Looking for Skeptics

[abaddon]

Part Deux.

OK. I have verified that Youcam is bundled on some laptops, so likely flaccon got it as part of the often useless freebies that come with new PCs or laptops. So there is the explanation there that flaccon believed it to be free.

In general, it is a resource hog and it's performance suffers, at least on the machine I tried it on and that's a machine which runs COD:MW3 flawlessly.
The UI is flashy custom buttons and the like and that just hurts performance.

So, what is it? It is a piece of software whose sole purpose is to create captures and snapshots from your webcam. (Movies and pics) once acquired, it allows a motley selection of effects to be applied. I could, say, make a happy birthday movie from my webcam and apply a happy birthday subtitle and some snappy snowflakes if it happened to be winter. Not something that appeals to me, nor something that I can see many springing E34.99 for the pleasure derived therefrom, but hey. everyone is different.

Key point to note, all of the available manipulations are visual not audio manipulations. Which brings me on to settings. There are precisely two audio settings. A drop down to select which audio input device to use (that has me wondering, if one used an input device with no mic attached, would the artefacts still appear?). The second is a checkbox as to whether or not to include audio with a capture (movie). That's it, that's all the audio manipulation you can do. Audio on/off and which mic to use. Nothing more.

In terms of formats available, it supports wmv and avi for videos, jpeg and the like for snapshots. TBH I did not spend much time on snapshots. The odd thing was you must select the format in settings. Select avi and everything you do is avi, select wmv and everything you do is wmv. there is no "Save As"

There is no clue given as to what is happening in the background. Compression, codecs used, arbitrary decisions made, who knows? It is just a gimic piece of software intended to make webcam capture with added extra visual effects easy for, say, a grandma to send a funny video to her long emigrated granddaughter on her birthday.

Now that you have created your lame image or video what can you do with it?
Well you can right click your opus and get the usual suspects. Send to mail recipient, Skype contact, you know the drill, but oddly, not to Youtube, not even as a greyed out option. Maybe you get that in the payed version, but from the name and nature of the product, such an option would be a big selling point. Eventually I found it. Oh well. At this point I no longer care enough to write much more about such a surprisingly useless product.

ETA: It doesn't do playback.

ETA2: Here's a gem from their FAQ

Which HD webcams does YouCam support?
YouCam supports the following HD webcams:
 Microsoft LifeCam Studio
 Microsoft LifeCam Cinema
 Microsoft LifeCam HD-5000
 Logitech Pro9000

Huh? Of all the webcams in all the world they only support 4?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Didn't she claim that the recordings stay constant though? The best way to interpret this claim is that the spirits "imbue" themselves into specific recordings but do not alter the files themselves. They only modify the output of the speakers when the "imbued" files are played.

That might be a more consistent explantion, though what she's actually claimed, about ten times in the last 24 hours, is that the files themselves are changed.

 

[Cassidy]

I am trying to understand how I can use a checksum.

I am going to explain again, of jsfishers "VolNormInt" recording, and the significant differences I heard.

jsfisher posted copies of this file to Mr Roberts, and also to myself. I could not get online to retrieve the file. Mr Roberts downloaded the file on his laptop and allowed me to listen in via the land line. I heard a steady noise all the way through. There was no interferences at all. Had there been interference, I would have taken note of the interference, and at what stage the interference occurred.

When I did manage to get online (couple of days later) and retrieve jsfishers files, on play-back, I heard significant differences to the file that Mr Roberts had played to me via land line, mostly at 0.21 seconds and thereon.

That is when I contacted Mr Roberts (scrappy/robin) and asked him if he could check his copy of VolNormInt. Mr Roberts went home and again, played the file through the land line. The interferences were now identically present on Mr Roberts copy. Jsfisher's original file also has the same significant differences as the copies do.

I know that when I first heard jsfishers file for the first time, via land line, there were no interferences present.

PS. Mr Roberts downloaded Cyberlink Youcam app for free, 3 years ago. Mr Bulger downloaded Cyberlink Youcam app for free last week.

Also, I checked "Sound Recorder" on my laptop tonight, yes that app also picks up the spirit voices/noises.

 

[jsfisher]

ETA2: Here's a gem from their FAQ

Huh? Of all the webcams in all the world they only support 4?

Not to really defend this piece-o'-crap application, but it does say HD cameras. I would assume it supports most of the standard definition web cameras.

 

[abaddon]

When I did manage to get online (couple of days later) and retrieve jsfishers files, on play-back, I heard significant differences to the file that Mr Roberts had played to me via land line, mostly at 0.21 seconds and thereon.

Of course you did. A land line by it's very nature alters the audio transmitted through it, on purpose. the same file played on a computer will be different from a replay via landline by definition.

 

[tuxcat]

For recording software use VLC - that can take an input stream (i.e. webcam and mic) and save it in whatever file format you want. A lossless compression one would be best, like FLAC or some Ogg video format. That way compression artefacts can be eliminated or at best reduced.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

I am trying to understand how I can use a checksum.

I am going to explain again, of jsfishers "VolNormInt" recording, and the significant differences I heard.

jsfisher posted copies of this file to Mr Roberts, and also to myself. I could not get online to retrieve the file. Mr Roberts downloaded the file on his laptop and allowed me to listen in via the land line. I heard a steady noise all the way through. There was no interferences at all. Had there been interference, I would have taken note of the interference, and at what stage the interference occurred.

When I did manage to get online (couple of days later) and retrieve jsfishers files, on play-back, I heard significant differences to the file that Mr Roberts had played to me via land line, mostly at 0.21 seconds and thereon.

That is when I contacted Mr Roberts (scrappy/robin) and asked him if he could check his copy of VolNormInt. Mr Roberts went home and again, played the file through the land line. The interferences were now identically present on Mr Roberts copy. Jsfisher's original file also has the same significant differences as the copies do.

I know that when I first heard jsfishers file for the first time, via land line, there were no interferences present.

PS. Mr Roberts downloaded Cyberlink Youcam app for free, 3 years ago. Mr Bulger downloaded Cyberlink Youcam app for free last week.

Also, I checked "Sound Recorder" on my laptop tonight, yes that app also picks up the spirit voices/noises.

ftfy

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

We don't know what they can do.

The spirits do.

Their communication can be clear at times yes. They have and can speak in full sentence yes. I do ask many questions, including the one above, I don't always get a reply. Sometimes they reply "Stop them questions, ..." and "Do not ask questions" and "Think for yourself" However, if I'm barking up the wrong tree, they correct me. Hard to explain but they sort of guide me to answers.

They want to get their message out, no? Why are they not even cooperative enough to explain what they can and cannot do? It seems like, far from trying to get their message out, they're attempting every attempt to garner them publicity.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

For recording software use VLC - that can take an input stream (i.e. webcam and mic) and save it in whatever file format you want. A lossless compression one would be best, like FLAC or some Ogg video format. That way compression artefacts can be eliminated or at best reduced.

Eliminate compression artifacts? That's spiricide!

 

[Biscuit]

Just for fun I have been looking for an online demonstration of audio pardolia and I found these two clips that might be of some use is demonstrating the powerful effect of your brains desire to interpret noise to scrappy and flaccon.

Listen to audio clip number 1 a few times and write down what you hear.

Then listen to audio clip number 2 just once should do. Now go back and listen to #1 again.

Be honest with your results and maybe you'll understand this a bit better.

 

[abaddon]

Not to really defend this piece-o'-crap application, but it does say HD cameras. I would assume it supports most of the standard definition web cameras.

Top ten HD webcams gleans one hit only, the Microsoft LifeCam HD-5000.

ETA: Apologies, I should also say you are correct, given my exploration of the software in question, it probably supports any low def webcam.

 

[abaddon]

Just for fun I have been looking for an online demonstration of audio pardolia and I found these two clips that might be of some use is demonstrating the powerful effect of your brains desire to interpret noise to scrappy and flaccon.

Listen to audio clip number 1 a few times and write down what you hear.

Then listen to audio clip number 2 just once should do. Now go back and listen to #1 again.

Be honest with your results and maybe you'll understand this a bit better.

Epic post. Chapeau. That was excellent.

ETA: I can't NOT do it anymore. No matter how hard I try.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I am trying to understand how I can use a checksum.

Generate checksums of all your "useless" recordings. If the spirits add a message to one of them you will be able to make another checksum for that file to see if it has really changed or if you are simply perceiving it differently.

... Mr Roberts downloaded the file on his laptop and allowed me to listen in via the land line. I heard a steady noise all the way through. There was no interferences at all. Had there been interference, I would have taken note of the interference, and at what stage the interference occurred.

When I did manage to get online (couple of days later) and retrieve jsfishers files, on play-back, I heard significant differences to the file that Mr Roberts had played to me via land line...

Then the only anomaly is with what you heard over the phone. We know that the original file was not changed because the checksums still match. All that needs to be explained is why you didn't hear the clonk or the change in noise level over the phone. Maybe scrappy played you the other file by mistake.

 

[abaddon]

Generate checksums of all your "useless" recordings. If the spirits add a message to one of them you will be able to make another checksum for that file to see if it has really changed or if you are simply perceiving it differently.

Then the only anomaly is with what you heard over the phone. We know that the original file was not changed because the checksums still match. All that needs to be explained is why you didn't hear the clonk or the change in noise level over the phone. Maybe scrappy played you the other file by mistake.

This is only a hunch right now, but instinct is leading me to the notion that checksums matter not a whit. I hit upon a thing in my setup which might shed some light after I bloop around the various settings pages.

 

[laca]

.... File waveform changed: Compare using e.g. Audacity. Digital copies should be identical. Extremely subtle changes can be detected. Change to a waveform without change to MD5 would be significant

No, just a bugreport for Audacity.

 

[HighRiser]

I don't remember if flaccon has said if she understands the difference between subjectivity and objectivity.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Pareidolia clips report

Epic post. Chapeau. That was excellent.

ETA: I can't NOT do it anymore. No matter how hard I try.

Some of what I heard was the same as in clip2 on my first listen of clip1 (prior to listening to clip2).

On subsequent tries I still tended to hear what I originally thought I was hearing, over what is clear in clip2. I can also hear it the "proper" way when I listen for it.

As nevaeh ot yawriatS has taught us, when you know what to listen for, you hear what you listen for.

"I got with the newspaper next chief."

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

I would like to announce, for the record, that I for one will not accept a "spirits of the gaps" conclusion, where just because we dummies can't explain how something happened with a piece of machinery notorious for failure, it means we've entered the supernatural.

Tracey's (special) digital phenomenon is not even that weird, really. Let alone real weird. Let alone magical entities from Deadpeopleland.

 

[abaddon]

Some of what I heard was the same as in clip2 on my first listen of clip1 (prior to listening to clip2).

On subsequent tries I still tended to hear what I originally thought I was hearing, over what is clear in clip2. I can also hear it the "proper" way when I listen for it.

As nevaeh ot yawriatS has taught us, when you know what to listen for, you hear what you listen for.

"I got with the newspaper next chief."

LOL, for a brief moment, I thought Maurice has lost the plot.

Look I will briefly wheel out the issue. As stated, I ran one sample straight out of the box. Then I went for a run on what Youcam actually did, what it was for, without running tests as such. Mostly on the basis of what is this thing.

There are to input sources on the machine in question. This evening I was poking around the settings when I noticed what the input source was set to by default which produced artefacts similar to flaccon's. There was no mic connected to that source.

 

[trustbutverify]

Maurice, not even I can keep up with the claims! Flaccon has posted her reply to what her claim was, but confounding variables (or rather confounded!) seem to keep appearing - wires are touched, wires aren't touched. The files change, files don't change. The voices are clear, the voices are as clear as mud. And ad absurditum/nausea

During the first 50 pages or so of this thread, flaccon based her evidence that she was conversing with dead people through her laptop almost exclusively on the fact that her friends and family heard the exact same verbiage as she did coming from her computer speaker- without being prompted. When I recently asked her if her friend scrappy would be able to do this with new files she produced on her computer, she strangely stated she "had no idea", but he probably would be able to.

The parameters of this claim, whatever it may currently be, will be changed at will to avoid being exposed as unsupported. I think the OP is aware, on some level, that her ghosts in the machine will not survive strict examination.

Without clearly stated, stable standards by which to define a claim, no reasonable examination is possible.