worth (perhaps not much), C=256Hz absolute pitch
> reference is one of Lyndon LaRouche's hot buttons.

> Among other things, he claims that it's the natural choice because
a G
> in that tuning is exactly a (rather large) whole number of octaves
> above the rotational frequency of the Earth on its axis.
> As I recall,
> A=440Hz tuning is closer to that (assuming 12TET tuning at least).

Yes, this "day tone" is actually closer to F# in A=440Hz than it is
to G in C=256Hz (still assuming 12-tET).

Meanwhile, the "year tone" is close to C# in C=256Hz, but not close
to anything in A=440Hz (still assuming 12-tET).

The number of octaves involved in the transposition, though, is so
large as to make this whole enterprise "mystical" at best. What
relevance does "octave equivalence" have to frequencies that are
irrelevant for human hearing or even for the physical phenomenon of
sound in general?

So I agree with Gary :)

Hmm . . . Is there a context where this hexadecimal simplicity
actually make a positive difference for the question of electronic
synthesis or sampling of sound? George?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> Another argument in favor of C=256Hz was mentioned by George Secor
in the past months upon our conversation about Spectral Notation and
color-pitch correlation. 256 is a convincing number since it is
hexadecimal (16*16) and adaptable to computers easily.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gary Morrison
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 16 Þubat 2005 Çarþamba 14:29
> Subject: [tuning] C=256Hz
>
>
>
>
> It all sounds like your basic load'o'crap to me, but perhaps it's
worth
> pointing out that if you tout C=256 tuning, you may find a bunch
of
> LaRouchies agreeing with you.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...>
wrote:
> > Another argument in favor of C=256Hz was mentioned by George
Secor
> in the past months upon our conversation about Spectral Notation
and
> color-pitch correlation. 256 is a convincing number since it is
> hexadecimal (16*16) and adaptable to computers easily.
>
> Hmm . . . Is there a context where this hexadecimal simplicity
> actually make a positive difference for the question of electronic
> synthesis or sampling of sound? George?

Hmmm, indeed. I think I know the message Ozan is referring to:
/tuning/topicId_56687.html#56717
but did I say anything like that?

I was also the fellow who, in a desperate effort to get more hours in
a day, recently suggested that we make time measurement more "metric"
by dividing the day by powers of 10, so that the new "metric hour"
would equal 4 centidays, giving 25 hours/day.

As an unintended consequence, the metric second would then be
1/100,000th day, and "metric" audio frequencies would be shifted by
~253 cents, making the new C=256 Hz equivalent to the present
296.296... Hz, presently D-semisharp). One problem I would have with
that, however, is that "C" would no longer sound "green".

Aw shucks, I was really looking forward to having that extra hour! ;-(

--George

Dear George, where have you been all this time? I was hoping that you made significant progress on the other notation project we talked about. I wonder if my suggestions were useful to you...

About that message on pitch standard, I imagined that you brought up the wavelenght of green as an argument in favor of C4=256Hz. I like that, because A4 than becomes 432Hz, a much pleasing softer tone as compared to 440.

As for longer hours, I personally need 36 per day! (hence my obsession for 36-TET)

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: George D. Secor
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 16 Şubat 2005 Çarşamba 21:38
Subject: [tuning] Re: C=256Hz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...>
wrote:
> > Another argument in favor of C=256Hz was mentioned by George
Secor
> in the past months upon our conversation about Spectral Notation
and
> color-pitch correlation. 256 is a convincing number since it is
> hexadecimal (16*16) and adaptable to computers easily.
>
> Hmm . . . Is there a context where this hexadecimal simplicity
> actually make a positive difference for the question of electronic
> synthesis or sampling of sound? George?

Hmmm, indeed. I think I know the message Ozan is referring to:
/tuning/topicId_56687.html#56717
but did I say anything like that?

I was also the fellow who, in a desperate effort to get more hours in
a day, recently suggested that we make time measurement more "metric"
by dividing the day by powers of 10, so that the new "metric hour"
would equal 4 centidays, giving 25 hours/day.

