Hi Shannon,
I have a question regarding the volume of the masked tracks.
If I calibrate the volume in a quite room (with ear buds) and then go into a much louder environment, do I need to recalibrate the volume to where I can hear the track over the background noise ?
Basically, I have a set of ear buds that allow me to hear everything else that is going on whilst listening to them providing it doesn't over power the sound coming out of them. They have proved great whilst using the ultrasonic track (on a low volume) but I'd like to switch to a masked track for a while. This is due to a persistent ringing in my ears which keeps getting triggered back off with the ultrasonic track (thanks to a rave I went to two weeks ago now...).
If I don't need to recalibrate, what is a sensible -db I can set the volume to direct from the ear buds ?
Thanks !
I can only reasonably answer that question with certainty if I know the state of volume of audio entering your ears outside of the earbuds as it compares to the subliminal audio itself, because if the difference exceeds roughly 80 dB, the external audio will overpower the subliminal audio.
Given this, I would calibrate the masked track to be at least faintly audible against the background noise. Specific dB is impossible for me to know because I don't know what the audio externally is volume wise.
Thanks, that makes sense.... I'll calibrate it so it's faintly audible.
With masked, "faintly" is not as good as "reasonably".
Sorry my mistake, I meant to put "at least faintly". I still need to be able to speak with people effectively so I can't go too loud (this is what I love about the ultrasonic track). I'll find a reasonable volume....
Those panasonics are great for ultrasonic usage, but otherwise they have a really quiet low end. For example with the pstec tracks, the guy's voice is much quieter and the clicks much louder than with my other headphones. On the other hand, my SleepPhones have a comparitively quiet high end.
Shannon, what's the frequency range that's important with the masked tracks?
Good question...
Also, Shannon, does background noise have any impact on the ultrasonic track's effectiveness ? I.e. You were to listen to it below 25% in a noisy environment through ear buds (80-70 -db).
The picture that I'm getting of the ultrasonic track is that I can unconsciously hear it at the same volume I can consciously hear the masked track in a silent room - regardless of the background noise. I could be wrong though....
Masked tracks need a good frequency response between approximately 1 and 4 kHz. This is the range of most human speech. ALL speakers and headphones do this well, for that exact reason.
Adam, ultrasonics have been tested in noisy environments and found to work surprisingly well. In one experiment, it was tested while music was being played at pretty much maximum volume for the speakers, and results were had in the same way and at the same rate as without, on a tester sitting 12 feet away.
In another series of tests, we had several testers in a larger room, and they were seated between 5 and 40 feet away. With the test track playing at approximately -23 dB at the source (a cell phone) according to FrequenSee, and our best efforts to recreate a club-like level of ambient music volume, we observed responses in all five of the testers. The closer ones responded faster, and the responses came sequentially as the distance increased. It required about 7 minutes to observe the first response in the tester at 5 feet, and about 60 minutes to observe initial response in the one placed 40 feet away.
Since volume of audio drops off at the square of the distance, this is roughly what we were expecting, although to my surprise the testers turned out to be much more affected than I thought they would be.
In other words, ultrasonic audio appears to be able to virtually ignore the effects of other audio because of its pitch, which effectively puts it in an entirely different "channel".
When you say you tested them. What are you looking for in terms of effects on them? I mean it takes us from a few days to months to notice results. Yet you can tell they work in some short testing. My mind is quite curious as you can tell.
(09-13-2014, 03:19 PM)lokko Wrote: [ -> ]When you say you tested them. What are you looking for in terms of effects on them? I mean it takes us from a few days to months to notice results. Yet you can tell they work in some short testing. My mind is quite curious as you can tell.
I have a rapid application development program that I use, which allows me to test by myself or with others and know whether something works in a very short time frame, as you see. The program triggers unconscious autonomic reactions which are extremely difficult to fake by the conscious mind, and which can be observed readily if you know what to look for. As for exactly what they are, that's part of my trade secrets. This test suite allows me to accurately test subliminals many, many times faster than anyone else can, and I don't care to tell them how I do it. I never tell anyone what the signals I am looking for are, and these are signals that virtually never show up without the exposure to this test program. So they cannot fake them regardless.
I can get some types of test results in less than 10 seconds, although the ones I can see without being told about them are typically triggered in between a few minutes and about 2 hours, depending on various factors in play.