Talk:Binaural beats

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Neurology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neurology. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the talk page.
Start This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Binaural beats article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Misleading statement?

The following statement is misleading: "For example, a 400 Hz tone and a 410 Hz tone will form a ~405 Hz tone pulsating 10 times per second." It suggests that there actually may be a tone at around 405 Hz. In fact, though somebody may state that what he hears is like (or unlike) a tone at 405 Hz, I've spent many years concentrating on such phenomena while tuning pianos and can't make any such statement. Moreover, tuning devices I've used would show clearly the two tones at 400 and 410 Hz, but none at 405 Hz. I cannot say that a tone at 405 Hz with its amplitude varying at 10 Hz would always be clearly distinguishable from the combination, but the statement implies that it would never be, and doesn't mention whether the actual tones would be audible or not. I think it would be more accurate to say that the combined tones (when alike in amplitude) are perceived as one with a varying amplitude, and to refrain from mentioning its frequency. To say that its pitch is intermediate between those of the two tones is undeniable, but how its frequency could be determined, whether that frequency is accurate, and if so, to what degree of precision it is so, is hard to imagine. Furthermore, to say that two tones don't sound like two tones is to imply that two tones sound different from two tones, leaving me wondering what gives, and whether something's seriously wrong with Wikipedia's ears or whether it's between them.  :-) Let's distinguish clearly between perceptions and physically demonstrable phenomena. (Incidentally, I haven't read the whole article yet, and I'm not sure what binaural beats are. I do hope this comment doesn't prove embarrassing!) D021317c 08:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

asin(2πf1) + asin(2πf2) = 2asin(2π(f1 + f2)/2)cos(2π(f1 − f2)/2). It can be seen as the product of a wave of average frequency by an envelope with the beating frequency. -- Army1987 (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

I trust you good folk are aware that unless citations are provided in the Article where someone has affixed citation needed tags, then some zealous editor or Bot? will legitimately remove that text in a matter of months. I have added some science references, but most of the text statements seem to be sourced elsewhere and I cannot help with that, unless someone shows me how and where to research that stuff. Jagra 09:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

For those interested in the links recently removed without discussion, they can be found by clicking here Note these are to reveiwed to comply with WP:EL and your comments on suitability are sought.

Among those that can be retained are "Links to be considered include; Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources".

"What should be linked include; Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

"Links to normally be avoided include; Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." Jagra 06:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

