432hz

[j_j]

The popular interest in 432 is about psychoacoustics rather than the mechanics of sound and hearing. Just as people respond to major and minor chords, it has been claimed that 432 Hz tuning has a special effect on peoples mood and well being. Various studies suggest that 432 is more calming than 440.

Music Tuned to 440 Hz Versus 432 Hz and the Health Effects: A Double-blind Cross-over Pilot Study - PubMed

The data suggests that 432 Hz tuned music can decrease heart rate more than 440 Hz tuned music. The study results suggest repeating the experiment with a larger sample pool and introducing randomized controlled trials covering more clinical parameters.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I don't doubt that lower pitch is generally more calming than higher pitch, but I have my doubts that there is something special about 432 Hz in particular (as opposed to, say 430 or 433). People latched onto the number 432 for various historical reasons. There are also more dubious claims about 432 having healing powers and being in harmony with the body.

That's psychology, not psychoacoustics, but ok, I suppose. I'm a tad skeptical. And, yes, please, let's have a reasonable sample pool, and control for other confounding factors.

 

[GrO]

Back on topic (432 Hz)...

I don't have an opinion about whether music played at 432 tuning sounds better or has a special quality. However, I feel uneasy about the idea of altering the pitch of an original performance unless it is the artist's intention.

I see your point but there are 2 cases about that:

1) Regarding the physics we can say that the lower tuning produces slightly softer sound. Even the proponents of A4=440Hz say the higher tuning gives sharper and louder notes, especially regarding the string instruments.

2) I know other musicians where many of them are guitarists and they often say it's hard for them to get an unlocked tuner allowing them to use A4=432Hz, so can we say that 440 is really their choice while many of them couldn't even try the alternative one?

Suppose that you retuned Glenn Gould's Goldberg Variations to 432 Hz. It's possible that it might sound fantastic and some might even prefer it to the original. However you wouldn't be able to say, "this is Glenn Gould playing the Goldberg Variations at 432 Hz tuning", because it isn't.

I agree with that.

Musicians adjust their performance to the sound from their instrument. A pianist playing something on a 440 piano will play the same piece differently when they sit down at a 432 piano because of the different quality of sound.

The tuning pitch isn't something that stands alone — it affects the performance. A retuned recording doesn't represent how the musician would actually play the music at that pitch.

Maybe, maybe not. How can we be sure it's always like that? Imagine a pianist or guitarist who has played some song for years and he's doing it without thinking, then it is possible that he would just repeat the same grips and moves, don't you think it just depends on the experience and/or musician's personality?

 

[Tom C]

I don’t know if this has been mentioned yet, but I believe part of the reason for different standards for A was that, for an organ concerto, the orchestra had to tune to the organ. The orchestra could travel, the organ couldn’t, so the rest of the instruments tuned to the different organs.
I can’t imagine this would make much of a difference in practice. The description of benefits sounds a bit like magical thinking to me…

 

[GrO]

I don’t know if this has been mentioned yet, but I believe part of the reason for different standards for A was that, for an organ concerto, the orchestra had to tune to the organ. The orchestra could travel, the organ couldn’t, so the rest of the instruments tuned to the different organs.

But why would they make the organs tuned differently each time they were made? Can you provide any articles confirming this?

I can’t imagine this would make much of a difference in practice. The description of benefits sounds a bit like magical thinking to me…

It's also a difference between more soft or more sharp sound in general and it's related to the physics itself. Another fact is that A4=435Hz, A4=432Hz, A4=430.54Hz (C4=256Hz), and even those much lower ones were used in Europe for almost 250 years until A4=440Hz became a standard.

 

[j_j]

But why would they make the organs tuned differently each time they were made? Can you provide any articles confirming this?

The long and short of it is that they were made to local standards. 432, 420, 415 even. What's more, changing the pitch of an organ is a disturbingly difficult thing without messing seriously with the voicing, too.

 

[Julf]

It's also a difference between more soft or more sharp sound in general and it's related to the physics itself.

