# What makes an interval "Perfect"?

I've been trying to find an answer, but to no avail. Is what we call a perfect interval somewhat arbitrary? It seems as if the modern definition is "perfect under inversion". I know the other thing people say is that it is consonant, but I can't find a rigorous definition of consonance.

Is there a solid definition of perfect intervals, lying around somewhere I just can't find?

• Resonance among the natural harmonics of the two tones in the interval.
– user50691
Jul 24, 2018 at 23:50

Based on your reaction to other very good answers posted here already, your question seems to boil down to: "Why do humans innately feel that certain intervals are consonant". And so much so that they are willing to call them "perfect". Before getting to that question, let's look at why Western culture might consider them "perfect". My answer to your question will be rather freeform because the truth of the matter is there is not really good answer to your question outside the music theory-based explanations given above.

The modern Western music system has been inherited from some of the groundwork set by Pythagoras. It has been heavily modified to the point now that the modern 12-tone equal temperament we use now has the spirit of the original ideas from Pythagoras even if it differs greatly in many other ways. To Pythagoras, and possibly many Greeks at the time, certain intervals sounded very pleasing to the ear. Mathematically, these intervals are superparticular ratios [(n + 1)/n) or multiples [(x*n)/n]. For example, 4/3 is a superparticular ratio and 3/1 is a multiple. In other words, when the two frequencies resonate together and the ratio of the frequencies comes out in either of these forms many people in Western culture would agree they are pleasing. The perfect ratios display this quality in the best sense: 2/1 is an octave, 3/2 is a perfect fifth, and 4/3 is a perfect fourth. There is the least amount of conflict in the frequencies between the notes allowing for more complete symmetrical intersection between the waveforms. This is probably why Pythagoras liked these intervals - the Pythagoreans loved this kind of mathematical perfection. He liked it so much he tried to develop a tuning system out of it (Pythagorean Tuning) which ended being impossible without introducing a tuning error (the Pythagorean Comma).

I am not too clear on how Pythagoras's discoveries exactly carried over through time but his ideas were often used and cited by other musicologists through time. One example is Ptolemy who created scales based of Pythagorean tuning that included other less consonant intervals (thirds). What I am getting at here is that our assumption of the "perfect" intervals derives from the fact that the system's originator (and possibly his culture) deemed them to be perfect. It's hard to say why the name persisted through time but needless to say, thousands of tunings systems were developed after Pythagoras, most of which tried to preserve the perfect fifth, fourth, and the octave while allowing wiggle room for other intervals to fit together in the scales (I'm oversimplifying but that's the idea).

But is it pleasing to humans in general? That depends. Many cultures developed other systems that don't necessarily have this obsession with the perfect intervals or used many others equally. Other cultures (Persian music) have divided the octave into 53-tones, 24-tones (some forms of Indian music), and other divisions. One response to this is that the majority of non-Western cultures tended to develop music systems that were melodically complex: complex scales over a single droning note, but not harmonically complex like Western music. So perhaps they never needed to develop the notions of "perfect" in the first place. There is also the fact that in the modern era we have become increasingly attracted to dissonant or unusual forms of harmony. There is widespread interest in rock/metal which emphasizes distorting the sound wave to emphasis dissonant overtones (even if the intervals actually played are quite consonant). Dubstep is not exactly harmonically pleasing either but it is popular. Modern Jazz uses some complex and dissonant forms of harmony. A lot of 20th century classical music is also very dissonant. The question comes down to if it's a matter of taste, the unexpected (things that surprise us make things interesting, a change from regularity), culture/social norms, or if it's innate. There's also a difference between enjoying dissonant music and actually finding it pleasing. I love dissonant music but I don't really find it more "pleasing" than consonant music - I like it because it is jarring.

Music psychology and cognitive neuroscience has not come to a firm conclusion on this question. There have been a lot of studies on this topic but none are quite conclusive. One simple explanation is that evolutionarily, the human brain learned to find patterns and structure to apply semantic meaning. This means that we seek things that have regularity and predictability and attempt to assign meaning to things to help them to fit within these frameworks. Dissonant music deliberately goes outside predictable frequency ratios that line up, producing uneven sounds. Perhaps the aversion to these sounds is a by-product of the general manner in which the brain functions in the world.

