A=432hz Frequency Table

[outbreak525]

Hi, I am looking for a frequency table at A=432hz so I can properly EQ my tracks. To be frank, I'm REALLY looking for an interactive table where I can set that A to whatever frequency I please. The only one I have seen is based off of A=440hz, but that won't harmonically match the music that I produce.
Speaking of harmonics, I would like to know some more in depth information regarding EQing and the division of harmonics, and how it relates to the source audio files I am EQing.

Thank you

 

[AEL89]

Probably good to know but I wouldn't base your EQ technique upon it. I'd have thought it would have a negative effect in a lot of applications too. You just need to know what you're doing and what you want to achieve with equalising. Pair that knowledge with a few decent EQs and you're set.

 

[Toseben]

I'm sure I've seen one somewhere but to be honest its way easier just calculate them yourself in the long run.
Say we have A=440Hz and double that so we got A octave above that. We have 12 tones in chromatic scale.

Since we're using equal temperament system the formula for calculation would be as follows: 440x(2^(n/12))
n = semitones from A. You can ofc alter the 440 to something else like 432Hz.

Octave below A=432Hz would be: 432x(2^(-12/12)) = 216Hz

Probably good to know but I wouldn't base your EQ technique upon it. I'd have thought it would have a negative effect in a lot of applications too. You just need to know what you're doing and what you want to achieve with equalising. Pair that knowledge with a few decent EQs and you're set.

+1 to this...

 

[chrisx96]

found this a while ago, i have found it to be helpful from time to time.

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm

 

[outbreak525]

Probably good to know but I wouldn't base your EQ technique upon it. I'd have thought it would have a negative effect in a lot of applications too. You just need to know what you're doing and what you want to achieve with equalising. Pair that knowledge with a few decent EQs and you're set.

Well this is what I don't quite understand.
Wouldn't I want to harmonically match the settings on my EQ with the actual notes/frequencies I am using in the piece?
For instance, if I were to use the 432hz A in something, and I wanna pronounce that frequency I wouldn't boost at 440hz, I would boost at 432hz. Does that make sense to any of you?

I just don't quite understand the relationship between the frequencies I am boosting or reducing, and the actual physical PERFORMED frequencies of what I am EQing.

found this a while ago, i have found it to be helpful from time to time.

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm

This is handy, thanks!

 

[AEL89]

Well this is what I don't quite understand.
Wouldn't I want to harmonically match the settings on my EQ with the actual notes/frequencies I am using in the piece?
For instance, if I were to use the 432hz A in something, and I wanna pronounce that frequency I wouldn't boost at 440hz, I would boost at 432hz. Does that make sense to any of you?

It doesn't make sense because I don't see a way of applying this logic. You're really overthinking it. How much difference do you think there is between a boost at 440 and 432? (Seriously) If I want to get rid of some mud I'll cut around 200hz. If I want to boost some air I'll add some 7k. If I want to make room for vocals I'll take some 2.5 - 3.5k out of other instruments. If something's cloudy I'll look around 600hz. Does that make any sense to you? I've never had any problems without actively attempting to "harmonically match the settings on my EQ with the actual notes/frequencies" of the song. Maybe I've been subconsciously doing it I doubt it though

 

[outbreak525]

Well I don't wanna create accidental dissonance. Even if its barely audible its there because frequencies ARE technically notes. I remember someone telling me if I was EQing I would need to match the harmonics, for instance by dealing with 800 and 2400 Hz instead of 800 and 2300 Hz for instance because they don't divide well into each other.

 

[Vinny]

I only make sense of what you are trying to say with your last post (with frequencies diving into each other). But other than that, honestly you are really over-thinking it. (I in no way am trying to offend you, so take this lightly. It's just for reference.) With your logic, if I am EQ-ing a guitar track I would boost each frequency corresponding to the notes I am playing. That doesn't really make sense, unless I am playing 1 note per track (otherwise that would be some near-impossible EQ-automation going on there.)
Yes, frequencies ARE "notes". However, that doesn't necessarily apply to EQ in a mix context the way you are trying go about this..

