skeptisim of EVPs

[Uncayimmy]

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.

If the mic is what is being manipulated, that makes it much easier to deal with.

Speaking about a dynamic mic specifically, you have a diaphragm attached to a coil around a magnet. Sound waves make the diaphragm move. This in turn moves the coil. This in turn induces a voltage in the coil. It's those voltages we record to some medium.

Now reverse the process. Put voltage into the coil. This makes the coil move in relation to the magnet. This in turn makes the diaphragm move against the air. This device is commonly known as a speaker.

If voltages are being induced in the coil by some paranormal means, we will see the diaphragm move. The laws of physics say it has to move. That means we would have a visual confirmation of what is happening. With this basic knowledge I'm sure many people could devise some good tests.

However, this begs a very obvious question: If EVP is a matter of spirits or whatever inducing a voltate in a coil, how come our home speakers never make any noise on their own? It's the same principle.

Then again, if the spirits can record "directly to the media" why does a recording device have to be involved at all?

 

[Uncayimmy]

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

Dude? I guess you started when you were a toddler.

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

Well, that's just wrong. You're making up your own defintion of EVP. The "E" does not represent the media, which is often magnetic (attempts were made with vinyl records as well). E represents the means. For example, some EVP experiments involved recording a radio tuned to an empty frequency.

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.

What? It doesn't work when you don't have people bumbling around with microphones picking up all sorts of acoustic energy that's always in the air?

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

I would think it would make it easier to detect tampering these days. In the old days I could add a bunch of noise to a tape just by handling it. Likewise tapes could add noise to themselves must by sitting there wound up on a reel.

The digital noise floor is incredibly low compared to tape (-90dB vs -60dB or so). All those sounds that were buried in the noise on tape should be crystal clear now. Unless, of course, the new EVPs reside around this new noise floor (how convenient).

How many experiments have been run by sending the same analog signal to multiple ADACs, each recording at a different bit depth and therefore different noise floor?

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

I asked why the mics were hooked up since the common definition of EVP is that it goes directly to the media itself. Since people were handling the mics, all sorts of noise was introduced making the whole thing a waste of time.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Why not just leave a fresh SDmicro card laying out on the table?

A problem with this approach is that it assumes a great deal. EVPs have supposedly been recorded on both analog and digital media, as well as both sequential (tape) and random-access (disk / memory-card) media. But the manner in which these all work are very different. An analog recording needs only basic manipulation of a signal. Digital tape recording requires the ability to manipulate a signal in such a fashion as to render it compatible with the digital recording format being used. Digital disk/card recording requires the ability to properly manipulate filesystem formats, directory structure, and audio file formats (e.g. WAV, OGG, MP3). Thus, for EVPs to be directly recordable to media in isolation from recording devices, ghosts would have to be able to do all of the above. It isn't even established that ghosts exist let alone have such capabilities.

It requires far less assumption (and is much more testable) to say that the source of EVPs is acoustic in nature, not electronic. If one controls for acoustics and EVPs suddenly disappear ... well ... I suppose we might have to start calling it AVP. But then Twentieth Century Fox would get involved and there would be lawyers and it would be messy ..........

 

[blutoski]

Dude? I guess you started when you were a toddler.

I was trying to keep it friendly. Lesson learned.

Well, that's just wrong. You're making up your own defintion of EVP. The "E" does not represent the media, which is often magnetic (attempts were made with vinyl records as well). E represents the means. For example, some EVP experiments involved recording a radio tuned to an empty frequency.

?

I'm telling you once again: most investigators don't care about internet definitions. Everybody seems to have their own theories and their own protocols.

What? It doesn't work when you don't have people bumbling around with microphones picking up all sorts of acoustic energy that's always in the air?

? Obviously.

I would think it would make it easier to detect tampering these days. In the old days I could add a bunch of noise to a tape just by handling it. Likewise tapes could add noise to themselves must by sitting there wound up on a reel.

The digital noise floor is incredibly low compared to tape (-90dB vs -60dB or so). All those sounds that were buried in the noise on tape should be crystal clear now. Unless, of course, the new EVPs reside around this new noise floor (how convenient).

How many experiments have been run by sending the same analog signal to multiple ADACs, each recording at a different bit depth and therefore different noise floor?

Regarding detecting tampering, what I meant was that I believe digital storage media makes it easier to tamper with as a hoax.

I asked why the mics were hooked up since the common definition of EVP is that it goes directly to the media itself. Since people were handling the mics, all sorts of noise was introduced making the whole thing a waste of time.

I think in the field, the definition is whatever the investigators agree it is.

It's amateur hour.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I was trying to keep it friendly. Lesson learned.

The lesson to be learned is that "dude" is not a universally or even widely acknowledged term of endearment. Some find it insulting. In popular media it is associated with teenagers who are not all that bright.

I'm telling you once again: most investigators don't care about internet definitions. Everybody seems to have their own theories and their own protocols.

This is not an "Internet definition" as you put it. The AA-EVP was established in 1982. They are a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit.

The term used in thread title is EVP. I used the widely accepted definition and asked a simple question. All I'm getting from you is the runaround about how people make up their own defintions. I got no problem with that as long as they make up their own words.

