I "tuned" in and enjoyed this thread.

Do yall know about the conspiracy theory behind all of this?

there's also something about the high E and B strings and their out of intonation sound at this tuning that sound almost sloppy and ear fatiguing at times.
I do most of my stuff in 435 but it has a lot to do with my voice, I happen to find my voice can be manipulated to sound a little stronger in this range as im a baritone singer with a powerful mid range than I am a stronger upper singer.
 
some of this theory though I believe to be snake oil, just doesn't hold water.
overtones can be found at any tuning

It's the Illuminati. :)
 
Bob Bone

Oh My God - don't tell me someone's been reading THIS thread:
 
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/moan-zone/666031-retune-your-music-444-old-tuning-standard.html
 
I blame Den, and the Reptile people, and David Icke

This is ridiculous.  These theories are propositioned by people who must have a fundamental lack of understanding of the physics of sound.
 
The idea that tuning A to 435 would make your voice or instrument sound better is ridiculous.  It's like a tenth of a tone, or something.  How could your voice be better in that range, Charlie?  I mean, really..  It's preposterous.
 
Utter bunkum.. 

...and making the conclusions listening to a Youtube video :o) That is a medium/low quality MP3, isn't it??
You'd need a high quality .wav on a very good sound reproduction system to really judge it. I think I heard a difference on my tiny computer speakers. In my ears the 432 Hz sounded duller. But I'm sure I couldn't hear the difference without AB'ing seamlessly.
But hearing a difference isn't enough to go through all the trouble, IMO, you should also be convinced of that the other is actually better. What if it sounds more appealing to you with guitar, but not with vocals or flute? What if the difference is inaudible with another brand of strings? With soft synths I'm almost sure it's really useless snake oil.

jb101
This is ridiculous.  These theories are propositioned by people who must have a fundamental lack of understanding of the physics of sound.
 
The idea that tuning A to 435 would make your voice or instrument sound better is ridiculous.  It's like a tenth of a tone, or something.  How could your voice be better in that range, Charlie?  I mean, really..  It's preposterous.
 
Utter bunkum.. 

 
 
tuning to different pitches is the oldest trick in the book to find a singers sweet spot.
if your not aware of this method, your missing something....a singer.
and possibly living under a rock where there's no articles on pitch manipulation.
 
this has been done on countless recordings from "Back in the saddle " by Aerosmith to "man in the box" by AIC.
The Smashing Pumpkins, Black Sabbath, Metallica, Guns and Roses, Van Halen, Thin Lizzy.
all of which at one time or another have tuned to A-435.
 
so im guessing all these bands are have no clue what they're talking about ?
but you do.
 
 
so JB101, what you call a " tenth of a tone, or something "...(thanks for the laugh)....us musicians call a "half step".
or Eb tuning.
can be a significant change to increase a singers upper range.
 
 
but as far as this 432 thing... like I said in my previous post...  "snake oil".
 
 
 
 

Down-tuning a half-step is very common... and it's easy to deal with soft-synths or hardware synths.
I'm recording a vocal this week (Last Child - Aerosmith cover)... where the guitar/bass were tuned down a half-step.
In this case, it was their (guitar/bass) choice... not done because of the vocal.
 

Tuning guitars down is very common - certainly in most forms of metal.
 
I keep one guitar permanently tuned down to C
 
Even then though, the reference tone is still A = 440Hz yes?