But this is a post hoc explanation. Cognitive neuroscience has been asking these questions for a long time and modern advances in computational neuroscience may soon provide an answer. A simple look at this question can be found in this Nature article.

To summarize: We probably call it "perfect" because of Pythagoras and musicologists that came after him. We probably think it's "perfect" for cultural and social reasons. If it is really "perfect" to us innately is to be determined.

• There's some good stuff in this answer, but the super particularratio does not correspond well to “perfect” intervals, as the major third (5:4) and minor third (6:5) have the same kind of ratio. Aug 1, 2014 at 6:46
• You're completely correct. The point I was trying to make was that the Pythagoreans recognized superparticular ratios as being consonant but did not extend this principle beyond the fourth harmonic. This goes back to what I was saying about modern Western music "inheriting" the idea of the consonance of 2:1, 3:2, and 4:3, from Pythagoras as a fixed state that tuning systems were to achieve. Aug 1, 2014 at 15:06
• What's more interesting to me though is that 12-tet does not use any of the just intervals beyond the perfect ones (+/- 1-2 cents). The major third is off by 14 cents (from the 5-limit major third) in 12-tet but nobody really seems to notice unless they have been exposed to Just Intonation for long enough. This really makes me think it's not very innate but learned/cultural. Just my speculation though. Aug 1, 2014 at 15:07
• @leftaroundabout There's also the hypothesis that the brain "corrects" what it hears, much as it can correct an obvious wrong note in a performance. When it can't, there's a tendency to withdraw. For example, when an orchestra is playing a piece in such a way that the parts aren't quite together, or if the acoustics are such that different parts hit the ear at different times, there's a greater tendency for the audience to fall asleep. I suspect that tuning variances in intervals are resolved in the brain to their most consonant value. I suspect that this process is innate, also. Aug 2, 2014 at 18:18
• @Athanasius I wrote this answer a long time ago when I was doing more reading in this area. I didn't mention this in my answer but my understanding was that the Greek ideas were resurfaced during the Renaissance and the English names appeared after that as a carry over. This does not necessarily reflect the prevailing attitude about consonance prior to this (i.e. during, say, the middle ages). I think my answer could be significantly improved with some references so I'll take a look and see what I can find. I would be interested in anything you guys find as well. Dec 9, 2019 at 17:13

There are four types of perfect interval: perfect unison, perfect fourth, perfect fifth, and perfect octave.

These can be thought of as belonging to two groups. In the first group, all intervals of a unison or an octave are called perfect because the note is not changed. An octave is twice (or half) the frequency of the first note.

The second group includes the perfect fifth or perfect fourth. Actually, traditionally the fourth was not considered consonant. However, since the fifth is perfect, and the inversion of the fifth is a fourth, then the fourth is exactly the same thing as a fifth and must also be perfect. These notes add a very slight amount of coloring but not really enough to constitute a harmony.

Rather than using dissonance or consonance (somewhat subjective terms), I prefer to think about it as adding harmonic content or not.

Take any root note, and add as many unisons, octaves, and fifths (or fourths, but please not both, because now these two will conflict with each other), and you have no real harmony. The unisons and octaves do not add harmonic content because they're the same note as the root. And the fifth doesn't add harmonic content because it is the strongest overtone in the harmonic series. In a nutshell, if you play the root note C, you are also to some extent playing a G because the G is audibly present in the harmonic series of the root note C. Whenever anyone plays a C, they're also playing a G, because physics. So whether you then use your instrument to play a second G or not, the G is present inside of the C anyways.

So perfect intervals are those which are so consonant that they don't add any harmony.

Note: edited for clarity due to a number of comments asking for clarification.

