The Ghosts We Think We See

[Dave]

Extrodinary claims have always required extrodinary evidence and this is no different.

And no extraordinary evidence has been brought forth. I see no reason to believe that ghosts are playing with tape recorders.

[Dave]

Well, what is your rational response to these stories?

Casey

No such thing as ghosts.

[Vigile]

Christianity is Bullshit...fine...most here know that.

But as far as things relating to this thread's subject, we know jack shit.

 

I hate blind faith, but I also hate arrogant people that think they know everything.

I love science...but it doesn't have the answers to absolutely everything.

 

We talk so much around here about being "free-thinkers" but when it comes to things like this we aren't at all.

We simply type in a link to some scientist that has "debunked" something and go about our way.

 

I disagree. We know alot about these things actually. We know that urban legends, anecdotal evidence, extraordinary claims without proof, etc... are the same stuff of myth that xianity was built on.

 

When we say so we get the Sam Jackson response to Travolta's credulity in the "

" scene of Pulp Fiction:

 

Travolta: What do you want from me?

 

Jackson: *Maniacly screaming* I want you to admit it was a miracle!

 

Not me. I'm not going to have my free thinker status questioned just because I refuse to believe jacked up stories that get pandered around factory break rooms. I'm not going to take seriously the yellow journalism of shows like Mysteries of the Extraordinary Claims, or whatever flavor Fox is peddling this week.

 

Being a free thinker does not mean having to take seriously, or even that we have to weigh every single story humanity can pass around the water cooler. As soon as there is a "real" piece of evidence offered that can be peer reviewed, then I'm not wasting my time wondering about what secrets I might be missing out on or denying.

[mwc]

Do ghosts exist? I don't know...and neither do you. We simply have opinions on the subject. Evidence may prove us all wrong 50 years down the line.

I agree...mostly.

 

We don't know. There is no credible evidence. If people wish to investigate then that's perfectly fine.

 

But my default position of belief on items of this nature is "none." I don't believe. The reason is that all items in this general category has simply come up empty so far. So when people started talking about little bacteria and whatnot I'm sure people chose to disbelieve straight away. Now when people mention a new bacteria they have no problems believing right off because the history is there.

 

I bring this up to address your "what if in 50 years?" scenario. If, in 50 years (I'll probably be dead), but if not there is a discovery or two in this field I will listen and each subsequent discovery will make the next easier to take without mountains of evidence...but this first breakthrough has to occur and the history of man-kind is so far against it. That's a piss-poor track record for something that has such an equally long belief in the existence and interaction with "ghosts" (spirits, etc.) and their realm (and vice-versa). Not one verifiable claim is really rotten when you look at the time frame.

 

But if tomorrow someone invents a "ghost busting" device and I see spooks getting sucked into vacuums I'll reconsider my position (especially if a huge marshmallow man starts running amok).

 

mwc

[RedPillAddict]

http://www.aaevp.com/ - American Association of EVP

 

I just listened to the audio clips on that site. They seem legit if you read what you are supposed to be hearing.

But, I also noticed that if you tell yourself the voice is saying something else, with similar sounding syllables, you hear that just as well. Some of them are actually pretty lame.

[Jun]

http://www.aaevp.com/ - American Association of EVP

 

I just listened to the audio clips on that site. They seem legit if you read what you are supposed to be hearing.

But, I also noticed that if you tell yourself the voice is saying something else, with similar sounding syllables, you hear that just as well. Some of them are actually pretty lame.

 

Agreed.

 

I have seen no actually scientifically verifiable evidence to support any of the claims made by the EVP camp. I've seen no evidence that people can see/hear ghosts either. I think that it has something to do with the mind - imagination and incomplete understanding of everything around us. Perhaps our myths and tales of ghosts have couloured our very expectations.

[Grandpa Harley]

There has been some interesting field work done linking infrasound and strong local magnetic fields with senses of 'dread' and auio-visual hallucinations...

 

and there is the far end of the normal distribution curve stuff where people who live on their senses have told tales that really don't fit normal paradigms.

