The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory

Re:The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory by bravo22 on Monday October 24, 2016 @01:15PM (#12780756)

439 being a prime would be an issue if you were up multiplying a lower frequency to generate it, for example using a PLL. However it is such a slow signal that it would be generated by dividing down a higher frequency. For example you can divide it down from an 18 MHz clock.

So, nope his claim doesn't make sense.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory by zokier on Monday October 24, 2016 @02:46PM (#12781611)

439 from 18M requires a divisor of 41, which does sound trivial. Meanwhile 440 from 1M requires only dividing by 5 and 2 when first multiplied by 11, which might have been significantly simpler than dividing by 41.

I wonder if there is some easy way of figuring out the simplest base number-multiplier-divisor chains for getting certain numbers?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory by duskwuff on Monday October 24, 2016 @04:29PM (#12782576)

Dividing a frequency by a large prime, like 41, is somewhat difficult without digital electronics. Smaller factors are easier.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory by nitrogen on Monday October 24, 2016 @06:21PM (#12783433)

I imagine historic gearmakers for watches and clocks would have worked out such a system.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory by bravo22 on Monday October 24, 2016 @04:51PM (#12782777)

PLL's have been around since the 1920's. They could easily divide by n. The actual value of n didn't matter (within some bounds).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory by djaychela on Monday October 24, 2016 @01:20PM (#12780799)

Would it not just have been created natively using an appropriate osciallator, given that the reference was from 1939?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory by fuzzfactor on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @09:42AM (#12787864)

A truly decent audio oscillator was only available after 1939, when Hewlett & Packard issued their first instrument.

In a 1985 letter, Dave [Packard] described Hewlett's audio oscillator as "the foundation on which Hewlett-Packard Company was able to grow into the largest manufacturer of electronic instruments in the world, the keystone that allowed four and one-half decades of major contributions to electronic measurement technology and equipment."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory by masklinn on Monday October 24, 2016 @01:54PM (#12781114)

Maybe but it'd have been significantly more complex, here they could take a MHz piezo-electric crystal and tack on a few electronic multipliers and dividers (/1000 *11 /25) to get the desired frequency.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory by RandomName2020 on Monday October 24, 2016 @03:20PM (#12781939)

Quartz oscillators are usually made in at leas 10th of kHz range, for whatever reason. Second most stable oscillators are LC and would require large coils for lower frequencies.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The “432 Hz vs. 440 Hz” conspiracy theory by bravo22 on Monday October 24, 2016 @01:52PM (#12781104)

It would still have been divided down. There aren't many "Hz" oscillators. They're all usually in KHz/MHz range.

[ Parent | on HN ]