"Blended" Tracks


@Fire Have you ever created and tested “blended” tracks? What I mean is a track that contains the identical script in both masked and ultrasonic form, perfectly synchronized of course. Since some people have better experiences using masked and other using ultras, I imagine it’s like having the best of both worlds. It’s also a way to ensure that the ultrasonic volume is calibrated to the masked and therefor can safely be used with earphones.

I have created such tracks in the past when both were identical in length (in hopes they’d be synchronized), re-storing as a lossless format obviously. But I didn’t experience things vividly enough to accurately blame it on the blend.

Because of the outcome of that test, I question if, even when perfectly synchronized, the subconscious interprets the voice-tracks as 2 separate people speaking (possibly reducing the effectiveness), or as a single person. What do you think?

Of course, if @SaintSovereign has an answer, please do tell, but I’m beginning to suspect Saint is the scripting wizard and Fire the technomage in the dynamic duo.


Another famous sub maker is doing that. He called that hybrid sub. It can be highly effective also


Famous is a strong word. If it’s who I think you meant, [no advertising]. The interesting part is he actually advises less listening time when using them, apparently considering them to be more effective compared to masked or ultrasonics.


So we’re talking about 3 things here, masked, ultrasonics and hybrids?
Never heard of those. Do you have an idea on how to create such masked versions? I can imagine its a hell of an effort to do it perfectly


If you don’t know how to yet, I would advise against it. But I’ll give you my thoughts either way. Please note, I’m intentionally using technical terms. As I said, unless you have an idea what you’re affecting, you shouldn’t do it or you may render the sub ineffective.

Without being able to hear the script, there’s no way to know if you’re perfectly synchronized. Which is why I was asking @Fire.

That said, it is (relatively) safe to assume the same program is being used to record, render and compress the audio tracks, which would also make them identical in size, bit depth and sampling rate. In which case, it can be as simple as dragging both MP3’s to a program like Audacity, then exporting the resulting composition to WAV or FLAC (never use MP3 here, they’ve been compressed once already). Audacity will merge the masked and ultra waveforms for each channel and export a stereo file. In FrequenSee that results in a very nice visible mountain in the middle and an extra peak at the right.

Where it gets annoying if they use a 48kHz sampling rate on the ultrasonic and a 44.1kHz on the masked (considering masked can get away with it easier). In that case, by default the resulting file would be 44.1kHz and we’d have no way of knowing what that would do with the ultrasonics. I suppose one could upsample the masked track.

Although I cannot imagine why this would be the case. Like I said, it’s likely the same program used for both versions. I guess I’ll satisfy my curiosity on this when I get EoG, before Harry Nyquist gives me a headache…

Told you I would get technical, didn’t I? :slight_smile:

It’s for your own protection. Don’t mess with the tracks unless you either know what you’re doing or are very sensitive to subs, thus knowing quite fast if they still work.

Convince Fire to do it instead. :wink:


Im just curious and interested in the topic in general.
Thanks for the information!


I personally really like the idea. Why force people to choose when you can offer a hybridized version? If ultrasonics are truly louder at the same volume (and thereby more effective compared to masked) then having a hybrid version could indeed make the subliminals work better.

On the other hand, masked voice tracks are at normal pitch, while ultrasonics likely sound like Alvin the Chipmunk on helium. Having both at the same time, even when perfectly synchronized, might sound really confusing to the mind, though it doesn’t technically hear sounds but rather sounds translated into electrical impulses.

Weird science…

Another possible option is an ultrasonic track with the masked sound in (but no masked voice track). That way, one can listen to ultrasonics on headphones without ever worrying if they are too loud.

Who knows, maybe in the future it will be possible to select your own masking sound or combination before clicking on download and the files will be rendered real-time. You could upload your own music and have it turned into a masked track. Takes a lot of processing power though.


I mixed a masked and an ultrasonic with Audacity once, used it only a few hours, and upon seeking more information on it, I learned that they might not be synchronized, even though the tracks were the same length. I left it alone. It was an emotional healing sub stirring stuff up already, and I didn’t want to mess up what was already working sufficiently. It’s not my area of expertise; I was just curious.


That’s why I’m hopin’ @Fire graces us with his presence.


Has anyone tried playing a masked track in one app and an ultrasonic in another app simultaneously? I wonder if that would work …


You there @Fire @SaintSovereign?


Yes, we have experimented with this in the beginning - however we found that the benefits were negligible even when perfectly interwoven with each other, making it not really worth the expanded process.

Hence we decided to focus on developing other technologies that were shown to be much more promising and more open-ended.


You are free to experiment, however we recommend following the set it and forget it method.


Thank you for answering @Fire. The question mainly came from the fact that I realized there is a definite difference between how masked affects me and how ultras affects me. As a result, I made it a habit to run them back to back, so I know I get sufficient exposure to both. Having merged tracks would allow me to get twice as much exposure so to speak.

Anyway, thanks again!