Thank you for the session! A long one for sure. I'm always entertained by the light-hearted jokes and laughter present in these sessions, I quite often laugh out loud so thank you to everyone for that. We heard all throughout COVID that we're living through unprecedented times. Back then it was a joke knowing what we knew about the virus. These past 6 months have certainly been unprecedented.
Session 24 January 2026
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
If someone’s listening to music that’s not good for them and it causes physical issues then that can lead to a negative emotional state. That negative emotional energy can then be drained off to feed 4D STS.
So yes, I’d say there will be an indirect link between listen to the wrong kind of music and energy being drained.
Sylvia
Jedi
Wow!!! This was a session packed with so much information. 
First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to Laura, as well as to the people at the Château and the C’s, for giving us access to such a wealth of knowledge.
It’s clear that I still have a long way to go and that I need to put into practice certain aspects of the work we must do on ourselves.
The musical portion was indeed very revealing, since I didn’t realize that digital formats could have harmful effects on our cells. I would like to thank everyone who shared information about the different ways of recording music, as well as about analog versus electronic music. I listen to a lot of music in MP3 format, but also directly on YouTube from my playlist, and after reading the information, I realize that I may need to limit my listening time, if I understood correctly.
However, I have this question: do musical tracks performed by musicians or singers also have harmful effects when in MP3 format, or does this only apply to the electronic music?
Thank you for reminding us to say the evening prayer. I will make a greater effort to follow through.
First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to Laura, as well as to the people at the Château and the C’s, for giving us access to such a wealth of knowledge.
It’s clear that I still have a long way to go and that I need to put into practice certain aspects of the work we must do on ourselves.The musical portion was indeed very revealing, since I didn’t realize that digital formats could have harmful effects on our cells. I would like to thank everyone who shared information about the different ways of recording music, as well as about analog versus electronic music. I listen to a lot of music in MP3 format, but also directly on YouTube from my playlist, and after reading the information, I realize that I may need to limit my listening time, if I understood correctly.
However, I have this question: do musical tracks performed by musicians or singers also have harmful effects when in MP3 format, or does this only apply to the electronic music?
I share the same emotion as when we can attend a live show or concert—the acoustic effect of a musical instrument on our body is truly soothing and vibrant. Each year, I’m fortunate to attend a musical event near my home called the "Festival of World Traditions" (In french Festival des Traditions du monde). For five days, we can enjoy performances in various musical styles, as well as demonstration workshops featuring specific musical instruments. When I go there, I feel alive and revitalized—it does me so much good.
Thank you for reminding us to say the evening prayer. I will make a greater effort to follow through.
Wow!!! Ceci a été une session avec tellement d'informations. Avant tout, c'est avec gratitude que je remercie Laura ainsi que les gens du Château et les C's de nous permettre d'avoir accès à autant de connaissances. C'est certain, que j'ai encore beaucoup de chemin à parcourir et à mettre en application certains aspects du travail que nous devons faire sur Soi.
Effectivement la partie musical a été très révélateur puisque je ne pensais pas que le numérique avec des effets néfaste sur nos cellules. Je remercie tout ceux qui ont partagés les informations sur les différentes façons d'enregistrer de la musique ainsi que l'analogique versus le numérique. J'écoute beaucoup de musique dans le format MP3 mais aussi directement sur Youtube de ma play list et en lisant les informations, je constate qu'il faudrait que je limite le nombre de temps d'écoute si j'ai bien compris.
Par contre, je me pose cette question: est-ce que les trames musicaux qui sont jouées par des musiciens ou bien des chanteurs, ont aussi un effet néfaste dans le format MP3 ou bien ceci concerne seulement ceux qui sont numériques?
Citation de N34: (traduit en français)
Merci de nous rappeler de faire la prière du soir. Je vais m'appliquer davantage.
Avant tout, c'est avec gratitude que je remercie Laura ainsi que les gens du Château et les C's de nous permettre d'avoir accès à autant de connaissances. C'est certain, que j'ai encore beaucoup de chemin à parcourir et à mettre en application certains aspects du travail que nous devons faire sur Soi.Effectivement la partie musical a été très révélateur puisque je ne pensais pas que le numérique avec des effets néfaste sur nos cellules. Je remercie tout ceux qui ont partagés les informations sur les différentes façons d'enregistrer de la musique ainsi que l'analogique versus le numérique. J'écoute beaucoup de musique dans le format MP3 mais aussi directement sur Youtube de ma play list et en lisant les informations, je constate qu'il faudrait que je limite le nombre de temps d'écoute si j'ai bien compris.
