Originally posted on Monday, June 01, 2009
How to avoid getting 'EVP'
Yes, I said it- How to avoid getting "EVP", or in this case, Electronic Voice Pareidolia. I can’t begin to tell you how many false positives I have heard over the years. Everything from footsteps, a car driving by in the distance, a dog barking, an air conditioner cutting on, and even investigators whispering or talking in another room are all examples of things I have come across. There are ways to avoid all of these and they are simple. I’m not going to go off on a long tangent regarding protocol. You should know that well before you start in this field. If not, that is on you. I will however discuss equipment.
Most investigators use “Digital Voice Recorders”; while these are nice and handy, many just do not cut it for so-called “scientific” data collection. I have said it before and I’ll say it again --- Most “DVRs” are just simply too lo-fi. Many record to sub-par standards in order to allow for more storage. This degrades the quality to the point that a burp will sound like a demonic entity from outer space rather than a belch from an investigator. Unless your “DVR” records to at least CD quality (16 bit/44.1kps) then it is not cut out for data collection. Many of these voice recorders also record straight to MP3 rather than an uncompressed wav or raw format. MP3 is a compressed file format. In order to make a file smaller it cuts out commonly unused frequencies --- Or, frequencies commonly unused in music. This presents a problem because it limits your, what audio engineer’s commonly refer to as, “head room”. This, along with the AGC, will take away space in the audio and cause a crunching leaf to sound like a spooky voice saying “yes”. Some researchers also believe that these frequencies which are cut out during compression are where anomalies tend to occur. So you don’t want to limit yourself by limiting your frequency range. Same thing goes for the microphones you use. Always find the widest frequency range microphone you can find. If you are doing RTC with headphone's, find the broadest frequency responsive headphones you can find.
Another problem with “DVRs” is the previously mentioned AGC or Automatic Gain Control. This is a built in circuit that is in place to increase the loudness of the quieter sounds. It works much like an audio compressor but only increases the level when it detects a sound below a certain decibel level. This will cause distant voices to seem ghostly when they are simply someone speaking aloud in another room. Really all of these issues contribute to the problem to certain degrees.
So to put it simply, you want a digital recorder that records to wav or raw data formats at 16 bit/44.1kps or above. Not many, if any, “DVRs” have these specifications. There are alternatives, however. Rather than using a Digital Voice Recorder, look for a Digital Field Recorder. These are either aimed at creating music or broadcasting and the like. They are higher fidelity and overall better quality. I know that many paranormal investigators are using the Zoom H2 now and that is a great unit. It records up to 24 bit/96kps and records to wav or MP3. It also has the ability to turn off the AGC, along with many other nice features. I use this unit and have been thoroughly enjoying it. For example; I recently received a couple possible anomalies to review that came from a “DVR” that records to MP3 at 16 bit/32kps and uses an AGC. I was able to listen to the same spot on the audio data from the H2 and realized what seemed like a ghostly “hello” was simply someone readjusting their position and rustling some covers on a bed. So high fidelity is the way to go. I cannot tell you how many false positives are simply pareidolia. There are plenty of other Digital Field Recorders on the market ranging from $100 to $1500.
This isn’t to say that your old trusty “DVR” is not useful. You can still use it for recording personal notes or even client interviews. I personally am working on something to use my old “DVR” as a data collection device for different light spectrum's --- more on that when I get it built and working.
If you can’t, or don’t want to, dish out the money for a field recorder then there is another, albeit cheaper, option- Old school cassette tape. Even though tape does have its slight frequency limitations, and can create hiss, it is uncompressed. Sometimes cassette recorders do have an AGC circuit so you have to be careful about that. On top of all this, some researchers in the past have claimed that anomalies may show up better on magnetic tape. In fact in the earlier years of EVP research this is what was believed to cause the anomalies. As far as I know this research was never completed. People simply picked up the next handy techno gadget and ran with it.
With cassette tape you must use an external microphone to avoid recording the gears of the tape machine. This, however, is a plus because often times the external microphone you buy will have a broader frequency range than the built in microphone. You can normally buy a nice cassette recorder for $20-$50 and a nice external microphone for $15-$35. So for $40 you can have a nice tape set up. Additionally, cassette tape is dirt cheap nowadays. I once came across a red tagged deal of 50 tapes for $15.
