@Shannon add it in faq . Wasted my loops

(10-17-2018, 08:21 PM)Mr. Anderson Wrote:

(10-17-2018, 06:54 PM)Benjamin Wrote:

(10-17-2018, 04:03 PM)X88B88 Wrote:

(10-17-2018, 03:54 PM)Benjamin Wrote: FLAC in general is a little higher effectiveness, not sure why that would change with bluetooth speakers.

I don't know if bluetooth speakers lose any quality or frequency, but others have reported they use them and it's been fine. You can also try the speaker test on them.

I've tried the speaker test and no problem.. I was more enquiring as to whether anyone knew whether the subliminal element would be affected through Bluetooth.. don't really know enough about the exact technical details as to bit transfer / loss etc.

Well, i'm not sure, I don't know enough about that either unfortunately.

Not every company implemented support for lossless audio transfer. The only way to know it if not exactly mentioned in the product description is to ask the company about maximum bitrate and the way the audio is transferred.

From what I learned on the Internetz, the Bluetooth protocol will re-encode data that is not supported by it - this would include FLAC, unfortunately. It can do MP3 no problem, though. As to bitrate, it's a good idea to check. From Blutetooth 4.0 onward it should be able to handle at least 1mbp/s, but this might depend on the how the particular device is programmed.

When in doubt, find a pro audio store with a good nerd at the counter and ask him. They usually know their stuff.

Shannon,

I've been on USLM 2 for a couple of days. Just a couple of thoughts.

The rate of 'lucky' and somewhat petty incidents have dropped off a lot. However, I've been thinking of getting a new job for a while and a job which fits the criteria of exactly what I was looking for has just come up - it's a very niche job which would help me transition to another sector. I'll go for it without expectation of getting it (because I've noticed that when these things crop up now it's not like i'll just get them and they're destined to happen, I still have to walk through the door myself), the important thing is that this sort of job barely exists in the world so me getting an email suggesting I apply is highly improbable. The implication for me is that luck is coming forward in more complex and less petty ways.

USLM1 seemed to have an immediate impact on me. I would automatically start cleaning, recognise the myriad things I'd done well etc. USLM2 isn't having the same impact, yet I'm getting a strange sensation that it's working at a much deeper level - similar to what I was experiencing with SE 5.5g, there is something more grounded about this experience; so it's not like I feel like I'm stone walling - which is quite distinct.

Finally I'm getting flashes of what I think is 'ego death'. these last up to about 10 minutes. All my personality, desires and dreams are gone, and there's just me - an awareness in a sack of meat, it's liberating to say the least - however something creeps into that space saying 'ooh I have to hang on to this, this could make my life great', and then the state disappears.

Ah and just generally I have to use sleep phones now at night so as not to impact my partner. it's tough doing 8 hrs but I'm managing it so far.

(10-17-2018, 11:07 PM)san_hal Wrote: @Shannon add it in faq . Wasted my loops

If you're affected, and getting results, how is it wasted?

This bluetooth thing is being blown out of proportion. So it's lossy, you're just not getting the full effect of the FLAC file, then. Does that mean you're losing script input? Doubtful. Honestly, I'm one of those people who can barely tell the difference listening to FLAC through wired headphones or MP3/FLAC through bluetooth headphones. Point is, I still hear the music.

For those of us that are concerned, listen to FLAC through your phone speaker, wired speakers, or wired headphones.

(10-18-2018, 04:53 AM)RTBoss Wrote:

(10-17-2018, 11:07 PM)san_hal Wrote: @Shannon add it in faq . Wasted my loops

If you're affected, and getting results, how is it wasted?

This bluetooth thing is being blown out of proportion. So it's lossy, you're just not getting the full effect of the FLAC file, then. Does that mean you're losing script input? Doubtful. Honestly, I'm one of those people who can barely tell the difference listening to FLAC through wired headphones or MP3/FLAC through bluetooth headphones. Point is, I still hear the music.

For those of us that are concerned, listen to FLAC through your phone speaker, wired speakers, or wired headphones.

Well, I don't fully understand all Shannon technology but one thing that I know is that no matter the audio equipment that I'm using, I have never heard a single glimpse of the hidden subliminal script so it is very hard for me to appreciate the audio quality of the subliminal part.

What a lossly audio codec does is to get rid of very low frequency and very high frequency components of the signal which a normal ear doesn't really pay attention when listening a normal audio content...

With subliminal ultrasonic elements, I wouldn't bet that codec keep that part intact...

