Music exists in multiple keys, and a song can be in a high or low range regardless of what key it’s in. Changing the standard tuning wouldn’t fundamentally affect anything.

Also, did the study authors simply taking a recording and pitch shift it down to 432 Hz? That would affect the tempo of the song as well as the pitch. Even if they performed time stretching to keep the tempo the same, it shouldn’t be surprising that lower pitches make people slightly calmer than slightly higher pitches.

Also similar enough to where they all have a bolder sound and somewhat different response when the same gage of strings are tuned more tightly to a higher standard pitch compared to a lower pitch.

From what I understand 440 was about the highest they could go on vintage violins once modern steel strings were invented.

Different musical compositions do reach different characteristic "high notes" so it must be accepted that very old works were originally played (and sung!) at noticeably lower ultimate frequencies than the same legendary pieces today.

Tension makes a huge difference but I still think heart rate in particular would be more tempo-responsive.

Now with the modern world standardized on 440 for so many people's lifetimes everyone gets accustomed to it after a while.

A bandleader who transposes everything down a half-step so they don't have to sing as high is not any different pitch than tuning to A=415.3 which is the relative frequency for G#. Either way you're playing notes that are still directly relative to A=440. The thing here is that most traditional and pop music is played in natural keys rather than sharp or flat keys, and generations of listeners become accustomed to hearing natural notes act as tonics rather than sharps or flats. But it still sounds completely normal and most people never notice.

Because out of all the infinite frequencies there are to choose from as a standard that are close to 440, at A=415.3 you're still only playing the same 12 exact carefully selected frequencies as everybody else tuned to A=440. The same 12 frequencies that have bombarded all consumers from all directions from any source of curated music for generations, to the near-exclusion of all other frequencies. When you think about it.

And 415.3 is a lot further away from 440 than 432 is, but if you tune to A=432 every sjngle note you play is one that almost nobody has been hearing on the radio, probably since there has been radio.

I think this abstract says "we really don't want to admit we found nothing concrete, in spite of the novelty of the differently tuned music". Don't people usually roll their eyes when p is almost 0.05? This paragraph mentions something that is not significant, then "p = 0.05" (marginal), then "p = 0.06" (usually not considered significant right?). How many different things did they test and not even mention?

Habituation should be one of the controls.

Novelty alone might explain the effect. What happens after a week, or month of listening music tuned to 432?

An 8 Hz difference in tuning is unlikely to cause significant interest. Most folks don't have ears trained well enough to discern pitch from memory. But, the music would sound slightly "off". Given that it's a slight down-tuning, it would sound a little moodier.

We are bombarded by music every day. Muzak, background music, etc. Many of us don't even realize we are hearing it anymore, because our minds filter out things that aren't relevant. Novelty, however, can bypass this filter. That's likely what is at play here.

It could be the case that they slowed the music down and that had an effect. Or in theory resampling it could've introduced artifacts that slowed listeners' heart rates. Or there could be an effect from recording at 440Hz then slowing it down (Dolly Parton's Jolene at 33rpm sounds great[0]). Or it could just be a shit study.

In order for 432Hz to be "special" I think you have to radically rethink some biology.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMrfM711vXI

I could think of reasons behind biology. For example, if they used different records with differently tuned instruments, it may be that musicians reacted somehow to a wrong tuning.

Or strings gave slightly different harmonics. It is unlikely, because frequency difference is small, but...

They should have tried some other base frequencies, like +8Hz and +-20Hz.

That's like slowing down the motor on a record player by ~ 2%.

I question how much effect this would have over time. 8Hz would be a shockingly small amount of change to not have accidentally stumbled on to this being "better" hundreds of years ago. So I'd wager it's maybe something to do with the music sounds just enough "off" from normal that the mind becomes more engaged with the music.

The study thinks it's testing A440 vs A432 music. It's probably testing the effect of normal-sounding vs weird-sounding music.

Keep in mind that 1) 100% of study participants would have grown up listening to a particular tuning reference (I think Italy is A440) and 2) to change music from A440 to A432 you either have to slow it down a proportional amount or use an algorithm to chop it into its frequencies and reconstitute it.

(Obviously this study won’t replicate and categorising music by the frequency of the note A is not a reasonable thing to do.)

The other question will be, can music tuned to a higher A frequency increase heart rate and make a good pre-workout?