So overall, you want to know your equipment and how it performs. You want to know its specifications and limitations. If we want the hardened skeptics to ever think twice, we are going to have to bone up on the way things are done. Offering up a pile of Electronic Voice Pareidolia is simply not cutting it and frankly, it makes the paranormal field look like a bunch of mush brained jackasses.
20/12/2009
14/12/2009
Please Validate Me!
Originally posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Please Validate Me!
Over and over it seems that groups of "ghost hunters" are going way far out of their way to validate themselves or their group. I see it with just about every newer group out there and it is sad. If you wear matching t-shirts, I am talking about you. The matching tee's with the group logo does nothing but scream "I am validated." In fact, your shirts may as well state that on the front in a spooky typeset. The only time that these shirts would be warranted is if you are in a location where security needs to know who you are. The ghosts in a cemetery do not require that your group be valid. If you design shirts and wear them in public for advertisement, perhaps it is not so bad. By all means though, remember you are representing your group when you wear it in public. At least use the common sense to not wear them to a private residence or an investigation that is intended to be kept private.
Another common thing that screams "validate me" is the paranormal "radio" show. You just have to love the mess that blogtalk is. Granted there are a few good ones out there, the vast majority of these shows suck. If you have a radio show and the majority of the time you talk up your team, it is not interesting. Only your friends and group care to listen to you polish your own turds. You are doing nothing more than begging for validation. If you want a good show, have good guests or talk about things of interest.
The easiest one to ridicule is the "TAPS family member" llama shit. I personally would not want to be tied to those dimwits. Your integrity drops by volumes when you associate yourself with TV fraud. Do you really want your research associated with trickery and made for TV horror? I would hope not. TAPS may have been a reputable group at one time. Now they are not even half respectable and by screaming "validate me" through them, you lose.
Equipment is another thing. There is nothing wrong with being a gear whore, I am one myself. When you just HAVE to have that latest shiny blinking gadget out there, you are being screwed by the business of ghost gadgetry. I still see ghost hunters breaking their bank accounts trying to purchase a thermal imaging camera. If you research how they work, you would not want one in the first place.
There are also the ones that just have to visit the big famous haunts. You know the ones, Myrtles, Waverly, Fort This and Fort That. What they fail to realize or even admit to sometimes is that most of these locations boil down to two things. You either went on a tour or "investigated" a room full of people. Going to these big locations doesn't mean jack. They don't make your team valid. Do go check them out and enjoy the tour. Most are awesome locations and need the tourism.
The truth is, if you are secure enough in your abilities as a paranormal researcher, you do not need validation. Your work will speak for itself. You do not need every bell and whistle to validate yourself. Instead of spending that money for the latest back-lit must-have EM field meter, how about spending some time reading and learning. Instead of incorporating your team, why not read up on the equipment that you use and how it works in detail. Gain validation through knowledge, not these shallow attempts at it. Hone in on your skills and not para-validity.
Please Validate Me!
Over and over it seems that groups of "ghost hunters" are going way far out of their way to validate themselves or their group. I see it with just about every newer group out there and it is sad. If you wear matching t-shirts, I am talking about you. The matching tee's with the group logo does nothing but scream "I am validated." In fact, your shirts may as well state that on the front in a spooky typeset. The only time that these shirts would be warranted is if you are in a location where security needs to know who you are. The ghosts in a cemetery do not require that your group be valid. If you design shirts and wear them in public for advertisement, perhaps it is not so bad. By all means though, remember you are representing your group when you wear it in public. At least use the common sense to not wear them to a private residence or an investigation that is intended to be kept private.
Another common thing that screams "validate me" is the paranormal "radio" show. You just have to love the mess that blogtalk is. Granted there are a few good ones out there, the vast majority of these shows suck. If you have a radio show and the majority of the time you talk up your team, it is not interesting. Only your friends and group care to listen to you polish your own turds. You are doing nothing more than begging for validation. If you want a good show, have good guests or talk about things of interest.
The easiest one to ridicule is the "TAPS family member" llama shit. I personally would not want to be tied to those dimwits. Your integrity drops by volumes when you associate yourself with TV fraud. Do you really want your research associated with trickery and made for TV horror? I would hope not. TAPS may have been a reputable group at one time. Now they are not even half respectable and by screaming "validate me" through them, you lose.
Equipment is another thing. There is nothing wrong with being a gear whore, I am one myself. When you just HAVE to have that latest shiny blinking gadget out there, you are being screwed by the business of ghost gadgetry. I still see ghost hunters breaking their bank accounts trying to purchase a thermal imaging camera. If you research how they work, you would not want one in the first place.