Par contre, je me pose cette question: est-ce que les trames musicaux qui sont jouées par des musiciens ou bien des chanteurs, ont aussi un effet néfaste dans le format MP3 ou bien ceci concerne seulement ceux qui sont numériques?
Citation de N34: (traduit en français)
Je partage la même émotion que lorsque nous pouvons assister en direct à un spectacle ou un concert, l'effet acoustique d'un instrument de musique sur notre corps est vraiment apaisant et vibrant. J'ai la chance à chaque année de pouvoir assister à un événement musical près de chez moi, ça s'appelle "Festival des Traditions du monde" et pendant 5 jours, nous pouvons assister à des prestations sur différents styles musicaux ainsi que des ateliers de démonstration sur des instruments de musique particulier. Quand je vais à cet endroit, je me sens en vie et revigorer, ça me fait tellement du bien
Merci de nous rappeler de faire la prière du soir. Je vais m'appliquer davantage.
I recently saw this video by Esther Perel on people loving AI and thought it was really good as a relationship expert to remind people AI is a business product and human connection is much more nuanced than that. Great you managed to escape when you felt the infatuation! Definitely scary how easy is to fall into the AI validation trap, and the amount of emotions everyone is feeding it
My understanding of the session is that it is OK to listen to the digital format.
Joe asked:
And then:
So, what I get from that isn't that we should only listen to live music. It can be digitally recorded but it needs to be music played on real instruments and by humans.
Very interesting comments on electronic music. I too was a bit dismayed at hearing its not particularly good for you! Like some others, I also like it (not everything but there’s quite a bit) and enjoy listening to it. However, I also like a wide range of things and rotate between different types depending on what I feel like listening to. Luckily for me my listening ‘window’ rarely goes over 2 hours, and generally healthy so I guess I don’t really have to worry too much about it 
But then the question is, 2 hours of what exactly? How does one quantify it? If for example, there is a song that’s 90% live instruments and 10% electronic sounds, does listening to the song for 10 minutes only use up 1 minute of your allotted time? Or put another way, if the music you listened to contains a 5:1 ratio of live to electronic, you can safely listen to it for 10 hours?
Or, is it like a cake? Suppose you bake a cake, and one of the ingredients is a small amount of cinnamon, and that person can’t tolerate cinnamon, then the entire cake (in this case, song) needs to be avoided? Might be a question for next session…
At first, what exactly the threshold between what is and isn’t ‘electronic’ was still not entirely clear to me. For example:
I understood TC’s question to mean the same thing as what AI wrote later yet we have 2 different answers, one saying it’s ok and another it’s not. Not sure what to make of that yet but seems like a bit of a contradiction. I suppose one can say that the difference in answers is because in one they are referring to the difference between “creating” vs the second where we are talking more about “duplicating”.
Assuming sound duplication, aka “sampling” of real live sounds and reproducing them, this should be ok. But problem is there is no way to really know, unless the artist himself has mentioned this (or the music predates widespread usage of synthesizers and digital work flows). More of an issue for the listener I suppose. For the musician, this still leaves a lot of creative space to work within, as almost any naturally produced sound can be sampled and make for interesting arrangements, so that's cool.
What I couldn't really wrap my head around was how it 'messes with cellular vibrations and intracellular communication'. Really? I need some real-world mechanism here, and woo-woo stuff was not going to cut it, lol.
So, this got me thinking – what could be the esssential difference between a sampled sound and a sound that is produced/created by software like Reason or Cubase or a even hardware synthesizers? I couldn't really think of anything as my assumption was that it's all just soundwaves, right? But then I came across some stuff talking about wifi's detrimental effects due to its modulating signals.
Guess what else uses artificial FM (frequency modulation)? Synthesized sounds.
It's subtle but there is an important difference. Taking the violin, sampled, as an example: it inherently contains all its natural modulations embedded directly in the sampled waveform, no extra processing or modulation required.
