43.2 kHz

[webadder]

Is it possible to convert files from 44 kHz to a 43.2 kHz (the pitch must be shifted by -0.3176665363342977 semitones) with dBpoweramp ?
And if so that the time of the track not change to a longer one ?

Thanks,
wEbAddEr

[GBrown]

Re: 43.2 kHz

Is it possible to convert files from 44 kHz to a 43.2 kHz (the pitch must be shifted by -0.3176665363342977 semitones) with dBpoweramp ?
And if so that the time of the track not change to a longer one ?

Thanks,
wEbAddEr

What would be the point of this? I won&*8217;t question your reasons for wanting a sample rate at 43.2kHz, but the only way to benefit from this would be to sample it this way from the original source. Recoding would only introduce more issues than it would resolve. Not to mention all common DACs will recode back to the &*8220;only&*8221; standards of 44.1kHz or 48kHz, and multiples of those up to 384/512, etc.

[garym]

Re: 43.2 kHz

What would be the point of this? I won&*8217;t question your reasons for wanting a sample rate at 43.2kHz, but the only way to benefit from this would be to sample it this way from the original source. Recoding would only introduce more issues than it would resolve. Not to mention all common DACs will recode back to the &*8220;only&*8221; standards of 44.1kHz or 48kHz, and multiples of those up to 384/512, etc.

exactly. For example, see:

https://github.com/AzuraCast/AzuraCast/issues/887

[webadder]

Re: 43.2 kHz

What would be the point of this? I won&*8217;t question your reasons for wanting a sample rate at 43.2kHz, but the only way to benefit from this would be to sample it this way from the original source. Recoding would only introduce more issues than it would resolve. Not to mention all common DACs will recode back to the &*8220;only&*8221; standards of 44.1kHz or 48kHz, and multiples of those up to 384/512, etc.

So i will stay at the 44 kHz as the hardware will convert it back to 44 or 48 kHz.
i was thinking about 43.2 kHz because it would be more "natural" then 44 kHz.

exactly. For example, see:
https://github.com/AzuraCast/AzuraCast/issues/887

Thanks for the link, was a nice read with links to real good info.

[GBrown]

Re: 43.2 kHz

So i will stay at the 44 kHz as the hardware will convert it back to 44 or 48 kHz.
i was thinking about 43.2 kHz because it would be more "natural" then 44 kHz.

This is far more important if the recording artist chooses to tune their instrument(s) based on the 432Hz principle. But this doesn't change the sampling rate used for encoding to digital, or decoding back to analog. Perhaps in some way at least if the mastering to digital uses 43.2kHz there could be a small influence. But this is far less likely as there is virtually no equipment that natively does this. So again you will be at the mercy of your hardware in the end.

[ForSerious]

Re: 43.2 kHz

Checkout GoldWave. It has a Pitch manipulation function. I tried out a song to see what your opening post would sound like. It does not allow for the precision you put, but it should be enough.

[ForSerious]

Re: 43.2 kHz

I also just realized that GoldWave will let you create a wav file at any sample rate you want.

[GBrown]

Re: 43.2 kHz

I also just realized that GoldWave will let you create a wav file at any sample rate you want.

This still requires the original analog signal to pass through the sound processing of the PC. Unless you have some way to control the sample rate of the ADC at that point, this is still going to involve some level of resampling from the typical 44.1kHz or 48kHz hardware rate. Any file you already have in digital has been sampled this way as well and will also be resampled.

Regardless of any methods you may want to apply, the fundamental "benefit" of the 432Hz versus 440Hz tuning is lost in almost all cases other than the original recording process.

[ForSerious]

Re: 43.2 kHz

I only mentioned that because I was surprised it is an option. I also see no actual use in the ability to create non-standard sample rate wav files, but it has that ability regardless.
Anyway, at least with the pitch manipulation they can decide if they think it actually sounds better or not. My guess is it could possibly do something to a recording of a single instrument tuned in 440Hz, but a general song has loads of instruments, and I don't know if ubiquitous things like drums are tuned to a pitch. Figuring out if a song needs to be pitch shifted sounds like the hardest part. Imagine that it does produce a favorable result, but then you do it to a song that is already tuned in 432Hz...

[Lynx_TWO]

Re: 43.2 kHz

While there's nothing inherently wrong with 432Hz tuning, keep in mind that the very term Hz is based on a second of time, which is rather arbitrary itself as one second is based on 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.

According to https://attunedvibrations.com/432hz/
"changing the current standard won't be a simple task, and it's not because of the influence of any nefarious organization. In my opinion, the reason is more trivial. Most musical instruments can be adjusted in principle, but it's not so easy for every instrument. For example, most woodwind instruments cannot play in 432Hz because changing the pitch will also change the internal harmonic structure of the whole instrument. The change would require building new instruments."

More information here:

https://ask.audio/articles/music-theory-432-hz-tuning-separating-fact-from-fiction

If you want to experiment though, iZotope RX Advanced does have a Time & Pitch function which allows you to shift one semitone down, and also a Wow and Flutter function which allows you to define the central tuning, so you can retune an entire song around 432 Hz (or really any other fundamental frequency) if you want. This would be more accurate than simply changing the sample rate from 44.1kHz to 43.2kHz.

While I suspect you are pursuing pseudoscience, it can't hurt to play around and see how you feel about the results.

Cheers!