Talk:Hemi-Sync

message: I developed tinnitus after listening to Hemi-Sync recordings for about a week. I'm curious if anyone else had that result. I think people should be made aware of this if it's a known side-effect. Pretty drastic, it has really affected my life.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pessia (talk • contribs) 21:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binaural Beats and tinnitus 

message: There Are some Very Good Treatments out there for for Tinitus. They involve matching the sound of the actual tinitus tone. This causes the brain to illiminate it as background noise. Very effective. 
66.227.84.101 (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: There Are some Very Good Treatments for Tinitus

message: There is PLENTY of information that gives away that the "scientifically" and "clinically proven" part is not reliable. 
Anything that claims to be in the vicinity of "Hemi-Sync supports PSI, OBE, ESP, paranormal, and quantum non-locality experiences. TMI offers the Gateway Voyage, Guidelines, and Lifeline programs."(from http://www.youtube.com/user/MonroeInstitute) Is on very slippery ice. For a wiki of wikipedias standard to claim this as factual, I see it as clearly something that needs looking in to.
Even worse is the http://www.monroeinstitute.org/hemi-sync/hemi-sync-applications/ Look in to that link, and what Hemi-sync claims to counter or help. As everything that "is to good too be true" this claims extraordinary evidence since it is extraordinary claims.
The http://www.monroeinstitute.org/hemi-sync/brief-hemi-sync-testimonials/ Is a case of subjective experiences and can not be used for verification, it could very well be a placebo. 
Unfortunate I myself don't have the time to do this, but I want to raise awareness of this. I myself was fooled by this wiki, fortunate I looked in to this once more to realise my mistake.
The sources on this subject is questionable to say the least.
If Hemi-sync works as it claims, then unbiased scientific research is necessary, today I have not found this. There fore it needs to be found and reviewed, or the claim of "scientifically and clinically proven" must change.
Better to discuss this than not too..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhosa (talk • contribs) 23:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Scientifically and clinically proven" + the sources for this article. 

message: I would agree that this article contains at least one unverified claim and an associated improper reference, i.e. "This brainwave alteration is clinically verifiable.[5]".
I think that this claim should be removed from the article for the following reasons
1) It has only one citation.
2) The methodology of the experiments described in the citation is very poor.
To backup such a sweeping claim, I suggest that more than one citation is required.
I have read the citation which claims to have "demonstrated that Hemi-Sync does indeed do what it purports to do".  The methodology described in the paper is extremely poor.  The experiments were not done blind, i.e both the test subject and the researchers knew when the test subject was listening to Hemi-sync sounds.  The paper makes no mention of experiments carried out with reference sounds, e.g. sounds that, to the test subject, sound the same as Hemi_sync, but which do not contain binaural beats.  
It should be noted that, although the cited paper describes three separate studies, each study was performed on just one test subject.  These test subjects had had previous exposure to Hemi-sync.  In a well designed study multiple test subjects would have been selected at random, and would have been tested without knowing the purpose of the tests.
It may well be that the test sounds did cause changes to the subjects brainwaves but, because of the poor methodology, it is wrong to use this study as evidence of the effectiveness of binaural beats.
Charlie 1959 (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsubstantiated claim with improper references. 

message: there r better artists and musicians that work with binaural beats such as:
-i-Doser or 
-Jezebel Decibel  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.240.85.37 (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the I-Doser that ripped off an open-source project in order to repackage it and sell it as "virtual drugs" without the original author's permission? Calanor (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better than Hemi Sync 

message: Hemi-sync is a commercialization of hemispheric-synchronization. I suggest we broaden this article to include any approach to syncing the two hemispheres. Not including other products and non-commercial approaches violates WP:NPOV. Jojalozzo 16:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Articles about specific commercial authors or artists don't have to mention alternatives, and this is the same.  Only by broadening the article scope as you suggest would POV suddenly become an issue.  Besides, there is already a general Brainwave synchronization article - this sort of new material would be more appropriate there. K2709 (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generalize article to Hemispheric-synchronization 

message: I also developed Ringing in the ears after listening to HemiSync when I was in my teens. I was a heavy user of headphones and I used it for hours per day, so that might have contributed to it also. HemiSync is effective in some applications, like concentration enhancement, but it does cause wear and tear on your ears since you have to listen to the sounds with large headphones....
For some it's worth it... others..not.
HemiSync user  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.118.4 (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: Hemi-Sync and Ringing in the ears 

message: I propose merging this with Robert Monroe, at least until a single article with accurate content and meanigful sections can be finalized. Also, the article is misleading, as it infers that Robert Monroe discover the perfceptual illusion of binaural beats, which is not true. Lastly, if Hemisync is noteworthy as an article on its own, then so are the other similar products on the market.
That's my opinion. But I have plenty of other articles to work on and am not sufficently single minded to argue the point. It just seemed like the best way of approaching content all connected spread over three articles.
Sorry if the merge was inappropriate.
My intentions were entirely constructive.
Yes, agree that this page be deleted, as it is now duplicated on the Robert Monroe page. Kookaburra17 09:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Merger

message: I have raised a query about this article at WT:MED since it makes medical claims with no reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  More eyes