IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Determine a songs pitch to confirm it's at 432 hz, was: "View information on song"
abbadulla
post Aug 18 2009, 17:56
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 18-August 09
Member No.: 72428



I have changed a songs pitch using soundtouch plugin from 440 hz to 432 hz. Is it possible to determine a songs pitch so that i can confirm it's at 432 hz?
any answer is appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DVDdoug
post Aug 18 2009, 20:05
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 2674
Joined: 24-August 07
From: Silicon Valley
Member No.: 46454



I don't think a computer program can do that... A song doesn't have a single pitch. Each note has a pitch.

A song can be played in (or transposed to) a particular key. I'm not a musician, but to determine the key of a song, I think it takes a musician with a tuned instrument (or someone with perfect pitch). As I understand it, the key is a "musical foundation" or "starting point" for the musical scale choosen for the song. If the artist "follows the rules" (or the tradition) he/she will be constrained to the notes in the choosen scale/key. But, there's really nothing stopping the musician from playing any note at any time (any note that his instrument can play.)

This post has been edited by DVDdoug: Aug 18 2009, 20:12
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Aug 18 2009, 20:16
Post #3





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



The process you described would pitch-shift the audio so that any frequencies of 440 Hz (concert A pitch) became 432 Hz, and so on (880 Hz becomes 864 Hz, etc.). I'd think you'd need to know the song's original key, then use a manual or automatic (I presume there are programs that can do this) method to determine that of the processed file.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carpman
post Aug 18 2009, 20:22
Post #4





Group: Developer
Posts: 1333
Joined: 27-June 07
Member No.: 44789



Try Sonic Visualiser



EDIT: On second thoughts it probably won't help you, but it does have key detection, and maybe if you look through available plugins you may find something useful.

C.

This post has been edited by carpman: Aug 18 2009, 20:25


--------------------
TAK -p4m :: LossyWAV -q 6 | TAK :: Lame 3.98 -V 2
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Aug 18 2009, 20:37
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 2422
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



carpman,

How are you getting key detection with SV (the upper pane of your window)? I downloaded it and don't see it as an obvious menu item. Is it a plugin?

EDIT: never mind, found the Queen Mary VAMP plugin.

This post has been edited by krabapple: Aug 18 2009, 20:45
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
odyssey
post Aug 18 2009, 22:14
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 2296
Joined: 18-May 03
From: Denmark
Member No.: 6695



QUOTE (DVDdoug @ Aug 18 2009, 21:05) *
I don't think a computer program can do that... A song doesn't have a single pitch. Each note has a pitch.

Not true. Platinum Notes is able to find and adjust pitch of a track if it's off key. A pretty neat feature - However the program does so much other crap-mastering that I wouldn't spend a penny on it. However a pitch-corrector DSP for foobar2000 would be very cool indeed.

As far as I know it's based on zplane tonArt. You can download a demo and play with - It might actually do what you want.


--------------------
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
abbadulla
post Aug 19 2009, 07:06
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 18-August 09
Member No.: 72428



i can't figure out how to do it. none of the programs work with aac files.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
odyssey
post Aug 19 2009, 09:54
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 2296
Joined: 18-May 03
From: Denmark
Member No.: 6695



QUOTE (abbadulla @ Aug 18 2009, 18:56) *
I have changed a songs pitch using soundtouch plugin from 440 hz to 432 hz.


QUOTE (abbadulla @ Aug 19 2009, 08:06) *
i can't figure out how to do it. none of the programs work with aac files.


How did you change the pitch? Using iTunes or something like that? I suppose you use a DSP while converting or something like that - In that case, you could try converting to wav and input it in the tonArt demo.


--------------------
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
PaJaRo
post Aug 19 2009, 10:11
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 12-June 08
Member No.: 54275



QUOTE (odyssey @ Aug 18 2009, 23:14) *
However a pitch-corrector DSP for foobar2000 would be very cool indeed.

It seems that already exists http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Au...oundtouch.shtml

QUOTE (odyssey @ Aug 19 2009, 10:54) *
How did you change the pitch? Using iTunes or something like that? I suppose you use a DSP while converting or something like that

don't suppouse, read the OP. He already said he used soundtouch plugin.

This post has been edited by PaJaRo: Aug 19 2009, 10:12
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
odyssey
post Aug 19 2009, 10:15
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 2296
Joined: 18-May 03
From: Denmark
Member No.: 6695



QUOTE (PaJaRo @ Aug 19 2009, 11:11) *
QUOTE (odyssey @ Aug 18 2009, 23:14) *
However a pitch-corrector DSP for foobar2000 would be very cool indeed.

It seems that already exists http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Au...oundtouch.shtml

I was reffering to something more automatic, like Platinum Notes. I already know the SoundTouch plugin.

