Thanks for giving me a methodology to eliminate “masks”.
I have studied the posts about silent subliminals in the audacity forums. I have used the subliminal Audacity
scripts to both create and decode silent subliminals. Also, I have a copy of the infamous “silent subliminal” dll
which works with Audacity as a VST plugin as it also works in other audio creation software. In addition, I have
purchased other software which moves subliminals in a manner similar to AM SSB. I know this because I was
able to encode the message with the DLL and the other program and take the output of these transformations and
import into Audacity, using the unsubliminal.ny command, and manage to create a legible plain text audio file.
Of course, there are many other techniques to create “silent subliminals” or sublminals in general. As far as efficacy
is concerned in actually influencing change in an individual person, I leave proof to the reader. That is why I am interested
in multiple approaches including audible plain text because one can simulate a masking sound using normal environmental
sounds. I have found it is difficult to find much information on low-frequency silent subliminals in terms of how they are
created; not to mention how our minds could possibly decode such information. I am not really interested in debating the
efficacy of each approach; but very interested in creating the desired goal in the subject (me) with, for example, eliminating
sinus congestion. The sinus congestion is very easy to measure.
I found the forum because I’m trying to accomplish exactly what you’re looking to do. Did you have any luck removing the masking from any subs to make them “silent?” I purchased a sub to help my love life with the wifey, but the stream and ocean wave sounds are not conducive to that. I would love to easily remove them while keeping the subs intact.
I would really like to make my own silent subs, as well - I guess I better get reading!
Yes, it can be done using the general outline proposed by Steve with many gotchas or limitations.
I was working on a file which was encoded at 16.5 Khz in mp3 format. Right away, you can tell
the quality of the encoded message is not likely to be great as the available audio bandwidth
is only 3.5khz when your source file is an mp3 (according to Steve). The mp3 transform eliiminates
much of the higher frequencies as they are largely inaudible and uses tricks to reduce file size by about
a factor of 10 with a large degree of audio fidelity for the average listener. In effect, the mp3 transform
damages the quality of the message unless carefully done. The particular source file I was using strongly
exhibited this behavior. Although some of the “plain text” audio was clearly audible; the rest had a lot of
chirpiness suggesting to me that the message was damaged. I also had to amplify the decoded message
by about 30 times to easily hear the message along with the noise. I seriously doubt this subliminal would
ever work.
Here are some suggestions for your consideration:
Work with a lossless audio format for getting your silent subliminal to work well. Use a high sample rate.
Speak clearly and with EMOTION the contents of your message.
Embellish the audio with some amount or reverberation as this can effectively get the message repeated multiple times
within the same timeframe. I use software other than Audacity for this functionality but even doing plain vanilla is likely better than nothing.
Use the right track for permission statements: (I love myself; I am worthy of giving love; I am worthy of receiving love)
Use the left track to do the actual affirmations (I see when my partner shows me love; I recognize and respect my partner and see her/him loving me)
Create the source track.
Use the subliminal.ny plugin to move the audio to 15.5Khz which is pretty optimal from what I can see.
Save the resulting subliminal.
Decode the resulting subliminal and verify the integrity of the audio.
When satisfied, burn to a CD and set for continuous replay or the equivalent technique for broadcasting.
I use an mp3 player which support FLAC (lossless format) along with sleepphones for all night listening. Keep the
volume settings relatively low to avoid any potential hearing loss.
Finally, when composing the affirmations involving more than yourself; compose them in such a way that you have some measure of
direct control in the outcome. You do not want to say stuff like my partner loves me more every day. Use an affirmation like I love, cherish,
and respect my partner by listening more closely every day and do inspired action showing love to my partner. I tell my partner every day how
much I care for them, etc.
Good luck and remember these were just some suggestions for your consideration.
Hello there.
I want to create Silent Subs for more than one year now. I don´t know why it´s so hard for me to go further, i have all the Technical Stuff I need. Plantronics Mic, Heco Libero Speaker up to 30.000 Hz.
I installed Audacity, and downloaded the Silent Sub Plugin somewhere, some Time ago.
I already made a recording, multiplied it and “pitched it up” with the Plugin. But I fear to listen to it, cause I heard it can damage ones Ears, cause you don´t know how loud it is. I just keep the same Receiver and Windows Sound Volume it listend to it before I pitched it up (ok, I already listend to it few Times for a Minute, could not hear it)
I also don´t know if it is, and whatfor it should be necessary to mix a Carrier Sound to it? To make it nicer? To control the Loudness? Could help, if I could be sure they both have the same Loudness. But there I lack in technical Knowledge.
The modified sound should not be louder than the original voice. You can also check the high frequency levels with spectrogram to see if they are too loud.
