|
|
Post by AnthroHeart on Feb 22, 2024 20:17:06 GMT
I think I just found an even faster way to duplicate files. So you import the wav file into audacity, then use Ctrl-d to duplicate it. This makes 2 total layers. What I've just realised is that when you press Ctrl-d again, you duplicate the 2 tracks, making it 4, and so on and so on. Doing Ctrl-D 10 times makes 1024 layers. Mix that all down and repeat. That makes 1024^1024, which is CRAZY high. Is there any difference between the layers you are duplicating?
If they are all the same, would it still amplify the effects?
|
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Feb 22, 2024 21:13:01 GMT
I personally use WAV. I'd also recommend WAV since it's lossless Wdym by lossless? Does mp3 lose energy charge? Lossless as in no quality is lost. Also I'm new so I'm not too sure if MP3 loses energy. Maybe ask Reden |
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Feb 22, 2024 21:18:47 GMT
I think I just found an even faster way to duplicate files. So you import the wav file into audacity, then use Ctrl-d to duplicate it. This makes 2 total layers. What I've just realised is that when you press Ctrl-d again, you duplicate the 2 tracks, making it 4, and so on and so on. Doing Ctrl-D 10 times makes 1024 layers. Mix that all down and repeat. That makes 1024^1024, which is CRAZY high. Is there any difference between the layers you are duplicating?
If they are all the same, would it still amplify the effects?
They're all the same layers. But since I mix it down into 1 track after 1024 duplicates are made, as Reden mentioned before, all that energy gets compacted into the 1 track. Since that 1 track is 1024 of the original, if we make 1024 duplicates of that new track, then it should theoretically become 1024^1024. Personally, yes, this has felt much stronger for me. I've also shared my audio files with friends and they agreed too. Not too sure how the general public would respond however |
|
|
|
Post by beanlord on Feb 22, 2024 21:33:48 GMT
Is there any difference between the layers you are duplicating?
If they are all the same, would it still amplify the effects?
They're all the same layers. But since I mix it down into 1 track after 1024 duplicates are made, as Reden mentioned before, all that energy gets compacted into the 1 track. Since that 1 track is 1024 of the original, if we make 1024 duplicates of that new track, then it should theoretically become 1024^1024. Personally, yes, this has felt much stronger for me. I've also shared my audio files with friends and they agreed too. Not too sure how the general public would respond however You could do that endlessly, right? I've just did ((1024^1024)^1024))^1024 |
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Feb 22, 2024 21:57:23 GMT
They're all the same layers. But since I mix it down into 1 track after 1024 duplicates are made, as Reden mentioned before, all that energy gets compacted into the 1 track. Since that 1 track is 1024 of the original, if we make 1024 duplicates of that new track, then it should theoretically become 1024^1024. Personally, yes, this has felt much stronger for me. I've also shared my audio files with friends and they agreed too. Not too sure how the general public would respond however You could do that endlessly, right? I've just did ((1024^1024)^1024))^1024 Yes no problem in doing it endlessly, as long as your computer can handle it. The only problem I'm thinking of is: Where's the point of diminishing return? Edit: Or is there even one? |
|
|
|
Post by AnthroHeart on Feb 22, 2024 22:26:15 GMT
Could you try manifesting something solid out of thin air with the method of layering?
Do you think the WAV could get that powerful?
|
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Feb 22, 2024 22:52:33 GMT
Could you try manifesting something solid out of thin air with the method of layering? Do you think the WAV could get that powerful? As in manifesting objects? Not too sure. I've just started experimenting with this WAV stuff, so I'm not sure of it's full potential just yet |
|
|
|
Post by AnthroHeart on Feb 22, 2024 22:59:22 GMT
Could you try manifesting something solid out of thin air with the method of layering? Do you think the WAV could get that powerful? As in manifesting objects? Not too sure. I've just started experimenting with this WAV stuff, so I'm not sure of it's full potential just yet This video teaches how to use macros in Audacity. They might be useful for you:
|
|
|
|
Post by reden on Feb 23, 2024 0:25:00 GMT
Very interesting I wonder if it taps into some sort of different concept, and that's why it has no limit, whereas as far as I have seen, the Repeater is like an infinite ocean, but you only get energy using a pump. The pump (Repeater executable I think) after a while (100 Quadrillion) makes little difference how much faster it runs. Do you think # of people running the Repeater for the same thing has a bigger impact than the # of repetitions per second?
What if 10 people run it at 100 quadrillion per second? Is that more powerful than 500 quadrillion per second repetitions?
At 500q it's unmeasurable cause sound said there's no further increase sensation after ~100-130q. But all the Repeaters' energies will pool up. |
|
|
|
Post by reden on Feb 23, 2024 0:30:15 GMT
Wdym by lossless? Does mp3 lose energy charge? Lossless as in no quality is lost. Also I'm new so I'm not too sure if MP3 loses energy. Maybe ask Reden For a subliminal, downloading it at a lesser quality or exporting it as MP3 again will crush the voice data and destroy effects. I'm not sure how much of the WAV effect survives if it's crushed by exporting to MP3 instead of WAV or FLAC. Also, it may be possible to densify normal subliminals downloaded off Youtube. You just would need to make sure the downloaded file is the highest possible quality, which comes as a .webm file for some reason. |
|
|
|
Post by beanlord on Feb 23, 2024 2:05:53 GMT
Lossless as in no quality is lost. Also I'm new so I'm not too sure if MP3 loses energy. Maybe ask Reden For a subliminal, downloading it at a lesser quality or exporting it as MP3 again will crush the voice data and destroy effects. I'm not sure how much of the WAV effect survives if it's crushed by exporting to MP3 instead of WAV or FLAC. Also, it may be possible to densify normal subliminals downloaded off Youtube. You just would need to make sure the downloaded file is the highest possible quality, which comes as a .webm file for some reason. This doesn't apply for energy charged files, right? |
|
pompom
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by pompom on Feb 23, 2024 3:13:38 GMT
Sounds pretty cool. Where did you download the Wav Repeater?
|
|
|
|
Post by nathanmyersc on Feb 23, 2024 8:32:56 GMT
I managed to make another audio where the wav repeater file is layered 10^36 times, and I can confirm yet again that is is more powerful. Next field I make for myself I'll layer it 10^102 times. Let's see how it goes! How do you do that. im failing to find reliable information on programming in audacity nyquist. Which is embarrassing for me but nonetheless i would love to automate duplicating audio and mixing it down repeatedly as i just tested it. Satan was attacking me and i had a spell i recorded INFERNUM FORCE FIELDUS. and i had recorded a 2 3 second clip of that. and the initial file alone was not enough. But after duplicating like 10-20 times and mixing it down repeatedly like 10-20 times it actually is strong enough to make him shut his coward mouth. I think it would be powerful to just have a script that copied the file duplicated it however many times is feasible for your computer save that as the same audio file and start a new project and keep doing that over and over and over again. Its actually a good idea. |
|
|
|
Post by AnthroHeart on Feb 23, 2024 8:56:38 GMT
Sounds pretty cool. Where did you download the Wav Repeater? My WAV Repeater is a Python program:
|
|
|
|
Post by nathanmyersc on Feb 23, 2024 9:28:29 GMT
Sounds pretty cool. Where did you download the Wav Repeater? My WAV Repeater is a Python program:
Oh cool, is this directly transmitting the bytes of your affirmation as the data chunk of the wav? |
|
