Talk:Scientific pitch

Dubious

Whole number of Hz have no special significance because the Hz is tied to the second (1 Hz = 1 cycle per second), and the second is an ARBITRARILY chosen interval of time with no special significance in science.

See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKTZ151yLnk 95.192.68.44 (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the above is disputing the current claim:

Note that 256 being a power of 2, only octaves (factor 2:1) and, in just tuning, higher-pitched perfect fifths (factor 3:2) of the scientific pitch standard will have a frequency of a convenient integer value. With a Verdi pitch standard of A4 = 432 Hz = 24 × 33, in just tuning all octaves (factor 2), perfect fourths (factor 4:3) and fifths (factor 3:2) will have pitch frequencies of integer numbers, but not the major thirds (factor 5:4) nor major sixths (factor 5:3) which have a prime factor 5 in their ratios. However scientific tuning implies an equal temperament tuning where the frequency ratio between each half tone in the scale is the same, being the 12th root of 2 (a factor of 1.059463), which is not a rational number: therefore in scientific pitch only the octaves of C have a frequency of a whole number in hertz.

It's not obvious to me what this has to do with scientific pitch. It's true that in equal temperament, any pitch standard at all which sets one reference note to a frequency in Hz will have exact rational pitches for the octaves above and below the reference note, and no others.

And it's true that in just intonation the intervals will be rational, and not just the octaves and fifths and fourths etc., but also thirds and sixths which introduce a factor of 5. And again, that's independent of the pitch standard. I note that the passage I quote above says scientific tuning implies an equal temperament tuning. (my emphasis) But is this scientific tuning implied by, or even the same thing as, scientific pitch? I'm skeptical. I note also that there are no references given for any of this.

But this is a strange way of saying any of that, wp:OR at best and perhaps not even very good research. Andrewa (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

This is sometimes used in pedagogy (where pythagorean tuning is referenced) because it makes calculations easier. So when I teach sound sometimes I use this tuning so that students get answers for perfect fifths and fourths that show up as whole numbers. I never knew this was called "scientific pitch", however. I would think it might be better to call it "pedagogical pitch" or something. jps (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

On further investigation, it appears to me that this entire claptrap is just that. Yuck. jps (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Guidance/help improving or merging this page. Comment

I'm noticing some problems with this page. I certainly agree with the issues raised above section, specifically the unsourced claim that "scientific tuning implies an equal temperament tuning..." in the lead section. None of the sources that I could access seem to support this, and I believe the claim to be untrue.

In the history section, there is a lot of talk about "pitch inflation", though the term is never used. I'm wondering if the term should be used somewhere and if the "pitch inflation" section of the "concert pitch" article should be linked somewhere in here (I know the entire article is linked at the top of the section). There also seems to be a selective inclusion of historical pitch references lower than the modern standard of A=440Hz with no mention of historical pitch references higher than A=440Hz. I can find some sources and add them in if anyone thinks it's worthwhile.

More importantly, the link for citation 13 is dead. I tried to replace it with an archived version, but my edit didn't work so I reverted it. More importantly, it seems that instead of saying that Zucker "believes the Schiller Institute claims about Verdi tuning are historically inaccurate", it would make more sense to add other RS that support his claim (rather than a magazine quoting a tabloid reporter). I'm sure I could hunt some down if anyone thinks it's worthwhile, but does any of this belong in an article on scientific pitch?

I'm starting to question the need for this article. It seems to focus more on the Schiller Institute's claims and activities than as a pitch reference that makes numbers clearer. I find this strange, as the Schiller institute primarily focuses on the frequency of A=432Hz, which, in equal temperament tuning (which the article states is implied for some reason) would result in a pitch of C=256.87Hz. Close, but no cigar (if using just intonation, it would be even further away at C=259.2Hz). From my perspective, it seems that the Schiller Institute has used associated itself with the term "scientific pitch" in order to make their arguments sound more credible. Is there any reason this article shouldn't be moved to a section in the "Concert pitch" article?

I'm a new/inexperienced editor, hoping to start contributing to subjects of which I am knowledgeable. Any advice/help/criticism is appreciated. Prunenoveggie (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

My contribution to this article was solely about the use of scientific pitch in scientific writing. I had nothing to do with any of the rest of it. My bit started off as this edit in the Scientific pitch notation article. It was possibly inappropriate there. It subsequently got split out to its own page with the addition of the stuff about Verdi tuning. Note that I did not claim that scientific tuning implied equal temperament in my original text and my sources do not verify that as far as I know. However, imo that is quite likely to be true in a scientific paper.

I feel this information should remain on Wikipedia somewhere per WP:RETAIN, but the Concert pitch article seems even less appropriate (for the part I'm concerned with) than where it started out. SpinningSpark 13:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Agreed, the basic information in your edit should certainly be retained. Where it belongs is a good question, but I find it misleading to associate the information you originally provided with the Schiller Institute along with Verdi's passing mention of a preference for a different pitch standard.

I don't think Scientific pitch notation is the worst place for this. I could also see it fitting in a new section in the Musical tuning article about common/historical/list of "tuning reference frequencies", though I fear the existence of such a section would cause issues and be filled with fringe theories regarding various tuning references that may receive WP:UNDUE attention.

I think Concert pitch is the best place for it, and now that I'm reading through that entire article (which I realize I should have done before my original comment), I notice that Scientific pitch is indeed already mentioned under "19th and 20th century standards" in the History section, again loosely connected to the Schiller Institute stuff (though in a more concise manner that provides better context with the Schiller stuff than the version here, IMO). I believe what's written in the Concert pitch article preserves the most important parts of this article, though I would worry about losing the sourcing you originally provided without proper review. I also think some of the info about Joseph Sauveur ought to be retained as well, but as far as I can tell the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs in the History section of this current article have nothing to do with Scientific pitch. Therefore I see no reason to WP:RETAIN those parts.

Any thoughts on this matter are appreciated. Also...am I going about this in the right way? Should I be discussing this at Talk:Concert pitch or other talk pages/corners of wikipedia? Prunenoveggie (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)