There are also the ones that just have to visit the big famous haunts. You know the ones, Myrtles, Waverly, Fort This and Fort That. What they fail to realize or even admit to sometimes is that most of these locations boil down to two things. You either went on a tour or "investigated" a room full of people. Going to these big locations doesn't mean jack. They don't make your team valid. Do go check them out and enjoy the tour. Most are awesome locations and need the tourism.
The truth is, if you are secure enough in your abilities as a paranormal researcher, you do not need validation. Your work will speak for itself. You do not need every bell and whistle to validate yourself. Instead of spending that money for the latest back-lit must-have EM field meter, how about spending some time reading and learning. Instead of incorporating your team, why not read up on the equipment that you use and how it works in detail. Gain validation through knowledge, not these shallow attempts at it. Hone in on your skills and not para-validity.
07/12/2009
Hypothesis: EVP and room reverberation
Originally posted on Sunday, February 08, 2009
Hypothesis: EVP and room reverberation
Here is the basic hypothesis for the research project I'm starting on. I'm posting this in an effort to not only share with others what I am working on, but I hope that if there are any inconsistencies in my method that someone will point them out. Also if anyone knows any audio experts that may be willing to take a look, please point me to them. Some basic protocol has been left out because it really doesn't need to be stated over and over again to those in the know.
Hypothesis: The basis for my research project suggests that legitimate Electronic Voice Phenomena(EVP) can not produce room reverberation like the voice of a living person in the same room. Since the idea of EVP is that the anomaly is not heard at the time of the recording, I assume that no air is ran across vocal cords to produce sound waves. Basic physics dictate that it would be impossible for these anomalies to produce any natural room reverberation without moving air to produce the sound waves. The anomalies should at the very least not possess the same reflection time as the control. Overall reflection time is expected remain static regardless of the dB range.
Testing: Controls will be recorded at the beginning of each session for each room where data is recorded. Non-compressing studio quality recording equipment will be used as opposed to low fidelity dictation devices or tape machines(which produce "hiss"). Measurements of the room will also be taken for use with the Sabine Formula. The sessions will take place in a controlled environment as to avoid any false positives. All data will also be collected only at indoor locations where rooms can be measured.
Analysis: Only "Class A" data will be analyzed. "Class A" indicates a clear, intelligible, and audible anomaly with the volume of a normal speaking voice or above (e.g. No whispers or faint
anomalies will be analyzed or reviewed). The Sabine Formula will be used to gather expected reverberation time to compare with the control data. Any anomalies will be reviewed as well and both will be used to look for any inconsistencies. I do however see some problems with the Sabine Formula because it does not take in any consideration for sound absorbing materials such as ceiling tile, carpet or large windows and doors which may allow sound waves to escape rather than to reverberate. Taking control recordings should help to adjust this. In some cases, placement of the living speaker or control may help to avoid any problems with this. Since the anomalies are obviously uncontrolled, placement won't help with them.
Added: In some cases, random anomalous noises(non-vocal) may also be analyzed, since sound waves work the same whether they are vocalized or not. However, it may be wise to use video to back up whether the noises are anomalous or not. It would also be best to use distinct sounds which are identifiable as something not present when data was recorded. For instance, a vacuum cleaner would be analyzed rather than random knocks and the like. It may be wise to remember that spontaneous noises do not indicate the existence of life after death.
I would also like to point out that this theory is pointed towards "intelligent" anomalies. Anomalies of a "residual" nature may very well contain a room's natural reverberation. Since we are unsure how residual anomalies are recorded, it is impossible to assume either way. This will be another side of this research.
Sabine Formula: I have tested the Sabine formula and found that it predicts overall reflection time with a good amount of accuracy. Since it measures overall reflection time, early reflections do not need to be reviewed. In addition, since early reflection times normally vary and are practically impossible to measure, I do not find them necessary. Overall reflection time in an average sized room is difficult enough to measure. For the most part, I find listening with the ears and brain to be the best option. The Sabine formula may still be found to be relevant at a later date and will always be there to back up the research along with the controls.
This project will be long term and I don't expect to finish next month or even next year. The main reason, though, is the tiny amount of "Class A" data I've received in the past. These things don't grow on tree's as some would believe. Please comment, ask any questions you may have or point out any flaws in my logic.