Can you explain how that works?

 

[GrO]

The long and short of it is that they were made to local standards. 432, 420, 415 even. What's more, changing the pitch of an organ is a disturbingly difficult thing without messing seriously with the voicing, too.

Yes, the pipes' width, length etc. but why did they make A4=440Hz a standard and not the A4=432Hz. Some people say that's because of the string instruments, to make them more sharp and loud, but string instruments existed in XVIII century too.

 

[GrO]

Can you explain how that works?

Did you ever hear sharp bass? I didn't. Did you ever hear sharp soprano or e.g. a cymbal in a drum set? I did.

 

[nerdstrike]

Once I was asked to tune up to something that must have been well north of 440Hz. I didn't have any leeway to do so, so we all sounded terrible...

Clarinet coarse tuning is made by adjusting the barrel joints, so you can go down but not up beyond fully joined.

 

[Mnyb]

But would really changing pitch afterwards be the same as actually tune the instruments to that pitch, can’t imagine musical instruments being that linear , would not overtones and other properties change a bit ?

Add to that as have been said before the musicians may performe differently to .

So are there not some “early music” recordings and artist that do these kind of thing for real ? That would be the way if one has the interest to explore different tunings.

 

[Julf]

Did you ever hear sharp bass? I didn't. Did you ever hear sharp soprano or e.g. a cymbal in a drum set? I did.

What has that to do with anything? Of course different instruments sound different. But why would, let's say, an organ pipe sound "sharper" tuned to 440 than to 432 Hz? I assume you use "sharper" in the meaning of "more overtones/harmonics" rather than just "higher in pitch".

 

[GrO]

But would really changing pitch afterwards be the same as actually tune the instruments to that pitch, can’t imagine musical instruments being that linear , would not overtones and other properties change a bit ?

Probably not regarding the resonance and the consonance, but the best way I know is slowing playback rate down without modifying the source track and resampling it totally, risking a quality loss if didn't performed with some professional hardware.

Add to that as have been said before the musicians may performe differently to.

Maybe, maybe not. How can we be sure it's always like that? Imagine a pianist or guitarist who has played some song for years and he's doing it without thinking, then it is possible that he would just repeat the same grips and moves, don't you think it just depends on the experience and/or musician's personality?

So are there not some “early music” recordings and artist that do these kind of thing for real ? That would be the way if one has the interest to explore different tunings.

That's also what I've thought. I'd love to hear the same track played by the same group in both 440 and 432 tuning configurations.

What has that to do with anything? Of course different instruments sound different. But why would, let's say, an organ pipe sound "sharper" tuned to 440 than to 432 Hz? I assume you use "sharper" in the meaning of "more overtones/harmonics" rather than just "higher in pitch".

It has to do with it a lot because that's the hint that could help you understand what I mean. The guitarists say the same thing that the higher tuning makes their strings producing sharper and louder notes, and it's about the pitch and the strings' tension also.

 

[Julf]

It has to do with it a lot because that's the hint that could help you understand what I mean. The guitarists say the same thing that the higher tuning makes their strings producing sharper and louder notes, and it's about the pitch and the strings' tension also.

But you can't actually explain the physics. Sure, string tension changes the vibration of the string, but you could easily change the measures of a guitar to sound exactly the same (apart from pitch) at 432 as a standard guitar at 440.

Do you think you could hear, if there was no pitch difference, a difference in sound in a recording that was played slowed down by 2%? Possibly yes, due to the resonances in the ear @j_j alluded to, but those are pretty random...

 

[GrO]

But you can't actually explain the physics. Sure, string tension changes the vibration of the string, but you could easily change the measures of a guitar to sound exactly the same (apart from pitch) at 432 as a standard guitar at 440.

Do you think you could hear, if there was no pitch difference, a difference in sound in a recording that was played slowed down by 2%? Possibly yes, due to the resonances in the ear @j_j alluded to, but those are pretty random...

Don't feel offended but what you've wrote there now sounds like a nonsense for me. You've totally forgot about strings' length having an influence on the pitch too, and how do you imagine changing a tuning without changing the pitch? And what do you mean by changing the measures of a guitar - changing the guitar's fretboard position, necks length or what?

 

[mSpot]

why did they make A4=440Hz a standard and not the A4=432Hz.

Something becomes established as a standard when enough people agree to use it. Nothing more and nothing less. They (committees and conferences) could have picked something else but 440 happened to be in common usage at the time. There are advantages to having everybody follow the same standard (whether in engineering, science, or music) and it stuck.

But there is a long and complicated history behind it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_pitch#History_of_pitch_standards_in_Western_music

 

[GrO]

Something becomes established as a standard when enough people agree to use it. Nothing more and nothing less. They (committees and conferences) could have picked something else but 440 happened to be in common usage at the time. There are advantages to having everybody follow the same standard (whether in engineering, science, or music) and it stuck.

But there is a long and complicated history behind it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_pitch#History_of_pitch_standards_in_Western_music

Yes, I've partially read it one day and I know that Johann Scheibler (a silk manufacturer) stands behind A4=440Hz. The funny thing is that Joseph Sauveur used his tonometer but he actually preferred C4=256Hz (A4=430.54Hz) and where's the info about the musicians' majority that wanted the higher tuning standard? The Stuttgart Conference of 1834 was organized by physicists, not musicians.

International Organization for Standardization employs musicians? The year is also "funny" (1939).

For me deepening this subject just brings more questions than answers.

 

[Julf]

Don't feel offended but what you've wrote there now sounds like a nonsense for me.

Ah, thanks, because that is how what you wrote souneed to me.

You've totally forgot about strings' length having an influence on the pitch too, and how do you imagine changing a tuning without changing the pitch?

Of course I didn't forget it. That is exactly my point - if you make s string (and the other measures of the instrument) longer or shorter, without changing the relative tension, you shift pitch but also shift all the harmonics and overtones, so there is no change in the "tone" or "character" of the tone - only a change in pitch. Exactly the same effect as electronically shifting the rate (thus changing pitch) of a signal.

So my point is that the absolute pitch doesn't matter, what matters is the relative spectrum (and envelope) of the sound.

And what do you mean by changing the measures of a guitar - changing the guitar's fretboard position, necks length or what?

See above.

 

[GrO]

Of course I didn't forget it. That is exactly my point - if you make s string (and the other measures of the instrument) longer or shorter, without changing the relative tension, you shift pitch but also shift all the harmonics and overtones, so there is no change in the "tone" or "character" of the tone - only a change in pitch. Exactly the same effect as electronically shifting the rate (thus changing pitch) of a signal.

So my point is that the absolute pitch doesn't matter, what matters is the relative spectrum (and envelope) of the sound.

Lol, higher pitch produces higher tones and how do you want a guitarist to make his strings longer suddenly? You want everyone to make his own guitar in their own carpentry shop? You just flew away so high now and it's another off-topic that I don't want to participate in. I'm more interested in continuing a conversation with j_j, mSpot, Mnyb, and everyone else talking reasonably on the topic here. Be well.

 

[Julf]

Lol, higher pitch produces higher tones

Do you really not understand the distinction between pitch/frequency and "tone" or character (spectrum and envelope) of a sound?

and how do you want a guitarist to make his strings longer suddenly? You want everyone to make his own guitar in their own carpentry shop?

Are you misunderstanding on purpose?

You just flew away so high now and it's another off-topic that I don't want to participate in. I'm more interested in continuing a conversation with j_j, mSpot, Mnyb, and everyone else talking reasonably on the topic here. Be well.

You too...

 

[GrO]

Do you really not understand the distinction between pitch/frequency and "tone" or character (spectrum and envelope) of a sound?

Okay man, each note or tone is a certain frequency yes? Then what's the difference between e.g. C4=264Hz achieved with a regular string's length and the C4=264Hz achieved with a longer string?