Solid Reasons Why You Should Convert Your Music To 432 Hz

WBimmer · « **on:** 1 Feb 2014, 06:45 pm »

This probably explains why I don't enjoy the music of our modern times and find it to be mostly over hyped crap by over paid celebrities that have sold themselves out to a music industry that is only concerned with generating huge profits from garbage.

http://humansarefree.com/2014/01/solid-reasons-why-you-should-convert.html

I'm interested to see what you think of this and what differences you hear.

To me, the 440hz is dull, boring and not something I'd be interesting in spending much time listening to. Reminds me of radio music that I never listen to anymore and most of the performances at the Grammies.

The 432hz feels warm and emotional and something I could listen to for extended periods of time.

Wayne.

bladesmith · « **Reply #1 on:** 1 Feb 2014, 07:12 pm »

Wayne,

I studied frequencies for years, they are mind boggling.

V..

redbook · « **Reply #2 on:** 1 Feb 2014, 07:20 pm »

Very interesting info. So how do you convert ?

fado · « **Reply #3 on:** 1 Feb 2014, 07:21 pm »

So, how does one convert existing music files to 432 Hz?

redbook · « **Reply #4 on:** 1 Feb 2014, 07:23 pm »

spinner · « **Reply #5 on:** 1 Feb 2014, 07:26 pm »

Good question......

srb · « **Reply #6 on:** 1 Feb 2014, 08:04 pm »

You could try it with Audacity. The percent of change from 440Hz to 432Hz is -1.85%

If you want to change Pitch as well as Tempo, use Effects > Change Speed

If you want to change the Pitch only (more likely), use Effects > Change Pitch

Steve

brucek · « **Reply #7 on:** 1 Feb 2014, 08:49 pm »

Quote

When our atoms and DNA start to resonate in harmony with the spiraling pattern of nature, our sense of connection to nature is said to be magnified. The number 432 is also reflected in ratios of the Sun, Earth, and the moon as well as the precession of the equinoxes, the Great Pyramid of Egypt, Stonehenge, the Sri Yantra among many other sacred sites. - See more at: http://humansarefree.com/2014/01/solid-reasons-why-you-should-convert.html#sthash.9OBGhpHI.dpuf

Utter nonsense.

brucek

bladesmith · « **Reply #8 on:** 1 Feb 2014, 09:03 pm »

Some of it is nonsense, but you have to remember, that the core/center element of an atom is a simple frequency. ( If you study /understand subatomic particles. )

There is a lot of understanding, that is misinterpreted, as facts and theories. Who knows what is real.

We may never know the complete understanding of frequencies. One thing is for sure, some frequencies kill, some bring great joy. And without them, nothing is possible.

V..

Kenneth Patchen · « **Reply #9 on:** 1 Feb 2014, 10:05 pm »

Well, yes, nonsense it may be but there must be some reason I can't listen to any of the music on commercial radio stations ... Oh, wait, now I remember ... it's all crap!

Elizabeth · « **Reply #10 on:** 1 Feb 2014, 11:37 pm »

The pictures of water freezing to various vibrations would be the most suspect. I would think they worked hard to pick just the 'right' photo to most enhance the ideas they are selling.
As for the photo of 432 hz vs 440 and why is the multi leaf pattern 'better? what basis do they use other than self prophecy? (it is better because we say it is better?)

I was around when "New Age" stuff started. Plenty of interesting ideas.. and plenty of total nonsense too.
One particular audio related insanity was when it was announced digitally recorded Lp would 'destroy' your turntable bearing ... with all sorts of 'proof'.
Well that lasted a few years then finally was crushed with overwhelming proof it was all nonsense.

Some of the stuff is interesting, profund even. But I would not sell my belongings and move to the ashram just yet.

S Clark · « **Reply #11 on:** 2 Feb 2014, 12:50 am »

Not very interesting BS.
The article opens with " Tesla said it. Einstein Agreed. Science proved it. It is a known fact that everything—including our own bodies—is made up of energy vibrating at different frequencies. That being said, can sound frequencies affect us? They sure can."

Excuse me, even though matter can be converted to energy, it is not energy, and we are not made up of energy, therefore it is certainly not "a known fact". I just love an argument that opens with a faulty assumption... so easy to shoot it down immediately. This guy would never win even a freshman high school debate.

Pete Schumacher · « **Reply #12 on:** 2 Feb 2014, 01:53 am »

We actually are composed of energy. After all, E=mc^2. But when you get down to it, all that we know of subatomic particles leads to the conclusion is that everything that exists is made of nothing at all. The free conversion of mass to energy and back creates massive problems assigning the "reality" of a thing. The only thing that makes it real is that we perceive it to be real. When we try to understand the underlying nature of the structure of matter/space/energy it becomes a blurry mess. Observing how it interacts is one thing. Understanding what "it" is, is something else.

Along the vast stretch of natural harmonics, I'd find it strange that a single frequency can have that much impact. Everyone's own natural harmonics based on their size, moisture content, bone density, lung capacity, are different and will understandably have their own favorite sounds and natural scales. Western music in Europe has a different flavor that Chinese music of the same era. They use different scales to evoke a variety of moods.

In other words, not everyone wants to chant "OM" at the same frequency.

DaveC113 · « **Reply #13 on:** 2 Feb 2014, 02:07 am »

My friends know I am into audio of course, and one sent me a link to this vid. It is interesting but grain of salt and all that...

