+- Subliminal Talk (https://subliminal-talk.com)
+-- Forum: Men's Journals (18+ NSFW) (https://subliminal-talk.com/Forum-Men-s-Journals-18-NSFW)
+--- Forum: Men's Product Discussion (https://subliminal-talk.com/Forum-Men-s-Product-Discussion)
+--- Thread: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) (/Thread-why-subs-ultrasonic-not-infrasonic-or-normal-sonic)
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - Shannon - 05-11-2015
(05-10-2015, 01:39 AM)athanas Wrote: I understand you decision because of #3. I don't agree with the other counterpoints though. In your post it seems as if there would be no benefit from the buzzing track which is untrue. All the advantages I posted still hold true.
--------------
#1 We can decide that for ourselves, thanks. (if you let us)
#2 It's nice to have options, hasn't anything to do with how beneficial improvements can be.
#3 This is a good reason (the only one, the rest sounds just made up off the top of your head to reinforce this one reason)
#4 Less work compared to a masked track. Since it has more advantages than a masked track, is easier to make than one and you already have 2 it'd be less work and an improvement to replace one of them if there wasn't #3.
#5 There isn't. And yet a buzzing track is still simpler to calibrate and can be heard at an higher script volume (effectiveness?) without damaging the ear.
--------------
But thank you for your answers, I know it's a lot of work constantly improving your products and being active on your forum as you are. I just don't like that you tried to make it seem as all my arguments were invalid when they weren't.
It would've been enough to post #3, we would've all understood it.
My friend, I was not trying to make it seem as if your arguments were invalid. I was trying to spur debate so that I can more fully consider this idea from both sides. It's not something I am completely unwilling to do, but it would be more expense in some ways.
Challenging suggestions is what I usually do when I am considering it seriously. At the moment, I have to do things differently than I normally would because testing the state shifting technology as much as I have been has my ability to focus at a disadvantage, and that is also why I have not been building. I cannot build when I cannot focus. So I'm resorting to the standard scientific method of challenging the new ideas to see if they stand up to criticism. It's nothing personal, I'm just trying to remain productive while I'm having a hard time focusing.
6G state shifting technology is probably going to be aimed at use for 1-3 hours a day. I have been testing for 4-8 hours a day, and it's thrown me for a loop. That's why I do testing, and that's why it will be aimed at much less time than normal: to achieve it's goal, it induces an altered state. We have to balance that state or we end up zoned out all the time, and that leads to inability to focus, effectively perform activities that require concentration or be productive. So really, this is sort of a side effect of me overdosing myself trying to find the right way to use this new technology.
I am considering your idea, though. I have a few things to test it for before I would be really willing to release an un-subliminalized bees buzzing track, but I think it's not going to be too big of a deal.
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - Shannon - 05-11-2015
Quote:Secondly,I will give you a direct example.Someone on the forum shared that he won't be using a six-stage program anytime soon because he had some problems with his hearing after a six stage set .I also remember another one who stopped subliminals fully because of developed ear problems.And yet another one who started listening to the experimental overcoming tinnitus subliminal ; Guess what the reason is . And guess whether he wanted to listen to the experimental tinnitus sub or he wanted to improve his life with a sub like LTu, Am,OGSF, etc etc. Isn't these enough for itself ? And many people don't share anything about the developing hearing problems because 1) they don't really realise it because it doesn't bother them so much .. yet 2) they realise it but they seem to not care 3)the effectiveness of the subliminal is higher in priority than the developing hearing problems .And it is all because of a too high volume ! People tend to turn it up too much because they DON'T KNOW whether they hear the subliminal messages clearly - no one wants to be wasting his time .And yet, another problem may arise from too low volume, but the initial reason for it is the same . And for example, I myself don't share here on this forum that subliminals had caused me some issues.And i am still too young for such ! No one here shares them, because, who cares .But there is such a problem.
The fact remains that:
1. I give instructions on how to calibrate volume.
2. I state that if that volume is too high, lower it.
3. I state that if ultrasonic tracks cause issue, use masked.
4. I provide not one, but two different masked tracks for your using pleasure.
There is no argument here. I have already provided the solution. Just use a masked track.
The only consideration we now have is... is the bees buzzing track somehow superior to the masked versions? And am I somehow doing myself some disservice by enabling people to create subliminals I cannot prove are mine using my work?