Regarding detecting tampering, what I meant was that I believe digital storage media makes it easier to tamper with as a hoax.

I'm not sure I agree. If we're talking about introducing noise, it's much easier to do it on something like a tape. It can even happen accidentally. ETA: During and AFTER the fact.

By contrast if you take a digital file and encrypt it, it's going to take a lot of work to get to that file. If you've made an exact copy and kept it somewhere else, it is incredibly easy to tell if one has been altered.

If you don't know the provenance of the recording, then I would agree that digital makes it easier to introduce spooky sounds. But if you don't know the provenance, then what good is it anyway?

It's amateur hour.

From what I saw, it wasn't even that.

 

[blutoski]

A problem with this approach is that it assumes a great deal. EVPs have supposedly been recorded on both analog and digital media, as well as both sequential (tape) and random-access (disk / memory-card) media. But the manner in which these all work are very different. An analog recording needs only basic manipulation of a signal. Digital tape recording requires the ability to manipulate a signal in such a fashion as to render it compatible with the digital recording format being used. Digital disk/card recording requires the ability to properly manipulate filesystem formats, directory structure, and audio file formats (e.g. WAV, OGG, MP3). Thus, for EVPs to be directly recordable to media in isolation from recording devices, ghosts would have to be able to do all of the above. It isn't even established that ghosts exist let alone have such capabilities.

Yes, but to the true believers... ghosts work in mysterious ways, and it seems to make about as much sense that they can lay down a pattern on magnetic tape as to say that they can lay down a pattern in iTunes format.

The principle is the same as anything else in the true believers' world: if the spirit world can project the appearance of voices by mapping some kind of mysterious changes nicely to mediums' brain tissue, why not encode bits on a memory chip in MP3? It's probably simpler, and the format is public domain.

It requires far less assumption (and is much more testable) to say that the source of EVPs is acoustic in nature, not electronic. If one controls for acoustics and EVPs suddenly disappear ... well ... I suppose we might have to start calling it AVP. But then Twentieth Century Fox would get involved and there would be lawyers and it would be messy ..........

My impression is that the investigators are in a perpetual state of data collection, rather than controlled testing. The 'right' way is the way that gets examples to share with others.

 

[blutoski]

This is not an "Internet definition" as you put it. The AA-EVP was established in 1982. They are a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit.

The term used in thread title is EVP. I used the widely accepted definition and asked a simple question. All I'm getting from you is the runaround about how people make up their own defintions. I got no problem with that as long as they make up their own words.

I hear what you're saying, but one thing I've learned in a couple decades of working with paranormal investigators is that they all think the other group is nuts.

In Canada, none of the groups I'm aware of respect the AA-EVP. Here in Canuckistan, the preference is for PSICAN standards.

 

[arthwollipot]

The lesson to be learned is that "dude" is not a universally or even widely acknowledged term of endearment. Some find it insulting. In popular media it is associated with teenagers who are not all that bright.

...I use "dude" all the time. And I'm fast approaching 40.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From the d'uh files:

So we just declare it's a ghost voice without any validation of the tool? That's my gripe about all these electronic measurements. What substantiates these electronic measurements, be they EVPs or EMR or infrared or other temperature readings, are evidence for supernatural anything?

If these pretend scientists wanted evidence, instead of acting like children with toy tesla coils, they could start by doing real science. That is, at a minimum confirm whatever phenomena they are measuring is only present where ghosts are suspected. Of course the step after that is to rule out other explanations, but I doubt the believers could even get that far.

So fake some EVPs by moving the mike, carefully matching typical EVPs. Collect recordings in random locations no ghosts are expected and locations one believes supernatural readings were obtained.

Get a number of test observers. Train them in the same way. No test observer is to hear the interpretation of any other observer and the 3 types of sample recordings are of course, double blinded.

If you can provide evidence the true EVPs are even distinguishable from the controls you have at least the rudimentary elements of actual science. Anything else is make believe before you even hit the ground.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I hear what you're saying, but one thing I've learned in a couple decades of working with paranormal investigators is that they all think the other group is nuts.

In Canada, none of the groups I'm aware of respect the AA-EVP. Here in Canuckistan, the preference is for PSICAN standards.

PSICAN standards you say. Have they done any preliminary work establishing the measurements they collect are measurements of anything other than background levels one finds randomly in non-supernatural expectation situations? I don't have time to look through the web site.

 

[Dr B]

This link, and others on this site might be useful for both psychological reasons for EVP and the underlying acoustic physics

http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Analysing audio EVP.html

 

[Dr B]

also

http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Analyzing EVP.html

 

[Uncayimmy]

...I use "dude" all the time. And I'm fast approaching 40.

No way, dude!

 

[blutoski]

PSICAN standards you say. Have they done any preliminary work establishing the measurements they collect are measurements of anything other than background levels one finds randomly in non-supernatural expectation situations? I don't have time to look through the web site.

PSICAN doesn't do experiments. They review the body of research conducted by members or outsiders, evaluate, and share best practices. Their members agree to use these best practices to maintain good standing.

