Talk:Hemi-Sync

Epilepsy
Since the Binaural beat article mentions that it can trigger epilepsy, and this works off of that, shouldn't that be noted here? Hewhorulestheworld (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The CD case I have to hand has this on the back:


 * "Hemi-Sync is a safe, time proven technology. However, if you have a tendency towards seizures, auditory disorders, or adverse mental condition(s), do not listen to Hemi-Sync without first consulting your physician".


 * "Warning! Contains nuts" stickers on bags of peanuts come to mind, as strobed-out brainwaves are the whole point. If there are notable HemiSync-specific references I'd say yes, but otherwise I think it'd just be fearmongering. K2709 (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Why the removals?
Why have large parts of this entry been removed? There was nothing inaccurate in there. The use of binaural beats in developing frequency-following responses in the brain is not disputed by conventional science, and in my last addition I even used words like "claimed" and "allegedly." There are links on the Monroe Institute's website to peer-reviewed scientific papers demonstrating how Hemi-Sync works.

In my opinion, nobody had any business removing the parts that have been removed, and if there's no valid objection over the next couple of days I'm going to put it all back in.

Huwie 09:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It might help to distinguish more clearly between basic binaural beats, the "frequency following response", the additional components proprietary to Hemi-Sync, and the potential benefits. While they may all be equally accepted scientifically, I think most readers would prefer to be able to accept each one on their individual merits, insofar as that's possible.
 * E.g. binaural beats are relatively easy to understand, and then you can learn about frequency-following and how that's been verified.
 * E.g., a paper on the website says this: "Hemi-Sync has proven effective in producing enriched learning environments, enhanced memory (Kennerly 1994), improved creativity (Hiew 1995), increased intuition, improved reliability in remote viewing[3] (McMoneagle 1993), telepathy[4], and out-of-body experience[5]". Most people would consider the last three controversial, so it would make them ask whether they should consider the other claims in that sentence controversial.
 * Explain new ideas in small chunks, and they are easier to accept, and possibly to reject or question individually without rejecting or questioning the whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.61.128 (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Binaural Beats and tinnitus
I developed tinnitus after listening to Hemi-Sync recordings for about a week. I'm curious if anyone else had that result. I think people should be made aware of this if it's a known side-effect. Pretty drastic, it has really affected my life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pessia (talk • contribs) 21:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There Are some Very Good Treatments for Tinitus
There Are some Very Good Treatments out there for for Tinitus. They involve matching the sound of the actual tinitus tone. This causes the brain to illiminate it as background noise. Very effective.

66.227.84.101 (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability
So why is this notable but the page on Holosync has been deleted? Wikipedia is total shit. There's no consistency whatsoever! --84.249.164.59 (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What was the Holosync page called? I can't find the deletion notes that would say why...
 * My understanding is that Holosync is just one of a number of reformulations based on Hemi-Sync rather than being a fundamentally new application of binaurals in its own right, but I'd still argue it's well known enough to be notable. K2709 (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"Scientifically and clinically proven" + the sources for this article.
There is PLENTY of information that gives away that the "scientifically" and "clinically proven" part is not reliable.

Anything that claims to be in the vicinity of "Hemi-Sync supports PSI, OBE, ESP, paranormal, and quantum non-locality experiences. TMI offers the Gateway Voyage, Guidelines, and Lifeline programs."(from http://www.youtube.com/user/MonroeInstitute) Is on very slippery ice. For a wiki of wikipedias standard to claim this as factual, I see it as clearly something that needs looking in to.

Even worse is the http://www.monroeinstitute.org/hemi-sync/hemi-sync-applications/ Look in to that link, and what Hemi-sync claims to counter or help. As everything that "is to good too be true" this claims extraordinary evidence since it is extraordinary claims.

The http://www.monroeinstitute.org/hemi-sync/brief-hemi-sync-testimonials/ Is a case of subjective experiences and can not be used for verification, it could very well be a placebo.

Unfortunate I myself don't have the time to do this, but I want to raise awareness of this. I myself was fooled by this wiki, fortunate I looked in to this once more to realise my mistake.

The sources on this subject is questionable to say the least.

