Talk:Binaural beats/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Chart

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)

Other Uses section

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)

Agreed 217.205.110.55 14:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Link to Commercial Site

Anyone have an objection to linking to [1], which has an MP3 demonstration of binaural beat frequencies? Grunnah 02:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to encourage people to try out binaural beats, check out SBaGen for starters since it's free and just as good if not better than BWGen. Maybe more people will become interested and contribute, and use the binaural beats as well. I am hoping this will generate more interest, the potential is vast for this phenomenon.

I agree, it has a lot of potential. I'm currently photoreading about binaural beats while image streaming about lucid dreams and, wow!, it's a uniquely intense experience; after I finish this article and my book on neuro-linguistic programming, I am definitely adding binaural beats to my self-hypnosis tape.

how on eath do you use SBagen, I downloaded it, but I know nothing about terminal

Did ya try reading SBAGEN.txt?--Army1987 29 June 2005 10:18 (UTC)

BwGen is M U C H easyer to use

Are these sentences contrary??

"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)

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)

These sentences are not contrary...the "beat frequency" is the frequency of the pulsating, and is the difference in frequency between the two tones. So, for example, if you listen to a 400 Hz & 410 Hz tone, you will hear a sound that sounds like the same tone as a 405 Hz sound, but it will get louder and quieter at the rate of 5 times per second. I don't know what it means for your brain to be entrained, but if you play a 315 Hz & a 325 Hz sound, the beat frequency will be 10 Hz, and it will sound like a 320 Hz note modulated off and on at 10 times per second.

This is not correct- The difference between 400 and 410 is 10, not 5. Our ears do not "blend" tones the way our eyes blend color. Otherwise if you played two piano keys next to each other at the same time and volume, you would hear a single new note in between. You will hear a 400 Hz tone and a 410 Hz tone, as well as a "beading" 10 times a second as the waves cancel each other out and re-inforce each other. It will sound like 2 tones that are almost but not quite in tune with one another. Which is the reason I have never been able to stand listening to any "entraining" tones long enough to see if they have any affect. 202.14.81.49 03:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"Controversial"?

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)

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)

Well, what's wrong with the article? - furrykef (Talk at me) 13:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Yeah. Audible beats. Mixed with jazz music...--Army1987 22:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

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

About mixing with other sounds

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)

Binaural Headphones

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)

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)

Alleged dangers

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)

82.22.123.41 07:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

I wouldnt say death is probable, but seizures seem reasonable. Seizures can be induced by pulsating light so i dont see why pulsating sound couldnt do the same. --Guitarlord71

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)

What?!?

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)

Site alleges 'better than' binural beat effect

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)

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)

Subjective effects?

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)

Weasel words

Kind of new to this Wikipedia lark but it seems to me the second section on the "hypothetical uses" contains a lot of weasel words and is lacking in references. Hence I added the tag. 81.158.131.47 12:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

OTOH, it seems bizarre to loudly advertise as non-neutral, i.e., "controversial", an article describing a 167 year old scientific observation that has never seriously been challenged. Binaural Beats are a laboratory repeatable and testable effect. The question is what the implications of Gerald Oster's 1973 discovery -- being able to "entrain your brain" -- might be, and it is in that area that there is controvery. Basically, within that branch of the subject is a religous "crusade of words" between scientific fundamentalists and new age loonies, with a secondary "snake-oil" profiteering angle added in. I'm certain there is a sane middle ground -- just as I am sure there are implications to being able to entrain brainwave activity -- but to find it, you do need to explain the controversy, not just label the entire subject "controversial." --150.216.181.54 13:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It is very easy to verify the phenomenon of binaural beats. You just need to download Binbeat sample.ogg (244 KB), to listen it through earphones and hear the beating, and to check that you can hear no beating if you remove one earphone and keep the other. That statement doesn't even strictly require a citation, since it makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge WP:NOR. The only disputed thing is that they can affect the brain functions. I moved the tag to show this, even if the wording of the articles do not imply that binaural beats themselves are desputed.

Brain Waves fact correction

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)

Scientific references

In "EEG and Subjective Correlates of Alpha-Frequency - Binaural-Beat Stimulation Combined with Alpha Biofeedback", Dale S. Foster, Memphis State University, May 1990 [2], 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)

Perhaps another reference?

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)

Sources of Confusion

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)

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)

Misleading statement?

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)

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)

Citations

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)

Links

For those interested in the links recently removed without discussion, they can be found by clicking here Note these are to reveiwed to comply with WP:EL and your comments on suitability are sought.

Among those that can be retained are "Links to be considered include; Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources".

