|
Post by aeronnaex on Sept 8, 2022 14:41:47 GMT
I just finished charging a WAV file that I created in Audacity. The file was silent, except for a single track of 5 voices (2L, 2R, 1C) at 17.5KHz - with my headphones and PC volume all the way up, I heard nothing. I charged it using the repeated on Windows (-imem 31) with an "Intentions.txt" file for roughly 25 hours to a level of 21.649s. When I listened to that file, I could audibly make out two voices at maximum volume. So the wav file was changed despite the file size not changing.....awesome to have confirmation that the repeater is working....not so awesome that the file is no longer silent. The wav file is 360mb.
I immediately wrote a FLAC file from the same Audacity project. This file is also silent with the exact same track as the WAV. At maximum volume, I can hear nothing. It's charging from the same "Intentions.txt". The flac is 67mb. It's only been charging for just over 9 hours, but what I notice is that it's taking longer to charge. By my estimate, it will take almost twice as long as charging the wav file.
When I listened to the wav last night as I slept, my initial physical response was EXTREMELY noticeable - to the point of being almost distracting! This seems like a good thing to me as it's a nice, strong, morphic field. But as I always do, I have questions:
1. What's the best format to charge? WAV is lossess and holds all data, but I hate the idea that inaudible affirmations are made audible by the repeater. I want something completely quiet so I can leave it on while I work. FLAC is lossess, but is compressed, so I expect there to be trade offs. When just using affirmations, I found that FLAC offered better quality than WAV (no snaps or pops from 17KHz tracks), but I want to have the benefits of a morphic field as well.
2. Does it make sense that the repeater is running more slowly with a FLAC file? It's compressed, so I would think so, but you all would know better than me.
3. I REALLY like the feeling from morphic fields - I left a 1 minute wav created by SoundEnergies' Windows tool for an entire Saturday and had physical responses pretty consistently all day - without having to be in a meditative state. I feel like this is the benefit to morphic fields (that and not needing headphones). Any recommendations on charge level? My hypersonic (17,5Khz) track is about 4 minutes long, is there a recommended charge level you would suggest?
|
|
|
Post by reden on Sept 8, 2022 15:51:04 GMT
I just finished charging a WAV file that I created in Audacity. The file was silent, except for a single track of 5 voices (2L, 2R, 1C) at 17.5KHz - with my headphones and PC volume all the way up, I heard nothing. I charged it using the repeated on Windows (-imem 31) with an "Intentions.txt" file for roughly 25 hours to a level of 21.649s. When I listened to that file, I could audibly make out two voices at maximum volume. So the wav file was changed despite the file size not changing.....awesome to have confirmation that the repeater is working....not so awesome that the file is no longer silent. The wav file is 360mb. I immediately wrote a FLAC file from the same Audacity project. This file is also silent with the exact same track as the WAV. At maximum volume, I can hear nothing. It's charging from the same "Intentions.txt". The flac is 67mb. It's only been charging for just over 9 hours, but what I notice is that it's taking longer to charge. By my estimate, it will take almost twice as long as charging the wav file. When I listened to the wav last night as I slept, my initial physical response was EXTREMELY noticeable - to the point of being almost distracting! This seems like a good thing to me as it's a nice, strong, morphic field. But as I always do, I have questions: 1. What's the best format to charge? WAV is lossess and holds all data, but I hate the idea that inaudible affirmations are made audible by the repeater. I want something completely quiet so I can leave it on while I work. FLAC is lossess, but is compressed, so I expect there to be trade offs. When just using affirmations, I found that FLAC offered better quality than WAV (no snaps or pops from 17KHz tracks), but I want to have the benefits of a morphic field as well. 2. Does it make sense that the repeater is running more slowly with a FLAC file? It's compressed, so I would think so, but you all would know better than me. 3. I REALLY like the feeling from morphic fields - I left a 1 minute wav created by SoundEnergies' Windows tool for an entire Saturday and had physical responses pretty consistently all day - without having to be in a meditative state. I feel like this is the benefit to morphic fields (that and not needing headphones). Any recommendations on charge level? My hypersonic (17,5Khz) track is about 4 minutes long, is there a recommended charge level you would suggest? I have no idea why FLACs would charge slower. You can tell the Repeater to not make affirmations audible. You can think it and it will likely happen. Or you can write it as part of the affirmation. But them being made audible is probably useful for strength. FLACs achieve a smaller size through complex compression that doesn't harm the file's contents (lossless). Perhaps you could try with -compression 0, and -compression 9. From what I know, encoders like to set the default compression level at 6, which is quite good. You shouldn't expect FLAC to have tradeoffs due to its compression, as it's lossless. And they can have morphic fields too. In fact, any file can. Oh, I just read that the repeater is running slower. This is likely because .flac is 1 letter more than .wav. Now I had an idea of renaming files into smaller names, even without an extension, to speed up charging, then renaming them back. Charge level cannot be measured currently. We only know from experience. OldField Systems sells a pair of aura goggles at a ridiculous price, which use quite modern technologies to see the spiritual world, an artificial third eye. One picture I saw has quite clear and well defined energies.
|
|
|
Post by AnthroHeart on Sept 8, 2022 16:18:42 GMT
I've charged mp3s. The quality of the audio file doesn't matter when using Repeater. It doesn't touch the file ddirectly, so the fact it got sound in it after running Repeater is interesting. I'm not sure what you mean by charge level.
