Kara-Moon Forum

Attached is a 15 second Ogg Vorbis file of a generated sine wave. I'd like to comfirm the frequency with  as many independent testers as possible. There is some concern that frequency  generators available on the web are inaccurate, and I'd like to get this right before proceeding with a new project.
Could you also please tell me what software/equipment you used to measure the frequency/pitch?
Thanks in advance for your help,
Oren.

500hz?
This is actually the first time ive done something like this, I used the frequency analyzer in Audacity.

Hmmm, a very quick and dirty manual count of 50 peaks gives 527Hz which is very close to C (523.2511). However the accuracy of all of this is moot, as the actual rate will depend on the accuracy of your computer's internal clock :o

{edit}
I'll see if I can borrow a frequency meter from work and see how much difference there is in real time when this is played on different computers.

Alienz, Will,

Thanks for getting back so quickly! 8)
 I'll hold back on revealing the actual frequency the software tried to generate in case I get more responses - I don't want to influence the test results.
Oren.

This is using ReaTune in Reaper.

 ;)
James

I'll try to use a tuner too later today

Using the pitch change option in Audacity I get 531.325 Hz as the initial pitch.

Mario,
Audacity reads it as 531.325 Hz - thanks!

James,
Reaper measures 527.97 Hz - thankyou, too!

I'll  confide in you now that the sine wave was created by Audacity at 528 Hz.
Several sources on the web offer a sample of this frequency, and I've noticed that some of the samples are audibly different in pitch than others. The purpose of this little exercise is to determine if Audacity can create an accurately pitched sine wave.

Will's information leads me to believe that this is somewhat dependent on the computer in which Audacity is installed.

Oren.

Same here Audacity pitch change : 531.325
Tuner says C +15
The plot spectrum option in Audacity seems to indicate more around 538 though  ???

Now I remember why I never get into this kinda stuff... :D


I'm on an Intell Q6600 win XP

Audition clocks this @ 531.09

8)

Wyatt

Hmmm. The actual synthesis of a sinewave in software should be far, far better than sampling an incoming signal in real time. A sine curve is a totally understood bit of mathematics, as is turning it into am amplitude/time graph. Once you have done that, you have to all practical purposes done the synthesis.

To get such divergent results is quite frankly deeply disturbing. Tomorrow I will check out the actual result with the frequency meter and about a dozen completely different computers!

Wyatt,
Thanks for checking in with your Adobe software! Audition measures it at 531.09 Hz.

Will,
My grasp of mathematics and physics is quite pathetic, but generating an accurately pitched 528Hz sine wave did not, initially, seem like much of a chore - until I heard the divergent results from different sources... ::)

Thanks again, gentlemen  :-*

Calling in at work (naughty me :o)

Freqency tests on 7 machines Min. was 527.2 Max was 528 (this was on the eeepc)

Same here 531,325 in Audacity 1.3, same result on win and linux machine

k

This is really weird. All the software interpreters seem to get it miles out, including (if I understand Oren correctly) the very software that created the file :o

Actual measured playback results (by yours truly) seem to be far closer, but with a surprising amount of variation.

Thinking more about this I wonder if the playback variation is due to the processor clocks, or is it due to a reference clock on the sound card itself.

Hmmm.
Just had another thought. All the computers at work have on-board sound. I wonder if they skimp on quality by using the main system clock instead of a dedicated sound one. I will see if I can 'borrow' the meter and bring it home, and see what results I get from my DAW (M-Audio 2496 sound card).

As an extra comment, the works meter quotes an accuracy of 0.01% +/- 1 least significant digit. It is quite a few years old now so I wouldn't actually be confident in it to more than 0.1%

Doesn't look like that from my side.
I have the same result on my win laptop with a centrino processor and internal realteck soundcard and on my AMD linux machine with an external firewire M-audio sound interface ?

k

Rony, the difference is you were working entirely inside software, so 'real' signals were never created and processor/soundcard don't matter. I was measuring the physical output that would be sent to an amplifier etc.