QUOTE (PaJaRo @ Aug 19 2009, 11:11) *
QUOTE (odyssey @ Aug 19 2009, 10:54) *
How did you change the pitch? Using iTunes or something like that? I suppose you use a DSP while converting or something like that

don't suppouse, read the OP. He already said he used soundtouch plugin.

Yet he ended up with an aac-file, and didn't know how to convert to a wav file that tonArt can read?


--------------------
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
andy o
post Aug 19 2009, 11:09
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 1345
Joined: 14-April 09
Member No.: 68950



Google brings up an interesting first result:
QUOTE
432 Hz is the natural “keynote” in the universe, as opposed to 440 Hz, which is the standard in the music nowadays.

QUOTE
What are the advantages of 432 Hz? 432 Hz is nicer for hearing, is softer and brighter than 440 Hz.

QUOTE
432 Hz also prevents hearing damage. You probably know when you hear very loud music, for instance in discos, it can hurt to your ears. With 432 Hz, you have no pain in your ears, at a very loud volume.

QUOTE
432 Hz is more favourable for the chakras too, which has a good influence at the spiritual development of the music-lover.


So, why did you pitch-shift your music to 432 Hz? laugh.gif

There's also this on youtube. It doesn't seem like much of a change, but if you got a good ear and an instrument, you can tune it based on that, and then compare with the song, I guess. It seems easier to me.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
odyssey
post Aug 19 2009, 11:36
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 2296
Joined: 18-May 03
From: Denmark
Member No.: 6695



That would be another good reason to have a better DSP for foobar2000 wink.gif

I dislike the quality of Soundtouch as it attempts to keep the speed by timestretching. The proper way to do it would be to alter the samplerate accordingly and applying a good resampler in the DSP chain after it. Could even be user-definable, as long as the resampler supports arbitrary samplerates.

Also note that while most music are tuned to that frequency, some might not be pitched correctly for various reasons. Hence my request above, for a pitch-correcting (or detecting) component.


--------------------
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CoRoNe
post Oct 10 2011, 20:05
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 186
Joined: 31-May 05
From: Netherlands
Member No.: 22417



At the moment I've successfully done 432Hz conversions in 3 different ways:

- Audacity:
However, the instructions here aren't accurate, because it's 432Hz what you want and not 432.186Hz.

The only thing you have to do is enter 440 and 432 in the two "Frequency (Hz)" boxes.
Now there's a glitch with Audacity when trying to enter 440 in the left box. You simply can't somehow. There's a workaround though. Press Windows-button+R and type "440". Select it, copy it (ctrl+c) and paste it in the left "Frequency (Hz)" box. Then enter 432 in the right box and after that it should exactly look like the screenshot above.

- Foobar + foo_dsp_soundtouch or foo_dsp_effect's "Pitch Shift":
Simply move the Pitch slider to -0.32 semitones and you're done.

- Avisynth + TimeStretch() (internal Avisynth filter) + NicAudio (optional, for AC3,DTS,MP3,WAV) + BassAudio (optional, for MP3/MP2/MP1/OGG/WAV/AIFF/WMA/FLAC/WavPack/Speex/Musepack/AAC/M4A/APE/MO3/IT/XM/S3M/MTM/MOD/UMX) + foo_input_avs (optional, to play in Foobar):
Create a text document and copy-paste...
CODE
WavSource("Sample.wav") or NicMPG123Source("Sample.mp3") or BassAudioSource("Sample.ogg")
TimeStretch(pitch=432.0/440.0*100.0)
Then you can open it with Media Player Classic (DirectShow), play it in Foobar with the before mentioned input plugin, or even feed it to BeHappy.
note 1. The fastest way to get all the needed Avisynth plugins is to install BeHappy and copy the whole plugins directory (which also happens to include NicAudio) to your Avisynth plugins directory.
note 2. I couldn't open lossless audio files (FLAC,WV,APE,...) with BassAudioSource() in combination with foo_input_avs in Foobar at this time.
note 3(!). foo_input_avs always seems to output a 24bit audio stream despite the input being 16bit, but that's another story
note 4. I noticed doing 440-432 conversions through Avisynth has the advantage of putting out the exact amount of samples as the input. For instance, the sample I use a lot has 14109060 samples. Audacity produced 14109072 samples, Foobar (with Pitch Shift) 14105970(!), Foobar (with SoundTouch) again 14109072, but Avisynth the same 14109060.