A violin synthesized (digitally created): we must intentionally apply modulation to reconstruct the same characteristics the natural ones.
I think there is probably something in the intentional application that may be disrupting and perhaps similar to what we have happening with WiFi and Bluetooth. This gets transmitted acoustically and contains modulation that potentially leads to undesired effects.
What is interesting is the implication that even at lower frequencies of 20hz to 20,000hz (audible range vs GHz) it can have detrimental effects, which I’m assuming will be similar in scope to wireless signals, but perhaps milder impact. That said, I wonder if something like a Q-link would work to mitigate some of the negative effects.
Well, that’s about a far as I got with my theory and it would be good to find if there have been actual studies done. It does seem some are available?
This is cool, thanks hugobos. This is the kind of thing I was interested in. Do you have the links it referenced that it used for that report? I’d love to check them out. I didn’t have much luck with searches I did.
But then the question is, 2 hours of what exactly? How does one quantify it? If for example, there is a song that’s 90% live instruments and 10% electronic sounds, does listening to the song for 10 minutes only use up 1 minute of your allotted time? Or put another way, if the music you listened to contains a 5:1 ratio of live to electronic, you can safely listen to it for 10 hours?
Or, is it like a cake? Suppose you bake a cake, and one of the ingredients is a small amount of cinnamon, and that person can’t tolerate cinnamon, then the entire cake (in this case, song) needs to be avoided? Might be a question for next session…
At first, what exactly the threshold between what is and isn’t ‘electronic’ was still not entirely clear to me. For example:
Cs said:
I understood TC’s question to mean the same thing as what AI wrote later yet we have 2 different answers, one saying it’s ok and another it’s not. Not sure what to make of that yet but seems like a bit of a contradiction. I suppose one can say that the difference in answers is because in one they are referring to the difference between “creating” vs the second where we are talking more about “duplicating”.
Assuming sound duplication, aka “sampling” of real live sounds and reproducing them, this should be ok. But problem is there is no way to really know, unless the artist himself has mentioned this (or the music predates widespread usage of synthesizers and digital work flows). More of an issue for the listener I suppose. For the musician, this still leaves a lot of creative space to work within, as almost any naturally produced sound can be sampled and make for interesting arrangements, so that's cool.
What I couldn't really wrap my head around was how it 'messes with cellular vibrations and intracellular communication'. Really? I need some real-world mechanism here, and woo-woo stuff was not going to cut it, lol.
Cs said:
So, this got me thinking – what could be the esssential difference between a sampled sound and a sound that is produced/created by software like Reason or Cubase or a even hardware synthesizers? I couldn't really think of anything as my assumption was that it's all just soundwaves, right? But then I came across some stuff talking about wifi's detrimental effects due to its modulating signals.
Grok said:
Guess what else uses artificial FM (frequency modulation)? Synthesized sounds.
Grok said:
It's subtle but there is an important difference. Taking the violin, sampled, as an example: it inherently contains all its natural modulations embedded directly in the sampled waveform, no extra processing or modulation required.
A violin synthesized (digitally created): we must intentionally apply modulation to reconstruct the same characteristics the natural ones.
I think there is probably something in the intentional application that may be disrupting and perhaps similar to what we have happening with WiFi and Bluetooth. This gets transmitted acoustically and contains modulation that potentially leads to undesired effects.
What is interesting is the implication that even at lower frequencies of 20hz to 20,000hz (audible range vs GHz) it can have detrimental effects, which I’m assuming will be similar in scope to wireless signals, but perhaps milder impact. That said, I wonder if something like a Q-link would work to mitigate some of the negative effects.
Well, that’s about a far as I got with my theory and it would be good to find if there have been actual studies done. It does seem some are available?
This is cool, thanks hugobos. This is the kind of thing I was interested in. Do you have the links it referenced that it used for that report? I’d love to check them out. I didn’t have much luck with searches I did.
hugobos
Padawan Learner
Here is where it drew the sources from (Kimi K2), but the answers from the other AIs were similar as well — Grok, ChatGPT, Gemini — all identical in the ranking, only the presentation changed. The important point, in my opinion, is that our brain, and every organ, functions in an analog way, and what is artificial does not suit it very well.Very interesting comments on electronic music. I too was a bit dismayed at hearing its not particularly good for you! Like some others, I also like it (not everything but there’s quite a bit) and enjoy listening to it. However, I also like a wide range of things and rotate between different types depending on what I feel like listening to. Luckily for me my listening ‘window’ rarely goes over 2 hours, and generally healthy so I guess I don’t really have to worry too much about it
But then the question is, 2 hours of what exactly? How does one quantify it? If for example, there is a song that’s 90% live instruments and 10% electronic sounds, does listening to the song for 10 minutes only use up 1 minute of your allotted time? Or put another way, if the music you listened to contains a 5:1 ratio of live to electronic, you can safely listen to it for 10 hours?