Worth checking out though. Basically, frequency and geometry are related and 432 is the "natural" tuning that aligns with geometry and etc....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY74AFQl2qQ#t=101

S Clark · « **Reply #14 on:** 2 Feb 2014, 02:09 am »

No we are not composed of energy. Because two sides of an equation are equal, means that the sum of the equation is equal, not that the components are all equal. There is no "free conversion of mass to energy and back". Where do you get stuff like this? When a supercollider slams two protons together going in opposite directions, the kinetic energy that is lost may result in the creation of a particle. The energy becomes mass, but mass and energy are not the same thing. Although we contain heat, electrical potentials, chemical potentials, the bulk of what we are and the immediate world we live in ... is made of matter, which is not energy.

WBimmer · « **Reply #15 on:** 2 Feb 2014, 02:49 am »

Quote from: S Clark on 2 Feb 2014, 02:09 am

No we are not composed of energy. Because two sides of an equation are equal, means that the sum of the equation is equal, not that the components are all equal. There is no "free conversion of mass to energy and back". Where do you get stuff like this? When a supercollider slams two protons together going in opposite directions, the kinetic energy that is lost may result in the creation of a particle. The energy becomes mass, but mass and energy are not the same thing. Although we contain heat, electrical potentials, chemical potentials, the bulk of what we are and the immediate world we live in ... is made of matter, which is not energy.

So what if we live in a third dimensional reality and the matter that we perceive is actually made up of and shaped by the energy of our thoughts…

The saying that 'Thoughts become things' would definitely apply and would give us all the ability to change our beliefs and how we view this material (matter) world we live in.

Wayne.

*Scotty* · « **Reply #16 on:** 2 Feb 2014, 03:06 am »

Here is some more information on the history of concert pitch standards.
http://www.roelhollander.eu/en/tuning-frequency/goebbels-and-440/
Even though I might not personally believe the Greyhound bus exists, if I step front of it of it as it goes around a corner I will still be squashed, irregardless of my view of reality.
Scotty

S Clark · « **Reply #17 on:** 2 Feb 2014, 03:21 am »

Quote from: WBimmer on 2 Feb 2014, 02:49 am

So what if we live in a third dimensional reality and the matter that we perceive is actually made up of and shaped by the energy of our thoughts…

That's it. I'm outa here.

Pete Schumacher · « **Reply #18 on:** 2 Feb 2014, 03:52 am »

Quote from: S Clark on 2 Feb 2014, 02:09 am

No we are not composed of energy. Because two sides of an equation are equal, means that the sum of the equation is equal, not that the components are all equal. There is no "free conversion of mass to energy and back". Where do you get stuff like this? When a supercollider slams two protons together going in opposite directions, the kinetic energy that is lost may result in the creation of a particle. The energy becomes mass, but mass and energy are not the same thing. Although we contain heat, electrical potentials, chemical potentials, the bulk of what we are and the immediate world we live in ... is made of matter, which is not energy.

The conversion between the forms of the universe is "free" and happens on a continuous basis in the hearts of stars and supernova. Matter is converted to energy, and energy back to matter. The creation of the table of elements in the hearts of stars with nothing more than the light of the big bang as the material from which everything is constructed attests to the fact that we are indeed made of energy, that is bound up inside the physical dimensions known as protons, electrons, atoms, molecules. That was the Revolution of Relativity.

When the physicists are looking at 1 dimensional strings to describe what creates a 3 dimensional reality moving through time, the question that inevitably results is, what is the string made of? What is energy without mass? Mass in motion IS energy. It doesn't just "have" energy. The definition of energy is mass in motion. You cannot have one without the other. A mass at rest isn't really at rest at all. Bound up inside the mass is the energy it took to create it.

S Clark · « **Reply #19 on:** 2 Feb 2014, 04:15 am »

Quote from: Pete Schumacher on 2 Feb 2014, 03:52 am

The conversion between the forms of the universe is "free" and happens on a continuous basis in the hearts of stars and supernova. Matter is converted to energy, and energy back to matter. The creation of the table of elements in the hearts of stars with nothing more than the light of the big bang as the material from which everything is constructed attests to the fact that we are indeed made of energy, that is bound up inside the physical dimensions known as protons, electrons, atoms, molecules. That was the Revolution of Relativity.

When the physicists are looking at 1 dimensional strings to describe what creates a 3 dimensional reality moving through time, the question that inevitably results is, what is the string made of? What is energy without mass? Mass in motion IS energy. It doesn't just "have" energy. The definition of energy is mass in motion. You cannot have one without the other. A mass at rest isn't really at rest at all. Bound up inside the mass is the energy it took to create it.

"Mass in motion IS energy"- no, it is mass that has additional kinetic energy. Even your "definition" of energy is wrong. Webster- a fundamental entity of nature that is transferred between parts of a system in the production of physical change within the system and usually regarded as the capacity for doing work.
There are slight relativistic changes that are inconsequential until moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light. I just don't know where to start with the inaccuracies above. Let's just say that you are arguing with someone who made his living teaching physics. I taught physics for over twenty years, qualified students to the final 6 in the state of Texas, actually know a bit about this. You need to drop this and find a physics prof at a local U- see if he can explain why mass doesn't spontaneously change to energy while you are sitting listening to your stereo.
On second thought, nevermind. Tune your A to 432 if it makes you happy.