+- 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)
why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - athanas - 05-06-2015
This question came into my mind when I answered in my "ultrasonic calibrating" thread: Why aren't the subs in infrasonic?
Lower hearing frequencies can be turned up very high without getting damaging to the ear and it's still outside the normal hearing range so it passes the conscious mind and enters the subconscious.
Or why just not put the sub into the normal hearing range without being masked? I'm pretty sure we couldn't understand it consciously even if it were 10khz because I can hear the ultrasonic and still don't understand a word. I think it is sped up way too high for that.
I hear something like a blur with some "dips" it's just too fast. I think I hear multiple frequencies at once and during the "Blur" most overlap and during the "dips" only few overlap. Its as if Shannon is reading to us something at 40x speed in 5 frequencies simultaneously. If that's true it would definitely not be understandable even in hearing range.
Is it understandable in hearing range? If yes, how is it producing 160 words per minute, I can't imagine that being understandable.
If not, why not put it in the much safer hearing range where people know when it is too loud and won't accidentally damage their ears or have it too low to work without knowing?
Or why not put it below 20hz? That is a very safe frequency for the ears and it reaches very far as it loses way less energy/volume than high frequencies through distance (e.g. speakers from the other side of the room while sleeping).
edit: with "understandable" I mean consciously understandable. Of course the subs will always be subconsciously understandable no matter the speed as long the message isn't destroyed, but afaik for a sub it is necessary not to be understandable for the conscious mind. That is why Shannon puts an ocean surf audio above the sub, so the conscious mind doesn't understand the message and block it from entering the subconscious mind.
But seeing how many words are spoken per second, wouldn't the sub still work without being masked by another sound (ocean surf, Trickling stream) and turned up to the normal volume and frequency?
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - Shannon - 05-07-2015
Quote:This question came into my mind when I answered in my "ultrasonic calibrating" thread: Why aren't the subs in infrasonic?
Partly because it is much harder to find infrasonic-capable speakers/headphones than ultrasonic capable, and partly because it lowers data transmission rates to the brain when the "carrier signal" is that slow.
Quote:Lower hearing frequencies can be turned up very high without getting damaging to the ear and it's still outside the normal hearing range so it passes the conscious mind and enters the subconscious.
Volume is volume. Energy is energy. You can damage your ears with infrasonics just as you can with ultrasonics and audible "sonics"
Quote:Or why just not put the sub into the normal hearing range without being masked? I'm pretty sure we couldn't understand it consciously even if it were 10khz because I can hear the ultrasonic and still don't understand a word. I think it is sped up way too high for that.
You could not understand the 5G subliminalized audio if it were audible, but then, guess what? It wouldn't be subliminal! It also would be very annoying to listen to for more than a few seconds. Believe me.
Quote:I hear something like a blur with some "dips" it's just too fast. I think I hear multiple frequencies at once and during the "Blur" most overlap and during the "dips" only few overlap. Its as if Shannon is reading to us something at 40x speed in 5 frequencies simultaneously. If that's true it would definitely not be understandable even in hearing range.
5G uses a very complex set of expressives, but there are not multiple distinct simultaneous frequencies.
Quote:Is it understandable in hearing range? If yes, how is it producing 160 words per minute, I can't imagine that being understandable.
No, it sounds like bees buzzing when audible. And it's 80 to 120 words per second for 5G.
Quote:If not, why not put it in the much safer hearing range where people know when it is too loud and won't accidentally damage their ears or have it too low to work without knowing?
The range of hearing does not determine safety. The volume determines safety. And if you have common sense, and follow the instructions, your hearing will be just fine. Some people develop tinnitus from ultrasonics if they are too loud, but that can be dealt with by lowering the volume or using masked subs. The whole issue is people listen to headphones too loudly even with regular audio, and then ultrasonic audio is hard to discern the volume of. It is easy to set the volume to 0 or too high by accident, and not know it. That's why we recommend using masked format only with headphones and earbuds.
Quote:Or why not put it below 20hz? That is a very safe frequency for the ears and it reaches very far as it loses way less energy/volume than high frequencies through distance (e.g. speakers from the other side of the room while sleeping).
It is centered at 17.5 kHz.
Quote:But seeing how many words are spoken per second, wouldn't the sub still work without being masked by another sound (ocean surf, Trickling stream) and turned up to the normal volume and frequency?
