EVP recording

Andrew Flexing

Hi all,

Sorry probably this has been discussed before but just wondering what people use for recording EVPs. I was never really interested in them until recently so would like to start focussing on them on investigations more.

Digital v tape recorders? what do you use?

any other tips...?

thanks

maccored

anything that gives you a high quality recording. A good mic, cassette recorder and tape are much better than the standard mp3 recorder. people dont seem to realise that the more hours your digital audio can record, then chances are, its recording in ****e quality. unless of course you have a 5 or 10 gb data card attached.

Good quality recordings take up space, which is why many people opt for tape. if the recording isnt good, then you wont be able to properly analyse it without having to deal with mp3 artifacts.

For audio I use cassettes, a Boss Micro and a laptop with Logic Pro and Edirol FA101 with four SM58s (though condensor mics would be better .. thats assuming mics have anything at all to do with EVPs). The audio recorded on any half decent video camera is good as well.

Ziycon

EVP is a bit of a waste of time as there is no grounding that what your hearing is anything more then rouge radio waves or static. The analysis outcome is similar to that of a 'Franks' box where matrixing is a very viable cause for whats being heard.

But if you are going to go down that line and 'investigate' it use as high a quality recording equipment you can get, try and stick with digital device to get away from the analog recording devices for best results.

maccored

a franks box incorporates radio signals. you want to avoid that kind of radiation. the best idea is to datalog RF signals (and any others you can get sensor for) at the same time as making the recordings.

Same time, I dont call the laugh in this matrixing ... http://leinsterparanormal.com/EVP/laugh.mp3

maccored

Ziycon wrote: »

try and stick with digital device to get away from the analog recording devices for best results.

How is digital better than analogue? In most cases, its worse.

DublinWriter

maccored wrote: »

How is digital better than analogue? In most cases, its worse.

No background tape hiss with digital, so less chance of aural peridolia on the part of the listener.

Also far less chance of RFI with a discreet digital recording circuit.

Ziycon

maccored wrote: »

How is digital better than analogue? In most cases, its worse.

Maybe I phrased it wrong, I would advise staying away from tape devices to help rule out hisses or other rouge sounds that you would get on a tape that comes with wear-and-tear of a tape being reused. You could get around this by buying a new tape for every recording but then it becomes quite expensive over time.

DublinWriter

Ziycon wrote: »

hisses or other rouge sounds that you would get on a tape that comes with wear-and-tear of a tape being reused. You could get around this by buying a new tape for every recording but then it becomes quite expensive over time.

You will always get hiss on analogue tape recordings, the age of the tape doesn't matter, it's a characteristic of the medium (no pun intended).

Ziycon

DublinWriter wrote: »

You will always get hiss on analogue tape recordings, the age of the tape doesn't matter, it's a characteristic of the medium (no pun intended).

My point was that over time you'll get other issue with tapes if there reused it wasn't at any specific hiss or sound.

Yeah Yeah Yeah

maccored wrote: »

a franks box incorporates radio signals. you want to avoid that kind of radiation. the best idea is to datalog RF signals (and any others you can get sensor for) at the same time as making the recordings.

Same time, I dont call the laugh in this matrixing ... http://leinsterparanormal.com/EVP/laugh.mp3[/QUOTE]

Sounds strange indeed. Like scoffing "haw" x 4 and after last one taking in a breath, like someone with bad chest? Sounds "human" right enough.

maccored

we only heard it afterwards when reviewing the video. None of us at the time heard it.

Yeah Yeah Yeah wrote: »

maccored wrote: »

a franks box incorporates radio signals. you want to avoid that kind of radiation. the best idea is to datalog RF signals (and any others you can get sensor for) at the same time as making the recordings.

Same time, I dont call the laugh in this matrixing ... http://leinsterparanormal.com/EVP/laugh.mp3[/QUOTE]

Sounds strange indeed. Like scoffing "haw" x 4 and after last one taking in a breath, like someone with bad chest? Sounds "human" right enough.

maccored

Use a quality recorder and mic and you dont get hiss (well to a degree). Tapes cant be tampered with - digital can. Plus people dont understand digital quality and tend to go for recorders that have longer recording time rather than high quality (but shorter recording time). This makes me go for tape over digital any day of the week (though I use both).

