+- 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 Journals (https://subliminal-talk.com/Forum-Men-s-Journals)
+--- Thread: Shannon's Journal Discussion (/Thread-Shannon-s-Journal-Discussion)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shawn - 09-04-2015
FLAC format would be fine. But I don't know if more than CD quality is required or make sense. And there may be still some people who listen to the tracks on CD. Burning it from a higher quality format would mean the decoder need to convert the signal, which could mean a loss of information. So at the end 16bit / 44,1 kHz could be a smarter choice.
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Dzemoo - 09-06-2015
(09-04-2015, 04:41 AM)Mr. Anderson Wrote: FLAC format would be fine. But I don't know if more than CD quality is required or make sense. And there may be still some people who listen to the tracks on CD. Burning it from a higher quality format would mean the decoder need to convert the signal, which could mean a loss of information. So at the end 16bit / 44,1 kHz could be a smarter choice.
converting it from mp3 to cd would be a higher loss
just because its cd quality it doesnt mean its cd format
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Darkness - 09-06-2015
Super creativity sub 4G
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shawn - 09-06-2015
(09-06-2015, 06:36 AM)Dzemoo Wrote:(09-04-2015, 04:41 AM)Mr. Anderson Wrote: FLAC format would be fine. But I don't know if more than CD quality is required or make sense. And there may be still some people who listen to the tracks on CD. Burning it from a higher quality format would mean the decoder need to convert the signal, which could mean a loss of information. So at the end 16bit / 44,1 kHz could be a smarter choice.
converting it from mp3 to cd would be a higher loss
just because its cd quality it doesnt mean its cd format
You must mean encoding from cd to mp3. As far I know converting mp3 to wav/cd is lossless. The information are just decoded which happens also when playing. There is no new encoding. A quality loss would appear if the mp3 didn't had the 16bit/44,1 kHz format.
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shannon - 09-07-2015
Quote:Cann you consider shanon to build future sub files in higher lossless quality (wav, flac, alac, mp4) and with 24 bit and at least 48khz cd qualoty seems not to be enough for future sub quality amd 6g
Lossless quality is not an issue for encoding. I can do that. It won't make much difference, but I can do it.
As for the rest, I can guarantee you that working in 24 bit and/or 48 kHz is not going to help improve the results of these programs. The difference between what I'm using now, and those settings, is so minor that the cost to benefit ratio is hugely in favor of what I currently use - which is why I currently use that instead. The cost is huge files, which would eat a lot of space on our servers and a lot of bandwidth, and take much more space on your disks and players. The benefit is virtually nonexistent in comparison.
I just did an experiment encoding a copy of my 6G prototype in FLAC, best compression, in 16 and 24 bit. As an mp3 @ 320 kBps, this file is 73 megabytes. As a 16 bit FLAC, it's 298 megabytes. As a 24 bit FLAC, it's 600 megabytes. The difference in audio quality between the 16 and 24 bit? None. They are indistinguishable.
So... cost outweighs benefit for anything above 16 bit FLAC. I'm not even entirely sure that having a 16 bit FLAC option is even reasonable from a cost to benefit perspective, but I'm certainly willing to consider it.
Trust me, what I am working in now is plenty good enough even for 6G, as even today's experiment evidenced.
Quote:You need to start having some smart kids that will continue your legacy Shannon.
That is in the works, but I have one more thing left to accomplish before I allow myself to intentionally reproduce. That one thing should be accomplished within the next 1-2 years. At that point, release the hounds! But until then, the only way I'm going to have kids is if some force greater than myself decides it is so. I believe that parenting is a responsibility of such magnitude that it begins before becoming a parent. In 1-2 years, I will have accomplished everything I have been working to accomplish before becoming a parent.
Once I do have kidlings, though, I can only teach one of them my craft if there are any who are willing and interested, and prove themselves to me to be sufficiently competent. We shall see.
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shannon - 09-07-2015
Just thought you might find this interesting.