The programming would still work as an audible file, yes. But you would not want to listen to it. And, it would no longer be literally subliminal in all senses of the word, although as long as the conscious mind was unable to decipher it while the subconscious was, it would still have the same effect.
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - athanas - 05-08-2015
thanks for the answer, Shannon.
regarding frequency & safety: I've read the ears have a lower tolerance for higher frequencies at the same volume. Or one could also say for the same tolerance you can listen to lower frequencies at an higher volume.
yes every frequency can be damaging, but lower frequencies have to be at an higher decibel to cause the same ear damage as higher frequencies.
(05-07-2015, 01:37 PM)Shannon Wrote: No, it sounds like bees buzzing when audible. And it's 80 to 120 words per second for 5G.
Afai understand the masked tracks are this buzzing but at a very low volume and masked with trickling stream over it. Now accodring to the instructions we try to increase the volume of the trickling stream as high as comfortably possible to compensate for the low volume of the script.
With competitor subliminals I understand this necessity as without the masked track one would clearly hear the words which destroys the effect. But due to your technologies your subs don't make the words audible onlly a buzzing osund so is it still necessary for you to lower it's volume and mask it with another sound?
In other words, aren't your scripts already masked enough through the fact it just sound like bees buzzing so additional masking isn't necessary?
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - athanas - 05-08-2015
If yes and you could release just the bees buzzing track (in essence the trickling stream track, without the trickling stream, and instead of lower volume rather normal volume) wouldn't it be much better?
the advantages:
1. More quiet than the current masked tracks (better sleep)
I could choose to listen at the same script volume that the trickling stream would be, this means a very faint bee buzzing at a very low volume which would be hardly bothering compared to the really loud trickling stream sounds
2. Ability to listen to the script at higher volumes than the masked tracks (and even ultrasonics)
in the masked track it's the trickling stream that is loud, not the subliminal script. In the bees buzzing script there is only the script, so it would turn out to be way louder than the script in the masked track could ever be. It can also be slightly louder than the ultrasonic, without risk for the ears due to lower frequency.
3. Easier&safer calibration than ultrasonic
no need to check how loud the subliminal is everytime because you can hear it.
And all this is less - not more- work for you since you could just leave the buzzing script at normal volume instead of masking it with trickling stream.
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - athanas - 05-08-2015
Quote:The programming would still work as an audible file, yes. But you would not want to listen to it. And, it would no longer be literally subliminal in all senses of the word, although as long as the conscious mind was unable to decipher it while the subconscious was, it would still have the same effect.
"Still have the same effect" So it would work wouldn't it? Well I'd definitely would listen to it if it means I can sleep better at night by not having to listen to very loud trickling noise compared to a faint buzzing sound and still have the same volume for the script.
It'd be definitely more comfortable than the ultrasonic as well. (People who hear the ultrasonic can only listen at lower volume without pain, an people who can't hear it have to make sure repeatedly they don't have the wrong volume)
I know normal subs have to be masked or be ultrasonic. But since you reached 5g did you test if you still need your subs to be this way? Maybe through their speed (100 words per SECOND) they are already masking themselves enough to not be comprehendable by the conscious mind and be effectively working as a subliminal? And It's still a subliminal if it's too fast to understand isn't it? Like in the movie fightclub where he put subliminal images into films for 0.001 second.
I can see only advantages for the bees buzzing track
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - athanas - 05-08-2015
And even if it's not yet sure if it has the same effect, I think it will still be worth the trouble to release a buzzing bee track sample (e.g. of ASC 5G) for your customers to test it. Especially since the trouble only means releasing the masked track without the masking, or the ultrasonic without the "ultra" (lower frequency)
Testing it meaning testing the effectiveness and testing how your customers like the buzzing bee track. I for sure would love to have to listen only to the script without having unnecessary noises at the background. (that's what I like about to ultrasonic it's script only)
And the buzzing bee track would have the advantages of the ultrasonic and masked track without their disadvantages.
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - Shawn - 05-09-2015
(05-08-2015, 10:51 AM)athanas Wrote: And the buzzing bee track would have the advantages of the ultrasonic and masked track without their disadvantages.
For me, the best reason to listen to ultrasonic is that I can't hear them, so it doesn't disturb me from what I am doing at this time. So I hope they will not be replaced by an audible track.
