# 440 Hz versus 432 Hz



## MarkMcD (Mar 31, 2014)

Hello each,

Just recently I watched a documentary about the differences between the standard tuning of 440Hz used today and the previously used frequency of 432Hz (there were others used also), and at least as far as sound waves are concerned, the 432Hz frequency produces a much clearer and regular image on a sand plate for instance, than does the 440Hz frequency which produces a fuzzy mess really.

I thought I would retune my electronic piano, and I have to say that personally I find 432Hz a much more pleasing frequency to listen to than the standard 440Hz.

Has anyone else experimented with this, and or have thoughts on the subject? It seems clear that 432Hz (which was widely used when most of the great masters where producing their works), gives a much purer tone than the now standardizes 440Hz.

Regardless of the politics surrounding the standardization, what do you personally prefer?


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

MarkMcD said:


> the 432Hz frequency produces a much clearer and regular image on a sand plate for instance, than does the 440Hz frequency which produces a fuzzy mess really.


Do you mean on the _same _sand plate? If so, that says more about the resonances of that particular plate than anything deep and meaningful about a difference between 432 and 440.



MarkMcD said:


> I thought I would retune my electronic piano, and I have to say that personally I find 432Hz a much more pleasing frequency to listen to than the standard 440Hz.
> Has anyone else experimented with this, and or have thoughts on the subject?


I tend to like lower - but I'd probably find pitching down a whole tone even more satisfying in many cases!


----------



## MarkMcD (Mar 31, 2014)

Well the sand is placed on a thin metal plate on top of a speaker playing the two frequencies separately, so yes the same same plate is used for both, but it means that the variables are exactly the same for both instances regardless of the resonance of the plate, the results are clearly different and the same can be done to produce similar results in water. The 432Hz frequency always produces a clear defined pattern, while the 440Hz frequency always produces a more irregular, messy result, regardless of the medium used to show the patterns.

I also do like to transpose down rather than up, and I often do when I'm writing a piece and have heard it so many times that it no longer seems new. Transposing it gives, for me at least, a fresh ear on the piece, and usually my preference is for transposing down a semitone or full tone.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

MarkMcD said:


> Well the sand is placed on a thin metal plate on top of a speaker playing the two frequencies separately, so yes the same same plate is used for both, but it means that the variables are exactly the same for both instances regardless of the resonance of the plate, the results are clearly different and the same can be done to produce similar results in water. The 432Hz frequency always produces a clear defined pattern, while the 440Hz frequency always produces a more irregular, messy result, regardless of the medium used to show the patterns.


So what? What does the pattern prove in terms of actual perception?


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

MarkMcD said:


> Well the sand is placed on a thin metal plate on top of a speaker playing the two frequencies separately, so yes the same same plate is used for both, but it means that the variables are exactly the same for both instances regardless of the resonance of the plate


I'd expect the interesting patterns to appear when the driving frequency is somehow in tune with the modes of resonance of the plate... so whilst one plate might look regular at 432 and messy at 440, I'd expect another plate might look neat at 440 and messy at 432...

I believe this kind of demonstration is called 'Cymatics' - I couldn't find any suggestion that there are any kinds of magic frequencies that produce the same result for all resonators.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

...and Cymatics has been described by analysts as pseudoscience.

Regarding the patterns...

_From the physical-mathematical standpoint, *the form of the nodal patterns is predetermined by the shape of the body set in vibration *or, in the case of acoustic waves in a gas, the shape of the cavity in which the gas is contained. The sound wave, therefore, does not influence at all the shape of the vibrating body or the shape of the nodal patterns. The only thing that changes due to the vibration is the arrangement of the sand. The image formed by the sand, in turn, is influenced by the frequency spectrum of the vibration only because each vibration mode is characterized by a specific frequency. Therefore, the spectrum of the signal that excites the vibration determines which patterns are actually nodally displayed._


----------



## MarkMcD (Mar 31, 2014)

Becca,
It doesn't _prove_ anything, it simply shows a physical representation of the differences between the 2 frequencies I mentioned. Neither am I trying to prove anything, I simply cited some of my own personal experiences and feelings on the subject, whilst asking what other people might think about the standardized tuning of instruments, against the frequencies that were previously used in ages past.


----------



## MarkMcD (Mar 31, 2014)

Topo Morto

I never mentioned anything about a magical frequency, I just thought it interesting that after experimenting myself with the two frequencies and that I preferred 432 to 440, and wondered what others thought about it. No magic or mumbo jumbo.


