tuning to an exact frequency

chas smith · Post by **chas smith** » 12 May 2003 11:14 pm

if one does this, a multitude of ever changing numbers will be the result. according to him, when we think of a string being at a specific frequency, it is really a certain frequency given for a specific window of the strings movement.

What he's talking about is the presence of upper partials (harmonics). There's been a number of discussions about the harmonic series and how it relates to the fundamental, which is the note you want to measure. Basically, whenever you play a note, like a C for instance, there's a lot of other notes that are related to C that are happening at the same time (because the string is vibrating in a very complicated way) and they are what gives that C note it's "quality", in fact they are why the C on your guitar sounds different than the C on a piano or a C on a flute or a C on a clarinet.

When you first pick a note, there's a lot of harmonic content that rapidly "settles down" and leaves the fundamental as the most prominent frequency. If you were going to use a meter like a Fluke and you were looking for middle C, it helps to know that middle C is 261.6hz ahead of time because when you first pick it, there's going to be numberslike 523. and 784. (the 2nd and 3rd harmonics) bouncing around before it settles to 261.6 (the fundamental). On a strobe, the upper bars will be flashing until it settles down to the lowest one.

the sacredness of sound, and it turns out the great pyramid is full of things related to sound,

It's mathematics, which is intertwined with sound and one of the ways to describe the universe.

Mark Durante · Post by **Mark Durante** » 13 May 2003 2:58 am

The first tuner Acoustyx came out with had a constant readout and the numbers would be changing all the time, it was hard for most people to figure out what was happening. Then they came out with the MKII which would sample periodically so only one number is displayed at a time. Not only harmonics but also the actual fundamental is changing constantly as a string vibrates depending on all the different factors of picking, string composition, scale length, etc, etc.

Chris Erbacher · Post by **Chris Erbacher** » 13 May 2003 3:00 pm

yeah the universe is only vibrations, and our world is madeup of fibonnaci (pardon me if i misspelled it) patterns in many forms. this is part of the proof behind the saying that everything is the same, because it literally is when you break it down mathematically and musically, at least on our planet. if you are interested in learning about this subject go and find the books "the ancient secret of the flower of life" and "the physics of love", these break it down on many many levels and it is a big meat ball to eat at one time, but written in very easy to understand language and desriptions, not at all like you would expect from the titles. these books have piqued my interest in this stuff for the last couple of years and every time i read these i get something new from them. i believe this knowledge will be used in many more ways in the future, as they were in the past.

Rick Aiello · Post by **Rick Aiello** » 13 May 2003 6:30 pm

Fractal Geometry ... Mandelbrot set ... Steel guitar

chas smith · Post by **chas smith** » 13 May 2003 8:25 pm

Chasing the dragon....

Wayne Cox · Post by **Wayne Cox** » 18 May 2003 9:47 pm

Attention,RON PRESTON!! Since you do not have an .072 gauged string on your steel,I am guessing that you don't have a "Jupiter"
note on there,either.

Your neighbor,
~~W.C.~~

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 19 May 2003 2:37 am

I had heard a few years ago the beat frequency of the universe was determined to me 7hz.

So I multiplied 7 x 2 = 14 x 2 etc. and also 7 by 7 = 49 x 49 = 2401 x 2= 4801, 49 x 7= 343 x 2 = 686 x2 = 1372 etc etc.

and and then compared that list to a piano frequency chart and composed a piece from that logic. Using only notes that were in the ball park.
It is since lost, but was interesting.
I was listening to Wendy Carlos microtonal stuff at the time.

I just recently read new technology has determined the beat frequency of the universe is 4.5hz... so maybe it was ALL wrong...
and maybe now I'll try one from 4.5hz some time.[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 19 May 2003 at 03:41 AM.]

chas smith · Post by **chas smith** » 19 May 2003 8:53 am

I just recently read new technology has determined the beat frequency of the universe is 4.5hz..

How would they measure that if they can't "see" the entire universe and/or get outside of it, to be an observer? We can measure the earth because we are on it and we have satellites outside of it. Speaking of measuring the universe, have you read anything about brane theory?

