Fun!
Do you know where they get their names? For example, Diatonic Scale Tuning makes no sense to me as a diatonic scale is simply a major scale. It can start on any note or pitch.
Similarly, The Pythagorean scale has nothing to do with the frequency on which the scale starts, but rather how the scale is constructed (the frequency ratios are all perfect fifths - it is very clever).
So will the Schiit Gadget…Mike is working from C=256Hz but the Gadget will have a dial to vary the pitch over a range and a light that will indicate when you are at C=256Hz.
Interesting article:
So, here I thought my turntable motor was running slow, but it was just Trying to Tell Me Something…
[Edit]: Not sure exactly, Elk, but I did see Pythagorean Tuning mentioned in the article link @speed-racer provided.
Some of the names are legitimate, but not the way they are applied. For example, as I mentioned, there is Pythagorean tuning - although it is a system, not a frequency. And the ancients had no way of measuring cycles per second in any event. 
There is scientific pitch where C−4 is 1 Hz and each octave is the last frequency doubled. It is a convenience in scientific writing.
Every major scale is diatonic, nothing to do with frequency.
Horowitz was a stickler for having his pianos tuned and suggested we all tune our pianos at least once a month, whether played or not, but never advocated raising A to 444 Hz.
There equipment appears to be superb. Offering the ability of changing pitch is fun. But I wish they did not resort to such nonsense. Musicology and music history is challenging enough without making stuff up.
Great article @speed-racer. Thanks for posting!
For fun, I am going to switch the frequency from 432 to 430.5Hz (C=256) on the 432 EVO. I’ll run through my system test CD a few times, then switch frequency and run it a few more times.
That is going to be a subtle difference. Please report back.
A little side note: very good discussion of what easily could have devolved into “You’re stupid” sorts of posts.
Indeed! That was definitely a consideration prior to starting the thread.
That is a big difference: content created in 432 Hz tuning (or whatever other tunings or scales) is nothing wrong of cause. Also I have no objections against using pitch correction or retuning in a DAW, either to correct mistakes or for creative reasons. I may have to do an experiment and create a piece of music in this 432 Hz tuning (in my computer). But I’m more interested in microtonality lately, just haven’t made much progress so far… by the way: I have heard pieces by Bach & Co. being played in microtonal scales… that’s another kind of nonsense 
Speaking of nonsense, I think calling this whole 432 Hz thing pitch “correction” is also nonsense.
Let’s call it as it is, pitch “alteration”, forcing the music to play at the wrong pitch from what it was originally intended to be played at. It’s definitely NOT a correction.
I think this 432 EVO AEON company and others who are coming out with this 432 Hz re-tuning nonsense are taking the easy way out of developing new gear by avoiding the difficult hurtles of new and improved DAC’s or streaming technologies by just adding a pitch control knob and making it out to be some kind of new revelation in music reproduction.
In case you guys have forgotten, turntables, cassette decks and reel-to-reel decks have had pitch control dials for literally decades and decades, and not once in all that time has anyone come up with this 432 Hz re-tuning nonsense.
You hear all the time people talking about snake oil when it comes to audiophiles and their gear and accessories and the exorbitant amounts of money they charge for such things, like small pebbles in a bag tied to your RCA cables and rare crystals placed on top of your gear.
Now an up-start company comes out with a pitch control “knob” on their streamer/server/DAC thing and come up with some kind of horse pucky foo-foo “science” to fool people into thinking there’s real reasons behind it all, and all of a sudden, a very simple technology that’s been included in analog gear for well over 50 years is now all of a sudden something new and intriguing, and there has to be some real, scientific reasoning behind it all.
Ah, whatever. It’s your money, your system, and your ears. If you want to start listening to all of your favorite music that you’ve known and loved for all of these years in the wrong, flatter, lower, drab and dreary pitch and throw the entire emotion of that original music down the tubes, then go right ahead. It’s just a fad that will hopefully go away in a very short time, much like 8-tracks, DCC cassettes and DAT. Though at least those technologies actually had a reason behind them and didn’t ALTER the original music.
BTW, I’m ready… LOL
Are you referring to scales that have more than 12-steps to an octave, or to alternate tunings other than equal tempered?
Wendy Carlos’ Beauty in the Beast is an approachable, effective recording of music using alternate tunings and scales, as well as hybrid timbres.
I think the reference to “correction” was to software programs that are used to “fix” singers’ pitch that can’t sing very well, or for effect (Cher’s “Believe” for example - and now many pop songs). This is being referred to as “retuning”.
I thought I’d stumbled onto an MQA thread rant ; )
And jinxed the thread I did. 
If I had some wood nearby I would have knocked on it after that post. Oh wait… I totally forgot about that big block sitting on top of my shoulders.
Oh well, back to my 432Hz tuning “correction” listening…
A little sound exercise from the 432 EVO website if any one is interested. Although, its a bit handicapped unless played through your 2-ch system, of course.
Here’s a 30 second 16/44.1 stereo wav track:
That was done by altering playback speed, with the side effect of making the track shorter or longer and changing it’s tempo. Changing only overall pitch without changing the playback speed, is only possible digitally as far a I know. ReTUNING to my understanding is basically remapping all the pitches in the track to other ones. Like Jeff said in his first post: “is not simply done by changing the playback speed or pitch […]. Pitching is not enougth! Doing so just shifts everything 8Hz lower. But the tempered scale is still 440Hz based! (e.g. A4 is now 432Hz, but A5 is not 864Hz, it’s 432Hz + 440Hz)” So, I understand, the Evo retuner is creating that A5 at 864Hz, no?
Both. But I guess, my best start would be using 24 steps, then maybe try 33, etc … but always keep the octave intact (and according to equal temp). As I said, I haven’t really started that project yet. What I have successfully done in the past, was tuning the modular synthesizer to my gangsa (by ear), which has a beautiful seven-tone scale. The synth can be tuned wichever way you want by using control voltages… I have that Carlos album and I like it very much. I’m also familiar (as a listener) with the work of Alois Hába, who most of the time is using the quarter-tone system…
Many years ago I worked extensively with many temperaments (equal, just intonation, mean tone, etc.) as well as micro-tonal scales. Synthesizers and samplers are perfect for such things, although not all allow the pitch mapping required.
I am not surprised you have the album, given that you are obviously seriously interested in this stuff.
I find it delicious fun the Evo server provides the means to explore alternate pitches. Even though one may not prefer it, all such ideas should be explored.
A good amount of recorded baroque and other earlier music is performed at lower pitch already. I wonder how many with the server still lower it further or even notice.
What did you experience with 432 v. 430.5Hz?