Forum: n-Track Studio Discussion Forum
Topic: Help with voice recording
started by: rpx180

Posted by rpx180 on Nov. 15 2011, 2:42 PM
Hi.  I'm a clinical hypnotherapist and want to make recordings for my clients.  I need to have my voice at a frequncy to be unaudible to the human ear, but will still be picked up on a subconscious level. i.e. subliminal messaging.  Can anyone tell me how I can achieve this please.

Rpx180.
Posted by TonyR on Nov. 16 2011, 12:20 AM
You'll need begin by recording a voice that you can't hear.
Posted by TonyR on Nov. 16 2011, 1:03 AM
but. I'm sure you're aware that the normal human hearing range falls between 20hz and 20khz and that the human voice frequencies are strongest around 7kh. Try recording your voice and then play around with n-T's graphic eq. As you start to chop away the frequencies, you're going to lose amplitude (you'll need to keep cranking the volume up). The highest frequencies are dead giveaways and low thuds will blow your cover. In the end, I guess, so long as you can't hear it but you can see movement in your VU meters, you've cracked it.

PS. Isn't there an easier way to bury the key words?
Posted by TomS on Nov. 16 2011, 5:06 AM
Is it really frequency that you want to mess with?  Low enough and your speakers will not reproduce it, and high enough and the system as a whole won't reproduce it, since anything about 20K Hz is simply chopped off in digital recording.  Aren't subliminal things usually just buried way down in the mix without messing with the frequency of it?  Anyway, if you really want to mess with frequency, you can use a pitch alternation plug in to move the frequency up or down.  But I still don't think that that's what you want.
Posted by kgould on Nov. 18 2011, 11:06 PM
I would investigate mixing the message with white noise. This way the message is masked by the white noise, but the information is still in the mix.

Google white noise to see if there is a sample that you can use.
Posted by TonyR on Nov. 18 2011, 11:57 PM
< http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15285091/FX/IW.mp3 >

with oscillations;-)
Posted by TomS on Nov. 19 2011, 12:14 AM
rpx, is there any actual scientific evidence for the efficacy of this sort of thing?
Posted by TonyR on Nov. 19 2011, 12:44 AM
Quote: (TomS @ Nov. 18 2011, 5:14 PM)

rpx, is there any actual scientific evidence for the efficacy of this sort of thing?

depends upon how susceptible you are to the cocktail party syndrome;-)
Posted by TomS on Nov. 19 2011, 1:20 AM
I'm sorry, did you say something, Tony?  I was distracted for a moment there.   :laugh:
Posted by TonyR on Nov. 19 2011, 1:35 AM
doubtless, distracted , by the sound of an unfurling chocolate wrapper across a crowded room, perhaps?
:laugh:
Posted by Mark A on Nov. 19 2011, 1:38 AM
Quote: (TomS @ Nov. 19 2011, 12:14 PM)

rpx, is there any actual scientific evidence for the efficacy of this sort of thing?

Am I missing the point here?  Are we suggesting that our ears can hear frequencies outside of what is considered to be the normal hearing range, but our brain filters those "unwanted" frequencies out?  

Otherwise how is the subliminal effect going to be transmitted to the brain?
Posted by Mark A on Nov. 19 2011, 1:40 AM
Quote: (TonyR @ Nov. 16 2011, 12:20 PM)

You'll need begin by recording a voice that you can't hear.

Pardon?
Posted by TonyR on Nov. 19 2011, 1:51 AM
Quote: (Mark A @ Nov. 18 2011, 6:40 PM)

Quote: (TonyR @ Nov. 16 2011, 12:20 PM)

You'll need begin by recording a voice that you can't hear.

Pardon?

It's all very subjective - isn't it? - and a good one. As TomS said, the standard methods included volume sublimity, and the images were/are microscopically brief.
Posted by TomS on Nov. 19 2011, 2:24 AM
Quote: (TonyR @ Nov. 18 2011, 6:35 PM)

doubtless, distracted , by the sound of an unfurling chocolate wrapper across a crowded room, perhaps?
:laugh:

Sadly, it was not a chocolate wrapper.  Chocolate is a forbidden sin for me.
Posted by TomS on Nov. 19 2011, 2:25 AM
Quote: (TonyR @ Nov. 18 2011, 6:51 PM)

Quote: (Mark A @ Nov. 18 2011, 6:40 PM)

Quote: (TonyR @ Nov. 16 2011, 12:20 PM)

You'll need begin by recording a voice that you can't hear.

Pardon?

It's all very subjective - isn't it? - and a good one. As TomS said, the standard methods included volume sublimity, and the images were/are microscopically brief.

"Microscopically brief" describes my motivation to work today, quite nicely.
Posted by TonyR on Nov. 19 2011, 11:08 AM
Quote: (TomS @ Nov. 18 2011, 7:24 PM)

Quote: (TonyR @ Nov. 18 2011, 6:35 PM)

doubtless, distracted , by the sound of an unfurling chocolate wrapper across a crowded room, perhaps?
:laugh:

Sadly, it was not a chocolate wrapper.  Chocolate is a forbidden sin for me.

and THAT'S why you heard it:-)
Posted by Mark A on Nov. 19 2011, 1:27 PM
Quote: (TonyR @ Nov. 19 2011, 11:08 PM)

Quote: (TomS @ Nov. 18 2011, 7:24 PM)

Quote: (TonyR @ Nov. 18 2011, 6:35 PM)

doubtless, distracted , by the sound of an unfurling chocolate wrapper across a crowded room, perhaps?
:laugh:

Sadly, it was not a chocolate wrapper.  Chocolate is a forbidden sin for me.

and THAT'S why you heard it:-)

Heard what?
Posted by TonyR on Nov. 19 2011, 10:48 PM
the key word :laugh:
Posted by TomS on Nov. 20 2011, 7:15 PM
Well, I dunno, is there any convincing (tony eat some chocolate) evidence that subliminal tricks like that actually (tony eat some chocolate) work?  I'm still waiting for (tony eat some chocolate) our original poster to chime in.
Posted by Mark A on Nov. 20 2011, 9:38 PM
Well Tom, I think (tony eat some chocolate) that we ruined his (tony eat some chocolate) thread with our banter (tony eat some chocolate).
Posted by TomS on Nov. 20 2011, 11:04 PM
I have a deep and inexplicable desire for some grits, right now.  (Tony eat some chocolate already.)
Posted by TonyR on Nov. 21 2011, 1:34 AM
(didn't eat chocolate because he didn't hear the key word in the recording of a voice that can't be heard)
Powered by ikonforums 1.0.1 © 2006 ikonforums