Tommy Mc · Post by **Tommy Mc** » 19 May 2003 12:47 pm

Chris,
I recently ran across a tuner program (I know you said you don't have a computer...) that does what you want. It's called G-tune and you can get it here: http://www.jhc-software.com
What brought me to even look for a tuner that read actual hertz was a discussion with my daughter's sitar instructor. I had heard that Indian music used different scales, but I was amazed to hear that they were based on true harmonics. I always assumed that harmonics overtones resonated at exact multiples of the root note. That is A=220, 440, 880 etc. I had to find a tuner to test this out, and indeed, the overtones are a few cents off!
Incidently, it makes just tuning the sitar an artform. You tune the tonic and 5th, but all else is tuned by ear. Oh yeah, don't try to test the tuning against the frets....they move too.

RON PRESTON · Post by **RON PRESTON** » 19 May 2003 5:50 pm

Hey, Wayne, I guess your right. I have NO .072, So, Where does that leave me? I'm very confused NOW.

And, BTW, Where ARE you, Man? I E-mailed you back somewhere around the "12th of Never", and I haven't heard from you. I Graduated from Natchitoches Vo-Tech Last Thursday, the 8th. Let's get together and pick. OK?

Terry Downs · Post by **Terry Downs** » 19 May 2003 6:18 pm

Hogwash

Chris Erbacher · Post by **Chris Erbacher** » 19 May 2003 9:54 pm

i have never read anything on brane theory, but i am interested, so let 'er rip and let us in. also, i can not give a definite answer to your question on how "they" come up with the frequency of the universe, that is a tough one, but i will look thru my stuff and see if there is anything that hits paydirt. there's got to be some sort of explanation mathematically.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 20 May 2003 2:22 pm

I read somewhere (Science Digest, I think) that the earth has a natural resonant frequency of about 11 cycles per second. This resonance can be registered by seismographs whenever there is a significant disturbance to the earth's crust. "Significant disturbances" include earthquakes, volcanic explosions, meteoric impacts, and nuclear explosions. Though acoustic waves that long can't be heard, they can be "sensed" by a few people...as well as heard and sensed by a lot of animals and insects.

chas smith · Post by **chas smith** » 20 May 2003 10:31 pm

Chris, I just read an article on Brane theory and I wouldn't even begin to try to explain it, even if I understood all of it. Suffice it to say, if you believe it, we barely have a clue as to what the universe is. I love reading that stuff, it's a way of keeping things in perspective.

Donny, some time ago, I was reading an article on the freq of the earth, which was the pulses or vibrations that had been measured by a satellite and the number was an Eb after it was transposed up about 20 octaves. So I just did a calc for what might be the resonant freq based on the earth being 25k miles in circumferance and if it was made of steel. Sound travels through air approx 1100 ft/sec at sealevel, it travels through steel around 18996062 ft/sec and if that were the case, then the resonant freq of the earth would be .0004521-------which transposed up 20 octaves would be 474.066hz, between Bb and B. On the other hand, I just got back from a rehearsal and there's a good chance that I'm just plain confused.[This message was edited by chas smith on 20 May 2003 at 11:34 PM.]

Rick Aiello · Post by **Rick Aiello** » 21 May 2003 8:00 am

Brane Theory

Jeff A. Smith · Post by **Jeff A. Smith** » 21 May 2003 8:22 pm

How would they measure that if they can't "see" the entire universe and/or get outside of it, to be an observer?

Probably the same way they got into the habit of talking about "the universe" beginning with a Big Bang that can really only be said to involve this part of it.

How could anyone assume that what we can observe is all there is? Why would anyone even want to? But I guess it's common to talk loosely about "the universe" as referring just to all observable matter. Maybe that's the context in which the 4.5 hz figure evolved.

The idea of having to be outside of something to be conscious of it is an interesting axiom in some philosophies.

The article on Brane theory is interesting. It brings to mind a lecture I attended a few years ago by an astronomer from Chicago. I don't remember exactly what the theme of the lecture was, but the Q&A period got around to the usual question about the One Time-Only Big Bang:

"If 'The Universe,' along with all time and differentiation began from a tiny point, how is it possible to envision an explosion happening without some pre-existing instability or outside influence?"