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

MarkMcD said:


> Topo Morto
> 
> I never mentioned anything about a magical frequency, I just thought it interesting that after experimenting myself with the two frequencies and that I preferred 432 to 440, and wondered what others thought about it. No magic or mumbo jumbo.


I was just wondering if when the documentary showed this:



> the 432Hz frequency produces a much clearer and regular image on a sand plate for instance, than does the 440Hz frequency which produces a fuzzy mess really'


they were trying to suggest that that means there's something special about 432 Hz as compared to 440?

And I was just saying that if they were, that's a bit strange!


----------



## MarkMcD (Mar 31, 2014)

As far as disputing the science or methods used, whatever body is set vibrating, be it a metal plate, water, a gas or paper or a bowl of raspberry jelly, it does not vibrate without a catalyst. The catalyst in this case is the frequencies played through them.  So, as long as all variables are the same in each case, and 2 different frequencies show different results, then the only difference between examples can be due to the 2 different frequencies played, regardless of the medium used or it's own personal resonance.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

MarkMcD said:


> As far as disputing the science or methods used, whatever body is set vibrating, be it a metal plate, water, a gas or paper or a bowl of raspberry jelly, it does not vibrate without a catalyst. The catalyst in this case is the frequencies played through them. So, as long as all variables are the same in each case, and 2 different frequencies show different results, then the only difference between examples can be due to the 2 different frequencies played, *regardless of the medium used or it's own personal resonance*.


Not true, allow me to repeat the key point...

_the form of the nodal patterns is predetermined by the shape of the body set in vibration_

so the nodal patterns are a function of the shape of the plate when interacting with a given frequency. Different plate, same frequencies = different results. It says nothing about the significance of the frequencies (unless your ear is the same shape as the plate).


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

MarkMcD said:


> As far as disputing the science or methods used, whatever body is set vibrating, be it a metal plate, water, a gas or paper or a bowl of raspberry jelly, it does not vibrate without a catalyst. The catalyst in this case is the frequencies played through them. So, as long as all variables are the same in each case, and 2 different frequencies show different results, then the only difference between examples can be due to the 2 different frequencies played, regardless of the medium used or it's own personal resonance.


It's obvious that driving a given system with two different frequencies will produce different responses. I just can't tell if your documentary is going further than that and saying that there are some kinds of patterns that form at 432Hz regardless of the system being driven - if so, I would find that very surprising.


----------



## MarkMcD (Mar 31, 2014)

Topo Morto,

Well on that point, you are right. The documentary (there are many on you tube) was suggesting that the 432Hz is a healing frequency and there were various numerical examples and other stuff about it being a more naturally occurring frequency in nature etc., etc., but I don't know how far I would go to say I believe any of that, and it wasn't really my point in starting the thread, although after watching various so called experts waxing lyrical about the many virtues of 432Hz, I just found it an interesting thing to ask for others opinions on.


----------



## MarkMcD (Mar 31, 2014)

Becca said:


> Not true, allow me to repeat the key point...
> 
> _the form of the nodal patterns is predetermined by the shape of the body set in vibration_
> 
> so the nodal patterns are a function of the shape of the plate when interacting with a given frequency. Different plate, same frequencies = different results. It says nothing about the significance of the frequencies (unless your ear is the same shape as the plate).


This is not the point Becca, 
I accept completely that if a different plate is used, the patterns produced will be different. But, the final point is not the pattern itself, but the difference between the patterns produced when the same plate or medium is used for both frequencies, and that one pattern is clearly more regular and ordered, while the other is somewhat chaotic, regardless of the medium used to illustrate the pattern, as long as the medium used is exactly the same for both cases. The _pattern_ has no more significance than to demonstrate the _differences_ between them. In this instance, the ONLY changed variable is the frequency played. The nodal patterns are NOT solely a function of the shape of the plate, they are a combination of the shape of the plate AND the frequency driven through them.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

Interesting topic. I've watched a couple of the YT videos on the subject and want to see/hear more.


----------



## Picander (May 8, 2013)

The manufacturers of diapasons are sure very happy with the idea of the change to 432Hz.


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

Lets assume that A'=432 sounds better than A=440. So what about other pitches? G' vs G? D' vs D? C' vs C? I am not sure about the results. I think that standard pitch is not a major issue when making music, we may either use 440, 432, or 415 as for period instruments. The more important facets of music are the relative pitch, interval and harmony. Those are the main things composers used in most works to convey the content.


