Talk:Backward masking
|
This Media hysteria related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
| ||||
Backward speech site[edit]
http://www.reversespeech.com claims analysi of normal speech reveals subconcious truth , with examples and music discussion. — Unsigned, by: Hamster / talk / contribs 00:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Sine-wave speech and "perceptual insight"[edit]
Sine-wave speech: sounds like modem/robot "bleeps", but after you have been primed with the original and hear the same thing, the bleeps form words. Creepy. Probably related to the way people hear things in EVP. So:
- Does it belong here, in EVP, or in a separate article?
- Should it be mentioned at all?--ZooGuard (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Scientific explanation for why everything sounds like Satan when played backwards...[edit]
From personal experience, I'm pretty sure I know why this happens: the way a beat (or a b or p or whatever) sounds backwards is something like "pfff", which could be interpreted as "s", which leads to "Satan", "666" and all that. I'm pretty sure that's how it works. Maybe we could find a scientific article on it before putting it on the page. --73.34.109.76 (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
My Edit is a good Edit[edit]
My edit ought to be allowed on this page, it's a very funny joke with a lot of potential. Just a short one-liner. — Unsigned, by: Logicnsuch / talk / contribs
- @Logicnsuch You cannot simply plonk a sentence with a link into the article. If it's a joke it needs to be framed as such, not just be a link to who the fucking hell knows what, then tell people that it's funny and they need to go and figure it out on their own. That isn't funny, it's stupid. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. So if I make the sentence funnier, THEN it can be in there? Logicnsuch (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Logicnsuch Probably not, given that after calmed down enough to double-check the file and google the results I found that it was just a European pop song. Nothing special there. In addition the "some people believe" bit requires citations. Who? When? What proof do you have for these claims? See the problem? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- No, it isn't a European pop song- that's not the link I gave, anyway. Do you want the joke spoiled, or not? Logicnsuch (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Logicnsuch Probably not, given that after calmed down enough to double-check the file and google the results I found that it was just a European pop song. Nothing special there. In addition the "some people believe" bit requires citations. Who? When? What proof do you have for these claims? See the problem? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. So if I make the sentence funnier, THEN it can be in there? Logicnsuch (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Practicality[edit]
Allowing for 'special effects and similar' - why put in a message that people would probably not be able to pick up/interpret? If it is loud enough to be noticed people would probably complain about 'unacceptable levels of background noise (and I want my money back)', if they were told about it 'You made me ruin my equipment' (and an assortment of parodists). Anna Livia (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Another One Bites the Dust[edit]
If you reverse the backward masking don't you get back to what you had in the first place (with some loss of detail)?
Passing thought - one source of the concept in general might be an awareness of 'watermarking of recordings.' Anna Livia (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)