As I recall, this astronomer was honest enough to say that we really know absolutely or almost nothing about what "things were like" prior to whatever the tiny part of one second after the Bang is that they've traced the different forces back to. According to this particular guy, even a sort of "creationist" model could still be plausible. Since our entire frame of reference would cease to exist back further than a certain point, who can say?

It reminds of a particular quote that has been made about the limitations on our understanding:

The analogy was made of two dogs deciding that Euclidean Geometry didn't exist, because it wouldn't submit to the "sniff test."

And then there is the idea (more popular in the East) that there always is a unified substratum of being that underlies all form. This substratum would theoretically exist regardless of what happened on the material level, and was the same before The Bang as it is today. That's something that most scientists don't want to talk about, although I would imagine that David Bohm has, as well as a few of the popular authors.

I'm really not as up on modern science as I'd like to be. It's nice to take things this far out once in awhile.

Are we atonal yet, or beyond that back into harmony? [This message was edited by Jeff A. Smith on 21 May 2003 at 09:27 PM.][This message was edited by Jeff A. Smith on 21 May 2003 at 09:31 PM.]

chas smith · Post by **chas smith** » 21 May 2003 10:40 pm

"If 'The Universe,' along with all time and differentiation began from a tiny point, how is it possible to envision an explosion happening without some pre-existing instability or outside influence?"

Since we understand things by comparing them to other things we undestand, how do we envision something that we can't possibly envision. Which could lead to a discussion about faith, which I don't want to get into. On the other hand, in this lifetime, I've met a lot of people who weren't smart enough to program their VCRs, but were convinced they knew how the universe worked.

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 22 May 2003 4:13 am

the resonant freq based on the earth being 25k miles in circumferance and if it was made of steel.

Gotta love it... Is it a "Universal"?
How big is the slide? Chrome or stainless?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> universe.... an Eb
....the resonant freq of the earth would be 474.066hz, between Bb and B. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So only guys playing universals in B6 would be in tune with the earth,
and all D-10s should be tuned to Eb9 and Bb6....
Well at least the sax players would like that!

I haven't found that old article, possibly from Scientific American. But I think the beat frequency was measured by radio atronomers looking at cosmic background radiation that permiates everything.

I will try to warp my brain around brane.
[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 22 May 2003 at 05:26 AM.]

Rick Aiello · Post by **Rick Aiello** » 22 May 2003 5:26 am

How 'bout that "Oscillating Universe" concept ...

Big Bang...Big Crunch...Big Bang...etc

[This message was edited by Rick Aiello on 22 May 2003 at 06:37 AM.]

Jeff A. Smith · Post by **Jeff A. Smith** » 22 May 2003 8:33 pm

Interesting article, Rick. They seem to be presenting the oscillating theory as if it's new. Maybe there is some significant new rift in this version that qualifies it as such. I do remember at least 10 or 15 years ago some discussions that took place between western scientists and the Dalai Lama about the cyclical theory. Those parts of Buddhism that deal with cosmology accept the basic Hindu idea of cyclical creation.( Naturally, it doesn't exactly parallel the western model in how this happens.)At the time, the basic repetitive bang-crunch scenario was being talked about quite a bit.

A few years back I remember reading that the once-only theory was winning the discussion. I'm glad the repetitive model has new life. They also pretty much pronounced the Steady State theory dead, although it offered some explanation about where all the dark matter came from that the Big Bang didn't account for. In the Steady State theory new matter is (I believe)infused into the known universe from outside. But, this is from several years ago.

I see this new theory postulates "dark energy" to explain some things. Well it makes sense I guess, dark energy to go with dark matter....

The article ends with this:

Meanwhile, the new concept is not free of cracks, either: Even the cyclic universe does not address when the cycles began, so "the problem of explaining the ‘beginning of time’ remains," the researchers say.

Oh. That old thing.

Rick Aiello · Post by **Rick Aiello** » 23 May 2003 6:21 am

Yeah .. I thought the same thing as I was reading it. I had a professor at Univ. of Florida that was real "big" on the Big Crunch ... in 1979.

At that time the amount of matter for the Crunch to occur was far "under the limit" ... and he was working on calculations involving "Dark Matter".

Talk about off topic