## A=444Hz Tuning and the Magic 528Hz Frequency

One of my guitar-playing friends recently posted the following article to Facebook as a joke:

http://themindunleashed.org/2014/03/miracle-528-hz-solfeggio-fibonacci-numbers.html

I know that my friend was just being silly, but the actual content of that piece is more drivel in a long line of mathematical silliness which forces me to heave a deep sigh for the fate of humanity. The article in question reinforces my conviction that some people will believe just about anything: bigfoot, aliens, unicorns, Obamacare, leprechauns, etc. But one of my personal favorites is the assertion that altering the base frequency in a tuning scale will somehow lead to a perfect universe.

What a bunch of hooey.

As I mentioned earlier, I know that my friend was posting the article to be silly, but just for the sake of argument, I can't resist taking a look at the math from the article. At the risk of being overly self-indulgent, I know that I have used my A=432Hz Tuning blog post to refute concepts like this in the past. But that being said, my blog post examines a lot of the actual math behind these sorts of silly ideas, and they just don't stand up to scrutiny. Oh sure, there's a bunch of purported facts in the article that my friend posted, (once you get past the gooey new age crap). But as I said earlier, people will believe just about anything.

Here's a case in point: when I visited Machu Picchu I was assured by my tour guide that one of the stones in one of the walls had been certified by NASA as the harmonic center point of all nature. I didn't believe my guide, but in hindsight her statement seems considerably more plausible than anything that was presented in the "Magic 528Hz" article. (Note: I meant that humorously; you can't trust NASA to find the harmonic center point of anything.)

In any event - let's take a look at some of the math from the `528Hz`

article, shall we?

If you use `A=444Hz`

as the article suggests, that does NOT make the frequency for `C `

fall on an even interval - it's off by a diminutive fraction:

Note | Frequency |
---|---|

`A` | `444.00 Hz` |

`Bb` | `470.40 Hz` |

`B` | `498.37 Hz` |

`C` | `528.01 Hz` |

`C#` | `559.40 Hz` |

`D` | `592.67 Hz` |

`Eb` | `627.91 Hz` |

`E` | `665.25 Hz` |

`F` | `704.81 Hz` |

`F#` | `746.72 Hz` |

`G` | `791.12 Hz` |

`G#` | `838.16 Hz` |

`A` | `888.00 Hz` |

As you can see, the frequency for `C `

falls pretty *close* to `528Hz`

. But as I mentioned in my blog, what your ear actually *wants *to hear are frequencies which harmonically-derived perfect intervals across the scale. However, the frequencies in the tuning scale that the article's author is using are based on equal-temperament, which is a harmonically imperfect standard. Because of this fact, you would not use equal-tempered tuning if you were actually trying to calculate harmonically-perfect intervals, so the `528Hz`

article is completely busted right there. (On a side note, even frequencies in a full scale like this do not matter to your ear - because *they just don't*. Period. You can have uneven decimal points for perfect intervals in a harmonically-derived scale if you do your math correctly; arguing about decimal points is just stupid.)

That being said, the author spends a great deal of time rambling on and on about Fibonacci sequences, (which *are* really cool by the way). However, the author completely fails to mention (or perhaps to even notice) that `528`

doesn't fall in the standard Fibonacci sequence:

`1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377,`

610, 987, 1597, 2584, 4181, 6765, 10946, etc.

Now, if the number `528`

had actually fallen *inside* the standard Fibonacci sequence, that would have been a pretty cool factoid for the article. But that being said, it still wouldn't mean *anything*.

Just for the fun of it, let's see how we can manipulate the math a little, shall we?

For example, if you use `A=431.33333Hz`

as your base frequency, then the frequency for `Eb`

will be `610.00Hz`

, which is actually a valid number in a standard Fibonacci sequence. That's kind of amusing, *but it doesn't mean anything useful*. All that means is that I spent a lot of time in Excel typing in random base frequencies until I bumped into a number that worked. Likewise, if you use `A=443.99Hz`

as your base frequency, then your `C`

will actually be `528Hz`

, but that's just as useless. (And good luck trying to find a tuner that will let you use `A=443.99Hz`

as your base frequency.)

In the end, the article which my friend posted to Facebook is an amusing work of fiction, although reading it will waste several minutes of your life which could have been spent doing something considerably more productive.