As an unintended consequence, the metric second would then be
1/100,000th day, and "metric" audio frequencies would be shifted by
~253 cents, making the new C=256 Hz equivalent to the present
296.296... Hz, presently D-semisharp). One problem I would have with
that, however, is that "C" would no longer sound "green".

Aw shucks, I was really looking forward to having that extra hour! ;-(

--George

I miss an important additional argument:
256 is born at mitwinter sunwend by a virgin...
> -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: wallyesterpaulrus [mailto:wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Februar 2005 19:54
> An: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: [tuning] Re: C=256Hz
>

>
> Hmm . . . Is there a context where this hexadecimal simplicity
> actually make a positive difference for the question of electronic
> synthesis or sampling of sound? George?

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> Another argument in favor of C=256Hz was mentioned by George Secor
> in the past months upon our conversation about Spectral Notation and
> color-pitch correlation. 256 is a convincing number since it is
> hexadecimal (16*16) and adaptable to computers easily.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Gary Morrison
> > To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: 16 �ubat 2005 �ar�amba 14:29
> > Subject: [tuning] C=256Hz
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > It all sounds like your basic load'o'crap to me, but perhaps it's
worth
> > pointing out that if you tout C=256 tuning, you may find a bunch
of
> > LaRouchies agreeing with you.

I wouldn't give any credence whatsoever to anything that guys says. In any case, I prefer La Monte Young's strategy of using 60Hz as the tuning basis in North America, and 50Hz most elsewhere, because of the hum from the ubiquitous electrical system. (Of course, this is closer to B than C.)

- Dave

Gary Morrison wrote:
> For whatever it's worth (perhaps not much), C=256Hz absolute pitch > reference is one of Lyndon LaRouche's hot buttons.
> > Among other things, he claims that it's the natural choice because a G > in that tuning is exactly a (rather large) whole number of octaves > above the rotational frequency of the Earth on its axis. As I recall, > A=440Hz tuning is closer to that (assuming 12TET tuning at least). His > main claim though is that using a C=256Hz reference puts the register > breaks of "the human voice" in the correct places for bel canto singing > (accented notes/words where each register is strongest). That as if > biology could place register breaks in a human voice to such high > precision across all humans, and as if bel canto singing is the only > style of singing that matters.
> > It all sounds like your basic load'o'crap to me, but perhaps it's worth > pointing out that if you tout C=256 tuning, you may find a bunch of > LaRouchies agreeing with you.

I don't recommend any tuning pitch standard for anyone, actually. I don't think it really matters, and no one has a monopoly on the truth, or good ideas.

Dave Seidel <dave@superluminal.com> wrote:
I wouldn't give any credence whatsoever to anything that guys says.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! � What will yours do?

wow ... i proposed middle-C = 256 Hz back in 1995 ... but
after all these far-fetched arguments, my reasons seem
so mundane!

http://sonic-arts.org:80/monzo/article/article.htm#reference

i proposed there that C = 1 Hz be made the "fundamental" of
a musical tuning system, so that middle-C is simply
8 octaves above that. 2^8 = 256 Hz. it was all just to
keep things simple.

... but, for the record -- i like Werner's argument! ;-)

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Werner Mohrlok" <wmohrlok@h...> wrote:

> I miss an important additional argument:
> 256 is born at mitwinter sunwend by a virgin...
>
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: wallyesterpaulrus [mailto:wallyesterpaulrus@y...]
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Februar 2005 19:54
> > An: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> > Betreff: [tuning] Re: C=256Hz
> >
> > Hmm . . . Is there a context where this hexadecimal
> > simplicity actually make a positive difference for the
> > question of electronic synthesis or sampling of sound?
> > George?
>
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Another argument in favor of C=256Hz was mentioned by
> > > George Secor in the past months upon our conversation
> > > about Spectral Notation and color-pitch correlation. 256
> > > is a convincing number since it is hexadecimal (16*16)
> > > and adaptable to computers easily.
>
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Gary Morrison
> > > > To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: 16 Þubat 2005 Çarþamba 14:29
> > > > Subject: [tuning] C=256Hz
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It all sounds like your basic load'o'crap to me,
> > > > but perhaps it's worth pointing out that if you tout
> > > > C=256 tuning, you may find a bunch of LaRouchies
> > > > agreeing with you.