Talk:Binaural beats/Archive 1

message: Would it be ok to add a link to a site which describes the documented responses within our brains when in certain brain wave patterns. This site has an easy to understand chart and brief and simple explanations of how binaural beats work, how isochronic tones work and how brainwave entrainment is achieved.  http://www.relaxmp3.co.uk/brainwave-entrainment/chart.htm
many thanks Leelahcat 15:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart 

message: The Other Uses section is a complete disaster.  It makes sweeping claims with no citations whatsoever; it is virtually unintelligible in places (notably the sentence about theta waves in children); and it is blatantly non-NPOV.  I question its relevance altogether.  I don't even know where to start editing.  A simple cleanup of the verbiage is not nearly enough.  If there are no objections, I move to strike it from the article. --Nonstopdrivel 10:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Uses section 

message: ::"In nature, two sounds that are similar but slightly shifted in frequency will beat to produce two new frequencies which are the average and the difference of the original two sounds. For example, a 400 Hz tone and a 410 Hz tone will form a 405 Hz tone pulsating 5 times per second."
and
"For example, if a 315 Hz sine wave is played into the right ear and a 325 Hz one into the left ear, the brain is supposed to be entrained towards the beat frequency (10 Hz, in the alpha range). Since alpha range is usually associated with relaxation, this is supposed to have a relaxing effect."
In the first, you get 405 Hz and in the second you get 10 Hz...
 
And what does "405 Hz tone pulsating 5 times per second" mean? 'One hertz simply means "one per second" '; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertz 
- therefore, this is 405 pulses per second pulsating 5 times per second? 405 per second 5 per second?
--Zumbuluk 00:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 405 oscillations per second, whose amplitude oscillates 5 times per second. (Of 81 oscillations in 0.2 seconds, the first is quietest, the forty-first is loudest, the last is quietest, and then again.)  See the image on Beat (acoustics). These are 114 oscillations per second (34 oscillations since the graph is 0.3 seconds), pulsating 6 times per second (a half, a whole, and another half in the 0.3 seconds). --Army1987 19:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are these sentences contrary?? 

message: Pjacobi wrote:
:Binaural beats or binaural tones is a controversial technology...
However, binaural beats themselves are not controversial. It is a matter of fact that playing two different tones into the ears will give rise to a perceived beating whose rate is the difference between the two frequencies. The controversy is only about its uses.
:Yup, it may have been not the wisest place to insert the controversial: But also the enhancement of the related EEG band is no clear cut case. --Pjacobi June 29, 2005 12:37 (UTC)
::Is this a generally accepted scientific phenomenon? Not meaning to be cynical, but sounds a bit urban myth-like to me... Is that what the controversial refers to in the initial paragraph? -- postglock 15:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an established phenomenon.  The impression you get most likely stems from the fact that the article is rife with error and pseudoscience. The article text betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic no doubt inferred from the disinformation obtainable on several websites (just look at the external links). This could be a strong article, but even the essential definition offered on the wiki is woefully inaccurate. — Ringbang 13:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what's wrong with the article? - furrykef (Talk at me) 13:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Inferred it from what? I use binaural beats on myself in the use I describe, which you probably never tried to. (Of course, the ones I use aren't 15 dB quieter than the background noise.) Well, the effect may be placebo, but that is an unfalsifiable statement, since there is no way to make someone believe he's listenig to binaural beats when he really isn't to test wheter that would work.--Army1987 23:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Army1987.  You criticised the experiment that I referred to because, you said, it used inaudible beats.  I'd like to correct you: only the first part of the experiment used inaudible beats.  Later on, the experimenters tried using an audible binaural beat.  They found no effect on EEG in either case.  I admit that one study does not prove the case either way, but I think you were wrong to be so dismissive about it.  Until someone does a better study, it's the only hard evidence we have. --Heron 20:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Audible beats. Mixed with jazz music...--Army1987 22:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, that does seem incongruous. Why did they have to spoil it? --Heron 20:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversial"? 