|
|
|
Post by aeronnaex on Sept 8, 2022 16:22:10 GMT
I've charged mp3s. The quality of the audio file doesn't matter when using Repeater. It doesn't touch the file ddirectly, so the fact it got sound in it after running Repeater is interesting. I'm not sure what you mean by charge level. I’m probably misusing the term “charge level”. When the repeater is running, and it says: (7.107s / 158.412PHz) , I assume the 7.107s is the charge level since it keeps going up. What should I call this? I’ve seen a direct correlation with this number and the strength of the field I can feel - at least initially.
|
|
|
Post by reden on Sept 8, 2022 16:40:51 GMT
I've charged mp3s. The quality of the audio file doesn't matter when using Repeater. It doesn't touch the file ddirectly, so the fact it got sound in it after running Repeater is interesting. I'm not sure what you mean by charge level. I’m probably misusing the term “charge level”. When the repeater is running, and it says: (7.107s / 158.412PHz) , I assume the 7.107s is the charge level since it keeps going up. What should I call this? I’ve seen a direct correlation with this number and the strength of the field I can feel - at least initially. That is Total Repeats. As they go up, strength goes up too, but after a time energy "fills out" and is charged more slowly, as diminishing returns.
|
|
|
Post by AnthroHeart on Sept 8, 2022 16:43:38 GMT
YOu can also call it number of iterations.
|
|
|
Post by aeronnaex on Sept 8, 2022 16:52:37 GMT
YOu can also call it number of iterations. I've noticed it slowing down, but it still keeps adding, so I've been pushing the number of iterations up as high as I can. I stopped the flac that I was charging and have created a new/clean one that I've renamed 1.1, to see if it charges faster.
|
|
|
Post by reden on Sept 8, 2022 17:13:21 GMT
YOu can also call it number of iterations. I've noticed it slowing down, but it still keeps adding, so I've been pushing the number of iterations up as high as I can. I stopped the flac that I was charging and have created a new/clean one that I've renamed 1.1, to see if it charges faster. The number doesn't grow slower, it's just that as it grows in units, it takes longer to see changes as the units are bigger by powers of 10.
|
|
|
Post by reden on Sept 8, 2022 17:17:52 GMT
Consider your 7.107s. That is sextillions. One sextillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. 158.412 PHz is quadrillions per second. One quadrillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000. Dividing 1 sextillion by 158 quadrillions gets you about 6329. So you would need 6329 repeats at 158 Phz to reach the next sextillion. At such a speed per second, this means 6329 seconds. So 1.75 hours.
|
|
|
Post by aeronnaex on Sept 8, 2022 18:00:18 GMT
Consider your 7.107s. That is sextillions. One sextillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. 158.412 PHz is quadrillions per second. One quadrillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000. Dividing 1 sextillion by 158 quadrillions gets you about 6329. So you would need 6329 repeats at 158 Phz to reach the next sextillion. At such a speed per second, this means 6329 seconds. So 1.75 hours. Thanks for the clarification!! The long file name was (7.136s / 158.412PHz). The short file name is currently showing (1.136s / 267.376PHz). Does that prove the shorter file name is getting more repetitions? And I guess - are the 158.412PHz and 267.376PHz limits? I know an "optimal" level was mentioned in another thread. Is that what this relates to? For what it's worth, it does appear from my calculations that the shorter file name (1.1) will get almost double the repetitions in the same time as a longer file name (f5a_x.flac) - 13.7s in 24hrs for the long name, 23.1s in the same time for the short name.
|
|
|
Post by reden on Sept 8, 2022 18:05:30 GMT
Consider your 7.107s. That is sextillions. One sextillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. 158.412 PHz is quadrillions per second. One quadrillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000. Dividing 1 sextillion by 158 quadrillions gets you about 6329. So you would need 6329 repeats at 158 Phz to reach the next sextillion. At such a speed per second, this means 6329 seconds. So 1.75 hours. Thanks for the clarification!! The long file name was (7.136s / 158.412PHz). The short file name is currently showing (1.136s / 267.376PHz). Does that prove the shorter file name is getting more repetitions? And I guess - are the 158.412PHz and 267.376PHz limits? I know an "optimal" level was mentioned in another thread. Is that what this relates to? For what it's worth, it does appear from my calculations that the shorter file name (1.1) will get almost double the repetitions in the same time as a longer file name (f5a_x.flac) - 13.7s in 24hrs for the long name, 23.1s in the same time for the short name. "Does that prove the shorter file name is getting more repetitions?" Yes. "And I guess - are the 158.412PHz and 267.376PHz limits?" No. They are one single core in your processor going as fast as it can. "I know an "optimal" level was mentioned in another thread. Is that what this relates to?" No. It is going as fast as it can. We don't know if such "optimal" speed is required/useful or if the Repeater is fine with as fast as possible. So far, the latter has been true.
|
|
|
Post by AnthroHeart on Sept 8, 2022 18:21:22 GMT
Optimal speed could be slower than the max speed of Repeater. We just don't know what the optimal speed is. That's why it's useful to mention optimal in the intention.
|
|
|
Post by sound on Sept 28, 2022 17:57:51 GMT
You shouldn't listen to ultrasound with max volume. The fact that it is inaudible does not mean it is silent. It has the same effect on the ears as any sound.
It's interesting that the Repeater changed the content, my guess would be it is your perception of it that changed due to a shift in consciousness. This can happen also with scalar machines -- people say music sounds different with it on.
|
|