MAAT FidEf JeNTwO

[crickey13]

Is this like all those pills and potions that never made my dick bigger? But it might make me think my dick is bigger? So it's a dick biggerizer?

[MogwaiBoy]

I found a free version

https://lkjbdsp.wordpress.com/refine/

[fese]

I found a free version

https://lkjbdsp.wordpress.com/refine/

Can’t be as good as it is not supported by “Independent research” that “has shown that the brain response [pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo]“…

(Also, not free, but isn’t Voxengo’s Shumovik something similar? )

[Ploki]

Shumovick only does "noise".

RC-20 that has "follow envelope" with its vinyl and whatnot "textures".

also cableguys noiseshaper

[fairlyclose]

Can’t be as good as it is not supported by “Independent research” that “has shown that the brain response [pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo]“…

what makes you think it is "psuedo scientific mumbo jumbo" Nothing they say is silly when you take away the obvious marketing language. I am a bit annoyed they dont link to any supporting research papers, but that's about it for me.

[Winstontaneous]

As an ex "brain scientist" I would love to read their papers on what they are doing. Dr. Christoph Musialik on the team says ot me it is worth a look - but I would like to read more about the method as that is where my main interest lies.
My first thought is it is shaped noise derived from the signal with the same amplitude contour and spectrum. At a low level it would be like a dither that tracked the spectral and amplitude content of the signal.

If that's the case, it would be worth comparing to Voxengo Shumovick.

[Winstontaneous]

As an ex "brain scientist" I would love to read their papers on what they are doing. Dr. Christoph Musialik on the team says ot me it is worth a look - but I would like to read more about the method as that is where my main interest lies.
My first thought is it is shaped noise derived from the signal with the same amplitude contour and spectrum. At a low level it would be like a dither that tracked the spectral and amplitude content of the signal.

Shumovick only does "noise".

Based on reading the Fidef description and my experience with Shumovick they seem to do similar things (Shumovick applies spectral multiband noise that can be basically subliminal or very audible, either static or dynamically).

[fairlyclose]

As an ex "brain scientist" I would love to read their papers on what they are doing. Dr. Christoph Musialik on the team says ot me it is worth a look - but I would like to read more about the method as that is where my main interest lies.
My first thought is it is shaped noise derived from the signal with the same amplitude contour and spectrum. At a low level it would be like a dither that tracked the spectral and amplitude content of the signal.

Shumovick only does "noise".

Based on reading the Fidef description and my experience with Shumovick they seem to do similar things (Shumovick applies spectral multiband noise that can be basically subliminal or very audible, either static or dynamically).

interesting - the easiest way to get noise with the same spectrum as the signal is to take the FFT of a bit of the signal, randomise the phases then put it back together ( iFFT ) and you end up with noise with the same power spectrum. I used that quite a bit in music in the late 90s early 2000s mostly to generate impulse responses for convolution. You can be a lot more sophisticated in how shaped the noise is relative to the original signal but that randomising phase is the basic process

I came across the idea in the paper I linked to before and was using it to test for nonlinearity in human EEG

[Ploki]

Voxengo is a fixed filter bank tho, not fft

[pixel85]

Can’t be as good as it is not supported by “Independent research” that “has shown that the brain response [pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo]“…

what makes you think it is "psuedo scientific mumbo jumbo" Nothing they say is silly when you take away the obvious marketing language. I am a bit annoyed they dont link to any supporting research papers, but that's about it for me.

No research papers, no audio demos (after digging I saw one on YT). Everyone who is talking about it acts like a typical 'life coach from YT': lots of promises, plenty of fairy dust but no hard science behind it "just believe me it works". Sometimes there's esoteric music and visuals in the background. All signs that are screaming: "avoid!"

All of this is based on faith that they're selling us a miracle. Where are research and tests proving that it really works? That it's more than 50/50 or that it's not just a placebo?

Like I said before, this 'tech' is few years old and to this day it's hard to find any evidence that it really does something useful.

[pixel85]

delete

[No_Use]

This seems to be the underlying patent which is referred to on the website.
(according to here)

[fairlyclose]

had a brief look at the patent and does seem to be a fixed filter bank with a few smarts. I should patent my more sophisticated idea

[MogwaiBoy]

Haha I love this guy!
viewtopic.php?t=579226

[pixel85]

MAAT on GS:

I was just talking to a reviewer about this…FiDef was designed, in part, by looking into human brain activity as test subjects listened to silence or audio with and without FiDef. Do to HIPAA and other restrictions, unfortunately we are not able to make that research public, nor are we at MAAT yet able to afford a recreation of FideliQuest’s tests.

This disqualifies my trust in this research (either its existence or the results). I don't like to take science as a belief, there's a church for that.

Ps. I'm waiting for a magic plugin that is adding pre-ringing to the sound. Due to research that I can't publicize, the special pre-ringing that this plugin generates, makes people buy your music just after 2 seconds of listening to it*.

*if it works on them. If not then not.