message: Assuming I'm playing two sinewaves that are binaurally beating as normal, but I want to mix it with pink noise (or other sounds), does it matter whether or not the frequency of the noise is also offset in each speaker? If not, must the noise be mono or can it be stereo? - furrykef (Talk at me) 3 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)
:A pink noise has no specific frequency, it covers the whole frequency spectrum. I don't know wheter two indipendently generated pink noises in the two speakers are ok (I wouldn't even know how to try). If you use the same pink noise in both speakers you're sure the only difference between the two tracks is that of the sinewaves. Bwgen (www.bwgen.com) has the option of using two noises which are the inverse of each other, this gives the impression that the noise is generated inside the head. They say that can be unpleasant, and they don't say what its effects are.--Army1987 21:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About mixing with other sounds 

message: To hear the sounds below 20Hz do we need special kind of headphones?
:No, any old pair of stereo headphones will do. They don't even need a good low-frequency response, since the low frequencies come from your head, not from the headphones. "Binaural headphones" are simply headphones that supply sound to both ears. --Heron 19:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean beating rates below 20Hz, Heron is right. If you mean carrier frequencies below 20 Hz (as some commercial advocates of bin. beats propose, even if I think they're uneffective), you should use large headphones covering the whole ears with a good bass response, since earbuds have a very poor bass response (that's why many portable CD players have a bass-boost function; with earbuds you can hardly hear 30Hz sounds). I know that some commercial advocates of bin. beats sell special headphones designed to play sounds down to 4 Hz, but IMO you can't hear any sine wave below 15 Hz no matter how loud it is, so they're no use. --Army1987 20:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binaural Headphones 

message: :Software providers creating packages for audio processing such as Adobe Audition (formerly Syntrillium Cool Edit Pro) do have disclaimers in their help materials stating that the use of brainwave synchronization by means of binaural beats can cause seizures and even death and that they will not be held responsible for injuries or deaths that occur as a result of the use of binaural beats.
This can't be true?
:: The disclaimer may have existed, but I am having a hard time finding any credible evidence to back up the idea that binaural beats cause seizures.  Perhaps this is bleed-over from the connection between flashing lights and seizures. Dilvie 13:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? The info that those programs have these disclaimer was cutted and pasted from brainwave synchronization article. I have never read such disclaimers myself, but I can't see any reason why someond would have lied about that. As for wheter the use of binaural beats can actually kill, it sounds quite unlikely to me, so we'd better say that help materials are stating that (rather than claiming or pointing out) as per Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Bias_in_attribution:_Mind_your_nuances unless we know that it has ever killed anyone. --Army1987 14:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All sound is "pulsating".  That's the nature of sound.  Binaural beats just pulsate more slowly.  Unless somebody can find a documented case, let's avoid jumping to conclusions, and stick to the facts and established evidence.  Dilvie 13:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged dangers 

message: Do sounds really heterodyne in nature to produce two tones that are the sum and difference of their 2 frequencies?
:Not in a linear medium.  Heterodyning only happens when the two tones are passed through a nonlinear channel, as is deliberately done in electronics to receive radio broadcasts.  I suspect that some of our articles are wrong in that respect.  Now excuse me while I go and weed out that rubbish about brainwaves from the heterodyning article. --Heron 10:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What?!? 

message: Found something kind of funny, a website sells a program that
can apparently:
http://www.transparentcorp.com/special/headphone-less.php?
"Until now, the vast majority of brainwave entrainment has been through uncomfortable headphones or expensive goggles ... For example, trying to fall asleep with headphones on is very difficult for most people. In addition, many headphones sets are uncomfortable and can decrease the enjoyment a person derives from using brainwave entrainment products."
basically say you can achieve the same effect with mono speakers
in the background while sleeping. uhm, im a little reluctant to
believe that since...well i know nothing of this "new technology,
not only do you not need to use headphones, but you don't even
need stereo speakers." 
Whether it's a hoax I won't say, but there should definitely be
something concrete written in the wiki section. 
81.236.28.84 15:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any periodic repeating stimulus is believed to be able entrain brainwaves, even metronome clicks, if listened to enough long. (Well, in the case of metronome, the frequency would be < 4 Hz, so unless you're used to meditating it won't be very effective because too much lower than your currend dominant frequency...) Maybe they wouldn't have the same effect as binaural beats because the latter are processed in another part of the brain. Anyway, the "while sleeping" part instinctively sounds much BS to me... --Army1987 19:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Site alleges 'better than' binural beat effect 

message: Do binaural beats have a subjective effect? I've found plenty of websites that claim the answer is yes, but they all seem to be selling something. Can anyone link me to some credible research - or share their experiences?
"Yeah. Where's the research? Who did it in which study?" --me
I believe you may mean objective, rather than subjective, if you're referring to scientific validity of the claimed effects of binaural beats on an EEG.
PowerThrills 01:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjective effects? 