"What should be linked include; Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

"Links to normally be avoided include; Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." Jagra 06:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

However, do not forget: "Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews)." and especially "Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." :) AnmaFinotera 07:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be some discusion and consensus on inclusion of Binuary Beat generators. These certainly contain "information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" and are "sites with other meaningful, relevant content"

This one is a reveiw, a university honours thesis, well researched and referenced, on topic and obviously from a knowledgable source 'Auditory Driving - Overview of sonic entrainment methods'Jagra 07:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This one? [3] I'm not sure that piece presents a neutral point of view. It is a thesis, which by nature is a self-published theory of its author. While it may be an honors thesis, the author is a student of the field, not an expert yet who has the history established to be considered a knowledgeable source. I originally considered modifying it to be a single link to the symposium front page (rather than two links), however it doesn't appear like it was an annual event, which would have made it more timely and relevant, but just a one time thing.

It was the link I most questioned the removal of, however, so I wouldn't object to one link to the symposium front page being added back, with a brief description that clarifies its relation to the topic. AnmaFinotera 08:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

External links aren't required to be NPOV. In fact, they rarely are, because it's just so unlikely that a random website would comply with Wikipedia policy. They can have a reasonable amount of bias, so long as they aren't excessively biased and they provide helpful information. I saw an edit you made on another page in the past (IIRC Perl--most of which qualified under EL), and noticed that you seem overly aggressive in removing external links. EL is just a style guideline and generally, as long as it's helpful, not overly redundant (cover by other links) and not overly biased, it can be included. Theses aren't really self-published, because they are reviewed and given direction by professors (actual experts) and wouldn't be published if it failed to meet the professor's standard, which is more than you can say for many other books, newspaper articles, etc... Nothing that I can see in EL excludes it. You seem to have excluded two helpful brainwave frequency listing websites and a variety of software websites. Some of this software, especially the Java applets, would aid in understanding the phenomenon. There are a wide variety of scientific articles that link to demonstrative java applets as well. What was the basis of exclusion of the various company websites? Are you familiar with their relevance to this area of research? -Nathan J. Yoder 10:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

To me, the software and applets fall under commercial items, even if they are freeware. Primary purpose is still to distribute their products, and it is not productive or helpful to link to every single software site and Wikipedia is not a link directory (one of the policies behind EL). In such a case, it may be helpful to have a link to the DMOZ category for the topic. There has been a lot of discussion about ELs on the EL talk page, and the overall consensus is less is more and that any link should truely contribute to an article. Wikipedia_talk:External_links#What.27s_so_bad_about_external_links.3F is one of the most recent discussions on the topic, and I firmly agree with the consensus there, less is more and that the links should specifically contribute to the encyclopedic knowledge, not just include a bunch of links to anything that may be semi-helpful or partially relevant. AnmaFinotera 16:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I could not have put it more succintly than Nathan, this is both a medical and auditory science Article and the opinions of experts here as to what is pertinent to the Article are more relevant than a general style guide, provided policy is not involved. I don't think that 'every single software site' as you claim had been linked here, not by a long shot. (Nor should they be) It is better to leave it to the article experts. By all means suggest a cleanup and if you know of a single link that covers much of the area of the links removed then it behoves you to present it for discussion. These other editors here and here seem to be of the opinion that the links are relevant. Remember that every paragraph of an Article is also only 'partially relevant' to the whole.Jagra 03:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Like Jagra said, only a few software websites were linked and you removed all of them. If you have found a link to a directory for software, especially demonstrative java applets that would be a suitable replacement, but until then the educational applets should be left in. I read the linked section and some other sections and there doesn't appear to be a clear consensus either way. Because wikipedia is not paper and that we're only talking about a few links to major software, applets and the like, I think only a few should be removed. The Java applets are from university websites, not commercial ones. Some of the software is commercial, but some is open source and therefore has no commercial interest. Commercial websites aren't expressly prohibited anyway, and it makes sense to include companies which made major breakthroughs and/or provide the most popular software in the arena (either through links or wikilinks), just like you might link to matlab or mathematica from articles related to computational mathematics, engineering etc that are related to it. What do you think about the other links we discussed? -Nathan J. Yoder 05:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, you seem to have a good handle on the software and applets, and I would be guided by what you think should be removed. I will be adding back the thesis and adding other works that support the article text, where I cannot find RS studies, and/or where used as principal references on topics in published books. Jagra 06:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the Java applets and open source software should all be returned as links 202.191.11.16 (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There is consensus recorded now for return of some of the reverted links Jagra 07:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The current first external link does not work and i dont think the last link is appropriate. --Oddity (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Thresholds of the mind" as a reference

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)

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)

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)

Epilepsy

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)

No, unless we have verifiable and reliable sources. Hyacinth (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Psychic abilities

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)

MKULTRA

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)

The danger of binaural beats

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.[4]. --Diamonddavej (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, nobody put this in the article. What utter FUD. vlad§inger ^tlk 22:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Seems to be a huge load of bs., I doubt you can mimic the effects of certain drugs by altering your brain waves, we are talking about the same brain waves we experience during our sleep each night. It's just super convenient to use the word drug when it comes in the hands of any media. It just sounds like a placebo effect and then the danger would only be social until disproved. 03-23-09

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)

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)

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)

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)

... 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)