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - athanas - 05-09-2015
It'd be awesome if it would added alongside the 2 masked tracks and the ultrasonic if it proves to be half as good as I imagine it to be.
If it really has to replace something I'd go for the less popular of the 2 audible masked tracks since it is an audible track as well
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - Benjamin - 05-09-2015
Quote:I am glad to have found about subliminals and having the opportunity to use them , starting earlier in my life . When it comes to life and when it comes to subliminals , I know what I want . And I do what I have to do to get what I want .
I couldn't 'like' your signature.. so making a post about it. Nice man.. I agree! I'm just disappointed I didn't find them earlier!
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - Shannon - 05-09-2015
Counterpoint #1. Bees buzzing is going to annoy most if not all people, and quickly. Which makes it wasted time, server space and bandwidth, all of which are not free.
Counterpoint #2: If you don't want to use the ultrasonic, then use the masked tracks.
Counterpoint #3: Doing this will potentially allow competitors to discover some of how I do what I do, which I do not want to even think about doing.
Counterpoint #4: Less work? I create the bees buzzing track before I create the subliminals from it. Less work would be if I didn't have to make the subliminals, which I still would, because of counterpoint #1 at the very least. The amount of work is more because then I have more files to process, verify, test, package and upload. I am not going to replace either masked or ultrasonic formats.
Counterpoint #5: There is no safety issue with ultrasonics if you follow the directions.
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - athanas - 05-10-2015
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.
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - athanas - 05-10-2015
good points irreplacable. I think we all know the buzzing track isn't released because of disadvantages for us customers but because of disadvantages for Shannon (see #3 competitors can extract the script).
Which is all ok. Shannon can only create subs because he gets paid for it, and he gets only paid for it by providing subs that the competition doesn't. So he can't release any tracks that would leak his script.
Again that's ok, but at least be honest about it and don't put flimsy reasons to the foreground
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - athanas - 05-10-2015
If the buzzing track can't be released maybe Shannon can somehow extract some of its advantages it has and put it into future generations of masked tracks. I mentioned multiple advantages but just one that could be implemented would be:
1. Masking the buzzing sound not so loud so the script volume can be somewhat high without the overall volume being that high, but loud enough so competitors can't extract the script.
Even if we listen at safe volume levels ear damage isn't just caused by high volume, it is caused by high volume, high frequency and high duration. The ear can regenerate quickly even if you listen to very loud noise as long as the duration isn't long. But as we listen almost 24/7 to subs, it is very important what volume we listen at. In this case the noise can be much lower voume and still be damaging as the duration is high. It's not the people with strong ears but those with weak ears who notice this first.
There is no black and white line at a certain volume treshold where the ear suddenly takes damage. Stress for the ear is gradual and it is cumulative. The higher the volume&frequency the stronger the impact of stress, but the higher the duration the more stress is accumulating.
The more stress is accumulating the more QUIET time the ear needs to regenerate. And we take this regeneration time of our ears by basking it further in high volume subliminals. Decreasing the overall volume by just a third could mean a big difference in ear stress accumulation for people who listen to your subs over multiple years.
It is good there are safety measurements in the instructions, but that doesn't mean there is no reason to drive the volume further down by keeping the same effectiveness if it's possible.
RE: why subs ultrasonic not infrasonic? (or normal sonic) - athanas - 05-10-2015
It seems
higher script volume => higher sub effectiveness
lower overall volume => less stress for the ear, less cumulated ear damage.
for adequate script volume we need:
Ultrasonic
High duration, very high frequency, low overall volume -> high/very high/low = high ear stress
masked
high duration, normal frequency, high volume -> high/medium/high = high ear stress
buzzing
high duration, normal frequency, low volume -> high/medium/low = medium ear stress
That can make a great difference over 6 months, let alone over 6 years.
I'm sure if you find ways to drive the overall volume further down there will be less people complaining about ear problems. Even when people adhere to your instructions, those with weaker ears still get problems at the safety range for normal people.
This will vanish if you decrease overall volume and makes it also possible for people with strong ears to hear even higher script volume making the sub more effective. (Again, not just more effective than masked but even ultrasonic, bc script volume could be potentially higher due to frequency difference, and not to forget without any disadvantages of the ultrasonic)
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