The following is a quote I encountered while researching this matter - FLAC vs 320 kBps MP3 specifically.
Quote:I have friends who work in codec development. They conduct tests with music professionals using high-end equipment and most of them stop being able to distinguish between CD and MP3 around 256kbps.
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shawn - 09-07-2015
(09-07-2015, 02:52 PM)Shannon Wrote: Just thought you might find this interesting.
The following is a quote I encountered while researching this matter - FLAC vs 320 kBps MP3 specifically.
Quote:I have friends who work in codec development. They conduct tests with music professionals using high-end equipment and most of them stop being able to distinguish between CD and MP3 around 256kbps.
I am with you when it comes to hearing the difference between high bitrate MP3 and FLAC. I was just thinking that you said once you loose about 3% effectiveness with MP3 (if I remember correctly) with the subliminal messages. With FLAC it should be possible to keep 100% effectiveness. Maybe it's possible to make a MP3 and FLAC version, so the users who are into perfection could use FLAC instead of MP3.
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shannon - 09-07-2015
Well I'll see if it unreasonably impacts operating costs.
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - apollolux - 09-07-2015
(09-07-2015, 02:24 PM)Shannon Wrote: Once I do have kidlings, though, I can only teach one of them my craft if there are any who are willing and interested, and prove themselves to me to be sufficiently competent. We shall see.
If at any given point you decide to teach someone else, I would certainly appreciate an opportunity to learn this area of audio engineering that I haven't yet approached
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - FluffyBunny - 09-07-2015
Hey Shannon
Its almost been 2 years since am6 so im wondering ...
If you are thinking of making the next version of Alpha Male soon with 6G ?
And how long would you think it would take to make? would you say as soon as 2016 new years?
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shannon - 09-08-2015
(09-07-2015, 06:34 PM)apollolux Wrote:(09-07-2015, 02:24 PM)Shannon Wrote: Once I do have kidlings, though, I can only teach one of them my craft if there are any who are willing and interested, and prove themselves to me to be sufficiently competent. We shall see.
If at any given point you decide to teach someone else, I would certainly appreciate an opportunity to learn this area of audio engineering that I haven't yet approached
Most of this is not actually audio engineering; it's more along the lines of computer programming, but I'm programming incredibly complex self aware, multi-layer, self contradictory and in some ways invisible computers that are capable of logic and illogic at the same time, and every one is unique. The audio engineering aspect is pretty small potatoes comparably, and not of much complexity.
90% or more of this job is understanding the human being and how it works, so you can get it to adjust how it works. Perhaps 9% is the perseverance to actually create, edit, and compile the scripts that result. 1% or less has to do with audio engineering.
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shannon - 09-08-2015
(09-07-2015, 08:23 PM)FluffyBunny Wrote: Hey Shannon
Its almost been 2 years since am6 so im wondering ...
If you are thinking of making the next version of Alpha Male soon with 6G ?
And how long would you think it would take to make? would you say as soon as 2016 new years?
The next version of AM has to wait until I am ready to build it. If it is to be in 6G, then 6G has to be finished being developed, and I have to define it in such a way that I can reliably reproduce the results. It remains to be seen for sure if 6G is compatible with multi-stage sets, although I suspect it is.
I believe that sometime in 2016 I will be finished developing and defining 6G, and be able to begin building in it. When that happens, AM may not be the first thing built with it. So it seems likely to happen sometime in 2016, but that is at best a rough estimate right now.
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - FluffyBunny - 09-08-2015
Oh ok thanks.
What will be the first few programs that you are planning to build once you have 6G defined?
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Jakeb203 - 09-09-2015
I hope Shannon can create 6Gs that are compatible with other 5G subs.
A lot of the users have chosen multistages as the predominant programming on a long term basis, but they also have other needs such as manifestation, overcoming certain issues, or success in other areas of life. Would be nice if some of the older subs can be upgraded into this form, or creating 6G multistages that are compatible with older generations.