message: The article stated that binaural beats seem to come from inside your head, and that's how you can tell them from a monaural sound.  Actually, the reverse is true, because monaural sound lacks stereo spatialization clues, such as stereo time delays or frequency shift caused by the doppler effect.  Because the binaural sound is stereo, it exhibits subjective stereo spread, causing the sound to be more enveloping. It doesn't appear to come from the center of your head at all.  Rather, different source frequencies will exhibit different spatialization charactaristics as your brain attempts to decode the stereo spatialization clues and locate the source of the audio in 3D.  Dilvie 13:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brain Waves fact correction 

message: In "EEG and Subjective Correlates of Alpha-Frequency - Binaural-Beat Stimulation Combined with Alpha Biofeedback", Dale S. Foster, Memphis State University, May 1990 , the author states:
Hypothesis 1, that alpha-frequency binaural beats stimulation would increase alpha brain wave production, was not rejected. However, the increase in alpha production over baseline was due to numerous factors, one of which was the binaural- beat stimulation. The subjects also received brief relaxation response instructions and conditions conducive to relaxation were provided. It should be noted that group A, which received alpha- frequency binaural beats, did not differ significantly in treatment alpha production from Group D, which received artificially produced surf sounds. It cannot be concluded from this data that the increase in alpha for Group A was due to a frequency-following response.
Cannot say I am overly convinced of the effectiveness of this brain "stimulation" -but maybe other studies say something else.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.152.208.12 (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific references 

message: EEG WAVES AS DEFINED BY FREQUENCY - Sydney Louis, M.D., Brown University @
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Clinical_Neurosciences/louis/eegfreq.html (sorry, I'm not sure how to hyperlink...)
I myself feel relaxation when listening to alpha waves, and similiar responses as claimed for theta and delta waves, but my experience means nothing since there is no science behind it. :( Erik212 08:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps another reference? 

message: From reading the discussion here, it sounds as though people are a bit confused on this topic. I'm no expert on this particular topic, but it seems clear to me that some don't see the separation between the well-documented phenomena of binaural beats, and the protoscience of binaural beats having a measurable effect on an EEG, and thus a person's state of mind. As I understand it, the phenomena occurs when a person listens to two tones of different, yet close, frequencies on stereo headphones. Each frequency is played exclusively on either the right or left channel. Two new frequencies are perceived by the listener, though those tones do not actually exist on the recording. The idea behind the protoscience surround binaural beats is that the listener's "brainwaves" (EEG) will synchronize with the frequency of the perceived binaural beats, which is referred to as entrainment.
Binaural beats = verified phenomena
Entrainment = Protoscience
It is important to note here that protoscience is not the same as psuedoscience.
--PowerThrills 01:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems from the literature that entrainment is scientifically well established and indeed is the basis for EEG biofeedback, as well as Binaural beat technologies. So calling it 'protoscience' the definition of which is that the hypothesis is testable, is POV given that the hypothesis HAS been tested on numerous occassions (see article references). What other basis do you have for such a claim? Jagra (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources of Confusion 

message: The following statement is misleading: "For example, a 400 Hz tone and a 410 Hz tone will form a ~405 Hz tone pulsating 10 times per second."  It suggests that there actually may be a tone at around 405 Hz.  In fact, though somebody may state that what he hears is like (or unlike) a tone at 405 Hz, I've spent many years concentrating on such phenomena while tuning pianos and can't make any such statement.  Moreover, tuning devices I've used would show clearly the two tones at 400 and 410 Hz, but none at 405 Hz.  I cannot say that a tone at 405 Hz with its amplitude varying at 10 Hz would always be clearly distinguishable from the combination, but the statement implies that it would never be, and doesn't mention whether the actual tones would be audible or not.  I think it would be more accurate to say that the combined tones (when alike in amplitude) are perceived as one with a varying amplitude, and to refrain from mentioning its frequency.  To say that its pitch is intermediate between those of the two tones is undeniable, but how its frequency could be determined, whether that frequency is accurate, and if so, to what degree of precision it is so, is hard to imagine.  Furthermore, to say that two tones don't sound like two tones is to imply that two tones sound different from two tones, leaving me wondering what gives, and whether something's seriously wrong with Wikipedia's ears or whether it's between them.  :-)  Let's distinguish clearly between perceptions and physically demonstrable phenomena.  (Incidentally, I haven't read the whole article yet, and I'm not sure what binaural beats are. I do hope this comment doesn't prove embarrassing!) D021317c 08:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: asin(2πf1) + asin(2πf2) = 2asin(2π(f1 + f2)/2)cos(2π(f1 − f2)/2). It can be seen as the product of a wave of average frequency by an envelope with the beating frequency.  -- Army1987 (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading statement? 