Update (12-7-09): I have managed to record one EVP matching the required criteria. Unfortunately, it was unintentionally 'stepped on' by an investigator so I could not fully analyze the reverberation. Early reflections, however, show no reverberation present.
Hypothesis: EVP and room reverberation
Here is the basic hypothesis for the research project I'm starting on. I'm posting this in an effort to not only share with others what I am working on, but I hope that if there are any inconsistencies in my method that someone will point them out. Also if anyone knows any audio experts that may be willing to take a look, please point me to them. Some basic protocol has been left out because it really doesn't need to be stated over and over again to those in the know.
Hypothesis: The basis for my research project suggests that legitimate Electronic Voice Phenomena(EVP) can not produce room reverberation like the voice of a living person in the same room. Since the idea of EVP is that the anomaly is not heard at the time of the recording, I assume that no air is ran across vocal cords to produce sound waves. Basic physics dictate that it would be impossible for these anomalies to produce any natural room reverberation without moving air to produce the sound waves. The anomalies should at the very least not possess the same reflection time as the control. Overall reflection time is expected remain static regardless of the dB range.
Testing: Controls will be recorded at the beginning of each session for each room where data is recorded. Non-compressing studio quality recording equipment will be used as opposed to low fidelity dictation devices or tape machines(which produce "hiss"). Measurements of the room will also be taken for use with the Sabine Formula. The sessions will take place in a controlled environment as to avoid any false positives. All data will also be collected only at indoor locations where rooms can be measured.
Analysis: Only "Class A" data will be analyzed. "Class A" indicates a clear, intelligible, and audible anomaly with the volume of a normal speaking voice or above (e.g. No whispers or faint
anomalies will be analyzed or reviewed). The Sabine Formula will be used to gather expected reverberation time to compare with the control data. Any anomalies will be reviewed as well and both will be used to look for any inconsistencies. I do however see some problems with the Sabine Formula because it does not take in any consideration for sound absorbing materials such as ceiling tile, carpet or large windows and doors which may allow sound waves to escape rather than to reverberate. Taking control recordings should help to adjust this. In some cases, placement of the living speaker or control may help to avoid any problems with this. Since the anomalies are obviously uncontrolled, placement won't help with them.
Added: In some cases, random anomalous noises(non-vocal) may also be analyzed, since sound waves work the same whether they are vocalized or not. However, it may be wise to use video to back up whether the noises are anomalous or not. It would also be best to use distinct sounds which are identifiable as something not present when data was recorded. For instance, a vacuum cleaner would be analyzed rather than random knocks and the like. It may be wise to remember that spontaneous noises do not indicate the existence of life after death.
I would also like to point out that this theory is pointed towards "intelligent" anomalies. Anomalies of a "residual" nature may very well contain a room's natural reverberation. Since we are unsure how residual anomalies are recorded, it is impossible to assume either way. This will be another side of this research.
Sabine Formula: I have tested the Sabine formula and found that it predicts overall reflection time with a good amount of accuracy. Since it measures overall reflection time, early reflections do not need to be reviewed. In addition, since early reflection times normally vary and are practically impossible to measure, I do not find them necessary. Overall reflection time in an average sized room is difficult enough to measure. For the most part, I find listening with the ears and brain to be the best option. The Sabine formula may still be found to be relevant at a later date and will always be there to back up the research along with the controls.
This project will be long term and I don't expect to finish next month or even next year. The main reason, though, is the tiny amount of "Class A" data I've received in the past. These things don't grow on tree's as some would believe. Please comment, ask any questions you may have or point out any flaws in my logic.
Update (12-7-09): I have managed to record one EVP matching the required criteria. Unfortunately, it was unintentionally 'stepped on' by an investigator so I could not fully analyze the reverberation. Early reflections, however, show no reverberation present.
01/12/2009
Paranormal Experts?
Originally posted on Dec. 30, 2008
It's often said that there are no "experts" in the field of paranormal research. I see this statement as an enabler for the bullshit artist. I also see it as somewhat of an untrue statement. Sure, no one has all the answers. If it was proven that life after death existed, many people would lose interest in the paranormal. At least according to many popular "reasons" that people state for belonging to this field in the first place. We're all "looking for answers", right? I believe that there are indeed experts in the paranormal field. No, these people don't have the answers, and no, they have not proven that ghosts exist. They do however know what they are doing as opposed to many who have entered the field in the past few years.