 

[Skaldir]

Well I don't wanna create accidental dissonance. Even if its barely audible its there because frequencies ARE technically notes.

You are thinking too much in sine waves.
Even when you strum an A on the guitar, you don't have excatly 220 Hz all the time. Its sharp and flat, and never 100% in tune.

 

[outbreak525]

Sorry if this is a double post, my phone is acting up. Guitars aside, (let's say were dealing with keyboard where the note is exactly on frequency) wouldnt it make sense to boost a frequency that's literally in the scale, instead of one that's slightly sharp or flat?

 

[Skaldir]

Sorry if this is a double post, my phone is acting up. Guitars aside, (let's say were dealing with keyboard where the note is exactly on frequency) wouldnt it make sense to boost a frequency that's literally in the scale, instead of one that's slightly sharp or flat?

With a keyboardsound its the same like with every natural instrument. A note is not just one frequency. Play one note with a synthsound and look at a spectrum analyzer.
Only with a pure sine wave a boost or cut at the frequency of the note would make it louder or quieter. BUT who would want to filter a sine wave?

 

[outbreak525]

Ah I understand this now. But how about boosting or cutting frequencies that are IN scale as opposed to OUT of scale?

 

[Ascendant]

If you're boosting, you should generally be doing so with a wide band which will result in a bunch of overtones in that area being raised rather than just one. Even if you boost a frequency that's not in the key that the instrument is playing you're not boosting any dissonance because there is no overtone there to begin with which can cause dissonance. Unless of course you're using a really narrow band to boost which will just sound unpleasant. I say use your ears, if it sounds bad to boost at a certain frequency, then don't.

 

[crillemannen]

Haha to the original OP. Man you're thinking to much. Use your ears man.

 

[Shinozoku]

Well I don't wanna create accidental dissonance. Even if its barely audible its there because frequencies ARE technically notes. I remember someone telling me if I was EQing I would need to match the harmonics, for instance by dealing with 800 and 2400 Hz instead of 800 and 2300 Hz for instance because they don't divide well into each other.

I saw that thread earlier today!

Basically what the person was saying is that, say you need to cut 800hz and you need more oomph in the 2300hz area. Well, if you want the cut to have a complimentary effect on another frequency, it needs to be a harmonic (or multiple) of that freq. So don't avoid the boost at 2300hz just because you're afraid of introducing noise.

Hope that helped.

 

[outbreak525]

Thanks guys!
I do use my ears primarily, but you know, this is my career choice, and I want knowledge on everything about it.
You're all really helpful, thanks again!

 

[PeterPaul760]

Haha to the original OP. Man you're thinking to much. Use your ears man.

+1

Too much thought in this. You're making my brain hurt. Haha, EQ to make space in your mix, not with your eyes but with your ears.

 

[Trevoire520]

A guitar playing A 440hz doesn't just give off 440hz. It also gives off a whole bunch of odd and even harmonics that take up a whole bunch of frequency real estate than the original fundamental. As has been said you're overthinking stuff here man. When eq'ing you don't need to be that precise. 99.9% of people aren't going to hear the difference between an eq cut at 440hz and the same cut moved down to 435hz or whatever.

 

[RedDog]

Jbroll should read this thread.

 

[AdamWathan]

Boosting a frequency with an EQ isn't going to boost it if it's not there... If you add a boost from 380-460hz, it's going to boost the harmonic content in that range that actually exists in the sound you are trying to boost.

If you have a sinewave at 440hz and boost the shit out of 1k, it is going to sound exactly the same as it did with the EQ off because there is nothing at 1k to boost. The EQ isn't adding any new frequencies to the signal, only changing the levels of the frequencies that are already there. So it doesn't matter at all what specific frequency you are boosting because any boosts are going to be wide enough to encompass where that general frequency actually is in your signal.

You cannot create dissonance with an EQ, you are worried about something that isn't real. Again, boosting 441hz on a 440hz sinewave will not create dissonance. It will boost nothing because 441hz isn't even there to boost. 10 times 0 is still 0.