 

[blutoski]

So we just declare it's a ghost voice without any validation of the tool? That's my gripe about all these electronic measurements. What substantiates these electronic measurements, be they EVPs or EMR or infrared or other temperature readings, are evidence for supernatural anything?

Well, it's the same as psi in general: it's defined by elimination of natural explanations.

If these pretend scientists wanted evidence, instead of acting like children with toy tesla coils, they could start by doing real science. That is, at a minimum confirm whatever phenomena they are measuring is only present where ghosts are suspected.

The problem is that it's circular reasoning: EVP is a way to detect ghosts, so if there's EVP, that's 'a location where ghosts are suspected'.

The assumption is that ghosts can be anywhere.

Of course the step after that is to rule out other explanations, but I doubt the believers could even get that far.

So fake some EVPs by moving the mike, carefully matching typical EVPs. Collect recordings in random locations no ghosts are expected and locations one believes supernatural readings were obtained.

Get a number of test observers. Train them in the same way. No test observer is to hear the interpretation of any other observer and the 3 types of sample recordings are of course, double blinded.

Again, though, I've warned against this. If the static just happens to sound like a voice saying "the walrus is paul", all 3 will report they heard a voice saying "the walrus is paul."

It's the same problem we find with psi transmissions. If I transmit a 'random' number that I chose myself, I probably chose 3 or 7. The recipients are probably disproportionately imagining they're receiving 3 or 7 too - because they're from the same background - and we get a false positive because of shared culture.

If you can provide evidence the true EVPs are even distinguishable from the controls you have at least the rudimentary elements of actual science. Anything else is make believe before you even hit the ground.

I think it's reached this stage, unfortunately, and will not progress beyond it.

The problem is that it's very likely to produce a false positive, even with the blinding protocols you suggest.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

PSICAN doesn't do experiments. They review the body of research conducted by members or outsiders, evaluate, and share best practices. Their members agree to use these best practices to maintain good standing.

So why haven't they noticed the glaring problem with the underlying premise electronic phenomena are the result of supernatural events or are even more common where ghost activity is suspected?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, it's the same as psi in general: it's defined by elimination of natural explanations.

As if any of these guys actually ever do rule out natural explanations.

The problem is that it's circular reasoning: EVP is a way to detect ghosts, so if there's EVP, that's 'a location where ghosts are suspected'.

Just because these guys make this apology for not using proper scientific process while claiming they are using scientific process does not make their measurements any more valid.

Again, though, I've warned against this. If the static just happens to sound like a voice saying "the walrus is paul", all 3 will report they heard a voice saying "the walrus is paul."

It doesn't stop these guys from having observers interpret static independent of each other to see if they even get standardized results.

It's the same problem we find with psi transmissions. If I transmit a 'random' number that I chose myself, I probably chose 3 or 7. The recipients are probably disproportionately imagining they're receiving 3 or 7 too - because they're from the same background - and we get a false positive because of shared culture.

And you can't generate a number randomly rather than you choosing it?

I think it's reached this stage, unfortunately, and will not progress beyond it.

The problem is that it's very likely to produce a false positive, even with the blinding protocols you suggest.

No, it's likely to debunk this make believe science.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Again, though, I've warned against this. If the static just happens to sound like a voice saying "the walrus is paul", all 3 will report they heard a voice saying "the walrus is paul."

You've done this where none of the three people had any contact with one another, and they all came to the same conclusion about the noise? Did you include any speakers of foreign language?

It's the same problem we find with psi transmissions. If I transmit a 'random' number that I chose myself, I probably chose 3 or 7. The recipients are probably disproportionately imagining they're receiving 3 or 7 too - because they're from the same background - and we get a false positive because of shared culture.

If you choose a number, it's not random.

The problem is that it's very likely to produce a false positive, even with the blinding protocols you suggest.

I read most of the page on EVP as presented by psican. It was a joke, really. I see where you got the notion that analog is somehow superior to digital. They are wrong.

That said, setting up protocols for EVP would not be all that hard. It's not rocket surgery. Skeptigirl has the right idea, though she didn't include ABX testing as part of it. In short you play A, then B, then X where X is either A or B. The listener has to tell you whether X was A or B.

Of course, you'll have to eliminate any other sources of sounds in the room and use multiple recording devices. For good measure, include ones with no external mics. And synch the separate recordings. And ensure the chain of custody including preserving the originals and distributing digital copies.

Not that I would waste my time doing it. It's much more fun to fumble around in the dark holding little recorders and giggling.

 

[mercury451]

One thing I didn't mention in my original post (and I should have) is that they went on to ask more questions to try to get more responses but gave up after 5 minutes of not receiving any more EVP's.

One other thing I'd like to respond to is that you can (if you have decent computer speakers) hear the EVP when it is first played back. The second time its played back is much louder because I had the audio person hold the mic over the recorder. But no gain was added to the audio clip.

Again, thanks for this conversation. I posted the same question on the TAPs website but got no responses. I'm not sure why...maybe just the grade of people.

 

[blutoski]

So why haven't they noticed the glaring problem with the underlying premise electronic phenomena are the result of supernatural events or are even more common where ghost activity is suspected?

I don't understand the question, sorry.