• A harmony is when you combine two or more notes and they create a sound that none of the notes could have had by itself. If your first note is "C", adding the octave "C" or the perfect fifth "G" doesn't really create any harmony. But adding an "E" and an "A" to the "C" would add quite a bit of harmony. That's because those notes are not "C", and not "G" which as I mentioned is already contained inside of the C.
– Grey
Jul 31, 2014 at 7:11
• I think I might understand. But you say "whenever anyone plays a C, they're also playing a G, because physics." I'm not sure I understand what physics you're talking about, I feel as if whatever logic we use to "show" there is a G could also be used to "show" there is any other note.
– user12838
Jul 31, 2014 at 7:16
• I think you're convoluting interval names and dissonance. There is nothing wrong with the term "perfect fourth". This is simply a fourth that is neither augmented nor diminished. Whether that is considered dissonance or consonance is simply another matter. Jul 31, 2014 at 7:31
• @Anthony It can. But most other notes would fall outside of your own ability to hear. The G is audible.
– Grey
Jul 31, 2014 at 7:33
• @Grey your statement that there are only two kinds of perfect interval is simply not correct. Perfect, minor, major, augmented, diminished: it is just a matter of nomenclature. An interval is a perfect fourth when you can count 4 staff positions starting from the lower and up to and including the upper note that make up the interval and when the number of semi-tones between those notes is 5. No need to complicate matters by talking about consonance or "inheriting" something from its complementary interval. Jul 31, 2014 at 7:58

A “perfect” interval is one that has nice small integer frequency ratios in Pythagorean tuning. These are traditionally considered the most consonant intervals.

• P1 = 1:1
• P8 = 2:1
• P5 = 3:2
• P4 = 4:3

Major and minor intervals have more complex ratios:

• M2 = 9:8
• m7 = 16:9
• M6 = 27:16
• m3 = 32:27
• M3 = 81:64
• m6 = 128:81
• M7 = 243:128
• m2 = 256:243

(They are distinguished by major intervals having a power of 3 in the numerator, and minor intervals having a power of 3 in the denominator.)

Augmented and diminished ratios, being father away from unison on the circle of fifths, are more complex still.

This classification may not make as much sense in other tuning systems like 5-limit just intonation, which aims to make major and minor thirds more consonant by simplifying their ratios to 5:4 and 6:5, or to the now-ubiquitous equal temperament which abandons integer ratios altogether. But musical terminology is slow to change.

Perfect intervals are the ones that don't have two forms: major and minor.

```    C    Db    D     Eb    E     F       F#      G       Ab    A     Bb    B     C
root minor major minor major perfect tritone perfect minor major minor major octave
2nd   2nd   3rd   3rd   4th     aug/dim 5th     6th   6th   7th   7th
4th/5th
```

The tritone is just an oddball from this (over-)simplified view.

• The rules seem to have been man-made. A second (the D) is the same note in major and minor, just like the 4th and 5th. All three are present in both major and minor keys, so it seems (to me), illogical to say that a 2nd can be major or minor, especially when a minor 2nd doesn't appear in a minor key ! Yes, it's all technicality, but seems artificial.What do you think ?
– Tim
Jul 31, 2014 at 8:07
• The rules are very much man-made. The consonances and resonances appear to exist in nature apart from human participation, but music is largely a construct of the mind interpreting the sounds it hears, and music theory tries to describe this after-the-fact. So the artificiality is rather par for the course. Not helping things is the fact that the terms major and minor are used to designate different things: the Major/Minor scales, major/minor intervals. The Major scale is composed of all major intervals, but the Minor scale is not all minor, that is the Phrygian mode. Jul 31, 2014 at 8:21
• It always makes me smile that a minor 6th chord has a major 6th in it...
– Tim
Jul 31, 2014 at 8:34
• @Tim, by minor sixth chord, do you mean the first inversion of a minor triad? I don't have any issue with that. The precedence is the kind of triad (major, minor, diminished) and then the inversion - sixth being first inversion. That said there seem to be a lot of different chord naming schemes, and even more system to denote them. Jul 31, 2014 at 9:02
• @RolandBouman - a minor 6th chord is I-mIII-V-VI, as in C-Eb_G-A. A minor triad with an added major 6th.I'm not using classical inversion notation.
– Tim
Jul 31, 2014 at 9:24

All intervals can be turned upside down.(Called inverted). Thus a C-E as a major third, when played E-C becomes a minor sixth. There is a 'rule of nine'.Minors become majors, majors become minors, augmenteds become diminisheds, etc. The exceptions are the octaves, 4ths and 5ths. (Unison doesn't count !) Those do not change their identities. A 4th of C-F becomes a 5th of F-C, BUT, the interval stays as is - perfect. It hasn't changed.