However, do not forget: "Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews)." and especially "Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." :) Collectonian 07:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
There needs to be some discusion and consensus on inclusion of Binuary Beat generators. These certainly contain "information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" and are "sites with other meaningful, relevant content"
This one is a reveiw, a university honours thesis, well researched and referenced, on topic and obviously from a knowledgable source 'Auditory Driving - Overview of sonic entrainment methods'Jagra 07:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This one? [1] I'm not sure that piece presents a neutral point of view. It is a thesis, which by nature is a self-published theory of its author. While it may be an honors thesis, the author is a student of the field, not an expert yet who has the history established to be considered a knowledgeable source. I originally considered modifying it to be a single link to the symposium front page (rather than two links), however it doesn't appear like it was an annual event, which would have made it more timely and relevant, but just a one time thing.
It was the link I most questioned the removal of, however, so I wouldn't object to one link to the symposium front page being added back, with a brief description that clarifies its relation to the topic. Collectonian 08:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
External links aren't required to be NPOV. In fact, they rarely are, because it's just so unlikely that a random website would comply with Wikipedia policy. They can have a reasonable amount of bias, so long as they aren't excessively biased and they provide helpful information. I saw an edit you made on another page in the past (IIRC Perl--most of which qualified under EL), and noticed that you seem overly aggressive in removing external links. EL is just a style guideline and generally, as long as it's helpful, not overly redundant (cover by other links) and not overly biased, it can be included. Theses aren't really self-published, because they are reviewed and given direction by professors (actual experts) and wouldn't be published if it failed to meet the professor's standard, which is more than you can say for many other books, newspaper articles, etc... Nothing that I can see in EL excludes it. You seem to have excluded two helpful brainwave frequency listing websites and a variety of software websites. Some of this software, especially the Java applets, would aid in understanding the phenomenon. There are a wide variety of scientific articles that link to demonstrative java applets as well. What was the basis of exclusion of the various company websites? Are you familiar with their relevance to this area of research? -Nathan J. Yoder 10:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
To me, the software and applets fall under commercial items, even if they are freeware. Primary purpose is still to distribute their products, and it is not productive or helpful to link to every single software site and Wikipedia is not a link directory (one of the policies behind EL). In such a case, it may be helpful to have a link to the DMOZ category for the topic. There has been a lot of discussion about ELs on the EL talk page, and the overall consensus is less is more and that any link should truely contribute to an article. Wikipedia_talk:External_links#What.27s_so_bad_about_external_links.3F is one of the most recent discussions on the topic, and I firmly agree with the consensus there, less is more and that the links should specifically contribute to the encyclopedic knowledge, not just include a bunch of links to anything that may be semi-helpful or partially relevant. Collectonian 16:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I could not have put it more succintly than Nathan, this is both a medical and auditory science Article and the opinions of experts here as to what is pertinent to the Article are more relevant than a general style guide, provided policy is not involved. I don't think that 'every single software site' as you claim had been linked here, not by a long shot. (Nor should they be) It is better to leave it to the article experts. By all means suggest a cleanup and if you know of a single link that covers much of the area of the links removed then it behoves you to present it for discussion. These other editors here and here seem to be of the opinion that the links are relevant. Remember that every paragraph of an Article is also only 'partially relevant' to the whole.Jagra 03:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Like Jagra said, only a few software websites were linked and you removed all of them. If you have found a link to a directory for software, especially demonstrative java applets that would be a suitable replacement, but until then the educational applets should be left in. I read the linked section and some other sections and there doesn't appear to be a clear consensus either way. Because wikipedia is not paper and that we're only talking about a few links to major software, applets and the like, I think only a few should be removed. The Java applets are from university websites, not commercial ones. Some of the software is commercial, but some is open source and therefore has no commercial interest. Commercial websites aren't expressly prohibited anyway, and it makes sense to include companies which made major breakthroughs and/or provide the most popular software in the arena (either through links or wikilinks), just like you might link to matlab or mathematica from articles related to computational mathematics, engineering etc that are related to it. What do you think about the other links we discussed? -Nathan J. Yoder 05:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Nathan, you seem to have a good handle on the software and applets, and I would be guided by what you think should be removed. I will be adding back the thesis and adding other works that support the article text, where I cannot find RS studies, and/or where used as principal references on topics in published books. Jagra 06:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the Java applets and open source software should all be returned as links 202.191.11.16 (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There is consensus recorded now for return of some of the reverted links Jagra 07:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Thresholds of the mind" as a reference

Should we be using this? It's a popular nonfiction book, not actual research. If it has references itself, then those should go in, but a book on its own isn't much good as a citation for anything but "the author says...".137.195.68.169 (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A book with ISBN number is a reliable source to quote, and yes it does depend on the authors veracity as to how much weight should be given to opinion. However Appendix 1 of this work is written as a scientific paper and is heavily referenced, The same could be said of any scientific paper, why not just quote its references! In this case the author has been involved in much research in this area, although not all accessable as RS material it is never the less notable, and a reveiw of literature. Jagra (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a point, I suppose it's better to have a non-technical review listed as a reference than to go back to the primarily literature which may be harder for other people to get. 137.195.68.169 (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychic abilities

Undid edit that claimed psychic abilities in Brain wave table, we need to see WP:RS references for this type of claim, otherwise it is just your opinion. Give details of such references here for further discussion. Jagra (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)