Interesting links:
- The Importance of A=432hz as a concert pitch for music
- The Return to Concert Pitch A=432hz
- Maya 2012 Forum - 440hz to 432hz using Audacity :-)


--------------------
DC-Bass Source Mod: http://reino.degeelebosch.nl
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dhromed
post Oct 11 2011, 09:00
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 1335
Joined: 16-February 08
From: NL
Member No.: 51347



QUOTE (CoRoNe @ Oct 10 2011, 21:05) *


I don't think these links adequately support the notion that a base of 432Hz is beneficial over 440Hz. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Oct 11 2011, 10:27
Post #15





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



QUOTE (CoRoNe @ Oct 10 2011, 20:05) *

Lol what
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Northpack
post Oct 11 2011, 10:46
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 455
Joined: 16-December 01
Member No.: 664



QUOTE (andy o @ Aug 19 2009, 11:09) *
QUOTE
432 Hz is more favourable for the chakras too, which has a good influence at the spiritual development of the music-lover.

So, why did you pitch-shift your music to 432 Hz? laugh.gif


So you laugh about it, but let me show you how serious this really is:

Did you know that - contrary to what the church and wordly authorities want us to believe - all corruption and all evil came into the world when mankind apostatized from the divine truth by changing standard pitch from the divine 432Hz to 440Hz which is in fact the pitch of the devil?

You don't believe me? Here is the unnerving proof:

If you take the 440Hz of A4 (alpha) and count all the 24 letters/2 octaves of the greek alphabet up to omega (representing the whole of the creation) you end with A6 which is 1760Hz

Substract 440Hz from 1760Hz. You get 1320Hz. Add the digits of that number: 1+3+2+0 = 6.

Now it gets frightening: did you notice that 1320 is in fact 3 times 440Hz?

3 times 440 yields the cross sum of 6. That's 3 times 6. The number of the beast.

May the Lord have mercy upon us!

This post has been edited by Northpack: Oct 11 2011, 11:42
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rotareneg
post Oct 11 2011, 16:24
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 194
Joined: 18-March 05
From: Non-Euclidean
Member No.: 20701



Don't fall for the misinformation, 432 * 1.5416̅ = 666! Use π * 140, it's much safer!

Also, those 432 Hz sites look a lot like something you'd expect to read on Time Cube.

This post has been edited by Rotareneg: Oct 11 2011, 16:32
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Northpack
post Oct 11 2011, 17:11
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 455
Joined: 16-December 01
Member No.: 664



QUOTE (Rotareneg @ Oct 11 2011, 15:24) *
Don't fall for the misinformation, 432 * 1.5416̅ = 666! Use π * 140, it's much safer!

It seems to me that his mind is currupted by listening to 440Hz music for too long. Poor fellow! See what happens! Everybody is complaining about the loudness war but that's just a skirmish compared to the pitch war, which is nothing less than the apocalyptic battle between Good end Evil.

Did you know that the concert pitch did rise and rise throughout the last centuries? The higher the pitch the more direful the wars and disasters all over the world. Did you know that the pitch of 440Hz was finally standardized in 1939 by the German Nazi government?

It's time for a new online campaign to save the world: Tune it down!

This post has been edited by Northpack: Oct 11 2011, 17:29
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
andy o
post Oct 11 2011, 17:32
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 1345
Joined: 14-April 09
Member No.: 68950



Sorry but I don't trust anyone who believes in math.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CoRoNe
post Oct 11 2011, 22:38
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 186
Joined: 31-May 05
From: Netherlands
Member No.: 22417



QUOTE (CoRoNe @ Oct 10 2011, 21:05) *
note 1. The fastest way to get all the needed Avisynth plugins is to install BeHappy and copy the whole plugins directory (which also happens to include NicAudio) to your Avisynth plugins directory.
note 2. I couldn't open lossless audio files (FLAC,WV,APE,...) with BassAudioSource() in combination with foo_input_avs in Foobar at this time.
I've done some more testing with BassAudioSource() in combination with foo_input_avs and I'd like to revise my quoted statements. It seems foo_input_avs has some more shortcomings...

- When you've copied BeHappy's entire plugins directory (BassAudio.dll, bass.dll and bass_xxx.dll) to your Avisynth's plugins directory, foo_input_avs (and Foobar) will crash immediately upon playing anything through Avisynth! It will also even crash when trying to play an audio file with WavSource() or NicAc3Source() through Avisynth. Simply the presence of BassAudio.dll and bass.dll in Avisynth's plugins directory will crash Foobar upon playing anything through Avisynth. It seems foo_input_avs doesn't like non-Avisynth libraries (bass.dll and bass_xxx.dll) in Avisynth's plugins directory.

- foo_input_avs having its way, we can of course load BassAudio.dll from elsewhere: Loadplugin("X:\BeHappy 0.2.5.30809\plugins\BassAudio.dll"). This will let BassAudio.dll load bass.dll (WAV/AIFF/MP3/MP2/MP1/OGG)1 but somehow NONE of the other bass_xxx.dlls (AAC/M4A/WMA/FLAC/WV/APE/etc)! Dragging an avs-file with BassAudioSource("Sample.flac") into Foobar won't even load.
1 bass.dll also supports Tracker Audio (MOD/IT/XM/etc), but not through Avisynth. I guess Avisynth is limited to sample audio.

