I have a subliminal CD. It plays music but has subliminal messages in it which only the unconscious mind can pick up, and not the conscious mind.

How much would these subliminal messages be affected by encoding to a lossy format?

lo que?
english: What ? are you seriously talking?

A la pucha!


@Jen: Go with lossless, just to be sure. :B

lol...
If you really need lossy, encode it with musepack... but i guess you'll have to test it and see if after the encoding your "unconscious mind" memorized the subliminal messages correctly...

I'd go with FLAC

Que pa'e'eso (¿Que es eso?) (What is that?)

lol maybe this is why the music industry is so strongly against mp3s....

Coca Cola calls Sony Music:
"Hey! Your customers are constantly removing our friendly advertizing techniques from everyone's favourite pop song!"

Here's a thought.

If you can successfully ABX the subliminal part from the CD like you can with say......... Ogg -q 3, then I know a guy who will pay you a million US dollars

I do wish I had better ears so I could try to ABX this. If not maybe someone with good listen to this. If you win the million dollars maybe you can give me some.

Wouldn't you prefer the msgs gone, I mean, I'd really prefer having someone not mess with my subconsient

I'd say use lossless just incase, but if you want to try it out, see if within a month or so you're still eating too little/much or have learned what's on the tape or still not over an x-b/f or whatever's on those tapes.

An arguement for the lossy compression use for this stuff, sure, a different part of your mind picks it up, but the same ears do don't they?

Just as much as you want them to be. The results of mixing science (as in lossy audio compression) with religion (the subliminal messages) can hardly be scientifically valid. So if you believe in lossy audio compression go ahead and use it; otherwise don't. Nobody can prove you're wrong (or right for that matter) either way.

I agree with rjamorim: Go with lossless

never know what subliminal message might come across if it had artifacts in it.

"hmmmm I have a strange desire to encode to wma after listenening to that song"

Most lossy compression algorithms work by eliminating what cannot be heard, and these thresholds have been determined by measuring what people consciously report about what they hear. Therefore, these algorithms are definitely not suited for preserving material that is below the threshold of conscious perception (i.e. subliminal). I would also suggest lossless.

The evidence is pretty convincing that subliminal messages do not work as designed, however it is not pseudoscience that stimuli below the threshold of conscious perception can still have an affect:

http://www.csicop.org/si/9204/subliminal-p...perception.html

Bryant is right, a subliminal message is not conciously heard, therefore eliminated by any lossy codec. You must encode lossless to preserve it.

Who knows, maybe with good quality lossy it still works. Without any tests that prove that it doesn't, you won't know. Of course lossless won't fail.

there's only ONE thing worthy those subliminal records!

BladeEnc with TONAL PURITY! the only thing that can secure the transport of the brainwaves through your PC into your speakers to transport the secret information!






edit: CIA will probably have to kill me for revealing this secret information...

BladeEnc will give the subliminal messages more foot-tappety-ness.

- `jars

OMG in this forum there are a lot of cat owners...
I also have a cat

Hmmm, this makes me wonder...

Could it be the reason why the RIAA has been so fervent in their crusade against music-swapping is because they have been feeding us with subliminal messages the whole time? Because if some 1337 h@xxr0r comes along and encodes Justin Timberlake using Audiocatalyst and Xing (old) we won't be buying Coke as much as we used to since the "Thou shalt buy Coke" subliminal message isn't getting through to us anymore?

I hope I'm not right...that would mean I don't have much longer to live :-)

This is scary/funny stuff

I have not had the need to drink Coca Cola for some time now

The only way to test if this will work is to use twins, who not only look like each other, but also think and act just like one another.

For example, twins who can feel when the other twin is in trouble

Any twin volunters in this forum who want to be used as test subjects to see if the effects of subliminal messages work with mp3, mpc, mp4, Ogg, wv hybrid, and any other lossy formats

The "subliminal" message technique i know works mixing a very, very low volume message with a normal volume music. You are not supposed to discern the message easily, but you HAVE TO hear it. It is like people not used to listen to encoders artifacts, they are there but they haven't noticed... And yes, if you concentrate enough, you may pick the message. Turning the volume real loud helps too, to know if its there or not. There is also another technique where you don't use any music or foreground audio at all, you simply play it very quietly at night when you sleep. If it works or not, i leave that to the scientists There is also the "brainwave frequencies" (see cooledit help) to make your brain "change its status" to that of a more relaxed state, to make you sleep, etc. Usually works by making noise (pink/white/brown) and add a give delay to the second channel. If you listen with headphones its really fun, your brain makes "helicopter/washing machine" noises that don't really exist

Well lossy encoding works with ATH, so i guess it won't preserve much of it... You are better using lossless to preserve such content. I also read somewhere that subliminal messages are not very effective (ie. its effects don't last long) so maybe you could try a different approach. Just remember than visible effects have an invisible cause behind them, so maybe instead of attacking the effect, you could study the cause and find a better solution

Well, I know a guy who got one of those "subliminal behaviour modification" CDs and encoded it to a 128kbps MP3. Somewhere in there the file got slightly cooked, methinks; he doesn't smoke anymore, but he barks like a greyhound at odd intervals.

- M.