• Ugh, I keep finding this a little unsatisfactory. First, it depends on our definition of major and minor- which I suppose is fine, (although I'm not sure how to make that definition un-arbitrary.) Second, it doesn't seem enlightening in any way to me, as to why we called it a perfect- why is this invariance under inversion such a good quality?
– user12838
Jul 31, 2014 at 17:16
• Don't forget the Tritone, which is the same even when inverted.
– Kaji
Jul 31, 2014 at 17:39
• ^Well sure, but thing is like, staying in the major scale under inversion, right? (I still have no idea why that is perfect.)
– user12838
Jul 31, 2014 at 17:41
• Basically, it's the fact that it doesn't change when it is in major. It doesn't even have to be in the major scale. It still is the same in minor. Perfect maybe is not a quality imbued upon the interval, just a name. When all this was labelled, the tritone was disallowed, as it was perceived as the Devil's interval. And the definition of major and minor are pre-determined, they are not open to jurisdiction.
– Tim
Jul 31, 2014 at 18:28
• @Kaji Not exactly. C-F# is an augmented fourth. F#-C is a diminished fifth. Same interval, different name. Jul 31, 2014 at 23:00

"Is there a solid definition of perfect intervals, lying around somewhere I just can't find?"

Yes. A "perfect" interval is an interval that is not one of minor, major, diminished, augmented.

Since this has come up in comments, I feel like maybe it's different enough information to write a separate answer for those interested in the history of the actual term "perfect" consonance.

While SyntonicC's answer rightly points out the root of this distinction arising partly from Pythagorean theory, the history is a little more complicated.

To the Pythagoreans, consonance was thought of melodically (rather than as simultaneous pitches). There's a lot of detail I'll gloss over, but briefly their symphoniai (things "agreeing in sound") encompassed intervals formed with ratios of the numbers 1 through 4 (symbolically represented in their system with the number 10 = 1+2+3+4). The symphoniai thus included the ratios 2:1 (perfect octave), 3:2 (perfect fifth), 4:3 (perfect fourth), 3:1 (perfect twelfth), and 4:1 (double octave). There were all sorts of mathematical and mystical reasons they gave as justifications for treating these numbers as special. (I would note that the "perfect" eleventh is notably absent here, despite being simply composed of a perfect fourth and an octave, a point of contention over the millennia both in ancient Greece and in medieval Europe.)

A lot of these ideas were inherited by medieval Europe, translated imperfectly (no pun intended) by Boethius and others. And there were lots of classifications on intervals, but the first use of term "perfect" (Latin perfectus) came in the early 13th century, where intervals were generally classified into three categories:

• Perfectus: the octave and unison
• Imperfectus: imperfect consonances like thirds and sometimes sixths
• "Intermediate" consonances: the fifth and fourth

As for why the term perfectus was chosen, it likely had to do with the fact that unisons obviously enjoy a special status, and octave equivalence had become commonly accepted in the 11th and 12th centuries to the point that notes in different octaves were referenced with the same letter. (This is not an obvious development -- the original letter systems for pitches often began with A and just kept going through the alphabet in different octaves.) Hence, by around 1200, all notes we call "A" would have been thought of as equivalent in some respects, thus any unisons or octaves created by them would be "perfect" intervals.

Over the 13th and 14th centuries, the fifth was gradually elevated to the perfectus category, while the fourth became sometimes perfectus and sometimes a dissonance in practical counterpoint, which is still generally its status in modern music theory. It's likely that the elevation of the fifth and fourth to the perfectus category had something to do with the traditional Greek list of symphoniai intervals.

This two-fold classification of perfectus vs. imperfectus in consonances basically survives to the present day: i.e., "perfect" consonances are unisons, octaves, perfect fifths, and perfect fourths (and their compound intervals), while thirds and sixths are "imperfect" consonances.

Ultimately, the definition is somewhat arbitrary -- for the Greeks it had to do with the integers up to 4 (the tetractys) and their mystical appreciation of the number 10. For medieval folks, as they were trying to shuffle the fifth into the "perfect" category, they hedged about the fourth, as it already was causing counterpoint problems and being treated as dissonant sometimes. And then they started dealing with the practicalities that thirds and sixths sounded pretty good too, which led to more debates.

For a more detailed introduction to the historical issues, I might suggest starting with James Tenney's A History of Consonance and Dissonance.

All the rest have answered in terms of high-level music theory concepts, but I think it can be interesting to look at the intervals as raw coefficients instead. Harmonic intervals between notes are the intervals that can be expressed with simple rational numbers, where a "simple" rational number is one with a small amount of small prime factors.