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - Shannon - 05-11-2015
Quote:It seems
higher script volume => higher sub effectiveness
lower overall volume => less stress for the ear, less cumulated ear damage.
On the contrary, the more powerful the script is, and the more controversial it's goal is, the lower the volume it requires to work. The 6G prototype works best at an astonishing 1-4 out of 15 on my cell phone, usually 2 or 3. By contrast, BAMM works best for me at 11 out of 15. The 6G prototype is aiming to get people to do something that nobody would normally do in a million years, and yet it is working.
For 5G, the volume seems to determine which level of the subconscious mind is being influenced. Higher volumes mean we are working with closer to the conscious mind, and lower volumes mean we are working deeper into the subconscious mind. This is a big part of why we want low volumes for the 6G prototype: it's at its best when the conscious mind is not aware of the process. For matters less outlandish, such as AM or whatnot, conscious awareness can actually help empower the results.
Quote:for adequate script volume we need:
Ultrasonic
High duration, very high frequency, low overall volume -> high/very high/low = high ear stress
Moderate to low volume should work fine.
Quote:masked
high duration, normal frequency, high volume -> high/medium/high = high ear stress
I don't ever recommend using my subs at high volume or causing ear stress with them.
Quote:buzzing
high duration, normal frequency, low volume -> high/medium/low = medium ear stress
Volume here would be an identical consideration as masked tracks. You are going on assumptions and faulty logic.
Furthermore the ear stress is not supposed to be there at all. If you use the appropriate volume, and the right format for your ears, you won't have ear stress.
Quote:I don't think you'll release the buzzing track because of #3 but maybe I could make you aware of some advantages of teh buzzing track that you could implement into your current tracks
If I release the bees buzzing track, it will have to be true that there are no serious disadvantages for either you or me.
I don't see many real disadvantages for you. I see several potentials for me. Still, I am considering a trial run.
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - athanas - 05-11-2015
Quote:I am considering your idea, though. I have a few things to test it for before I would be really willing to release an un-subliminalized bees buzzing track
Thanks that sounds good
Quote:On the contrary, the more powerful the script is, and the more controversial it's goal is, the lower the volume it requires to work. The 6G prototype works best at an astonishing 1-4 out of 15 on my cell phone, usually 2 or 3. By contrast, BAMM works best for me at 11 out of 15. The 6G prototype is aiming to get people to do something that nobody would normally do in a million years, and yet it is working.
For 5G, the volume seems to determine which level of the subconscious mind is being influenced.
So if I understand this correctly: 5G most of the time is indeed "higher script volume = better effect" but this could change in 6G?
If 6G allows you to have low script volume with high effect this would solve the problem. You could do the trickling stream track just without the trickling sounds but still keep the script volume as low as it was. This would be very gentle to the ear and since it's 6G still effective.
I beleive it would also be harder for competitors to extract the script from it since the buzzing script sound is at much lower volume than the 5G buzz would be. So it would be just a very low volume bees buzzing track 6G, being healthier to the ear than any other track could be.
Or can you even have the masked tracks at low volume in 6G? (I'm asking because it would be resulting in a very, very low script volume, wouldn't it)
Quote:I don't ever recommend using my subs at high volume or causing ear stress with them.
I meant "high" as relative to the other subs. The lower the volume the less stress accumulates in the ear, so it can be beneficial to drive it to the relatively "low" volume the buzzing track could be.
Quote:Volume here would be an identical consideration as masked tracks. You are going on assumptions and faulty logic.
Maybe I misunderstood how the buzzing track could work. I think the sole function of the trickling sounds of the masked track are just to mask the important buzzing script sound to make it only understandable for the subconscious, not the conscious mind.
I remember you saying higher volume equals better results (I assume the volume of the script is here important not the masking noises) And since the script volume is quite low in the masked track, for equal script volume the buzzing track (having no trickling sounds) would be way, way lower volume.
In other words: the overall volume is greater in the masked tracks than the buzzing track (for equal script volume) since ethe buzzing track has no loud masking sounds. Is this logic right?
If you would turn the script volume up to match the overall volume of the trickling stream it would be several time louder than the script volume of the masked track.
Quote:I don't see many real disadvantages for you. I see several potentials for me. Still, I am considering a trial run.
I'm glad you're not instantly dismissing it. Maybe you'll find a way to implement these potential improvements regarding... let's call it "hearing comfort" without having to include the disadvantages the bees buzzing could bring to your company.