IMHO, you better do what you can to stay away from audio compression....

(10-18-2018, 05:07 AM)lano1106 Wrote: With subliminal ultrasonic elements, I wouldn't bet that codec keep that part intact...

IMHO, you better do what you can to stay away from audio compression....

Guess all the results and benefits I've had from subs - as I have used quite a bit of bluetooth - is all made up, then.

All we have here, including my experience, is testimonial or opinion. No facts, just speculation - certainly no facts that point to loss of subliminal audio to the detriment of the user.

EDIT: To extrapolate, I've been using ultrasonic FLAC all week with my bluetooth speaker while on USLMax. I've used Frequensee to determine the volume used, and the ultrasonic frequency was not only present, but loud. I speculate that the ultrasonic information was transferred and received perfectly intact, and my experience (and my wife's) seem to corroborate that. I might as well just use the MP3 track, instead, though, and save the space on my phone. Seems like taking up unnecessary space with the FLAC file is the only detriment.

(10-18-2018, 05:45 AM)RTBoss Wrote:

(10-18-2018, 05:07 AM)lano1106 Wrote: With subliminal ultrasonic elements, I wouldn't bet that codec keep that part intact...

IMHO, you better do what you can to stay away from audio compression....

Guess all the results and benefits I've had from subs - as I have used quite a bit of bluetooth - is all made up, then.

All we have here, including my experience, is testimonial or opinion. No facts, just speculation - certainly no facts that point to loss of subliminal audio to the detriment of the user.

EDIT: To extrapolate, I've been using ultrasonic FLAC all week with my bluetooth speaker while on USLMax. I've used Frequensee to determine the volume used, and the ultrasonic frequency was not only present, but loud. I speculate that the ultrasonic information was transferred and received perfectly intact, and my experience (and my wife's) seem to corroborate that. I might as well just use the MP3 track, instead, though, and save the space on my phone. Seems like taking up unnecessary space with the FLAC file is the only detriment.

What we know is that IF the process re-encodes the audio or uses lossy compression, the subliminal data WILL be stripped out entirely, or at the very least, damaged in unverifiable ways.

So it would appear that whatever you are using is either using lossless compression, or it is degrading the subliminal but not erasing it completely. That does not mean that the next guy to try BlueTooth wireless audio transfer will not have different hardware, software, design, results.

So unless you can find evidence that what you are using is lossless compression, it makes sense not to use BlueTooth.

Shannon, thank you for killing my social anxiety and overcome a huge ptsd part of mine Its life changing.

Shannon i been off dmsi 3.2 since mid august, but as you are currently working on frm v3 and got lots to add into dmsi 3.3 should i go back onto dmsi again until you give the 35 day notice?

(10-18-2018, 06:40 AM)josh84 Wrote: Shannon i been off dmsi 3.2 since mid august, but as you are currently working on frm v3 and got lots to add into dmsi 3.3 should i go back onto dmsi again until you give the 35 day notice?

No. I'm going to finish developing FRMv3 today, and we are still within the reach of releasing in 35 days or less.

(10-18-2018, 06:28 AM)Kol Wrote: Shannon, thank you for killing my social anxiety and overcome a huge ptsd part of mine Its life changing.

You're welcome, but how did I do that? FRM? DMSI? USLM? USLM2?

(10-18-2018, 08:12 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(10-18-2018, 06:40 AM)josh84 Wrote: Shannon i been off dmsi 3.2 since mid august, but as you are currently working on frm v3 and got lots to add into dmsi 3.3 should i go back onto dmsi again until you give the 35 day notice?

No. I'm going to finish developing FRMv3 today, and we are still within the reach of releasing in 35 days or less.

What's next after developing the FRMv3?

(10-18-2018, 08:13 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(10-18-2018, 06:28 AM)Kol Wrote: Shannon, thank you for killing my social anxiety and overcome a huge ptsd part of mine Its life changing.

You're welcome, but how did I do that? FRM? DMSI? USLM? USLM2?

DMSI

(10-18-2018, 08:21 AM)wolverine_i_am Wrote:

(10-18-2018, 08:12 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(10-18-2018, 06:40 AM)josh84 Wrote: Shannon i been off dmsi 3.2 since mid august, but as you are currently working on frm v3 and got lots to add into dmsi 3.3 should i go back onto dmsi again until you give the 35 day notice?

No. I'm going to finish developing FRMv3 today, and we are still within the reach of releasing in 35 days or less.

What's next after developing the FRMv3?

We will have to look at the list and decide what is best to work on next.