I became interested in maybe detecting the possible ways infrasound can be ruined. Especially with reference to thousands of files online touting pure Theta and Delta waves. Some of which are clearly audible. And as audible instantly suspect.
But it turns out they may not be ripping you off.
So that's where I went with A.I. (in quotes) in our discussion of Binaural Beats:
Could sound editors such as Audacity ruin effectiveness of infrasound?
"Yes, sound editing software like **Audacity** can potentially affect the effectiveness of infrasound if not handled properly. Here’s how:
"Possible Issues
"1. Default Filtering of Low Frequencies – Many audio editors automatically filter out frequencies below 20 Hz, making true infrasound difficult to preserve or process.
"2. Compression & Equalization – Applying certain effects like normalization, compression, or EQ adjustments may alter or weaken the integrity of infrasound waves.
"3. Playback Limitations – Even if Audacity retains infrasound frequencies, standard playback devices (headphones or speakers) may not reproduce them correctly.
"4. Bitrate & Sample Rate Impact – Lower bitrate encoding and certain sample rate adjustments might reduce the precision of ultra-low frequencies, making the infrasound less effective."
"How to Preserve Infrasound
"- Use High-Quality Sample Rates – Keep files at 44.1kHz or higher to ensure accurate low-frequency representation.
"- Avoid Excessive Audio Processing – Limit EQ boosts, normalization, or compression to prevent altering infrasound signals.
"- Test on Specialized Equipment – Use bone conduction devices or subwoofers designed for low-frequency playback."
"If you're experimenting with infrasound for therapeutic use, you might want to try a more specialized sound design tool that offers better control over ultra-low frequencies."
Bitrate and Sample Rate meaning 192 kbps is more precise than 16 kbps?
"Yes, 192 kbps (kilobits per second) is significantly more precise than 16 kbps when encoding audio."
"Why Higher Bitrate Matters for Infrasound
"- Greater Audio Fidelity – Higher bitrate preserves more details, making subtle low-frequency waves more intact.
"- Reduced Compression Artifacts – Lower bitrates introduce distortions, potentially weakening infrasound effects.
"- Better Dynamic Range – Infrasound relies on smooth waveforms, which higher bitrates maintain more effectively."
"For binaural beats and infrasound, a minimum of 192 kbps or higher is ideal, but lossless formats like WAV (at 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz) might be even better to avoid compression altogether."
So sound files encoded to MP3 would not be as effective as WAV files?
"Correct! WAV files generally preserve infrasound frequencies better than MP3 files because WAV is lossless, meaning no audio data is removed during encoding.
"Why WAV Is Better for Infrasound:
"- No Compression Artifacts – MP3 uses lossy compression, which removes subtle low-frequency details to save space.
"- Full Frequency Range – WAV supports full-spectrum audio, ensuring deep sub-bass and infrasound waves remain intact.
"-Higher Precision & Clarity – Since WAV maintains waveform integrity, it’s ideal for infrasound therapeutic applications."
When MP3 Might Be Acceptable
"- High Bitrate MP3 (320 kbps) retains most details, but some lower frequencies may still be lost.
"- If playback devices don’t support infrasound (regular headphones/speakers), the difference might not be noticeable."
"For infrasound therapeutic tracks, WAV (44.1 kHz or higher) is the best choice to ensure wave purity and effectiveness."
How would you assess FLAC files?
"FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) files are an excellent choice for high-fidelity sound, including infrasound therapeutics! Here’s how they compare:
"Advantages of FLAC for Infrasound
"- Lossless Compression – FLAC preserves all audio data while reducing file size, unlike MP3’s lossy compression.
"- Full Frequency Range – It maintains low-frequency integrity, ensuring deep infrasound waves remain intact.
"- Better Storage Efficiency – While WAV files are uncompressed, FLAC offers similar quality with smaller file sizes."
"FLAC vs. WAV
"- WAV files are raw, uncompressed, and widely compatible but larger in file size.
"- FLAC files maintain near-identical quality to WAV but use compression for better storage and efficiency."