message: I trust you good folk are aware that unless citations are provided in the Article where someone has affixed citation needed tags, then some zealous editor or Bot? will legitimately remove that text in a matter of months. I have added some science references, but most of the text statements seem to be sourced elsewhere and I cannot help with that, unless someone shows me how and where to research that stuff. Jagra 09:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Should we be using this? It's a popular nonfiction book, not actual research. If it has references itself, then those should go in, but a book on its own isn't much good as a citation for anything but "the author says...".137.195.68.169 (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A book with ISBN number is a reliable source to quote, and yes it does depend on the authors veracity as to how much weight should be given to opinion. However Appendix 1 of this work is written as a scientific paper and is heavily referenced, The same could be said of any scientific paper, why not just quote its references! In this case the author has been involved in much research in this area, although not all accessable as RS material it is never the less notable, and a reveiw of literature. Jagra (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a point, I suppose it's better to have a non-technical review listed as a reference than to go back to the primarily literature which may be harder for other people to get. 137.195.68.169 (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Thresholds of the mind" as a reference 

message: Considering the uses to which New Agers are putting this, shouldn't we discuss further the risks of epilepsy mentioned in the article? Hewhorulestheworld (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, unless we have verifiable and reliable sources. Hyacinth (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epilepsy 

message: Undid edit that claimed psychic abilities in Brain wave table, we need to see WP:RS references for this type of claim, otherwise it is just your opinion. Give details of such references here for further discussion. Jagra (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychic abilities 

message: There should be a topic about the use of Binaural Beats throughout the MKULTRA project.  Binaural Beats tape loops + drugs + hypnosis.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.182.199 (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  MKULTRA 

message: Kim Komando wrote an opinion piece for ABC News on the Aug 8th 08, which claimed that several websites are selling mind altering Binaural Beats/Digital Drugs to children; that especially crafted Binaural audio alters brainwaves, mimicking the effects of illegal street drugs. In case you think I am making this up, here is the link.. --Diamonddavej (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, nobody put this in the article. What utter FUD.  vlad§inger  tlk  22:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Binaural beats do not alter brain waves.  They are an auditory hallucination. For some reason, the scam industry has decided to pick up on this and market it as a "digital drug", when, in actuality, the beats do nothing.  It's basically a way to make a moron shell out $30 for the "digital drug" CD.  Binaural beats may make you sleepy, or something else, but it's not through brain wave alteration, and they can never mimick drugs.  That's just plain silliness.  The FDA needs to shut those folks down, even with as clearly ridiculous claims as they're making, they're still claiming to provide the effects of a drug.  Utter nonsense.  And you coming on hear and fearmongering about "Teh dangers to childrens?!" is only playing into their hands. 74.251.34.158 (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

text: These sorts of claims absolutely should be mentioned in the article, preferably followed by the hard science articles that expose the fraud. 66.157.206.245 (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

text: *The thing you seem to be talking about is called iDoser, which is the main supplier of binaural beats/digital-drugs on the internet. Look, it's like this...I'm an audio engineer...and I've studied how sounds affect people. Everyone's brain make-up is different...no two people percieve binaural beats the same way. Now I'll admit some of the iDoser effects are bunk...however, from my personal expierence and from some of the others....they do have an effect on people. One, in a way, has to be trained for the binaural beats for them. The science in this is flawed specfically because that reason. If you mix two rock guitars on a binaural level...you CAN cause someone to have a migrane...on the other hand..if you take string insturments and mix them in that mammer, you can releave a migrane. The claims these people are making are slightly outrageous, but however, it's out of the jurisdiction of the FDA as it's not something you ingest, it's something you listen to. It is an iffy thing...however, coming out and claiming it's fraud is just as biased. They work...on a level..I've had beats make my body feel totally numb like it wasn't there...it just depends on the person listening to it. It's not an exact science...it can't be treated as one. Dewdude (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *iDoser is not proven in anyway, there have been tons of people trying it, and about 40 people I have talked to, is it 8 of 40 that claims effect. That could as easily be placebo. Tried it myself simply because it was interesting, no effect on any of the "doses". I claim its nonsense and should not be on a wiki until proved or disproved without clearly stating the fact.--Bhosa (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I get very clear, obvious and consistent drug effects from listening to I-Doser doses, it just takes a lot of training and being able to relax (like in meditation) to get good effects. I'm willing to bet that most of the people who don't get effects are doing something wrong, you need good quality audio output with good stereo headphones/earphones and it is prefered that you lie down comfortably with no light or distractions around you. I think Nitrous is a good one to try as a newbie because it's only 10 minutes long and for me, the effects come very qucikly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.141.41 (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