If Hemi-sync works as it claims, then unbiased scientific research is necessary, today I have not found this. There fore it needs to be found and reviewed, or the claim of "scientifically and clinically proven" must change.

Better to discuss this than not too.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhosa (talk • contribs) 23:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The article implies several 'facts' of dubious scientific merit. The only reference for these 'facts' is the web site seeking to sell a commercial product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.40.197 (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Why has the nomination for this article's deletion been removed? It is promoting a commercial product, and makes scientific claims verified solely by the vendor's web site. References to devices such as this should appear as sections of articles related to binaural beats, if at all. Scienceisgolden (talk) 03:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why the Hemi-sync article should be deleted. It does exist, so even if it's commercial, it's entitled to an article as long as that article doesn't make unsubstantiated claims. To that end I've followed the guidelines and "been bold". I've deleted the claim that Hemi-sync can be scientifically proven because the claim had only one citation, and the cited article describes a very poor test methodology (see my comment below). I hope that only those with a commercial interest in Hemi-sync will object to this action. Charlie 1959 (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claim with improper references.
I would agree that this article contains at least one unverified claim and an associated improper reference, i.e. "This brainwave alteration is clinically verifiable.[5]".

I think that this claim should be removed from the article for the following reasons

1) It has only one citation.

2) The methodology of the experiments described in the citation is very poor.

To backup such a sweeping claim, I suggest that more than one citation is required.

I have read the citation which claims to have "demonstrated that Hemi-Sync does indeed do what it purports to do". The methodology described in the paper is extremely poor. The experiments were not done blind, i.e both the test subject and the researchers knew when the test subject was listening to Hemi-sync sounds. The paper makes no mention of experiments carried out with reference sounds, e.g. sounds that, to the test subject, sound the same as Hemi_sync, but which do not contain binaural beats.

It should be noted that, although the cited paper describes three separate studies, each study was performed on just one test subject. These test subjects had had previous exposure to Hemi-sync. In a well designed study multiple test subjects would have been selected at random, and would have been tested without knowing the purpose of the tests.

It may well be that the test sounds did cause changes to the subjects brainwaves but, because of the poor methodology, it is wrong to use this study as evidence of the effectiveness of binaural beats.

Charlie 1959 (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Better than Hemi Sync
there r better artists and musicians that work with binaural beats such as:

-i-Doser or -Jezebel Decibel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.240.85.37 (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean the I-Doser that ripped off an open-source project in order to repackage it and sell it as "virtual drugs" without the original author's permission? Calanor (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Generalize article to Hemispheric-synchronization
Hemi-sync is a commercialization of hemispheric-synchronization. I suggest we broaden this article to include any approach to syncing the two hemispheres. Not including other products and non-commercial approaches violates WP:NPOV. Joja lozzo  16:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Articles about specific commercial authors or artists don't have to mention alternatives, and this is the same.  Only by broadening the article scope as you suggest would POV suddenly become an issue.  Besides, there is already a general Brainwave synchronization article - this sort of new material would be more appropriate there. K2709 (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

re: Hemi-Sync and Ringing in the ears
I also developed Ringing in the ears after listening to HemiSync when I was in my teens. I was a heavy user of headphones and I used it for hours per day, so that might have contributed to it also. HemiSync is effective in some applications, like concentration enhancement, but it does cause wear and tear on your ears since you have to listen to the sounds with large headphones.... For some it's worth it... others..not.

HemiSync user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.118.4 (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Merger
I propose merging this with Robert Monroe, at least until a single article with accurate content and meanigful sections can be finalized. Also, the article is misleading, as it infers that Robert Monroe discover the perfceptual illusion of binaural beats, which is not true. Lastly, if Hemisync is noteworthy as an article on its own, then so are the other similar products on the market.

That's my opinion. But I have plenty of other articles to work on and am not sufficently single minded to argue the point. It just seemed like the best way of approaching content all connected spread over three articles.

Sorry if the merge was inappropriate. My intentions were entirely constructive.

Yes, agree that this page be deleted, as it is now duplicated on the Robert Monroe page. Kookaburra17 09:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kookaburra17 (talk • contribs)

More eyes
I have raised a query about this article at WT:MED since it makes medical claims with no reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)