There are people who are well versed in the field of paranormal research and there are people who haven't a clue. There are people who know the difference between Gauss and EM frequency and others who don't. There are people who know who Raudive was, or Zener and Rhine, or Houdini's influence in the field, and there are people who don't. There are people unfamiliar with Harry Price and others who think Jason and Grant were the first ghost hunters. There are people who understand why a door can open by itself and people who only understand that a ghost did it. There are still people bothering with thermal imaging and IR thermometers, even though they don't work as expected by the researchers who first picked them up. And the K-II meters are still flying off the shelves... Are you still sure there are no experts in the field? The beginner is going to follow whatever is popular(or what they see on TV). That is all that they know. The experts, which I feel do exist, are going to use a bit more knowledge based logic. Why research something if common sense or other researchers have already done so and disproved the theory and/or recognized the red herring within? If you understand how an IR thermometer works and how it is not going to pick up a cold spot in the air, then why use one?
I have also met people who claimed to be "experts" when they were not. Or even worse, they are "audio experts" who don't have a clue what A/D conversion is or what it consists of.
When we say "there are no experts in the field", we enable bullshitters such as Chris Moon and the rest of the con men. To the con man, no experts equals plenty of saps. And while there are plenty of suckers in this field, we should not enable these charlatans. It makes us look bad on a whole, suddenly we all become con artist.
There is always something to learn in this field. It never stops. If it does, you have failed and should find a new hobby. There are experts in this field and they know the difference between you and them. There is no indication in the definition of expert that requires the answers:
expert
Noun
a person who has extensive skill or knowledge in a particular field
Adjective
1. skillful or knowledgeable
2. of, involving, or done by an expert [Latin expertus known by experience]
I do not consider myself an expert but I am no beginner either. There are people out there who blow me away with their knowledge. I am constantly learning and never plan to quit. This is the attitude you must possess in this field. If you stop at GH101, go hold hands and tip a table, Spiritualist.
It's often said that there are no "experts" in the field of paranormal research. I see this statement as an enabler for the bullshit artist. I also see it as somewhat of an untrue statement. Sure, no one has all the answers. If it was proven that life after death existed, many people would lose interest in the paranormal. At least according to many popular "reasons" that people state for belonging to this field in the first place. We're all "looking for answers", right? I believe that there are indeed experts in the paranormal field. No, these people don't have the answers, and no, they have not proven that ghosts exist. They do however know what they are doing as opposed to many who have entered the field in the past few years.
There are people who are well versed in the field of paranormal research and there are people who haven't a clue. There are people who know the difference between Gauss and EM frequency and others who don't. There are people who know who Raudive was, or Zener and Rhine, or Houdini's influence in the field, and there are people who don't. There are people unfamiliar with Harry Price and others who think Jason and Grant were the first ghost hunters. There are people who understand why a door can open by itself and people who only understand that a ghost did it. There are still people bothering with thermal imaging and IR thermometers, even though they don't work as expected by the researchers who first picked them up. And the K-II meters are still flying off the shelves... Are you still sure there are no experts in the field? The beginner is going to follow whatever is popular(or what they see on TV). That is all that they know. The experts, which I feel do exist, are going to use a bit more knowledge based logic. Why research something if common sense or other researchers have already done so and disproved the theory and/or recognized the red herring within? If you understand how an IR thermometer works and how it is not going to pick up a cold spot in the air, then why use one?
I have also met people who claimed to be "experts" when they were not. Or even worse, they are "audio experts" who don't have a clue what A/D conversion is or what it consists of.
When we say "there are no experts in the field", we enable bullshitters such as Chris Moon and the rest of the con men. To the con man, no experts equals plenty of saps. And while there are plenty of suckers in this field, we should not enable these charlatans. It makes us look bad on a whole, suddenly we all become con artist.
There is always something to learn in this field. It never stops. If it does, you have failed and should find a new hobby. There are experts in this field and they know the difference between you and them. There is no indication in the definition of expert that requires the answers:
expert
Noun
a person who has extensive skill or knowledge in a particular field
Adjective
1. skillful or knowledgeable
2. of, involving, or done by an expert [Latin expertus known by experience]
I do not consider myself an expert but I am no beginner either. There are people out there who blow me away with their knowledge. I am constantly learning and never plan to quit. This is the attitude you must possess in this field. If you stop at GH101, go hold hands and tip a table, Spiritualist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