I'm a little bit astonished about this discussion and also about the focus of this article. Binaural beats not mysterious anyhow. Binaural beats are nothing more than the result of the sound localization mechanisms, which are used by the auditory system. For low frequencies below 1600 Hz the auditory system uses interaural phase differences for localizing sound sources. If sinus signals with different frequencies are presented to both ears, there are phase differences between these ear signals, which will change continously. This will lead to a changing perceived sound source direction. This means, the auditory event is moving through the head.
Binaural beats can also be generated, if two loudspeakers emit sinus signals of different frequencies (especially in an unechoich environment). Then you get time dependent phase differences between both ears, and as a result there will be an auditory event, which is moving through the room.
But if you increase (for lodspeaker presentation) the frequency difference above a certain limit (e.g. 30-50 Hz), then you will not get moving auditory events and binaural beats, then you will be able to localize both loudspeakers simultaneously. Then the so called "Cocktail-Party-Effect" appears, and simultaneaous appearing sound sources can be separated from each other.
Since the auditory system analyzes directional information in small frequency bands (so called "critical bands"), in everydays hearing situation binaural beat effects will offenly appear in some critical bands. But since there are other localization cues available the auditory system will ignore this unstable directional information. Since binaural beats will appear 1000-times a day in some critical bands, it is unlikely, that the psychic effects, which are refered above, areise from a low level analysis in the brain, because elsewhere these effects would also be present in normal hearing situations with multiple sound sources. Therefore I'm a little bit sceptical about all the effects refered above.
Skyhead E (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

doctors say it works

Sorry but the hemispheric synchronization through audio is nonsense. I found someone already wrote about it in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brainwave_entrainment#No_criticism.3F Please see a longer discussion there.

In short: light does it, audio does not. The EEG effects are the result of bad test setup with EMF leakage into the EEG electrodes. With proper shielding and air barrier no EEG effects are seen. Conversely with the bad setup you can see EEG frequency following effects in stuff like marmelade, jello, et cetera. 79.136.20.59 (talk)

Digital drugs

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)

Can we get some more information about Digital Drugs in this or a related article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.65.46.14 (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

R.E.M. Sleep and Theta waves

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)

Sources

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)

Digital Drugs

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)

Dubious-looking reference

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)

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)

Pokemon?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

other uses, addictions (or repressed memories)

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) comment added by Ihaveabutt (talk • contribs) 20:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Online Sample

"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)

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)

it works (but is no magic)

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)

Binaural beats sample incongruency

"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)

Debunked?

Common people this stuff is clearly nonsense. Articles like this are why wikipedia rules. Companies are using this webpage to sell phony inefficacious products and noone can be bothered to stop them. The first thing this article needs to make clear is that there is no convincing evidence that 'binaural beats' have any measurable effect on humans distinguishable from normal music and there is no reason to think they would, the theory is gibberish. Better to remove the article than have it explain the phony 'science' behind it 'hypothetically' because this misleads readers into thinking this concept has some substance. - Oli

Whatever gets you high, but binaural beats have no effect on brain waves. They can have subjective mood-altering effects, like all music. Washington Post citing experimental studies by Daniel Levitin, Montréal. I'm just leaving the link here, not changing the article because I have no intention of getting into an edit war with gullible teenagers.--94.222.122.61 (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite what the article you quote says -- the article suggests that there are brain-wave and mood altering effects rather like those achieved through meditation or from listening to some music. It goes on to question whether the effects were due to the sound files themselves or simply to the necessity to sit quietly for an extended period of time. In either case, though, the subjects experienced an effect.

Howver, the article does say that the meditative effect of binaural beats does not simulate actual drug use. 216.195.173.165 (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear "Cmon"- The article contains citations in support of some research affects. You might be claiming you are an authority, but that is not a substitute for the sources on which wikipedia must rely. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

And any unbiased examination of the available references shows it's clearly all a placebo. There is evidence in support of it, but the VAST majority of the evidence is against it. This article does not cite a single citation criticizing the phenomenon even though there is pretty much a scientific consensus it's fake.

It's extremely biased. Citing a few sources does not eliminate the fact that far more sources oppose it than support it.99.6.157.136 (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Can someone provide some published studies to the effect that "the vast majority of the evidence is against it"? I know research is scant, but there do seem to be some empirical studies in reputable journals that binaural beats can help improve concentration and focs, e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9423966 - Nessman (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

One of the cited references, which is used to support the reduction of pain, actually reaches the opposite conclusion than what it is claimed to support. It actually shows that music is considerably more effective. The reference, which seems well-supported even if not fully peer reviewed, seems to have been cited based on its title alone. It really supports the debunking of this claim ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_beats#cite_note-Bryant-11 ) 24.126.220.186 (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC) EB

Military testing

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)

Inline Citations?

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)

Binaural Beats is a misnomer

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)

Whatever your verifiable source calls it, that's what you go by... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Thisisnotmybirthname (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Citation 11 does not support the claim of the text "...and provide other health benefits such as control over pain."

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)

no citation for Horton experiment

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)

Wheatstone

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)

Hearing with both ears or one?

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.38.128 (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)