Milovana.com

Hi everyone,

As many people have stated they have issues with the Estim Experiment Day 2, with the stim files simply not working on their box, I have been working with qwksilver to get these files to work.

Huge shout out to qwksilver as he has done all the work to rework the files

To test this I have put together the below test tease, just to compare a selection of the files original (not working on many boxes) to altered versions (louder so should work better)

Please give us your feedback, including which box you have, and which files work better on your box, plus any additional feedback to help.

Based on your feedback I will either replace the stim files on Estim Experiment, or qwksilver and I will rework the files again if they still aren't right

https://milovana.com/webteases/showteas ... 89481448b0

The altered files allow me to run this with a DIY Audiostim device at about 63% for a pleasurable level without using an external boosting application and work the best for my setup.

Altered files 10, 17, 23, and 24 seem to be pain files and they are on the quiet side for pain. I might have missed a pain file or two. Altered file 20 is also on the quiet side. The rest of the files feel like they are about the level they should be at.

So I might have gone a little overboard on this one and it's going to take a while to explain just what I've done here so try to bear with me;

Below is a screenshot from Audacity, my audio editing software of choice. I've recorded ~20 seconds of all of the sound files from the tease, first the low volume file, then the new higher volume file, this is the top track, labeled "Original". What follows is a kind of litmus test to see if the audio is suitable for stereostim devices or not; beware this is not an exact science, this is what I've found works for my particular setup.

• We can see from the original recording that some tracks are not like the others. File 18 looks like it's going to blow your balls off (it probably won't, but we'll get to that later)

• The middle track is the same recording with a 300Hz high-pass filter applied. This removes those pesky low-frequency components that cause burning sensations. Several of the pain files have noticeably changed shape from this operation (marked in pink), this is bad news! Those files can be painful in all the wrong ways if not filtered. (and if they are filtered, not as painful as intended!)

• The lower track is the same recording again, but this time with a 1500Hz low-pass filter applied. Sensations become less intense as the frequency increases, at several kHz you won't be able to feel anything at all. While this won't spoil the fun quite like the low frequencies do, it can cause files to be perceived very differently on different devices (and you are still putting the same amount of energy into the body even if you cannot feel it, so if you were to turn up the volume you could get a nasty burn). This explains why track 18 is not the killer it appears to be, in fact I found it to be quite pleasant.

Phew, that's enough rambling for one post, I hope you can make some sense of it. It's never going to be perfect for everyone but any and all attempts to make teases more accessible to users of different devices is admirable in my books

cfs6t08p wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 12:43 am Phew, that's enough rambling for one post, I hope you can make some sense of it. It's never going to be perfect for everyone but any and all attempts to make teases more accessible to users of different devices is admirable in my books

I like the review there are some things to know.

one, I have a lot of the originals that these files come from, and they are hella higher volume, and work way better in stand alone mp3 players. I don't know what if anything that the webteases and the computer do that the mp3 player doesn't but it's not happy time. The originals have a lot of phase shifting, and some files are mono and some stereo stim and some triphase-stim, which makes it difficult to globalize the feels.

two, all i did was apply a universal +4db in the mp3 header data. so i've only boosted the sound, not multiplied it, so there shouldn't be any serious swings that aren't in the original, it's just the originals at 80% are nearly invisible compared to very satisfactory feels from the boosted set. I will note that the processor I worked with said the "Hearing" volume of all the files should tack in at 89db, so now they should be 93ish.

looked at side by side in goldwave, one particular set was almost 4x the size of the others in the waveforms. compared to the original identical file something like 5x in waveform change.

Anyway, I like the play volume on these files much better, i figure that 20-50 on the 2b will be subtle and usable, and I'm on the et-312 and while i need an output volume of 70-100, I won't be needing that 400% boost on the browser to get there for real. I really happy to be starting at 36-42 on my et312 instead of 65, it means there is room to adjust as the session moves on.

Also I'm not getting any hot spot feels in these files, I was with the browser boost and the original set.

hi

i use a 2B. the altered files were much better. I felt all if the files, but files 12,15,17,18,21 were still weak

thanks for the good work. I look forward to using the updated version of the program.

otto