All of this happens because of foo_input_avs. Converting an audio file through Avisynth (no matter the ...Source()) with BeHappy works just fine. Playing the avs-file with Media Player Classic works fine too.

So to sum up...
If you want to convert audio files through Avisynth with Foobar, DON'T copy the content of BeHappy's plugins directory to Avisynth's plugin directory! Use Loadplugin("X:\BeHappy 0.2.5.30809\plugins\BassAudio.dll") instead. But even then, you have to settle for WAV/AIFF/MP3/MP2/MP1/OGG support only as far as BassAudio is concerned. Want to convert from FLAC for instance through Avisynth, use BeHappy.

QUOTE (dhromed @ Oct 11 2011, 10:00) *
I don't think these links adequately support the notion that a base of 432Hz is beneficial over 440Hz. smile.gif
In my post I never made that assumption anyway. People should experience it for them selves and make up their own mind about it.
Especially for our Dutch readers: Niburu - The Forgotten Frequency: 432 Hz
I even found a website with an English translation of that article: Niburu - The Forgotten Frequency: 432 Hz


--------------------
DC-Bass Source Mod: http://reino.degeelebosch.nl
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MichaelW
post Oct 12 2011, 03:32
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 631
Joined: 15-March 07
Member No.: 41501



A=432 Hz is not even historically privileged. See for instance http://pbosf.blogspot.com/2009/07/tune-in-...d-title-of.html and http://pbosf.blogspot.com/2010/01/story-of...que-pitch.html; in the Baroque era, A ranged from the 380s to the 460s (in Venice, always over the top, but perhaps striving upwards to keep afloat).

One need not, of course, engage with the odd idea that the arbitrarily chosen tuning pitch has cosmic resonances.

This post has been edited by MichaelW: Oct 12 2011, 03:32
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Northpack
post Oct 12 2011, 07:30
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 455
Joined: 16-December 01
Member No.: 664



http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1054/200/Ni...cy:_432_Hz.html
QUOTE
Optimal number of holes to a golf ball as aerodynamic as possible = 432

Now that convinced me!

Apart from all the esoteric speculations which completely ignore the arbitrariness of our basic physical units, the question remains if a lower pitch of 432Hz could actually sound more pleasing. I found an empirical study by the TU Munich (in German) for which the authors used an automated Steinway to record six pieces (which are thought to had originally been played in a lower pitch) in 440Hz and down tuned in 432Hz. Those pieced were then played to 13 test subjects via headphones which had to evaluate the quality on a scale. The overall result is a statistical tie (see fig. 1), even for most individuals there was no clear preference.

This post has been edited by Northpack: Oct 12 2011, 08:20
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MichaelW
post Oct 12 2011, 10:27
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 631
Joined: 15-March 07
Member No.: 41501



Though there is a reason why the pitch of A crept upwards (and singers had to keep protesting to bring it back down again)--people seem to have thought it "sounded better." Apparently, more tightly stretched strings will put more energy into the harmonics, so they might actually sound brighter if tuned to a higher pitch. Consider it as the 19th c. loudness wars.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Northpack
post Oct 12 2011, 11:56
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 455
Joined: 16-December 01
Member No.: 664



QUOTE (MichaelW @ Oct 12 2011, 10:27) *
Though there is a reason why the pitch of A crept upwards (and singers had to keep protesting to bring it back down again)--people seem to have thought it "sounded better." Apparently, more tightly stretched strings will put more energy into the harmonics, so they might actually sound brighter if tuned to a higher pitch. Consider it as the 19th c. loudness wars.

There's a pretty narrow optimum however, where an instrument is perfectly balanced between sonorous and bright sound qualities. Of course sound aesthetics (and thus instruments!) change over time but I'm sure that even this change this is bound to a certain range confined by anthropological universals. I've experiented with alternate tunings on my guitar but if you tune the strings of a concert guitar more than two semitones above standard tuning the instrument begins to sound thin and harsh because the added tension inhibits too many lower resonances.

The particular question investigated by the authors of the study is whether a Steinberg piano which was originally designed to be tuned around A-432Hz sounds better at this tuning than on the higher tuning used today. The conclusion is that a pitch change of +8Hz seems to be insignificant for the instrument's perceived quality. It would be interesting to know however, if the authors applied any kind of loudness normalization to the recordings.

This post has been edited by Northpack: Oct 12 2011, 12:02
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dhromed
post Oct 12 2011, 12:49
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 1335
Joined: 16-February 08
From: NL
Member No.: 51347



QUOTE (Northpack @ Oct 12 2011, 12:56) *
sonorous and bright sound qualities


Do these terms have (common) definitions? Just asking.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd November 2014 - 09:58