 

In the end, to say there are no objective ghosts is probably as close to correct as makes no odds. However, reality has a major subjective edge, since we all live inside our own heads... No two people see the same rainbow, even though there is an objective source phenomenon. The human brain is Terra Incognita, replete with tygeres, dragones and daemones... and standing on the shores is as good as we've got. Someone once said that our technology for mapping the brain is like trying to workout the rules of American Football by using a stethoscope on the outside of a stadium while there's a game on... In the end, the best we can say is 'I don't really know'...

[Jun]

There has been some interesting field work done linking infrasound and strong local magnetic fields with senses of 'dread' and auio-visual hallucinations...

 

and there is the far end of the normal distribution curve stuff where people who live on their senses have told tales that really don't fit normal paradigms.

 

In the end, to say there are no objective ghosts is probably as close to correct as makes no odds. However, reality has a major subjective edge, since we all live inside our own heads... No two people see the same rainbow, even though there is an objective source phenomenon. The human brain is Terra Incognita, replete with tygeres, dragones and daemones... and standing on the shores is as good as we've got. Someone once said that our technology for mapping the brain is like trying to workout the rules of American Football by using a stethoscope on the outside of a stadium while there's a game on... In the end, the best we can say is 'I don't really know'...

 

Well put Gramps.

[Guest Marty]

Marty or mCAT perhaps either of you would care to comment on this, from the AAEVP site -

 

By Jove, where do I begin? Basicly, what I gathered from that page was this: "It is easier to get EVP's if you use crappy, noisy gear with the worst internal spec's you can get. The noiser and inaccurate the internal electronics, the better. I mean they even suggest to put the mic in a box?!?!?!?!

 

I also cannot believe they actually recomend using low sample rates to record. This proves my line of thinking that they are misinterpreting anamolies of the technology. I cannot get into the specifics of analog to digital conversion, but it is basicly a virtual x/y graff. It also helps to understand something called the Nyquist theory. Nyquist states that in order to have a lossless sampling of audio (meaning you capture the entire range of human hearing; 20Hz to 20kHz) your sample rate must be TWICE the highest frequency to be recorded. IOW, if I want to capture a 20kHz signal, my sample rate needs to be no less that 40kHz. They made the CD standard 44.1 to help avoid something called alising, which is way too much to get into, but put short, bad filtering in the high end of the spectrum will cause anomolies in lower parts of the spectrum. Converters have things called anti-alising filters that try and combat this. The cheap recorders obviously use cheap filters, thus you get cheap digital encoding.

 

You have 2 basic things that go into digital encoding. Sample rate and bit depth. The sample rate is the time element, and the bit depth encodes the dynamic information. i.e. loud to soft. The standard for CDs is 16 bit/44.1kHz (that's 44,100 samples per second) sample rate. It is considered the lowest professional standard, anything lower is consumer. Professional studio recordings are usually done at 24 bit/44.1, although we now have up to 96kHZ sample rates. When you combine the sample and bit rates, you get the x/y graff. The higher sample rate, the more "pictures" you have of the waveform. The deeper the bit rate, the more detail you can store, especially in the lower, quieter parts of the signal.

 

When you zoom into a digital wave form down to the sample level you can see what is called "quantization error". Because of the way PCM (pulse code modulation) works, you do not see a smooth wave form, but rather a "stair step" pattern. Imagine using a piece of graff paper to draw a wave form. If your paper has boxs that are 1" sqaure your drawing will not look much like a smooth waveform. If the paper has boxs that are a 1/2", you get a bit better representation of a waveform. Make them a 1/16th" and it will have even more detail. If it was the size of a Plank length it would be better than analog! Thus the more samples/bits you use, the more detail your recording will have, especially on soft things like the decay of a reverb tail or saliva in a singer's throat as they whisper into the mic.

 

I hope I am making sense so far to everybody.

 

If you use small sample rates and bit depth dephs, you distort the original signal. This distortion gets worse the more you reduce the clock settings. To use an example of quantization distortion, Stephen Hawking's voice box is an 8 bit recording. I'm not sure of the sample rate, but it is probally around 11kHz or so.

 

All of the other suggestions they have are, IM(professional)O, pure, utter bunk. All of the equipment they recomend has lots of unnesscary doo-dads (that's a techie term) that are not needed for the proper function of the device, and do nothing but add noise to the signal. i.e. use a mic with adjustable sensitivy. Mics are the first in a chain of equipment and as such needs to be EXTREMELY accurate and razor flat in response. You are only as strong as the weakest link in the chain, we've all heard that saying. It really applies when you are doing critical recording. MP3's should NEVER, EVER be used for any sort of critical listening. An MP3 file is 1/10th of the file size of a .wav file. That is EXTREMELY lossless encoding!