In theory, your result should have been absolutely accurate. In fact mine was much better :o although with a worrying degree of variation.

So far, the only person with reasonably accurate software results is James with Reaper.

What is puzzling me is that Audacity gets it wrong, and yet it was Audacity that created the signal!!!

Tried it here with Audacity and get the same (wrong) result as everyone else :(

I don't know how much real interest there is in this, but if enough people are interested I could also 'borrow' the works sinewave generator, and use my DAW to record accurate real signals, then see what difference we get with those in both hardware and software.

For what it's worth,...

My interest in the sound technology that may have been employed by the Celtic cultures of Europe is what sparked this bit of research.  

Some sources suggest that as long as 6,000 years ago Celtic stone workers were using sound to cut and move very large blocks of stone. A 5,000 year old grave was found next to a pyramid in China, containing the remains of several tall fair-haired people wearing a primitive tartan weave. The builders, perhaps?

While looking for traces of the frequencies that these artisans may have used in their work, I came across six frequencies that date from before medieval times that made up a musical "scale" employed most recently by the early Christian monks to compose Gregorian chants. The church has since deleted these 125 chants from their reperatoire, leaving only the chants composed with our current 12 semi-tone scale.

528 Hz (one of the six) is most often referred to as having some strange positive effect on physiology and psychology, so I thought I'd compose some music based on that frequency. How critical the accuracy of the notes is, is a matter of conjecture....
It is likely that the old-timers were only able to approximate 528 Hz, so a tone generated within 527 to 529 hertz would suffice, for all practical purposes. Tuning my guitar and bass to octaves of the frequency is going to produce further variation. Using a BPM of 33 or 66 will perhaps provide some accurate re-inforcement of the 528 Hz theme.

Comments?

Why does 33 or 66 bpm reinforce the 528 hz?

8)

Wyatt

Er,
Probably just a mistake from your buddy, the mathematical moron...

Question: if you wanted to choose a BPM between 30 and 200 that would effectively be an "octave" of 528 Hz, what would it be?

I know hertz(cycles per second) is a different measurement than beats per minute, but they both represent a frequency, and therefore should be comparable.... I think.... ??? ;D :-*

I ran across a similar puzzle the other day on 2 different therapeutic electrical  devices..one has a selection of .03 hz, 8 hz, and 80 hz..while the other one has a variable selection of "rate" from 2 to 200, but no clue as to 2 to 200 'what'. If it is hz, then would 2 hz = 120 bpm??  or would this be like trying to compare apples and bicycles??

I do notice something in the 'trust-your-ears' category, though..

..there is always a certain tempo, or narrow range of tempo, within which a song feels the most right. Very often that narrow range seems awfully narrow.

It would be interesting to see what that sort of gut-check tempo might turn out to be.

Life's a workaround,

8)

Wyatt

Gut-check... that's beautiful! :D 

Anybody have a clue as to how to equate hertz with beats-per-minute so a musician could calculate a BPM that would be a low octave of 528 Hz? 
Does 1 Hz equal 60bpm. Therefore 33 Hz = 1980bpm?
 Therefore 2.0625Hz = 123.75bpm and would be a low octave of 528 Hz?
 As would 1.03125Hz and 61.875bpm...?                ..........woh, my brain is getting scrambled..................... ::)

..lots of maths.  :(

ω = 2πf and f = \omega/(2\pi) \,.

..lot of hmmm....

dont know if this has anything to do with it but the number 66 rang a bell with me.
Heartbeat at utmost relaxation is around 66 or 67 bmp
The 'ideal' bpm to dance to , that is to say which tempo humans on average can dance the longest to continously seems to be around 132 (which is 2x 66?  :o )

Nevermind, carry on... ;)

Yes, there are a lot significant frequencies in psychology and physiology, each with their own potential application. Fascinating for a musician, who is working with "events over time".