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - Benjamin - 05-11-2015
I really like the idea of 4 hours use or so a day because it's a challenge trying to keep up 12 hours sometimes especially between stages as I have to sit there on my computer.. which of course i'm doing stuff at the same time and i'm willing to invest that time but less hours with more effectiveness would be awesome.
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - Shannon - 05-11-2015
Quote:In other words: the overall volume is greater in the masked tracks than the buzzing track (for equal script volume) since ethe buzzing track has no loud masking sounds. Is this logic right?
The volume of the - we'll call it B-track - is about the the same as that of the ultrasonic track, and the same as that of the trickling stream mask, and the same as the ocean surf mask.
When the B-track is mixed down with the masking track, it's volume is reduced considerably. The masking track becomes louder. But if the masking track were vocoded such that volumetric variations for the masking track were matched by the B-track, and that B-track volumetric adjustment was not made, the volumes would be about the same for both tracks.
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - Shannon - 05-11-2015
(05-11-2015, 04:25 PM)Benjamin Wrote: I really like the idea of 4 hours use or so a day because it's a challenge trying to keep up 12 hours sometimes especially between stages as I have to sit there on my computer.. which of course i'm doing stuff at the same time and i'm willing to invest that time but less hours with more effectiveness would be awesome.
At this time, I believe that for most people, 4 hours a day of continuous exposure would be way too much of 6G. I may end up producing it with 30 minutes of audio and 30 minutes of silence, or 60/60. It may be that that allows for a balanced effect and longer usage; that's what I'm hoping. At that point, it might be possible to use it 4 or maybe more hours a day without overdoing it. But I don't know yet; I have not gotten that far into testing variants yet.
If I cannot find a way to balance it otherwise, it looks like it will probably be 1-3 hours of use per day. From what I have seen, there is the potential for it to do really well within that range of usage time per day. More testing is, of course, needed.
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - RTBoss - 05-12-2015
(05-11-2015, 06:58 PM)Shannon Wrote: At this time, I believe that for most people, 4 hours a day of continuous exposure would be way too much of 6G. I may end up producing it with 30 minutes of audio and 30 minutes of silence, or 60/60. It may be that that allows for a balanced effect and longer usage; that's what I'm hoping. At that point, it might be possible to use it 4 or maybe more hours a day without overdoing it. But I don't know yet; I have not gotten that far into testing variants yet.
If I cannot find a way to balance it otherwise, it looks like it will probably be 1-3 hours of use per day. From what I have seen, there is the potential for it to do really well within that range of usage time per day. More testing is, of course, needed.
I really like the idea of a "timer" in the 6G format - some kind of "tell" (physical or otherwise) that lets you know you're done for the day, or achieved the goal of the script - however it is you decide to implement it.
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - Shannon - 05-12-2015
(05-12-2015, 08:28 AM)RTBoss Wrote:(05-11-2015, 06:58 PM)Shannon Wrote: At this time, I believe that for most people, 4 hours a day of continuous exposure would be way too much of 6G. I may end up producing it with 30 minutes of audio and 30 minutes of silence, or 60/60. It may be that that allows for a balanced effect and longer usage; that's what I'm hoping. At that point, it might be possible to use it 4 or maybe more hours a day without overdoing it. But I don't know yet; I have not gotten that far into testing variants yet.
If I cannot find a way to balance it otherwise, it looks like it will probably be 1-3 hours of use per day. From what I have seen, there is the potential for it to do really well within that range of usage time per day. More testing is, of course, needed.
I really like the idea of a "timer" in the 6G format - some kind of "tell" (physical or otherwise) that lets you know you're done for the day, or achieved the goal of the script - however it is you decide to implement it.
That may not be possible, and it may not work for everyone. But I'm looking into something like that.
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - dissonance - 05-17-2015
How long ago did serious get-down-to-business 6G development start? Just curious how long you've come in what amount of time
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - Shannon - 05-22-2015
(05-17-2015, 01:12 AM)dissonance Wrote: How long ago did serious get-down-to-business 6G development start? Just curious how long you've come in what amount of time
I have been developing the next generation from the moment I solidified the "what is the previous generation?" for each generation. So I guess it's been what, 2 or 3 years now? Something like that? I just did not call it 6G back then because I am never sure if it can be improved on.