"If your goal is high-quality binaural beats or infrasound therapy, FLAC is a great alternative to WAV, especially if storage space is a concern."
Suppose you were forced to use standard headphones. Which file format would compensate best, if at all?
"If you're limited to standard headphones, you might not experience true infrasound, but the best file format to compensate for it would be WAV or FLAC. Here’s why:
"Why WAV or FLAC?**
"- Both preserve full frequency range – Even though standard headphones may struggle with sub-20 Hz sounds, these formats retain low-frequency detail, ensuring the best possible playback.
"- No compression artifacts – Unlike MP3, WAV and FLAC don’t remove subtle frequencies, keeping deep vibrations intact.
"- Better waveform precision – The smoother, higher-fidelity waveforms allow the brain to perceive low frequencies indirectly through subtle vibrations."
"Alternative Approach
"- If you must use MP3, go for 320 kbps with a high sample rate (44.1 kHz or 48 kHz).
"- Adding harmonic reinforcement (like subtle sub-bass tones at audible low frequencies) might help simulate an infrasound-like effect."
"While standard headphones won’t deliver true infrasound, optimizing the file format and frequency blending can still create a powerful low-end effect. Are you experimenting with low-frequency binaural beats on standard gear?"
If you are trying to reach low-income populations expecting them to own high quality professional sound systems may be a bit much. Standard gear for standard people.
"That’s a really important point. If infrasound therapeutic tracks are meant to be accessible, they need to be optimized for standard gear, since high-end audio equipment isn’t always an option for everyone."
"A few ways to make low-frequency sound more effective on standard headphones or speakers:
"- Boost Near-Infrasound Frequencies – While true infrasound (below 20 Hz) may not be audible, frequencies just above (20–50 Hz) can mimic the effects and work on basic equipment.
"- Use Harmonic Reinforcement – Layering audible low-frequency tones that resonate similarly to infrasound can help listeners experience the effects without specialized gear.
"- Enhance Psychoacoustic Effects – Carefully crafted binaural beats and rhythmic modulation can create perceived infrasound effects, even without deep bass reproduction.
"- Encourage Low-Cost Playback Options – Budget-friendly bone conduction headphones or bass-enhancing earbuds might offer a compromise for listeners needing therapeutic effects."
"This approach ensures **standard audio setups** still provide meaningful benefits while keeping accessibility in mind."
How does "deep bass reproduction" behave?
"[I]t plays a crucial role in delivering low-frequency sound, including near-infrasound. While true infrasound (below 20 Hz) isn't easily heard, deep bass—typically 20–50 Hz—is the closest audible range that standard headphones and speakers can still process."
"Since most consumer-grade audio equipment can't generate true infrasound, deep bass tones can act as a substitute, helping the brain perceive and experience low-frequency effects. That’s why carefully crafting binaural beats or harmonic layering around deep bass can simulate some of the physical and psychological effects of infrasound, even on standard gear."
What do you mean by substitute?
"What I mean by 'substitute' is that deep bass frequencies (20–50 Hz) can stand in for infrasound, since most consumer audio devices can't reproduce frequencies below 20 Hz accurately."
"True infrasound (below 20 Hz) isn't typically audible but can still be felt as vibrations—something that requires specialized equipment like subwoofers, tactile transducers, or bone conduction devices. However, if you're working with standard headphones or speakers, those devices can't generate real infrasound effectively."
"So, instead of using direct infrasound, you can use deep bass tones in the 20–50 Hz range, which are still low enough to create a similar physiological and psychological effect. These frequencies can:
"- Resonate within the body, mimicking the sensations of infrasound.
- Trigger subconscious responses, like relaxation, tension, or heightened awareness.
- Blend with binaural beats to enhance brainwave entrainment."
"By carefully crafting deep bass elements, you can simulate some of the effects of infrasound—even if you're limited by standard consumer audio gear."
I guess an analogy would be Silva Method's use of metronomes to produce a vibrational timpani. To physically incarnate infrasound.
The way some people listen to heartrate files to train their pulses.