text: *Dewdude: The thing is, iDoser is a complete ripoff with absolutely bogus claims about being able to induce ketamine out-of-body experiences and heroin highs and everything in-between. Yes, binaural beats can affect your state of mind, but there's lots of free software out there that's every bit as good. Seeing as iDoser redirects here, I feel there should be some mention of that. --MQDuck 07:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ... Hi, i would like to add that if you have used a certain drug such as ecstacy or LSD, chemicals in the drug which store in your body when you do them can be released due to these soundwaves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.97.178 (talk • contribs) 
This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. It is not for making things up and discussing pseudo-science. When verifiable sources cover binaural beats, in however ludicrous or responsible a manner, the article may describe that coverage. One, however, should not waste one's time in useless speculation, especially if one knows little about the topic. Hyacinth (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The danger of binaural beats 

message: The edit on this is not supported by a WP:RS citation and should be removed unless a better reference is provided. Jagra (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital drugs 

message: Hello,
As the article stands now, there is a chart that indicates that R.E.M. Sleep falls into the Theta wave category. This is contrary to what I understand of REM, and what is written in the Wikipedian article on REM, which states that the brain activity is "quite similar to that during waking hours".
Please, someone, reconcile this.
Many thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.83.3 (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  R.E.M. Sleep and Theta waves 

message: Are we really going to threat the "Journal of alternative and complementary medicine" as a reliable source? So-called "alternative medicine" is nothing but pseudoscience, and one of these sources is being cited for tbe claim that binaural beats modulate dopamine levels.
--97.91.251.223 (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=12793977
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/digital-drugs/
It's back in the news again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forkhandles (talk • contribs) 23:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital Drugs 

message: The reference Hutchison, Michael M. (1986). Megabrain: new tools and techniques for brain growth and mind expansion. New York: W. Morrow.  doesn't look like a WP:RS. The title (and subtitle) look like WP:REDFLAG.Autarch (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell it appears to be a well-researched science journalist's review of existing technologies.  If this extract is anything to go by, I don't see big problems with citing it.  http://altered-states.net/barry/ces/mhutchinson.htm  78.148.63.136 (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious-looking reference 

message: Ok so I've heard the rumor that binaural beats were used in pokemon red/green in Lavender Town, and it seriously disturbed little kids. So has anyone else heard this? Is it at least worth mentioning the rumor in the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.136.58 (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any reliable sources for this so I'd say not.  There are multiple copies of one report that at first glance looks official-sounding, but apparently all the kanji within it is spurious - if that's true that gives it quite a credibility problem.  See Dennō Senshi Porygon for something analogous however.  K2709 (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is absolutely no evidence behind this. It's a widely propagated myth that holds absolutely no ground.99.53.218.239 (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

text: As the Game Boy Color did not have stereo sound, this would be impossible. 192.160.131.27 (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The audio hardware was capable of sending different mono audio channels to each ear simultaneously via the headphone socket, which unlike the main speaker was stereo. This would in principle have been sufficient to deliver binaural beats. 78.147.237.174 (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pokemon? 