If the audio is encoded using the code from the first post in this topic Silent Subliminals [solved?]
then you can decode by applying this command via the Nyquist Prompt effect (Audacity 2.1.0)
(mult *track* (hzosc 17500.0))
As with other forms of encoding, to be able to decode, you need to know how it was encoded. The idea that a person’s subconscious can somehow hear sound that is too high for their ears to detect, work out how it has been encoded, then work out and apply the necessary decoding algorithm, seems pretty unlikely to me.
Hi I am getting clipping and intermittent audible voice using the subliminal.ny I have tried the default of 17.5 as well as 15.5k and both produce the clipping. What should I be looking at?
After running subliminal.ny on my track/project in Audacity; if I amplify to say 25 dB is it okay?
The idea originates from some reliable info where Lowery’s projects was utilized at 70 dB. Is the amplification expected to work any more effectively than the unamplified sound (or more appropriately silence) produced by the subliminal.ny. Its a different matter even after amplification to 25 dB I am getting silence only.
No, do not amplify greater than 0 dB.
0 dB is the maximum valid level for digital audio. Attempting to amplify above 0 dB will cause clipping (distortion). Amplifying to 25 dB (above zero) will cause massive distortion and effectively turn the audio into trash.
The decibel (dB) scale is not an absolute measurement. It represents a ratio between two levels.
When measuring signals (a digital recording), dB measurements are relative to “full scale”. Thus a signal that is the full height of the Audacity track is 0 dB. All other valid signals will be less than 0 dB, thus they are negative numbers.
Measuring the loudness of a sound is a different kind of dB measurement. Typically it will be a measurement of “Sound Pressure Level” relative to the threshold of hearing. Thus any sound loud enough to be heard will have a positive value.
Thanks Steve. I get the picture. The dB referred to in my info refers to sound pressure level and not the dB manipulated by Amplify feature in Audacity.
After reading through the code I have a (noob?) question. Does this code implement ALL of Lowery’s patent referred to in this thread earlier? Does it implement Lowery’s patent completely?
Edgar’s code is an implementation of the modulation requirement described in 1(a) of Lowrey’s “Silent subliminal presentation system
US 5159703 A”
(a) amplitude modulated carrier means for generating signals located in non-aural portions of the audio and in the lower portion of the ultrasonic frequency spectrum said signals modulated with information to be perceived by a listener’s brain
Unlike Lowrey, we make no claims regarding effects on the listener.
There is no evidence to support the claim “said signals” can be perceived by a listener’s brain, but there is a mountain of verifiable evidence to indicate that humans cannot perceive ultrasonic frequencies unless the power level is so high that it causes a heating effect (like a microwave oven).
Thanks Steve for the reply. Another (noob?) followon. Does the modulation requirement as in 1(a) FULFIL the acoustic implementation of Lowery’s patent? (I understand the other one is vibrational).
Technically, all that us required for Lowrey’s invention is that an audio source is used to modulate a high frequency audio “carrier” wave that has a frequency around the upper frequency limit of hearing, and then filtered to substantially reduce the “side bands”. The code that Edgar posted fulfils these requirements.
EMI did some research in the early sixties. They subjected movie theater audiences to modulated white/pink noise patterns. The result was that they could easily double the sales of ice cream during the break. They ended the research because it was so ‘dangerous’ that they decided to put it in the safe and not apply for a patent. I remember reading about it in some scientific magazine. I’ve never heard anything about it since and there’s nothing about it on the net, AFAIK.
And as you probably know, white or pink noise patterns get filtered out by our brain in merely some tens of seconds.
Note that they didn’t always inform their human test subjects of the test that was going on. Something that was quite dubious.
There is no evidence to support the claim “said signals” can be perceived by a listener’s brain, but there is a mountain of verifiable evidence to indicate that humans cannot perceive ultrasonic frequencies unless the power level is so high that it causes a heating effect (like a microwave oven).
That’s not exactly true either. Some people at least, can perceive frequencies up to 24 or even 25 kHz. It may not be “hearing” to us, but they are able to pick the signal out in a blind test very reliably. I only know one person that is able to that reliably, and she’s young, in her early twenties, but from the research I’ve seen, there are others.
There was a not so very scientific (too few test subjects, all in the same age and background group) test recently that indicated that people were able to tell the difference between low bitrate mp3 sound and uncompressed sound. That won’t amaze anyone. But the emotional response to compressed music was far less positive than the response to uncompressed music. Note that this was tested with acoustic music (romantic and classical) and not with metal
There are at least, strong indicators that our brain is very easily influenced by sound. Hec, the CIA used white noise to torture people. And that was more “effective” than waterboarding… Basterds…
Certain frequencies and/or their patterns are known to activate certain areas of the human brain (full lossless compression of course). The easiest evidence comes from piping in the frequencies (left & right earphones need to be correctly placed) and simultaneously seeing resulting activity on an MRI or (less reliable but cheaper) EEG. Available statistics say that this correlation is seen in about 86% of humans.