For example, the distance between two tones (let's say, 440Hz and 880 Hz) is an octave if the frequency of the second tone is exactly two times the frequency of the first: 2 and 1/2 are the simplest rational numbers possible after the unison.

As our ear detects two tones that only differ by an octave as the "same" tone, multiplying or dividing by 2 an arbitrary number of times doesn't make intervals less simple. This makes 3 the simplest "significant" prime number. A fifth is an interval of 3/2, and a fourth is an interval of 2/3*, so we may conclude that a perfect interval is an interval that contains at most a single 3 as a prime factor and no other prime factor(as I said, we don't care about 2s).

* Technically, in the equally tempered scale this is not literally true: a fifth is 2^(7/12), which sliightly differs from 3/2, but our brain can't tell the difference.

• But why those numbers?
– user12838
Jul 31, 2014 at 17:19
• @Anthony: See the Harmony section at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_acoustics for the math, but basically two frequencies such as 200Hz and its perfect fifth, 300Hz, have lots of complementary partials (partials for 300 = 300, 600, 900, 1200, etc.) so they resonate well with each other. Frequencies like 200Hz and 522Hz don't resonate as well. Jul 31, 2014 at 20:06

I like @Dan04's answer re. simple ratios, but the other ones are very dense. I want to add a more straight forward answer:

The distinction is based on how the interval classes relate to the tonal center.

• The 4th, 5th, and octave above a tonic are the tonal degrees they determine the tonal center. These tonal degrees are qualified with perfect, diminished, augmented.
• The 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th above a tonic are the modal degrees and determine the mode or major/minor aspect. They are accordingly qualified major or minor. I think some regard the 2nd degree as both tonal and modal, this is minor detail ;-)

Keep in mind notation and enharmonic spellings make a difference. A minor seventh and augmented sixth are the same distance, but they are "spelled" differently in notation and those enharmonic spellings are used to make the harmony clear in a score.

Tritone is an alternative term for augmented fourth or diminished fifth. Do not use it if you want your enharmonic spelling to be clear.

I mostly agree with the answers given here and elsewhere on the site, and in particular, the answer here correctly states that:

The minor intervals are not minor because they are found in the minor scale and the same goes for major intervals. The intervals are ... based on ... and absolute distance in semitones.

In other words: when Western music theory decides that there's two versions of the same note, the sharp one is called "major" and the flat one is called "minor." The "perfect" notes are traditionally thought of as those that don't have different flavors.

In more detail: the chromatic scale is traditionally broken up into adjacent notes that are called "minor something" and "major something" respectively. The pattern breaks down at the middle, and this is where the perfect notes are found. In particular, we have:

Unison / Minor Second, Major Second / Minor Third, Major Third/ Perfect Fourth / A weird note that doesn't fit comfortably into traditional music theory / Perfect Fifth / Minor Sixth, Major Sixth / Minor Seventh, Major Seventh / Unison

However, these are historical comments. From a future-oriented perspective, the question is really whether we ought to introduce the notion of a perfect second (for example).

I would argue that we should.

From a JI perspective, the major second really splits into two notes, namely 9/8 (which is to be found at about 2.04 semitones above the tonic) and 10/9 (which is to be found at about 1.82 semitones above the tonic). Under 12-tone equal temperament, both these notes are given the same pitch - namely, they're both treated as being exactly 2 semitones above the tonic. However, you can add sweetness and sophistication to your music by ensuring they're treated differently. The question then arises of how to distinguish these notes terminologically.

I'd argue that 9/8 should be referred to as the "perfect second", while 10/9 should be referred to as the "major second." By adopting these conventions, we ensure that the three most important chords in the major scale have exactly one occurrence of a "major" note, which is always the middle note:

I = Unison, Major Third, Perfect Fifth

IV = Perfect Fourth, Major Sixth, Unison

V = Perfect Fifth, Major Seventh, Perfect Second

More generally, my position is roughly that "perfect" ought to mean Pythagorean, which means a note whose ratio only involves the prime numbers 2 and 3. The most important examples are:

1/1 (unison) 9/8 (perfect second) 4/3 (perfect fourth) 3/2 (perfect fifth) 16/9 (perfect seventh).