My focus at this time is to try and implement the frequencies from this ancient "scale" in some sort of useful arrangement, so perhaps we can eventually re-learn to use music not only as a form of entertainment and pleasant sound, but also as a tool to fundamentally improve the health of mind and body.
If I sound like a bit of a nutcase right now, cut me some slack - I'm a guitar player - it's mandatory.... O0

No worries, mate..you're an official guitar player, and that cuts you
one whole lotta slack..

Like Billy Bass says:

"Don't worry. Be happy"

ok..ok..yeah, I *do* remember Meher Baba and Bobby McFerrin, but
Billy was so much more....tangible.  ;D

8)

Wyatt

Me again (I really must stop this calling in from work)
When I was young and {cough} handsome {cough} Hz used to be called cycles per second... rather gives the game away :)

I was very interested in the psychology/music combination years ago (believe it or not, I actually have a university degree in clinical psychology  :o ), read almost anything I could find on the subject. In the end it all overwhelmed me a bit and I stopped reading about it. I did also find several 'classification-lists' then of what frequencies can have effects on humans but a lot of those lists seem to contadict eachother or lack any scientific basis.
I suspect that there are some 'universal' frequencies that have effect on most humans but also that different people respond differently to certain freqs. Most fysiological processes in the human body all have some kind of rhythm and the body consist also partly of water which also reacts/vibrates too sound.

Still a intersting way too approach making music though, like you said, never hurt to experiment with it as I have done myself sometimes. I also wanted to do something with old scales years ago, never got around to doing it. The scale I found was also an pre-christian one, based on of of those  (bronze age?) very large horns.

That closes it, then. Just a matter of simple math to find lower "octaves" of a cycles-per-second frequency in beats-per-minute. Using that BPM to reinforce the central frequency in a composition sounds like a viable strategy. 8)

Will,
Had you thought of getting that cough attended to....?.... ;D

Can't wait to hear what you do with this!

8)

Wyatt

Alienz,
I'd like to find that information on the frequencies of the large pre-christian horns!

 With the advent of personal computers, quality soundcards, and sound synthesis software, for the first time in recorded human history people of ordinary means can work with sound and examine its properties. This, to me, is a tremendous opportunity.

If we can use sound as a tool to clean teeth and examine the body's interior, it follows that much more is possible.
 As musicians with computers, we may be in an ideal position to engage in some ground-breaking research... :;

Here's a snippet, composed at entirely the "wrong" BPM, and without any guitar tracks. The thematic 528Hz sine wave has been left in so you can hear how the music works around it....

..my gut likes the tempo..very nice piece of work here, Oren..very impressive.

 :- :- :- :- :-

8)

Wyatt

I'm very curious in what direction this will go

k

Interesting, you don't actually hear it unless you are listening for it.

I too will be watching to see where this goes.

Wyatt, Kara, Will,

To be true to the direction of the project, I'll have to start again at a BPM that is a low "octave" of 528 Hz, say...61.875bpm, and work with the idea that my 528Hz generated tone is accurate enough for practical purposes.

The other five significant frequencies are: 396 Hz, 417 Hz, 639 Hz, 741 Hz, and 852 Hz.

 8)
This is very curious ......
my first instinct, on listening, was to pick up a whistle and join in.
It's the 'celtic' bagpipe drone of the selected frequency.
Maybe this is what you are trying to achieve.
In using that background single note you are emulating the drone of so many ancient instruments.
Is that the attraction?
Is that what gives the 'ancient' feel?

On a different note (pun intended  ;D), when trying to play along to this with a 'C' whistle the scale does not work but with a 'Bb' whistle it is playable.  I'm not one for music theory so the song structure is not based around the standard 8 note scale ?

Another interested party looking forward to the development.
 ;)
James

James,

The ancient six-note scale is difficult to translate to the guitar and the electric bass, which are fretted to accommodate a standard 7-note 12-semitone scale. I've taken the liberty to simply re-tune the instruments so that all the C notes play at 528Hz, or an octave of that. That way, harmonies and chord structure can be organized in the usual way (as if constructing the song from a C chord), but the composition ends up centering around the 528 Hz theme.