The difference between what can be achieved in 5G and 6G is tremendous, but so is the difference in complexity and how long each step of development requires.
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - Shannon - 05-22-2015
(05-19-2015, 02:11 AM)iRRepLaceaBLe Wrote: How much will 6g cost ? How much for a single program and how much for a 6-stage-set program ?
Hope it is not too much .
6G is going to be more than 5G was. More specific than that, I don't know. There are a lot of factors to consider, and I haven't even finished achieving the primary goal for the prototype yet. Although if yesterday's test run of the latest prototype is any indication, I am damned close.
I want to choose a price that achieves the best results for customer satisfaction at that price, and profits for myself. When both buyer and seller are happy, we all win. But 6G is much more complex, has had much longer development time and is much more challenging to build. In exchange, it is also much more powerful and effective when properly built, tuned and used. To say that I am having a very hard time believing my eyes with the test results recently is an understatement. The prototype goal is something that would literally never ever happen otherwise, so there's a 100% contrast between before and after applying the prototype. If it happens, it can only have happened because of the prototype's influence. My job is not only to make it happen, but make it happen with the vast majority of people who are exposed to it and make it happen the vast majority of the time.
What's that worth?
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - maxx55 - 05-22-2015
(05-22-2015, 10:41 AM)Shannon Wrote:Woah...at this point you're LITERALLY a claiming that the prototype is making the impossible...possible. If that's the case, you have the most badass yet accurate and truthful sales pitch ever!(05-19-2015, 02:11 AM)iRRepLaceaBLe Wrote: How much will 6g cost ? How much for a single program and how much for a 6-stage-set program ?
Hope it is not too much .
6G is going to be more than 5G was. More specific than that, I don't know. There are a lot of factors to consider, and I haven't even finished achieving the primary goal for the prototype yet. Although if yesterday's test run of the latest prototype is any indication, I am damned close.
I want to choose a price that achieves the best results for customer satisfaction at that price, and profits for myself. When both buyer and seller are happy, we all win. But 6G is much more complex, has had much longer development time and is much more challenging to build. In exchange, it is also much more powerful and effective when properly built, tuned and used. To say that I am having a very hard time believing my eyes with the test results recently is an understatement. The prototype goal is something that would literally never ever happen otherwise, so there's a 100% contrast between before and after applying the prototype. If it happens, it can only have happened because of the prototype's influence. My job is not only to make it happen, but make it happen with the vast majority of people who are exposed to it and make it happen the vast majority of the time.
What's that worth?
It's hard to ask for a cheap price, but since we have free 5G subs now, if you don't do free 6G for people to test, then do inexpensive 6G tests, no more than $20 just so people can understand what a 6 stage could be like. I do wonder what the current 6 stage programs (AM, SM, WM, etc.) would be like in 6G!
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - Dilettante - 05-22-2015
(05-22-2015, 10:41 AM)Shannon Wrote:(05-19-2015, 02:11 AM)iRRepLaceaBLe Wrote: How much will 6g cost ? How much for a single program and how much for a 6-stage-set program ?
Hope it is not too much .
6G is going to be more than 5G was. More specific than that, I don't know. There are a lot of factors to consider, and I haven't even finished achieving the primary goal for the prototype yet. Although if yesterday's test run of the latest prototype is any indication, I am damned close.
I want to choose a price that achieves the best results for customer satisfaction at that price, and profits for myself. When both buyer and seller are happy, we all win. But 6G is much more complex, has had much longer development time and is much more challenging to build. In exchange, it is also much more powerful and effective when properly built, tuned and used. To say that I am having a very hard time believing my eyes with the test results recently is an understatement. The prototype goal is something that would literally never ever happen otherwise, so there's a 100% contrast between before and after applying the prototype. If it happens, it can only have happened because of the prototype's influence. My job is not only to make it happen, but make it happen with the vast majority of people who are exposed to it and make it happen the vast majority of the time.
What's that worth?
Can the 6G tech speed up the manifestation process (range of 30-60 days & specifically for the AYP/MYP series)? If it shows enough promise in that several dozen people can replicate what is in the sales letter in a rapid amount of time then I would venture that it would be worth $200 to $300 per single mp3.
AM/SM/WM would probably be $500 per single stage (tho based on what I'm reading, 6G will make multi-stages either unnecessary or unsafe - could be reading it wrong tho).
just conjecturing here, certainly hope it's lower than the prices that I quoted.