Tuning , it’s about time

Thatbastarddon said:
Peterson strobo tuner line will do it. My TC clip won’t, but Peterson’s will.
Click to expand...
That's probably the tuner I'm thinking of. I had a Peterson Strobe tuner for a while, but I hated it with all the swirling lights. I might have to try one of the newer ones, I don't think they're like that anymore.
 
DirtySteve said:
That's probably the tuner I'm thinking of. I had a Peterson Strobe tuner for a while, but I hated it with all the swirling lights. I might have to try one of the newer ones, I don't think they're like that anymore.
Click to expand...
I have one of the newer ones…the full sized pedal, and not the mini one. I was gonna pick up the new mini one for the small fuzz-board, but power and space are limited. I may break down and get the clip, for kicks…but I do like my polytune clip.
 
Thatbastarddon said:
I have one of the newer ones…the full sized pedal, and not the mini one. I was gonna pick up the new mini one for the small fuzz-board, but power and space are limited. I may break down and get the clip, for kicks…but I do like my polytune clip.
Click to expand...
I've never liked clip-ons. I don't really know why, it's just a mental thing. There's nothing wrong with them, I just like my tuner on the floor and I like one that does the mute thing when engaged so I can turn it on to silently swap guitars. I do that a lot.
 
“The Pro Tuner” Guitar Tuner App is in the Play store on your phone. I have it but have not used it other than standard tuning.
It is capable of this. The Hz is adjustable.
 
DirtySteve said:
I like one that does the mute thing when engaged so I can turn it on to silently swap guitars. I do that a lot.
Click to expand...
I have a cable(or three) for that swapping out thing, but yeah….for live play, there’s a lot to like in the pedal format. The TC PolyTune clip will do the quick scan thing for all 6 strings though…that’s huge when you need to figure “what” exactly is out of tune quickly. Then it auto-drops to single string mode for fine tuning. Plus, the design is pretty low-profile.
 
Last edited:
DirtySteve said:
I've never liked clip-ons. I don't really know why, it's just a mental thing. There's nothing wrong with them, I just like my tuner on the floor and I like one that does the mute thing when engaged so I can turn it on to silently swap guitars. I do that a lot.
Click to expand...
I don’t clip things on my headstock. Tuners. Capo. Nada. A little to OCD (aka too anal) to do that. Plus. I too like to be able to mute while tuning. I have a TU3 on my pedal board.
 
Thatbastarddon said:
I have a cable(or three) for that swapping out thing, but yeah….for live play, there’s a lot to like in the pedal format. The TC PolyTune clip will do the quick scan thing for all 6 strings though…that’s huge when you need to figure “what” exactly is out of tune quickly. Then the it auto-drops to single string mode for fine tuning. Plus, the design is pretty low-profile.
Click to expand...

I don't play live, I just sit in front of my amp switching guitars every so often to switch tuning or pickup types or whatever reason, just goofing around. It's really sad. :rolf2::rolf2::rolf2:
 
A440 is arbitrary. But it’s also a standard.
There’s no law against putting hot dogs on rye bread and calling it a hot dog.
There’s no rule keeping you from making your own railroad tracks a few inches wider than standard gauge.

I had a friend in high school who was a self taught musician with a very good ear. Good writer. And he developed his own notation using the Greek alphabet. Used to frustrate him that local bass and keys players weren’t sophisticated enough to understand his self made musical notation or his self made tunings.

Bottom line is it all began arbitrary. But now it’s not. A440 Hz is what you do because it’s the standard and you want to show you’re prepared and trained. A432 Hz is something you do to other people you play with.
 
Strobostomp can tune to 432. I generally don't, because my project occasionally plays with outside musicians.
Nonstandard pitch is especially difficult with pianists.

But most of the times I've been bandleader, we would tune to 432.
It's always just felt better to me. And I'm not alone in that.
 
eclecticsynergy said:
Strobostomp can tune to 432. I generally don't, because my project occasionally plays with outside musicians.
Nonstandard pitch is especially difficult with pianists.

But most of the times I've been bandleader, we would tune to 432.
It's always just felt better to me. And I'm not alone in that.
Click to expand...
That is good to hear. I don’t think everyone will try it but I will just to check it out.
For me, (bedroom player) there is not much worry about playing with other players.
If I did, I would have enough guitars to have one tuned to 432Hz for a song before changing back to a guitar in 440Hz.
No piano in my music, however keyboards are great writing tools. I don’t use the keys much.
 
