Why 432hz Tuning?

@edcyn , what does cross tuning have to do with reference pitch? I don’t think it does. Cross tuning “assigns” an open string pitch sequence other than what is standard. The reference tuning pitch that is used does not have to be different than A440. However, I do agree that being inflexible about the tuning pitch is not a good thing and flexibility does open up musical possibilities.

A couple of things to consider re the alleged superiority of A432:

First, with the possible exception of mallet instruments (and piano), there is no such thing as “perfect” A440 (or any other pitch) tuning. The reference (tuning) pitch can, and often does, vary during a performance, especially in large ensembles such as a symphony orchestra. It is more the rule, not the exception, that over the course of the performance of a symphony, for instance, the reference pitch in the ensemble rises. It is common for the reference pitch to start out at A440 (or…) as given by the oboe and as the instruments in the orchestra warm up, by the time the symphony has ended the ambient communal reference pitch has risen to A441, A442, or higher. Seems to me that for the alleged metaphysical effects of A432 to occur the pitch has to remain at exactly A432 without any deviation. Unlikely.

The reason that tests show a slight reduction in the listeners’ blood pressure with A432 tuning is, probably more than anything, the simple fact that lower reference pitch tends to make the overall sound of the music slightly warmer/darker. By contrast, higher reference pitch tends to make the music sound slightly more brilliant/aggressive. While A440 is the standard (mostly), some orchestras today deliberately tune to A441 or A442 partly for that reason. Lastly, even if the alleged effects of A432 tuning were in fact real one of the reasons that changing the accepted tuning pitch standard to A432 will never happen is that this change would render every non-string orchestral instrument in existence obsolete.

@edcyn , I understand what you are saying. While this is really a separate issue, it further makes my point. It may not be practical, or may be impossible, to tune the fiddle to achieve the “magical” A432 tuning. In a way, it’s the same problem for winds. One can pull the mouthpiece out on the neck of a saxophone, or the lead pipe on a trumpet, in order essentially extend the length of the instrument and hence lower the pitch, but it is impractical since the instrument is not designed that way acoustically. Doing so will throw everything off and the instrument will not be in tune with itself. IOW, the pitch relationship between notes will be altered. One might be able to achieve A432 with one note, but the fifths and octaves (just two examples) will be way off with no practical relationship to A432.

Interesting reading. It should be noted that while it is true that tuning lower than A440 has been used through musical history, there is no indication that actual A432 was used; and certainly not as a “standard”.

https://www.mozartpiano.com/articles/pitch.php

@zgas-music, in answer to your question, note the reference to Gardiner’s recording in the “End Notes” of the article above.

A point of clarification:

The eagle-eyed who read the article that I posted above will notice that there is a reference in it about the way that the pitch of a tuning fork lowers as its temperature rises.  This may seem to contradict what I wrote about the way that pitch rises as instruments in an orchestra warm up.  Not a contradiction at all.  The reason that instruments go sharper as they warm up is that air becomes less dense as it warms up.  Being less dense causes the air inside the instrument to travel faster, so the pitch rises.

@tylermunns, it’s too great a change in pitch for the note to note relationship of a given instrument to remain accurate. When a wind instrument is tuned, say in preparation for a performance, the player (as I explained previously) can essentially alter the length of the tubing of the instrument by, in the case of a saxophone, pulling the mouthpiece out on the neck (lowers the pitch), or pushing it in further unto the neck (raises the pitch). The change in pitch that is required in any playing situation is normally on the order of only a couple of hertz at most. Often, it is a much finer change that is required, even less than one hertz. This could be because of a particularly cold or particularly warm room, or the fact that the reference pitch is not exactly A=440 (or, whatever), or the player is playing on a very soft reed (lowers the pitch), or……Tuning pitch flexibility is absolutely necessary, but there is only so much that is available or practical.

Say a player plays with an orchestra (or band) that tunes to A=440 one night and then has to play with an orchestra that tunes to A=442 the following day. In order to achieve this change in tuning the mouthpiece is pushed in unto the neck a few millimeters. Perfectly acceptable. In order to achieve a downward change of 8 hertz (A=432) the player would have to pull the mouthpiece out on the neck 4X that length. There would most likely not be enough length to the tubing on the neck to accomplish this. Even if there were, the mouthpiece would be barely grabbing the end of the neck. Even more importantly, mouthpieces are designed in such a way that they only respond correctly and tune correctly with a reasonable amount of the saxophone neck inside them. Otherwise, acoustic mayhem ensues and the resulting note to note relationship would be all over the place. A simple major scale would be almost unrecognizable. The same idea applies to all winds including brass. In the case of a clarinet, the player pulls out or pushes in the “barrel” (the piece of tubing between the mouthpiece and the main body of the instrument). If you pull this out too far this creates a space inside the bore of the instrument which throws the pitch of a certain register very flat and unworkable. Brass instruments do this by different means, but same principle. There is only so much flexibility possible with tuning. Instruments have to be designed for normal, high, or low pitch and are designated as such. Also keep in mind that existing mallet instruments are not tunable on the spot and would be completely useless in a A=432 situation.

@tylermunns, You’re welcome.

You under estimate what would be required to achieve this. Not at all very simple, nor small. The acoustical forces and subsequent design considerations that would come into play would be considerable. Even if possible, it would not be a simple matter of making the instrument’s tube longer. My previous example concerning the length of a saxophone’s neck doesn’t address nearly all the response characteristic and tuning issues that would result. There would also have to be complete analysis/rethinking of all aspects of the design in order to optimize the instrument’s performance. These include complete rethinking of the bore size and taper, the placement of the tone holes and complete redesign of the key work in order to account for the new tone hole placement; not to mention complete retooling of the machinery that does all this. I suspect that if it were simple to do, it would have been done already. I’m not an instrument maker to know with certainty, but I suspect that there simply is no practical way to design a woodwind with such wide tuning flexibility.

Lastly, at upwards of $70,000 for a Heckel bassoon, for instance and as only one example, there would be tremendous resistance world wide to the idea of all wind players having to buy new instruments. Not to mention the 10+ year waiting list.