Tuning to A=432Hz.

Printable View

19-12-2014, 03:27 PM
DanMade

Tuning to A=432Hz.

So I've been doing some research on sound frequencies. Mainly just because I had very little understanding of them. It's been fascinating reading and a pretty deep subject.

Among things I've been looking into is different types of tuning systems. Equal temperament, true temperament ect, aswell as the history of why we today tune to a standard of A=440hz. With this reading I found that many different tunings have been used over the years. Tuning to A=432hz was commonly used before the United Nations set the worldwide standard to A=440Hz circa 1950.
I won't go into why the standard was set at 440Hz, that's a whole other discussion involving the Nazi's, illuminati and a bunch of other conspiracies.

There is a lot of hooha surrounding the use of A=432Hz, things like it's more inline with the natural frequencies of the human voice, making it easier for vocalists to sing to. It being inline with universe's natural frequencies. And matching up with the six Chakras.

Putting all that aside I decided to retune my guitar to A=432Hz to see if I could hear a difference other than it just being a little flatter than A=440. The difference was immediately noticeable. It sounded as if the sound had opened up. Natural harmonics seemed to jump out more. Notes seemed to sustain longer. Overall the sound was bigger and filled the room more.

After this I tuned back to 440Hz and the sound was more restricted and boxy.

I suggest you try this simple experiment and hear for yourself. I'm curious to see if others notice the difference too.
19-12-2014, 04:24 PM
ihasmario

I'm always skeptical of the claims about tuning. 440hz is not even the standard tuning today for many instruments. Orchestra Bells (glockenspiel), for example is often tuned to 442hz or 444hz to make it stand out more.

The claims surrounding 432hz are too magical for my liking, particularly when involving things like the "healing properties of 8hz." These bare resemblance to the notion that HAARP was used for mind control, because it used frequencies similar to the Schumann Resonance. I could easily claim that 429hz is a better choice, because 7.8hz is the resonant frequency of the Earth's ionosphere, and also some cells in our brain.

Ultimately I think the best tuning for any particular instrument is going to be built around multiples of fundamental pitch at which the entire instrument resonates. Which I am pretty sure we do for a huge number of instruments, centered around 440hz.

Beyond the possibility that your guitar resonates better at that pitch due to its mass, material and shape (have you tried it on multiple instruments), I can't see anything to it beyond personal taste.

I will try it in a few hours, just figured I'd get my initial thoughts down as a skeptic.
19-12-2014, 05:21 PM
ultpanzi

I've tried tuning to 432 and I didnt notice that much difference playing solo, but the rest of my band just thought I sounded out of tune (perfect pitch gifted people.)
19-12-2014, 06:17 PM
DanMade

I'm very skeptical of the whole "magical" properties of 432 aswell. The main thing that got me intrigued was the many comments mentioning that 432hz sounded fuller and projected more outward.

Now I'm not sure if it's because I had preconceptions about how it might sound fuller, that my mind is plating tricks on me. But I tried this on my acoustic and 2 electrics and all sounded "bigger". I also played a few chords for a non musican friend in 440 ,then quickly retuned to 432 without telling them what to expect and played the same chords again. Their first comment was that it was louder and closer. I was playing an acoustic about 4m away from them. Then I told them what I was testing and asked if the sound filled the room more and they said that's exactly what they felt.
19-12-2014, 06:59 PM
ihasmario

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanMade

I'm very skeptical of the whole "magical" properties of 432 aswell. The main thing that got me intrigued was the many comments mentioning that 432hz sounded fuller and projected more outward.

Now I'm not sure if it's because I had preconceptions about how it might sound fuller, that my mind is plating tricks on me. But I tried this on my acoustic and 2 electrics and all sounded "bigger". I also played a few chords for a non musican friend in 440 ,then quickly retuned to 432 without telling them what to expect and played the same chords again. Their first comment was that it was louder and closer. I was playing an acoustic about 4m away from them. Then I told them what I was testing and asked if the sound filled the room more and they said that's exactly what they felt.

I think tuning strings down (decreasing the tension) generally has this effect for me. For example, tuning everything down a half step. Which is funny, since most guitarists advocate for heavy gauge strings, not light - when light strings have lower tension for the same pitch at the same length.

Results of my experiment with it are pending...
19-12-2014, 07:38 PM
ultpanzi

Quote:

Originally Posted by ihasmario

I think tuning strings down (decreasing the tension) generally has this effect for me. For example, tuning everything down a half step. Which is funny, since most guitarists advocate for heavy gauge strings, not light - when light strings have lower tension for the same pitch at the same length.

Results of my experiment with it are pending...

Check out Rob Scallon's down tuning experiment on youtube. He addresses this in a humorous way and his friend Ryan Bruce concludes that he thinks its more the style of the playing and how you play as opposed to the actual tuning.
20-12-2014, 04:24 AM
Fretworn

The reason most older style wind instruments are Bb is because A used to about a tone lower than it is now. We seem to be progressively pushing the pitches upwards.
20-12-2014, 05:42 AM
ihasmario

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fretworn

The reason most older style wind instruments are Bb is because A used to about a tone lower than it is now. We seem to be progressively pushing the pitches upwards.

There wasn't really a standard if you go back far enough, around the time of the big names in classical there are examples of instruments. Many were actually using pitches higher than 440hz.

http://www.roelhollander.eu/en/432-tuning/432-forword/

This is turning out to be a really, really good page on the subject.
20-12-2014, 09:42 AM
DanMade

Quote:

Originally Posted by ultpanzi

Check out Rob Scallon's down tuning experiment on youtube. He addresses this in a humorous way and his friend Ryan Bruce concludes that he thinks its more the style of the playing and how you play as opposed to the actual tuning.

Funny vid. Though it was more Djent than I could handle. I like the drop Q tuning. I think Joe Bonnamassa has better results with Q#. http://youtu.be/422tQ-d30vc

Down tuning is not really the same as tuning around a different frequency. Because A still equals 440Hz. When you tune to another concert pitch you are shifting the range of the frequencies you are working in. So you end up with a different set of frequencies/vibrations working in harmony or dissonance with each other.

What I'm hearing is the notes resonating in harmony more when using A=432Hz. Rather than just playing at a lower pitch.

If any of that makes sense.
21-12-2014, 02:46 PM
ihasmario

I gave it a go and didn't find any particular difference when playing by myself (other than I sounded flat to what I expected since I have good relative pitch).

When I was playing with a backing track with any kind of melodic instrument I found it quite dissonant and felt the need to tune up, or push harder on the strings.

I like it, but I don't like it any more than standard tuning.