It's interesting that the Bb whistle will allow you to play along with the 528 Hz theme... I wish I knew more about mathematics, physics, and music theory - there must be a reason for this integration.

The Celtic pipes and whistles are two of the instruments which I strongly suspect were tools of the ancient artisans. Just a feeling, though.

Thanks for testing the song against your formidable collection.... ;D

Its a very long time ago, I'll try if I can dig some stuff up. Even had trouble remembering what kind of horn it was but I did find it eventually on google:
http://oldtiden.natmus.dk/udstillingen/bronzealderen/lurerne_fra_bronzealderen/lurerne_og_deres_musik/language/uk/

They dont say which notes can be played on it on that site :(

The lists of frequencies was something else btw, not refering to the horn, just different lists from different sources about what frequencies might have effects. But like I said, the fact that a lot of these lists seem to contradict eachother or give different frequencies for different effects makes it difficult to make any sense of it. Its amazing how little official science really knows about this subject.

It is, indeed.
Those horns are outrageous!!!!

Here's a beauty, too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3dthaDuZ-o&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRchB-s7Cu0&NR=1
James,
By ear, this sounds very close to a low octave of 528 Hz...
Can you test that main frequency with Reaper?
__________________________________________________________________________________

And here is an example of something crafted in wood....!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlO5lQUjdhI&feature=related

Same here.

Interesting thread.  But with all of the “TechnoBabble” talk around here my ears are starting to Hz  ;D ;D ;D >:D

 ???
Don't know how to get music files off youtube.
If you know how, and can do it and post as mp3 or ogg then I can.
 ;)
James

Yes, that's what put me off the project for so long. But after learning Linux, endeavors such as this seem more accessible... :D

We're in the same boat, friend. I thought maybe Reaper had a quick method of recording "what you hear" from the web.
Thanks for trying.

If any of your whistles or pipes are tuneable, I'll get in touch with you about laying down some melodies on a 528 Hz composition down the road.... :)

This is what Sound Forge is telling me:
                                                    
Cursor position (Time)           00:00:00,000       
Sample value at cursor (dB)      -74,746             
Minimum sample position (Time)   00:00:06,904       
Minimum sample value (dB)        -4,314             
Maximum sample position (Time)   00:00:02,305       
Maximum sample value (dB)        -4,314             
RMS level (dB)                   -7,362             
Average value (dB)               -Inf.               
Zero crossings (Hz)              528,00             

528 Hz !

Thanks, man... but does this mean I have to fire up my Windows computer? Maybe there's something equivalent in Linux....

James,
Can you use this?

Thanks for checking! So, SoundForge measures the sine wave sample generated by Audacity at 528 Hz. Good to know  :-
 Reaper and Sound Forge indicate that the frequency is reasonably accurate, and I feel confident using it as the frequency around which I can build my song.

Hey,
I tried Wyatt's Streamosaur and got a terrible recording  ::)
but did manage to boost things and get a general reading.
It varied mostly between C1 and C#1, with the majority on the C#1.

Hope this helps.

As for the 'tunable' whistle.
I have one or two that are tunable, but that only makes a very small distinction to be able to slightly retune to other instruments if, for example, the temperature puts things out of pitch.
When the time comes let me know and I will see what I can do.  :-X

 ;)
James

James,
Thanks for the measurement!
69.52 Hz puts it somewhat close to 66 Hz, a low octave of 528 Hz, but not close enough to conclude that the horn is tuned specifically to conform to one of the ancient scales. It's "in the ball park", though... ;)

We'll give one of those whistles a go at our first opportunity - I love the sound!

..sorries.. :P :P :P :P :P

I forgot about your linux.