 

There were a few incorrect statements too, such as

 

They work about as well as reel-to-reel, but we think this is because of the use of vacuum tubes in reel-to-reel recorders.

 

The only reel to reel decks that use vacuum tubes are $30,000 beheamoths the size of a washing machine, if even that. They haven't made a tube open reel deck (to my knowledge) since the transistor was invented. I've worked on 30 year old MCI and Studer 2" 24 tracks and they were both completly solid state. In my studio I have a 1/2" Teac 8 track that is solid state and even has LED meters instead of the old school VU meters!

 

There are a couple things I don't understand the reasoning behind either, like using voice activated recording. This works by setting a certain threshold which will trigger the recording deck. If a sound is too soft, no recording. They are also usually set either too sensitive or not enough, so you get choppy audio. If you are serious about these things, you should strive to get the cleanest audio possible, and these VAR modes do not do anything but cut off the transients and decay of a signal. Don't be lazy, record and listen to everything you can!

 

If I were to go to a haunted house and try to capture an EVP, this would be my signal chain:

 

1) A calibration microphone made by a company called Earthworks. It is razor flat in response and the cost starts at around $1,000 for one mono, omnidirectional mic. The mic would be placed on a suspension mount that will help isolate the element from sub-sonic rumbling of A/C units and handeling of the mic itself.

 

2) The cleanest mic pre amp I could afford. The cleanest, most accurate pre I have ever worked with would be a Grace Designs pre amp. There are others, probally much better too. These too start at about $1,000/channel.

 

3) That signal would then be fed into the best converter I could find. I would NEVER use the converters that come with the recorder. There are a million converters on the market, but again, I would expect to be paying at least $500-$1,000 on this part of the chain too. This step is just as important as the mic. The converter would be set to the highest standard we have today, which would be 32 bit/96kHz.

 

4) Since I work in studios, I would feed the digi signal into a Pro-Tools HD rig, although at this point, the editor is not all that important anymore, because the signal is now nothing but 1's and 0's. I'm not sure if PT will read 32 bit files, so my bit depth may need to be reduced to 24.

 

5) I would then bring my files back to a studio that has been acousticly designed. I would want to use some accurate monitors as well. I use KRK V8's as my speakers, and I like them, but they are not the most accurate monitor on the planet. I would not use any sort of program or plug in that would "clean up" the signal, as that too, will leave artifacts.

 

I'm no expert on sound recording at all - but this all sounds rather "hocus pocus."

 

I completely agree. Untill I see someone capture an EVP with a signal chain similar to the one I outlined above, it will be nothing but a pseudo-scientific endeavor.

[Grandpa Harley]

I'd concur... EVP is, to me, nothing more than aural Rorschachery

[Dave]

For those that want to learn more; here is a link to a Skeptical Inquirer article.

[Jun]

Basicly, what I gathered from that page was this: "It is easier to get EVP's if you use crappy, noisy gear with the worst internal spec's you can get. The noiser and inaccurate the internal electronics, the better. I mean they even suggest to put the mic in a box?!?!?!?!

 

The reason why I highlighted those bits in red.

 

It's good to hear things from someone in the know. Now, how do we go about getting this on Myth Busters?

[Grandpa Harley]

Myth Busters? JEsus, Mary, Joseph and their Donkey... don't get me started on that SHIT...

[Jun]

Myth Busters? JEsus, Mary, Joseph and their Donkey... don't get me started on that SHIT...

 

Is Myth Busters sh!t? I've never seen it, but I've seen it advertised everywhere.

[Grandpa Harley]

and we all know what quality gets advertised...

[Jun]

and we all know what quality gets advertised...

 

Well, I don't have a TV.

[Grandpa Harley]

Well, myth busters is not worth getting one for...

[Dave]

Myth Busters? JEsus, Mary, Joseph and their Donkey... don't get me started on that SHIT...

Is Myth Busters sh!t? I've never seen it, but I've seen it advertised everywhere.

People like Mythbusters.... until it busts their favorite myth.

