Both types of sound work to influence our concentration, but as to whether isochronic tones do it better than binaural beats, the real answer is: Most likely yes.

That’s why I’ve chosen them for Mind Focus as the main soundscape (and because that greater effectiveness has also held true in my personal experience all these years).

However, we must be honest and make clear that, apart from personal experience, the direct research conclusively proving this is still not very extensive, because it’s a field that is still understudied.

Yet the signs are there, the data are coming and they’re very intriguing.

The difference that matters: how the brain processes each type of sound

Binaural beats work through an auditory illusion. Each ear receives a different tone (for example, 200 Hz in the left and 215 Hz in the right) and the brain, when integrating both signals, perceives a pulse equal to the difference between the two (15 Hz in the example).

But that 15 Hz pulse doesn’t exist in the sound, what’s fascinating is that the brain creates it.

This has a well-known practical implication: binaural beats require headphones.

Without them they don’t work, because the effect depends on each ear receiving its frequency in isolation.

Isochronic tones are different because the pulse is in the sound itself.

In this case, it’s audio that switches on and off at the target frequency. That’s why the ear (the peripheral auditory system, or the cochlea to be more precise) processes it directly.

Thus, the brain doesn’t need to construct anything, since the stimulus arrives already formed.

The key for me is that this has measurable effects on the brain’s response and it is not merely theoretical.

What the evidence says

Draganova et al. (2008) measured brain responses to monaural and binaural beats at 40 Hz using magnetoencephalography (one of the highest-precision instruments available). The monaural beats generated significantly greater steady-state responses than the binaural ones in the same primary auditory cortex.

In practice this means that peripheral stimulation produces a more robust cortical response than the frequency-difference effect between binaural beats.

Becher et al. (2015) confirmed the above with intracranial electroencephalograms (EEG) in presurgical patients, showing that monaural beats at 40 Hz produced the most prominent power increases of all the conditions compared.

Chaieb et al. (2015) synthesised the available data and arrived at a specific figure. The amplitude of auditory steady-state responses with monaural stimulation is approximately five times greater than with binaural beats.

Monaural stimulation appears to be the way forward, and Dos Anjos et al. (2024) directly compared isochronic tones and binaural beats to check this.

It’s true they didn’t test many subjects, but there were 28 participants, with EEG and direct comparison between isochronic tone derivatives and binaural beats.

The result was that isochronic tones produced significantly greater brain power changes in Alpha and Beta bands, and furthermore the changes persisted for several minutes after the stimulation ended.

The weakness of binaural beats

On the other side of the scales, López-Caballero and Escera (2017) published something worth mentioning. They tested binaural beats at theta, alpha, beta and gamma frequencies and found no evidence that they increased EEG power in any band, dimming part of the mythical aura of the beats.

In the same vein, the systematic review by Ingendoh et al. (2023) analysed 14 EEG studies on binaural beats and found that only 5 supported the brainwave synchronisation hypothesis, 8 showed contradictory results and there’s always one that goes against all grain and showed mixed results.

However, this doesn’t mean binaural beats are useless.

There is evidence that they can improve attention through mechanisms other than direct synchronisation, and the meta-analysis by Garcia-Argibay et al. (2019) found real effects on cognition and anxiety.

The key issue is that the consistency of the evidence regarding the mechanism attributed to them for the brain to tune to the desired wave is considerably weaker.

Why I chose isochronic tones for Mind Focus

Given the above, even setting aside my personal preferences (if that’s possible for humans), the reason is that the mechanism of isochronic tones is more robust, better documented, more powerful and more consistent with what studies measure in terms of actual brain response.

Another example supporting the tones is the study by Dimas Ilham et al. (2025), which recruited 60 secondary school students in Jakarta.

Those who used isochronic tones “improved their concentration significantly and effectively” compared to the control group. The peak of effectiveness occurred at Gamma frequencies, which are those used in Mind Focus’ Ultrafocus mode.

In the end, research into isochronic tones remains more scarce than binaural beats papers. Aparecido-Kanzler et al. (2021) showed in their systematic review that (of 17 quality studies, 88% used binaural beats and only 12% isochronic tones) but the mechanistic evidence and the newer data point in a clear direction:

When the pulses arrive pre-processed at the brain, the response is stronger.

And the practical difference of not needing headphones is no small thing for someone who uses the app every day.