----------



## MarkMcD (Mar 31, 2014)

You are right Bruckner Anton, I don't think any of the past masters thought very much about the frequency they were using. I don't know how the other tones are affected, I just know that when I retuned, I liked the sound better overall and actually I keep my piano tuned to 432 Hz, I just like it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MarkMcD said:


> You are right Bruckner Anton, I don't think any of the past masters thought very much about the frequency they were using. I don't know how the other tones are affected, I just know that when I retuned, I liked the sound better overall and actually I keep my piano tuned to 432 Hz, I just like it.


Instrument makers have long been concerned with the "right" pitches for various named tones. The tuning fork was invented for this purpose in 1711. From Wiki, for instance: "An alternative to the usual A440 diatonic scale is that of philosophical or scientific pitch with standard pitch of C512. According to Rayleigh, the scale was used by physicists and acoustic instrument makers. The tuning fork that John Shore gave to George Frideric Handel gives a pitch of C512."


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

That's why such tuning sounds muddied when playing early music. 412Hz or lower sound much crispier and much better suited for early music. Historical fact.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

C-512, as was the case with the tuning fork given Handel, would put A between 430 and 431. Another data point:

"Tuning forks used by orchestras between 1750 and 1820 mostly had a frequency of A = 423.5 Hz, although there were many forks and many slightly different pitches."


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

Well, it's really a pseudoscience. 440 is ok, even now there are many orchestras that tune way higher.
If you tune lower, the music becomes duller and more relaxing, higher - cutting and energetic.
It's possible to perfectly tune instruments to a just intonation scale, but not only it's not practical; you can't expect the musicians to perfectly reproduce each note. Also, noone uses just intonation most of the time except some choirs when there are no background instruments.
The 432 fans need JI tuned instruments, perfect reproduction, tuning to the reference frequency of the scale. I doubt that 432 is the tuning to any JI scale.
The fundamental C major in JI's is 1/24,-4.5850 octaves, 10.9011 Hz, so you have to tune to 174.4176 instead of 261.625565.
But what happens when you want to play a pitch outside of this 7 note scale?


----------



## Musica Enchiriadis (Mar 28, 2017)

The story of the A = 440Hz is complicated. This convention struggled to impose itself. 
And in the history, it was not really a big problem if there are several diapasons. Sometimes high, sometimes low... And between 1830 and 1850, there is a race upwards : 455 Hz in Britain, and 465 at Venice and Napoli ! And then, there is a reaction to decrease the diapason...

A long story !
I wrote a blog post, about the "A". It's in french, but quiet understandable for english readers 

https://musicaenchiriadis.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/se-mettre-au-diapason/


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

If I lived my whole life hearing a 440 Hz A, I'm probably not going to have the same response to a 432 Hz A as someone who has heard a 432 Hz A their whole life. Which is why I'm not troubled by historically inaccurate tuning in performances. I figure that a modern tuning will provide less of a hurdle (however small) than some other tuning that would be that is a bit foreign to me.

But then again, I don't have perfect pitch so maybe it doesn't matter. And probably I've been hearing slightly different pitches and never really noticed.

As for whether this or that frequency of A4 has special properties . . . Why does A4 have special status? Would you have to abandon equal temperament to make other notes similarly mellifluous?


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

apricissimus said:


> If I lived my whole life hearing a 440 Hz A, I'm probably not going to have the same response to a 432 Hz A as someone who has heard a 432 Hz A their whole life. Which is why I'm not troubled by historically inaccurate tuning in performances. I figure that a modern tuning will provide less of a hurdle (however small) than some other tuning that would be that is a bit foreign to me.
> 
> But then again, I don't have perfect pitch so maybe it doesn't matter. And probably I've been hearing slightly different pitches and never really noticed.
> 
> As for whether this or that frequency of A4 has special properties . . . Why does A4 have special status? Would you have to abandon equal temperament to make other notes similarly mellifluous?


Why A4? Because once upon a time people used such tuning forks. Now you can use other tuning forks or electronic tuners.
And it's about how high are the pitches, not what kind of pitches (equal/unequal temperament) the musicians will play.
440-450 sounds more alive and cutting, 430 and lower - softer and relaxing.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Here is a brief history of the standardization on concert pitch, and the establishment of A = 440:

http://www.wam.hr/sadrzaj/us/Cavanagh_440Hz.pdf

<<In the 1930s, the broadcasting industry
made a push towards total standardization of concert pitch in Europe and North
American. Success was achieved at a 1939 international conference held in London.
Presumably as a compromise between current tendencies and earlier pitch standards, it
was agreed that the international standard for concert pitch would thenceforth be based
upon A=440 Hz - >>


----------