[Grandpa Harley]

Myth Busters? JEsus, Mary, Joseph and their Donkey... don't get me started on that SHIT...

Is Myth Busters sh!t? I've never seen it, but I've seen it advertised everywhere.

People like Mythbusters.... until it busts their favorite myth.

Ah, Dave the cunt tells me what I think... charming... It's basically trash tv that asks questions that one pretty much knows the answer to if one has an IQ of more than single figures and an attention span greater than that of a gnat...

 

 

don't you have goats to bother or something?

[mwc]

Seems someone doesn't care for Mythbusters.

 

I personally like it. I liked it better when it was just a once and while show way back when it started since they've kind of ran out of myths since but I still find it fun to watch (although I think it's rather insulting when they put up the "Science warning" signs now...I mean seriously...but I like to think that means the people that think these myths are true are probably watching which might be a good thing).

 

So don't watch the show looking for anything deep...you won't find it...but if you want to see watercooler myths and "bar bet" type stuff put to the test they do a pretty decent job (and they blow things up ). Soon they'll be irradiating cockroaches to test to see if they'll be the only thing to survive nukes. See? Fun stuff. What more could you ask for from special effects folks?

 

mwc

[Grandpa Harley]

Seems someone doesn't care for Mythbusters.

 

I personally like it. I liked it better when it was just a once and while show way back when it started since they've kind of ran out of myths since but I still find it fun to watch (although I think it's rather insulting when they put up the "Science warning" signs now...I mean seriously...but I like to think that means the people that think these myths are true are probably watching which might be a good thing).

 

So don't watch the show looking for anything deep...you won't find it...but if you want to see watercooler myths and "bar bet" type stuff put to the test they do a pretty decent job (and they blow things up ). Soon they'll be irradiating cockroaches to test to see if they'll be the only thing to survive nukes. See? Fun stuff. What more could you ask for from special effects folks?

 

mwc

 

you'd like Brainiac -Science Abuse better... the one about igniting petrol with a mobile phone was a great one... wearing nylon outer wear is more likely to do it... but then Brainiac actually nods in the direction of science, since I saw a similar MB and they tried to ignite the liquid not the vapour....

[Kelli]

you'd like Brainiac -Science Abuse better... the one about igniting petrol with a mobile phone was a great one... wearing nylon outer wear is more likely to do it... but then Brainiac actually nods in the direction of science, since I saw a similar MB and they tried to ignite the liquid not the vapour....

 

I saw that show. They did try to ignite the vapor. They actually filled the entire enclosure with a vapor mixture as close to the explosive point as they could get it.

 

I like Mythbusters, and yes it is funny what people believe to be true, like the idea that lightning is less likely to strike you if you're wearing rubber soled sneakers.

(Waits for someone to point out that she believes in the possibility of such things as ghosts, LOL...)

[Kelli]

I stated my credentials in the field of broadcast engineering. I don't know where you've heard or read the idea that you should use the lowest quality equipment and lowest sample and bitrates. In years of paranormal study, I have never once heard or seen that suggested. I don't doubt that someone has, but I just haven't seen it. I have heard a heap of other ridiculous things suggested, such as using white or pink noise as a background source for recording, or even a radio tuned in between stations. Supposedly this "aids the spirits" in imprinting the recordings. Nonsense.

 

I agree that recordings should be made in the most laboratory-like conditions possible. This isn't always practical. I use the most advanced equiopment I can afford, which unfortunately doesn't consist of Neumann or Earthworks mics and $1,000 preamps.

 

Marty, you are quite obviously very knowledgeble in the audio engineering field. You gave an excellent technical explanation on digital recording. We agree on most points, especially the one about using software to 'clean up' recordings. IMO if a recording is so unintelligable that you have to resort to trying to 'clean it up' then it isn't worth keeping anyway. The distortion and artifacts introduced by these noise removal processes are not at all acceptable and I do not use them.

 

That said...