Of course, the note 16/9 (which is about 9.96 semitones above the tonic) is usually referred to as the minor seventh, but in my opinion it's better to reserve this name for the note 9/5 (which is about 10.18 semitones above the tonic). This doesn't quite accord with the historical meaning of the words "major" and "minor"; nonetheless, I think it significantly clarifies the underlying theory. In particular, referring to 16/9 as the "perfect seventh" ensures that the hree most important minor chords in the minor scale have exactly one "minor" note:

I = Unison, Minor Third, Perfect Fifth

IV = Perfect Fourth, Minor Sixth, Unison

V = Perfect Fifth, Minor Seventh, Perfect Second

For these reasons, if you're interested in microtonal music or just intonation, my position is that it's best to declare that "perfect" roughly means "pythagorean."

My understanding, and I don't remember where I learned this, is that the early Catholic church at first forbade harmony of any kind, then finally allowed only limited harmony with intervals that the church fathers considered "perfect" in the eyes (ears?) of God. This is why organum uses only perfect intervals.

The name "perfect" may be a reference to a numerical coincidence, which makes the interval of 7 semitones very close to the ratio 3:2 of frequencies.

27/12 = 1.4983...

3 / 2 = 1.5000...

Major and minor intervals are less precise:

24/12 = 1.2599...

5 / 4 = 1.2500...

which may make them annoying to the sensitive ear, as if e.g. your guitar is slightly out of tune.

This is only true for equal temperament tuning.

• It's only true for 12-tone equal temperament, which is close to having the pure 3/2 from Pythagorean tuning. (53-TET is closer, but poorly suited to piano-like instruments.) 19-TET has a better approximation to the 6/5 just minor third (2^(5/19) ≈ 1.2001), and 31-TET has a better approximation to the 5/4 just major third (2^(10/31) ≈ 1.2506). Aug 1, 2014 at 3:57

The fifth divides the octave with a fourth remaining above. The fourth divides the octave with a fifth remaining above. That is to complete the octave. Playing Perfect intervals that suggest no harmonic content and adding harmonic content is a'sound' approach to discovering the answer to the perfect interval question. All answers have certain validity. I think the best approach is the practice itself, which of course is music and musical instruments and listening.

• Well, your first statement is true for any interval and it's inverse...
– Dom
May 18, 2016 at 12:45

Perfect intervals aren't simply there because they are the most consonant or stable or whatever. They are there because they have to be for it to even work in the first place and their presence helps define a lot of the music theory that we know today.

I'm going to take a different approach to explain this: proof by contradiction. Let's try to make a system of only diminished, minor, Major and Augmented intervals and see what we come up with.

We start out with some issues from the start. Prime = M1 is reasonable, but a m1 on B??? K, whatever, let's press on

Ah, this makes sense. m2 on C#, M2 on D, everything right where we want it

Woah, woah, hold on! m4 on F and M4 on a tritone!? I'm getting dizzy...

Ok, d5 on tritone, that's cool...m5 on G? ehhh...I guess that's ok...maybe?

This is weird, but I guess we could get used to it...

M7 = Octave!?

An octave is diminished 8!?!? nope nope nope nope nope

The DEFINITELY didn't work...Let's try something else

Ok, prime = P1, that's perfect! (...)

Ah, this makes sense. m2 on C#, M2 on D, everything right where we want it

Now, to avoid the issues from before, we'll put P4 on the most stable...

...and P5 on the other most stable

Back on track

See, isn't this nice? :)

Aaaaand back to an octave on P8 sigh of relief

Another interesting feature of the system we use is symmetry. The axis of non-perfect intervals is half way between Major and minor so, when flipped over the root, Major becomes minor and minor becomes Major (i.e. C-up->E = M3, C-down->E = m6). The axis of Perfect intervals, however, is on the Perfect itself so flipping a perfect over the root gives another perfect (i.e. C-up->G = P5, C-down->G = P4). Aug and dim intervals also flip with each other regardless of whether their midpoint is on a Perfect or between Major and minor. (see chart below).

Inverted Intervals

• You can't have a diminished unison: music.stackexchange.com/questions/63589/…
– Dom
Sep 9, 2019 at 19:12
• @Dom Thanks for pointing that out! I only included it to complete the pattern, but I probably should have clarified that a little :) Sep 9, 2019 at 19:40