I'm sticking with XP until they start calling it a vintage OS.    ;D :D ;)

8)

Wyatt

Here is "Ardour" at work.
The project was originally called "Sweet Beat". As you can see I am using Ardour as a tracker, looping samples of my voice and bass guitar to produce solid timing and tuning (that I likely would not achieve playing the whole thing in one take ::))
The guitar is next - I'll lay down 4 or 5 tracks, then sample the best riffs and use Ardour to assemble a complete guitar track.
.............Then, repeat for the harmony guitar parts.

I like to see them as well as hear them.

Cool picture..thanks!

How do you do your harmony tracks?

8)

Wyatt

Same as you, Oklahoma... Just holler like a banshee until I hit the right note... :D
Ditto for guitar harmonies - just thrash and flail until something sounds like it fits  :o... then move on to the next phrase....

Thought I heard somethin'.    :P :D ;)

8)

Wyatt

Oi! You lot keep the *%^$£@# noise down.
There's people trying to get some sleep over here ;D

 :D

This is a VERY interesting thread! I'm wondering if what we're seeing here is simply shortcomings in the frequency analysing algorythms. Like it has been said before, generating a certain frequency sine wave shouldn't be a problem mathematically. However, I imagine that in analysing the frequency you bump into all kinds of rounding problems and stuff. This would be confirmed if the same software (of the same version) produces an identical result across different pc's (I'll have to reread the thread again to check if your results already confirmed that though).

Very cool discussion in any case and thx Oren for bringing it up!

If it needs more volume, this may help:


http://www.wavosaur.com/streamosaur/record-web-radio.php

8)

Wyatt

Marc,
My principal interest in this project is to eventually produce sound/music that has a beneficial effect on human health, both mental and physical.
...plus, maybe it could help you and me grow more hair on the top of our heads...big potential bonus there...   :D :;

Hi Oren,
By accident i found some of those articles again I was talking about, turns out I had them on my own website all along but forgot  :D

http://members.home.nl/alienz/text/Vibroacoustic.htm

http://members.home.nl/alienz/text/LivingJazz.htm

Yikes! :o
Give me a few days to absorb this. Talk about input :;

Thanks!

...I'll be giving you an exam on monday about what you learned, ok?  ;)

How's this one coming along, amigo?

I am still interested in this project. I have been intrigued by the concept and the potential, and
puzzled by how to actually make it happen.

Do you have to generate the 6 different freqs with software to get tones, and then edit them?

Could you tune each string of a guitar to one of those tones////..whoaoo..that begs for a fretless guitar.   :)

I am also wondering if there is something about the specific freqs, or is there an effect because of the interval?

I just went into Audition to see if it would generate these tones. Apparently I did this last June, because, lo and
behold I had made presets for all these freqs. Let me know if you want me to send them to you.

Wyatt

ps..They say that memory is the second thing to go, but I can't remember what the first thing was.   :P

Wyatt,

These frequencies may have some fundamental value, given that sound is functional as a tool. Physicians use ultra-sound to "see" organs inside a living body, and dentists use these high frequencies to clean teeth, for instance.

But, the new-age-I-wanna-sell-you-salvation folks have muddied the water, and it's really quite embarrassing to hear their claims and watch them jump to conclusions... ::)

So not being any kind of a genius, I've put the project on the back burner until some more definitive information becomes available. The 6 frequencies do not seem to work together as any kind of a "scale" (without a lot of dissonance), but the earliest Gregorian chants purportedly used these notes in their construction.
Still very interested, however... :;

Are those original Gregorian Chants totally lost to us?

I noticed that these do not exactly make up a scale..that is the intervals are irregular. ..some tones blend, if a little dissonantly..others don't.  ..still, room for some improv, eh?     :D

Since there are no official rules for this on the one hand, and we aren't lining up with the lunatic fringe on the other hand, I'd say we are pretty much free to follow our intuition.    ;)

The earliest batch of chants have been nixed by the Roman church, in favour of more contemporary versions. Records of the old words and music still exist, however.


Intuition may, indeed, be the most direct route through this apparent maze of misdirection and pseudo-science.