 

Though the equipment and conditions you describe would be ideal, I disagree that they are absolutely necessary. Though a completely flat mic would be ideal, I can make perfectly good recordings with an SM-58, for example. (I can hear you laughing now...) Is the response flat? No, but what is the point of completely flat response? The 58 is within 5 dB from 100 Hz to 10 kHz at optimal range. I'm not interested in recording frequencies below 100 Hz or above 10 kHz anyway, as the human voice is well within that range. The 58 also has some qualities that make it idea for this type of recording. First, it has a tight cardioid pattern, which means I'm less likely to pick up unwanted background noise. It also becomes less sensitive at the lower end of the spectrum with distance, also making it ideal to eliminate unwanted low-frequency rumbles.

 

Now, I could pick from 100's of mics to use, but I use the 58 as an example because it is a readily available mic that everyone in this industry is familiar with.

 

As for the rest of the chain, I agree, less noise, less distortion, flattest response is definitely the most ideal. But just because my response curve isn't +/- 1 dB and my noise floor isn't -130 doesn't mean I can't get a good, useable recording.

 

Another line of thought here, and I sort of ride on middle ground on it because I don't use it as an excuse to use extremely low-grade recording methods, is that if EVP's are truly caused by intelligent entities with the capability and desire to imprint their voices in recording equipment, then capturing them shouldn't be that difficult. No more difficult than picking up a cassette recorder and hitting the record button to record your own voice. And I have found that to be the case.

[Guest Marty]

I don't know where you've heard or read the idea that you should use the lowest quality equipment and lowest sample and bitrates. In years of paranormal study, I have never once heard or seen that suggested.

 

I got it off the AAEVP website page that Jun posted here. EDIT: it's post #18.

 

Though a completely flat mic would be ideal, I can make perfectly good recordings with an SM-58, for example. (I can hear you laughing now...) Is the response flat? No, but what is the point of completely flat response?

 

Having a razor flat mic itself wouldn't help or hurt. It's just that the better mics are flatter. I did lol at the mention of a 58. My beef with it is that it is a dynamic mic, great for recording a screaming voice or drums, but does not have the detail of a condenser. A 58 isn't what I would call a quiet mic either. Earthworks mics have very low internal noise. That is my main reason for choosing their mics. When great electronics are used in the design of a mic, the response is flat. 58's and such are heavily EQ'd internally too. I just want the straightest line from the diaphram to the input of the pre amp.

 

I'm not interested in recording frequencies below 100 Hz or above 10 kHz anyway, as the human voice is well within that range.

 

Are we recording human voices or ghosts? Are ghosts still human? We don't know exactly what it is we are recording, right? Earthwork mics actually go up to 30kHz, I would just want to capture everything I could, you never know what might be at the extreme ends of the spectrum. You can always filter out un-needed stuff later. We didn't know elephant's "talk" to each other untill some researcher recorded a group of them and later sped up the recording to bring the sub-sonic "language" up into the human hearing range.

 

But just because my response curve isn't +/- 1 dB and my noise floor isn't -130 doesn't mean I can't get a good, useable recording.

 

Oh, here I completely agree. But if you have a high noise floor, then soft sounds can become masked by it, and may confuse the listener as to what they are hearing. It is not needed to have these spec's, but I would want to isolate my recording from anything that might be mistaken for an EVP, and a noisy recording will make it harder. If we are studying the unexplained, I want to have control over the explained in order to seperate the two.

 

if EVP's are truly caused by intelligent entities with the capability and desire to imprint their voices in recording equipment, then capturing them shouldn't be that difficult. No more difficult than picking up a cassette recorder and hitting the record button to record your own voice. And I have found that to be the case.

 

I agree here too. But then, why don't they? Putting aside our professional experience, I have never heard an EVP on my voicemail, or on any episode of Myth Busters I've taped (sorry Gramps, I just had to throw that in there! ) And I would also think that if an intelligence is behind EVP's they would have something more profound to say than "Get out of here!" or "Help me". Just like proofs for the existence of a creator, I feel that natural explanations are a much simpler and elegant cause behind these things.

[mwc]

I agree here too. But then, why don't they? Putting aside our professional experience, I have never heard an EVP on my voicemail, or on any episode of Myth Busters I've taped (sorry Gramps, I just had to throw that in there! ) And I would also think that if an intelligence is behind EVP's they would have something more profound to say than "Get out of here!" or "Help me". Just like proofs for the existence of a creator, I feel that natural explanations are a much simpler and elegant cause behind these things.

And with that attitude why would they want to leave you any voicemail???

 

 

mwc