432 Hz tuning?

I couldn’t personally hear any difference between the 432 and 440 clips (and anyway somebody pointed out that merely de-tuning a clip will add distortion) as I lost my “Golden Ears” a while back :confused:

What do you guys think? Is it BS or science? Is anyone going to experiment? So many questions… :slight_smile:


I heard the difference (listened to dancing queen). I don’t understand what the page is about. If most humans are accustomed to hearing their music tuned to 440 reference, why would you want to change that? Orchestra tuning varies though with the oboe and I don’t know of any specific standards for orchestra.

WTF? :unamused:

Well, most people should be able to hear the difference, I think. But 440 should definitely be better because it is evenly divisible by 11, and that’s what Nigel Tufnel’s amp goes up to.

Oh, by the way, us older geezers used to cassette recorders remember playback speeds in the range of +/-10%(?), depending on the quality of the equipment, battery power and some manufacturers who thought they could achieve something by speeding up a little … :laughing: No matter how you look at it, cassette recorders where not an exact science! Remember how those “time”/feet/lap counters never matched up with other brands or sometimes not even with themselves!!!

The pitch was kind of tied to the playback speed, no matter what, sooo … maybe that explains what’s wrong with us?
Those were the days :mrgreen:

432/440=0.981 so it’s kind of close after all?

The adventurous should start here http://www.swb256.com/apps/webstore/ :laughing:

What a heap of BS there :unamused:

Eh??? I would rather suggest 462,963Hz, which would be 40 000 000 cycles/day. That would be more natural and “scientific”. :smiling_imp:

I’m a huge fan of baroque music played on original instruments. Many years ago, I conducted a small such ensemble, and we always tuned to 415 Hz. I’m quite used to that, but I would not use it outside of baroque music. Oh yeah, you can hear the difference, big time (and no, I’m not exactly a spring chicken…)

BTW, nowadays many symphony orchestras around the world tune to 442 Hz. There are some definite advantages to that, for start you get a brighter sound. Actually some of them go even higher (Berliner Philarmoniker tunes to 445 Hz.)

oohhh ive got to watch this thread to see what ego’s come out to play as on FB the same topic was posted and it’s certainly nice and warm on that topic …

Popcorn and beer at the ready :wink:

The tuning standard tends to move with advances in the brass instrument manufacturing process. The brighter they get the more the A= xxx goes up. At the moment it’s 440 but there is 442 (not seen it orchestrally but it could be a military thing) nudging about out there and I think the 20th century started out at 338.

Plenty of orchestras play at 442 or higher. However, now that 440 is the standard in the UK and US, at least, I don’t see this changing.


just a thought here.
it would make sense figure out the acoustics of the room you’re playing in and chose the key or other notes to hear the effect. maybe there’s a if not ideal so at least preferable key to play in every given room?
sounds like a better idea than the woo woo stuff in some of the links in this topic. :confused: :smiley:

That’s some good stuff you’re taking there HowlingUlf :unamused: :laughing:

Cheers for that. Not working in orchestras I wasn’t sure. They won’t allow pitchforks in the concert halls here.

PS: The wife just informed me that I haven’t got the right sort of pitchfork. Oh, dear.

Maybe you can compose a piece that creates a reverb-feedback-loop based on the room’s resonance. :nerd:

so the reverb excites other room modes? Ok, this is getting weird :sunglasses:

“Composing for a room” might prove to be futile , but at least the room, the standing waves, nodes and antinodes are real and worth an investigation. Anybody wants to be remembered as the Arnold Schönberg or Pierre Schaeffer of acoustics? Don’t expect a flood of chart busters, though! :laughing:

“Music for a Room” sounds more like John Cage than Arnold Schönberg… :laughing:

Yeah, I thought of him too, but I had my healthy dose of namedropping already, so … :laughing:

But what has all this got to do with being in tune with the Universe? Huh? :slight_smile: :ugeek: