skeptisim of EVPs

[Uncayimmy]

It's not being claimed that they are recorded 'directly'.

Then why is it called Electronic Voice Phenomena?

 

[blutoski]

Then why is it called Electronic Voice Phenomena?

Why does it matter what they're called?

I think the question is about how the claimants believe they're produced.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I dunno, but this one in particular seems to be a claim of directly recording to the media since nothing was audible in the live time (as recorded by the video camera), but only on the recording device during playback at extreme amplification.

In other words, I don't think they're claiming it was merely a sound picked up by the mic and not by people's ears (or by the mic on the video camera). If that were the claim, their reactions are way over the top. In fact, I think it was indeed a sound that was only picked up by the mic on that device, and that the sound was caused by whatever movement or contact the guy turning the device off had with it. It sounds about like what a hand approaching the mic would sound like.

 

[blutoski]

I dunno, but this one in particular seems to be a claim of directly recording to the media since nothing was audible in the live time (as recorded by the video camera), but only on the recording device during playback at extreme amplification.

In other words, I don't think they're claiming it was merely a sound picked up by the mic and not by people's ears (or by the mic on the video camera). If that were the claim, their reactions are way over the top. In fact, I think it was indeed a sound that was only picked up by the mic on that device, and that the sound was caused by whatever movement or contact the guy turning the device off had with it. It sounds about like what a hand approaching the mic would sound like.

Perhaps I misunderstood: I thought UncaYimmy was referring to my anecdote.

Also: one protocol is to ask questions, and listen to recordings afterward for answers. The tapes would be recording the questions for framing.

 

[Denver]

Perhaps I misunderstood: I thought UncaYimmy was referring to my anecdote.

Also: one protocol is to ask questions, and listen to recordings afterward for answers. The tapes would be recording the questions for framing.

This sounds interesting, though there are also a couple things to be careful of. For one, if the question is yes/no, unfortunately static in a recording has a lot of 'ssssssss' in it, and it doesn't seem to take much to hear a 'yesss' in there, if you are expecting a yes or a no.

Also, there is confirmation bias: what about all the questions that have no answers given to them? Would the EVP researchers note that, or ignore that?

Maybe someone can put together a protocol where the tapes are interpreted by a third party, while not listening to the questions for framing, since the questions themselves can set up expectations on what the interpreter hears.

 

[blutoski]

This sounds interesting, though there are also a couple things to be careful of. For one, if the question is yes/no, unfortunately static in a recording has a lot of 'ssssssss' in it, and it doesn't seem to take much to hear a 'yesss' in there, if you are expecting a yes or a no.

Or hearing a 'no' pronounced "sbssss" - which suggests this ghost speaks Urdu with a French accent. (wow, that's exciting!)

Also, there is confirmation bias: what about all the questions that have no answers given to them? Would the EVP researchers note that, or ignore that?

I'm suspect they'd do whatever suits them, to be honest.

Maybe someone can put together a protocol where the tapes are interpreted by a third party, while not listening to the questions for framing, since the questions themselves can set up expectations on what the interpreter hears.

That would be a good idea, although it doesn't completely eliminate the cultural component of the cognitive biases that lead to pareidolia.

 

[blutoski]

That would be a good idea, although it doesn't completely eliminate the cultural component of the cognitive biases that lead to pareidolia.

Just to elaborate on this a bit... thanks to Hollywood, if you were to get ten completely isolated psychics/intuitives to visit a house and locate a trouble spot, they'll probably find the same places because they use the same criteria: cold, dark, dank, spooky.

By the same token, 'fshessh' sounds like 'yes' even if it really is static, and ten out of ten objective people will identify it that way.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Why does it matter what they're called?

If they were called "Purple Puppy Doo Doos" I would be looking for small turds purple in color.

I think the question is about how the claimants believe they're produced.

http://www.aaevp.com/faq/faq_evpitc.html#What_is_EVP/ITC

"The message, itself, is then thought to be telekinetically impressed into the recording media."

Hence, my question: Why the mic?

 

[The Master Cat]

and an even bigger question.. given that these messages are directly recorded onto devices.. why haven't all the recording studios in the world, professional and bedroom, had this phenomena crop up? Professional studios use high-quality audio devices which could easily allow them to isolate such a 'voice', even within heavy background noise - even though their recording environments are designed to eliminate background noise. I have a bedroom studio setup and in all the years I've been recording I have yet to hear anything that wasn't supposed to be there.

Also, does dying give you an intimate knowledge of digital audio? Digital audio is made up of binary code. I'm sure there are some smart people out there, but the majority of us surely wouldn't know how to inscribe binary data onto the surface of a digital recording medium without a machine. I guess ghosts are all nerds.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Also, does dying give you an intimate knowledge of digital audio? Digital audio is made up of binary code. I'm sure there are some smart people out there, but the majority of us surely wouldn't know how to inscribe binary data onto the surface of a digital recording medium without a machine. I guess ghosts are all nerds.

Fourier's ghost taught them?

 

[The Master Cat]

fourier's ghost taught them?

lol!!!!!!!!!!! :d

 

[arthwollipot]

I just went and hunted for the Skeptoid episode about EVP only to find... there isn't one!

The one I was thinking about was the Reverse Speech episode, which has a very thorough discussion of audio pareidolia. Listen to it, and you'll be amazed. It's the only Skeptoid I've listened to over five times.

 

[The Master Cat]

I just recorded and sped up the aforementioned EVP.. sounds like birdsong!

 

[Sparhawk]

Ask it what 2 times 3 is, or the square root of 4356.

 

[blutoski]

If they were called "Purple Puppy Doo Doos" I would be looking for small turds purple in color.

Well, podcasts like Skeptic's Guide are recorded electronically, too. That doesn't mean it's paranormal in origin.

It sounds like you're deliberately playing word games, and you need to appreciate that I don't have time for that.

http://www.aaevp.com/faq/faq_evpitc.html#What_is_EVP/ITC

"The message, itself, is then thought to be telekinetically impressed into the recording media."

Hence, my question: Why the mic?

Because that's what our group chose to do?

When I said "I think the question is about how the claimants believe they're produced," that would be your cue to ask "OK: what do your colleauges who set up the experiment think about EVPs?"

Instead, you went to some quote on the internet, which evaded the issue of the specific claims in my example. That's a pretty good example of a strawperson.

 

[blutoski]

and an even bigger question.. given that these messages are directly recorded onto devices.. why haven't all the recording studios in the world, professional and bedroom, had this phenomena crop up? Professional studios use high-quality audio devices which could easily allow them to isolate such a 'voice', even within heavy background noise - even though their recording environments are designed to eliminate background noise. I have a bedroom studio setup and in all the years I've been recording I have yet to hear anything that wasn't supposed to be there.

The problem with this question is that a lot of the people who are 'into' EVPs are professional recording engineers &c.

(ie: people who should know better)

Also, does dying give you an intimate knowledge of digital audio? Digital audio is made up of binary code. I'm sure there are some smart people out there, but the majority of us surely wouldn't know how to inscribe binary data onto the surface of a digital recording medium without a machine. I guess ghosts are all nerds.

My impression is that there isn't a consensus theory about this among paranormalists. They're really more excited by the mystery of it, really.

Now, Skeptics: we have a consensus around a few plausible natural origins that I think explains all examples of which I'm aware.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Well, podcasts like Skeptic's Guide are recorded electronically, too. That doesn't mean it's paranormal in origin.

In a podcast we know what happens. Acoustic energy is converted into electricity and recorded. EVPs are said to not have acoustic energy and to alter the media directly through unknown means.

It sounds like you're deliberately playing word games, and you need to appreciate that I don't have time for that.

No, I'm not playing word games. EVP has an accepted definition. It means the voice is electronic in origin. People cannot hear the voice until it is played back by a device. It mysteriously appears on the recording media electronically.

If it were called AVP as in Acoustic Voice Phenomenon, then I would expect people to be able to hear it as well as record it with a microphone, provided both were in the right location.

Thus, if I am going to try to pick up EVPs, I would not use a mic at all. All the mic does is introduce acoustic noise through which I will need to detect the EVP. Turn off the mic and the noise level will be incredibly low. I'm talking orders of magnitude lower.

Because that's what our group chose to do?

Is that how much thought you put into it? You did it that way just because?

When I said "I think the question is about how the claimants believe they're produced," that would be your cue to ask "OK: what do your colleauges who set up the experiment think about EVPs?"

Instead, you went to some quote on the internet, which evaded the issue of the specific claims in my example. That's a pretty good example of a strawperson.

I'm sorry you don't understand what is happening here. I will try to explain.

Sound pressure levels follow the inverse square law. Every time you double the distance from source to receiver, the SPL is reduced to 1/4. As an example, hold your hand right next to your ear and rub your fingers together lightly. Pretty loud, huh? Now keep doubling the distance. By the time you are arm length's away you can barely hear it if it all.

So, how loud in decibels is your finger rubbing?

This is confusing to most people because people hear about sound being X number of decibels without any mention of distance. For example, a jet engine is said to be 130dB. The obvious question is, "where?" Is it 130dB an inch away from the source? Ten feet away? 100 feet away? Same goes for something being quiet.