Or, is it like a cake? Suppose you bake a cake, and one of the ingredients is a small amount of cinnamon, and that person can’t tolerate cinnamon, then the entire cake (in this case, song) needs to be avoided? Might be a question for next session…
At first, what exactly the threshold between what is and isn’t ‘electronic’ was still not entirely clear to me. For example:
I understood TC’s question to mean the same thing as what AI wrote later yet we have 2 different answers, one saying it’s ok and another it’s not. Not sure what to make of that yet but seems like a bit of a contradiction. I suppose one can say that the difference in answers is because in one they are referring to the difference between “creating” vs the second where we are talking more about “duplicating”.
Assuming sound duplication, aka “sampling” of real live sounds and reproducing them, this should be ok. But problem is there is no way to really know, unless the artist himself has mentioned this (or the music predates widespread usage of synthesizers and digital work flows). More of an issue for the listener I suppose. For the musician, this still leaves a lot of creative space to work within, as almost any naturally produced sound can be sampled and make for interesting arrangements, so that's cool.
What I couldn't really wrap my head around was how it 'messes with cellular vibrations and intracellular communication'. Really? I need some real-world mechanism here, and woo-woo stuff was not going to cut it, lol.
So, this got me thinking – what could be the esssential difference between a sampled sound and a sound that is produced/created by software like Reason or Cubase or a even hardware synthesizers? I couldn't really think of anything as my assumption was that it's all just soundwaves, right? But then I came across some stuff talking about wifi's detrimental effects due to its modulating signals.
Guess what else uses artificial FM (frequency modulation)? Synthesized sounds.
It's subtle but there is an important difference. Taking the violin, sampled, as an example: it inherently contains all its natural modulations embedded directly in the sampled waveform, no extra processing or modulation required.
A violin synthesized (digitally created): we must intentionally apply modulation to reconstruct the same characteristics the natural ones.
I think there is probably something in the intentional application that may be disrupting and perhaps similar to what we have happening with WiFi and Bluetooth. This gets transmitted acoustically and contains modulation that potentially leads to undesired effects.
What is interesting is the implication that even at lower frequencies of 20hz to 20,000hz (audible range vs GHz) it can have detrimental effects, which I’m assuming will be similar in scope to wireless signals, but perhaps milder impact. That said, I wonder if something like a Q-link would work to mitigate some of the negative effects.
Well, that’s about a far as I got with my theory and it would be good to find if there have been actual studies done. It does seem some are available?
This is cool, thanks hugobos. This is the kind of thing I was interested in. Do you have the links it referenced that it used for that report? I’d love to check them out. I didn’t have much luck with searches I did.
Harmonics must also be taken into account, and it is indeed important to distinguish between a synthesized instrument and digitized music such as an MP3.
Sound synthesis: the harmonics are created artificially.
Compressed digitization (MP3): the harmonics exist, but some are removed to reduce the file size.
Our brain is the result of evolution in a world where all variables are analog.
Reférenced :
1. Scientific journals and databases
PNAS 2024
→ The American scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, available on the official PNAS website.
NIH / PMC
→ The PubMed Central (PMC) platform of the NIH, a free online repository of biomedical research articles (for example, studies on music and neuroscience).
MDPI Acoustics 2024
→ The international open-access scientific journal Acoustics published by MDPI, accessible on mdpi.com with all 2024 volumes available online.
Journal of Psychology of Music 2022
→ An academic journal (published by SAGE), accessible through university libraries or research databases such as Google Scholar, Scopus, or Web of Science.
2. Conferences / organizations
NCUR 2025→ National Conference on Undergraduate Research, an academic conference whose proceedings are published on the NCUR website or by participating universities.