DirtySteve said:
I'd rather have a clip-on than use my phone or a computer. :nuts: I'm a dinosaur and I like it that way. :grin:
Click to expand...
Here is article I was looking at about the TU-2 vs TU - 3 . It looks like like it tunes down to 440 Hz - 438Hz. That is with out doing much. The tuning range is huge.
merelymusic.com

Boss TU-2 vs Boss TU-3-Which One is The Winner and Why

Expert Guitarist Provides an In-depth Review of Boss TU-2 vs Boss TU-3 and Explains Which One is The Winner and Why. Read Now!
merelymusic.com
 
I typed in frequency of middle “C” I will quote from a paragraph in this article quote:
“In general, the frequency of middle C is between 256 Hz and 280 Hz.” In general?
Numbers are not supposed to be in general, a guess is in general. lmao
It looks like 264.2 Hz may be the answer for middle “C”

If all of this is not enough to make your head explode try this page

@iblive

Frequency of Middle C - The Physics Factbook

hypertextbook.com hypertextbook.com
 
Last edited:
Observing the transcript the video seems to be focusing on the numbers and comes back to the 432 stuff. The problem with this kind of numerology is that it's based on the fairly arbitrary units we happen to use today. 1Hz is one cycle per second, but what is a second? Our notation and calculation of time is really a very sketchy system. Leap years, leap seconds, months of different lengths, etc - it's a mess, from a technical point of view. Anyhow, the quasi-duodecimal measurement of time in hours, minutes and seconds is not based on anything 'fundamental'.
I was recently informed that somehow the size of the great pyramid of Gizeh resulted in pi. Sounds great, but the builders didn't anticipate either the imperial foot or the metric meter.

Now, I'm not aware of the existence of a single study confirming that the King's Chamber inside the Great Pyramid has a resonant frequency of 432Hz, which is claimed in the video, but even if there were such evidence - there would have to be harmonics nearly as prevalent as the fundamental frequency, I'd expect.

I do, FWIW, concur that the pyramids were not designed or intended as graves, and it strikes me they clearly had a purpose besides just looking impressive. I've read various publications which offer some compelling suggestions, yet they're unable to answer some fundamental questions. Until now we're lacking a concise, coherent model of their purpose. Equally the construction remains somewhat problematic though various hypotheses seem possible.
 
PelliX said:
Observing the transcript the video seems to be focusing on the numbers and comes back to the 432 stuff. The problem with this kind of numerology is that it's based on the fairly arbitrary units we happen to use today. 1Hz is one cycle per second, but what is a second? Our notation and calculation of time is really a very sketchy system. Leap years, leap seconds, months of different lengths, etc - it's a mess, from a technical point of view. Anyhow, the quasi-duodecimal measurement of time in hours, minutes and seconds is not based on anything 'fundamental'.
I was recently informed that somehow the size of the great pyramid of Gizeh resulted in pi. Sounds great, but the builders didn't anticipate either the imperial foot or the metric meter.

Now, I'm not aware of the existence of a single study confirming that the King's Chamber inside the Great Pyramid has a resonant frequency of 432Hz, which is claimed in the video, but even if there were such evidence - there would have to be harmonics nearly as prevalent as the fundamental frequency, I'd expect.

I do, FWIW, concur that the pyramids were not designed or intended as graves, and it strikes me they clearly had a purpose besides just looking impressive. I've read various publications which offer some compelling suggestions, yet they're unable to answer some fundamental questions. Until now we're lacking a concise, coherent model of their purpose. Equally the construction remains somewhat problematic though various hypotheses seem possible.
Click to expand...
I have a problem with described archeological theory of the way the stones were quarried and assembled.
The accuracy is phenomenal even with today's technology. I don't buy one word .
 
ibmorjamn said:
I have a problem with described archeological theory of the way the stones were quarried and assembled.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean. Let's face it, they didn't spend hundreds of years with thousands of slaves pulling the bricks up there as we probably saw in the textbooks as children. Given the structural and architectural calculations required, whoever built them had a decent understanding of physics, geometry, etc. Now, it strikes me that any civilization advanced enough to do those sort of maths and actually pull it off probably had some tools exceeding what bronze age man had. There certainly was quarying, but the accuracy with which some stones were shaped leads me to believe they had the means to melt or soften the material. There are some hypotheses out there about more or less 'pouring' the stones though it requires an immense amount of heat/energy of course, or some other method of making the material malleable. I do consider this possible for some of the granite, though.
I think that we're missing or overlooking some fundamental method, honestly. There are a lot of places around the world where we've found ancient buildings and structures that defy our current understanding of their capabilities. The notion of building pyramids that actually stand thousands of years later with precise geometry doesn't go hand in hand with primitive people using hammers to crack rocks out the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top