message: A few problems here: 
Are the studies in support of a) addictions, also in support of and b) repressed memories (one unified claim) or not.  If unified, then the citations are in the wrong location.  If the studies are for addictions only, then the sentence is confusing, badly formed, misleading.
* Alpha-theta brainwave training has also been used successfully for the treatment of addictions... 
Next, why is a use supported by three scientific studies deemed 'hypothetical'.  Evidence in support of something is evidence, not a hypothesis.  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  other uses, addictions (or repressed memories) 

message: "An on-line sound example of a sound with binaural beats can be found here."
The provided link with the example is fake. The way to check if it is a legitimate binaural sound is to listen to one side, then the other seperately to hear the tone. If you hear the beat on one side or the other, your soundcard is mixing the two channels to produce a mono channel, or the sound is fake to dupe you into thinking you can hear it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.80.179 (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're referring to "Example of binaural beats" in the External links section, read the documentation, which says that the signal is amplitude modulated at 5 Hz.  The binaural beat however is at 0.25 Hz, so you're supposed to hear the signal moving back and forth every 4 seconds.  I had a very vague sense something might have been changing at that rate, but was unable to associate the change with left or right.  Maybe if they'd turn the 5 Hz AM signal off the effect might be clearer.  (The stereo works very well in my Plantronics DSP-500 headphones and at least at 500 Hz I have very acute hearing in both ears.)  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online Sample 

message: There was a common wave editing program that could do alteration to a sound track to add binaural beats to a waveform. I've tried it, and it works, but it's not much of a magic behind it.
My experience is that it works if you select a comfortable audio track to relax to which is about 5-10 minutes. Then make a binaural beat to slowly turn down the mix frequency so that
delta frequencies are inducted only at half way and the inducted frequency slightly drops towards that goal. Finally, listen to it in a relaxed position (e.g. lying on a sofa with
headphones on). You should feel a comfortable relaxation as soon as the sounds seem to stop being disordinate between the stereo speakers and seem to blend into a common rythm.
This is of course no magic: You'll need a tune to which you can relax anyways. You'll need to be in a position to relax anyways. You'll need to take the time to relax. And it won't
do wonders (e.g. having only slept a few hours a night and waiting for the magical refreshing effect). But in the aforementioned circumstances it helps quite a bit to refresh, at least for me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.216.204.207 (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  it works (but is no magic) 

message: "Note that the sound appears to pulsate. Now remove one earphone. Note that the pulsations disappear completely. Repeat with your other ear."
For me, the pulsations do not disappear. NiteCyper (talk) 06:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binaural beats sample incongruency 

message: Walter Reed National Military Medical Center is currently (April 2014) testing this treatment on troops returning from deployment. They are conducting a sleep survey to see if binaural beats help relieve stress and blood pressure.  69.137.150.35 (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 01:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military testing 

message: I'm interested in the topic, but I'm not planning on writing on this article... however I can tell that this article needs more inline citations... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Inline_citation
I'm also questioning {not yet contesting} the neutrality of some of the sections, but since I have not yet read the whole article I will wait to post on that issue further.  But my main point is inline citations ought to be increased.  Thisisnotmybirthname (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline Citations? 

message: I believe the term "binaural" is a misnomer. The word means two-ears. While it's true binaural beats would not be possible without two seperate ears, we hear things with two separate ears all the time without inducing binaural beat effects (i.e. two-channel audio, aka stereo speakers/headphones). The interesting effects of binaural however, occur because we have two seperate hemispheres of our brains, one hemisphere listening to the left ear, one listening to the right, and our brains "hearing" audio frequencies otherwise outside of the human range of hearing.
Therefore I believe "bi-neural" (or whatever is latin for brain hemisphere) would be a more appropriate and meaningful term.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.145.243 (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binaural Beats is a misnomer 

message: Citation 11, used as supporting evidence of binaural beats effect on pain relief, is actually refuting that hypothesis.
I have removed citation 11 as reference is that sentence.
"There was no main effect for binaural beats against any of the conditions; however, there was a main effect for music against silence F (2, 100) = 7.36, p"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.66.176 (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 11 does not support the claim of the text "...and provide other health benefits such as control over pain." 

message: The experiment by James Horton appears to debunk the entire rationale of binaural beats affecting EEG waves, but there is no citation to substantiate it. 
Wouldn't this be better as its own section?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.178.62 (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  no citation for Horton experiment 

message: The quotation from Wheatstone needs more explanation, because it seems to be saying that the beat tone is only perceived if the two forks are heard by the same ear and not by one ear each.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.246.64 (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wheatstone 

message: The description under the first file says: "Note that the sound appears to pulsate only when heard through both earphones." I immediately tried with one and I still hear the same pulsating sound. Am I the only one? Is the file actually what it's claimed it is, or am I somehow different? 87.205.38.128 (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Hearing with both ears or one?