The way I see it you have to tune your instrument half-tone lower. That means if you play with other instruments tuned at 440 you have to transpose half-tone higher. I think Stevie Ray Vaughn was tuning his guitar this way...we can hear his "big bottom" tone.

Rob:
!!!

I have a friend with a masters degree in music. His love is older music and he has a pianoforte in his living room. I asked him about tuning frequencies over time and got a quick history lesson. He tunes his pianoforte to 425. One of Mozart's tuning forks still survives and it rings at 422. Bach wrote about organs not being tuned the same and they appear to have ranged from 390 to 440. There are organs from Bach's time still playing today and most of them are at 415. We got the 440 standard around 1926 from the American music industry. It went international in 1955.

I think possibly a bigger change to the way music sounds is temperament. My friend hates equal temperament and uses many alternatives. That's possible with a piano. Fretted instruments are stuck at one temperament but builders are constantly experimenting. Has anyone tried instruments with alternates?

Our conclusion may be, "meh", but it's still a fascinating discussion.

-Eric

Well, I tried tuning to A432Hz, and the result is........Meh?

It sounded different, but didn't instill me with a feeling of harmony or well-being (maybe I'm just a sad old git!). The reduced tension on the strings meant the bass lacked a bit of definition and sounded muddier to my ears.

Oh well, A432 might be more in tune with nature and all, but A440 suits me and my Stick. Now, where did I put that tuner?................

-Marc-

Damned Bach and his even tempering...

...Luc, don't be so hard...

...Bach's time is passed and gone long ago, but in this period of music history there was no possibility to tune a tone by 440Hz or 398,734Hz or whatever you want they took a string at tension and not at pitch...

...in a certain way this means they had more freedom, but we today are free too, it's not compulsory to use 440Hz=a' at all...

...and Heinrich Hertz was the scientist who teached the world about frequencies, we use his Name shortened to Hz for measuring frequencies, he lived more then hundred years later than Bach...

No worries! I wasn't being serious.
This is late; I probably should have put this in my LAST post:

Speaking about water memories, resonsnces of words "evil" and "peace" and other shit.

I hate those kind of "british scientist".
An article of complete bullshit. And is there any single man who STILL believes it? I suggest to burn those self-called scientists to the ground, along with extrasensories, "healers", bishops, sectarians and other shit.

And one more thing:
The main problem with the quotes on the internet is that everyone automatically believes it. Poor Einshtein.

I just remembered that I actually produced a music recording once tuned eight cents low, i.e. at 332 Hz. It was a remix of choir music for a Croatian record label and the the choir stems they sent me to work with was all "slightly too low". I decided to not alter with those choir recordings but rather retune my own instruments and when adjusting the global pitch in the recorder Apple Logic I read out that it in fact was 332. But I never felt that lowered tuning special in any way - until I should record som alto flute and my flute was really hard to play at that lower pitch since I had to pull out the mouthpiece part to retune it.

When reading the linked article I first found the phrase "the natural resonance of nature" funny. But when it was mentioned that certain audio tunings may, or may not, resonate with light and color it seemed more serious. You can actually measure the frequency in both light and sound so of course some audio tuning must be in "in resonance with nature", given you accept that light is "nature". But I think the writer of the article should have stated what other audio pitches are also in good resonance with the universal light frequency. Maybe 332 isn't the closest generally light resonating frequency to 440? And what about the latest research on light (as frequency of particles/radiation) that states that the very process of monitoring what's going on is altering what's going on. It seems the 332 vs 440 thing is a lot less important than most other things that have to do with how music affects humans.

Visible light has a frequency range of about 430–790 Terahertz. So there are a lot of frequencies you can "resonate" in with your music.
So if you play King Crimson's "Red", you probably should choose a lower frequency, corresponding to red light (400–484 THz), whereas if you play the Blues, you should probably go for a higher frequency (606–668 THz).