If a dishwasher is said to be 50dB, where is it measured at 50dB? Let's say it is 50dB @ 1m. If you move 4 meters away it will be 37dB. Same sound, different dB level. The farther away, the less energy reaching the listener (or listening device). The closer you get, the more energy. Sounds obvious, but it's very important.

My point is that the microphones in your system make the experiment a waste of time. There's a video camera say 3 meters away (rough estimate). If someone generated a noise 2cm from the microphone, that would be pretty loud from that mic's perspective. At the camera that sound would be completely swamped by the background noise of the camera and the room (roughly 73dB vs 29dB). It's why we whisper in someone's ear.

This is assuming that the camera and the recorder were equally sensitive as human ears are (roughly). The reality is that by using gain, one can make the difference in sound levels even more dramatic by changing the sensitivity. Truth is, unless you take steps to calibrate the sensitivity of the devices, they will record the same sounds at different levels.

Simply put, the tiniest of sounds right next to the mic (moving a finger or cloth over it) will be inaudible to people and devices just a few feet away. So, with a mic connected, you are definitely recording all sorts of acoustic energy. You will also be recording ordinary physical energy (bumps) and quite possibly electronic interference.

If one is trying to detect EVPs then no mic is needed because the story is the sound is recorded directly onto the media. If you were trying to detect acoustic sounds, then don't have people holding the mics and shuffling around. A good start would be to mount them in a room and leave them alone (everybody leave).

The whole video is something I would expect a 12 year old to do.

 

[not daSkeptic]

If one is trying to detect EVPs then no mic is needed because the story is the sound is recorded directly onto the media. If you were trying to detect acoustic sounds, then don't have people holding the mics and shuffling around. A good start would be to mount them in a room and leave them alone (everybody leave).

I'm surprised nobody has ever tried this before, but I suppose that's because they fear they'd end up with a completely silent recording. Playing devil's advocate for a moment, I suppose one might argue that the microphone is necessary as it is what is being electronically manipulated. I would suggest then that one remove or otherwise disable the microphone's diaphragm so as to eliminate the acoustic while maintaining the electric.

 

[blutoski]

No, I'm not playing word games. EVP has an accepted definition. It means the voice is electronic in origin. People cannot hear the voice until it is played back by a device. It mysteriously appears on the recording media electronically.

Dude: I'm well aware of it. Been working with paranormal investigators for 20 years (as a token skeptic).

You're missing my point: paranormal investigators are amateurs and have their own independent theories of everything.

This is why, for example, the JREF asks the applicants to be specific about their claim in their own words instead of assuming we know what they mean.

I think you're mistaking my report of what investigators do for some sort of justification that the practice was scientific, correct, or made any sense.

It's called 'electronic' because it's recorded on electronic media. The mechanism is unknown, but I would say it's allegedly recorded 'paranormally'.

Is that how much thought you put into it? You did it that way just because?

No, as mentioned earlier, there are several reasons for using active mics, not the least of which is framing questions asked by the investigators.

In addition, there is the past experience of it just not working when the mics are off, so the protocol is often to leave them on. The reasoning is that it is best to start by collecting data, then come up with an explanation for mechanism later.

There are different ways to record the information, too. Back in the old days, it was on cassette with those tape recorders that had built-in mics - when the record button was activated, it was not possible to independently disable the mic without cracking open the case and pulling the wires (an option). Many EVPs were recorded this way.

The digital age has altered the procedures somewhat. It has also made it more difficult to detect hoaxing/tampering.

One protocol that has been carried from the cassette days is that we used to have to purchase new cassettes and open them in front of witnesses before loading into the tape recorder. They would be removed in front of witnesses afterward, inventoried, and kept visible in front of several people at all times. Nowadays, my advice is to continue to use this protocol, but using those SD cards or whatever.

I'm sorry you don't understand what is happening here. I will try to explain.

I really don't think we're having the same conversation.

 

[blutoski]

I'm surprised nobody has ever tried this before, but I suppose that's because they fear they'd end up with a completely silent recording.

No, that's actually a common protocol: ask questions in a bunch with the recording device off, then lay down the recorder, press 'record' and leave the room. Come back when the tape would be finished, and listen.

SGU did a version of this on one of their podcasts. I believe they did this after reading a report from a local investigation group.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, I suppose one might argue that the microphone is necessary as it is what is being electronically manipulated.

Basically. Also explains why the sounds are in real-time, and also explains why they're framed by questions the investigators ask.

I would suggest then that one remove or otherwise disable the microphone's diaphragm so as to eliminate the acoustic while maintaining the electric.

Plenty of variations. Why not just leave a fresh SDmicro card laying out on the table?

&c.