3. Non-academic source
EDM House Network 2025→ A web media outlet focused on electronic music (journalistic articles rather than peer-reviewed scientific papers).
@fabric I understood AI’s question as being different to mine. A few pages back, luc really summed up where I was was coming from when I was using the term ‘synthesisers’. I was thinking about something that generates an artificial wave and manipulates and modulates it in order to create a sound that mimics real instruments. That’s why luc’s electric piano was the first thing that came to mind for me as an example during the session.
AI’s example is something that uses samples of actual instruments, so that in the case of a real piano sound, the oscillations that produce the notes and tones are coming from the vibrations of real strings. Someone else during the session posted the example in the chat of a melotron. This is a keyboard instrument from around the 1960’s that you put tape reels into and then when you press a key in the keyboard it plays part of the tape recording of an instrument. The most famous example of the use of a melotron is the intro to “Strawberry Fields” by The Beatles.
I too am frustrated by the complications this raises for what music should be avoided. My favourite bands and artists tend to have a mixture of real instruments and synths in their songs.
Maybe we should view it from the point of view that “if you play in the dirt, you’re going to get dirty”. Ideally, we want to breathe pure, clean air. But on our planet, that’s not always possible. The same with the water we drink, the food we eat.
So if possible, music made purely using real instruments would be the ideal. From classical through to modern. If a song is made by a band and they have a keyboard part in the song, then we should take note of that and be aware. If it’s dance music, synth pop, etc, we should limit our exposure.
It seems from other session excerpts that if you are using music to work out to, then the harmful frequencies of electronic music might be mitigated.
With regards to Ryan’s question during the session, that seems like an important factor too. It sounds as though genres like death metal, ‘screamo’ etc., probably have their own negative effects, but not based on the sound wave shapes, it’s the overall message they convey or ‘face of God’ they present. Think about those experiments where people grow two plants. Each day they tell one that they love it and the other that they hate it. Over time, the plant that gets the love thrives better and the one that gets the hateful messages withers and dies.
And think we’re talking about the same phenomenon with music. The sad part is there’s so much electronic music that is moving, uplifting, inspiring, deep. But the vibe I got from the C’s during the session when they were pressed on it was that as nice as they sound, it’s best to try to avoid them.
All that glitters is not gold. Heroin might make you feel good, but that doesn’t mean you should take it.
AI’s example is something that uses samples of actual instruments, so that in the case of a real piano sound, the oscillations that produce the notes and tones are coming from the vibrations of real strings. Someone else during the session posted the example in the chat of a melotron. This is a keyboard instrument from around the 1960’s that you put tape reels into and then when you press a key in the keyboard it plays part of the tape recording of an instrument. The most famous example of the use of a melotron is the intro to “Strawberry Fields” by The Beatles.
I too am frustrated by the complications this raises for what music should be avoided. My favourite bands and artists tend to have a mixture of real instruments and synths in their songs.
Maybe we should view it from the point of view that “if you play in the dirt, you’re going to get dirty”. Ideally, we want to breathe pure, clean air. But on our planet, that’s not always possible. The same with the water we drink, the food we eat.
So if possible, music made purely using real instruments would be the ideal. From classical through to modern. If a song is made by a band and they have a keyboard part in the song, then we should take note of that and be aware. If it’s dance music, synth pop, etc, we should limit our exposure.
It seems from other session excerpts that if you are using music to work out to, then the harmful frequencies of electronic music might be mitigated.
With regards to Ryan’s question during the session, that seems like an important factor too. It sounds as though genres like death metal, ‘screamo’ etc., probably have their own negative effects, but not based on the sound wave shapes, it’s the overall message they convey or ‘face of God’ they present. Think about those experiments where people grow two plants. Each day they tell one that they love it and the other that they hate it. Over time, the plant that gets the love thrives better and the one that gets the hateful messages withers and dies.
And think we’re talking about the same phenomenon with music. The sad part is there’s so much electronic music that is moving, uplifting, inspiring, deep. But the vibe I got from the C’s during the session when they were pressed on it was that as nice as they sound, it’s best to try to avoid them.
All that glitters is not gold. Heroin might make you feel good, but that doesn’t mean you should take it.
Trending content
-
-
Thread 'Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?'
- wanderingthomas
Replies: 30K -
-