Some people use parabolic mics ... and I really dont get that. I think the biggest problem in paranormal research is many, many people just havent a clue about the equipment, what equipment to use or how to use it.

If for example, people didnt buy gadgets like melmeters, KIIs or franks boxes and put the money instead into quality recording equipment and datalogging gear then there might actually be a better chance of capturing something. Unfortunately its rare to find teams who actually have any kind of a clue at all.

Ziycon wrote: »

My point was that over time you'll get other issue with tapes if there reused it wasn't at any specific hiss or sound.

maccored

I disagree on both counts. Bad quality mp3s will give you plenty of artifacts to get peridolia'd about. Both tape and digitial recorders will pick up radio interference. Besides, you should also be datalogging the radio interference anyway.

DublinWriter wrote: »

No background tape hiss with digital, so less chance of aural peridolia on the part of the listener.

Also far less chance of RFI with a discreet digital recording circuit.

maccored

I missed this the last time.

You are absolutely correct ... tapes do get expensive. But still though, if somethings worth doing, its worth doing right. At the same time though, we dont do a massive number of 'investigations' per year - we only go somewhere if it seems the person is being genuine so we might only do 10 cases a year. Doesnt work out too expensive that way.

Ziycon wrote: »

EVP is a bit of a waste of time as there is no grounding that what your hearing is anything more then rouge radio waves or static. The analysis outcome is similar to that of a 'Franks' box where matrixing is a very viable cause for whats being heard.

But if you are going to go down that line and 'investigate' it use as high a quality recording equipment you can get, try and stick with digital device to get away from the analog recording devices for best results.

DublinWriter

maccored wrote: »

I disagree on both counts. Bad quality mp3s will give you plenty of artifacts to get peridolia'd about.

Most people who are serious about EVP research wouldn't dream of using 'mp3's - uncompressed wav files are usually the norm.

Digital is still far less susceptible than analogue for RFI because the circuitry after the analogue to digital input stage will not pick up RFI.

maccored

Personally I use both - but many, many many people dont even understand the differences between full quality 24 bit audio and an mp3 ... unfortunately. Dont get me wrong, it *should* be the norm ... but it isnt.

Im not too worried about RF to be honest, as long as Im using an RF sensor at the same time.

DublinWriter wrote: »

Most people who are serious about EVP research wouldn't dream of using 'mp3's - uncompressed wav files are usually the norm.

Digital is still far less susceptible than analogue for RFI because the circuitry after the analogue to digital input stage will not pick up RFI.

DublinWriter

Just listened to the cormacvinnie file. I can hear a middle aged female voice say 'shut that front door' in a southern English accent at 3 seconds.

maccored

when that was recorded, there was only me (cormac) and vinnie. He was on one side of the room and I was on the other. The EMF changed at the same time that there appears to be something (is that when you heard that?) Ive never been able to figure out what it was ....

I have a weirder one for you if I can find the file ...

maccored

http://www.musicfrombands.com/kitchen2.mp3

I don know what you'll hear in that, but what I hear makes no sense. Three of us in a small house ... you can hear us talking way in the background. Theres something else that shrills its way over our voices for a few secs .... havent a clue what it was. All i can say is that it was captrued on 8 recorders, all pretty loud yet we didnt hear it and we were only feet away.

DublinWriter

maccored wrote: »

http://www.musicfrombands.com/kitchen2.mp3

I don know what you'll hear in that, but what I hear makes no sense. Three of us in a small house ... you can hear us talking way in the background. Theres something else that shrills its way over our voices for a few secs .... havent a clue what it was. All i can say is that it was captrued on 8 recorders, all pretty loud yet we didnt hear it and we were only feet away.

Are you talking about the voice that starts around 1.2 and ends about 4.0 with a kind of 'eh' sound at the end?...or was that somebody in the room?

maccored

thats what im talking about ... we are talking quietly.

DublinWriter

That's nuts. I originally thought it was someone from your group, the voice was that clear.

What I'm hearing is a young female. It sounds like a common modern Dublin inner city accent when you first hear it, but it's a lot softer and for some reason sounds to me more like an old North County Dublin accent, it reminds me of how my granny and some of her neighbours from old Swords and Rolestown of the 1930's used to speak.

The speech has typical EVP speed and rythym. What I heard was the following:

"You know what? When we were in (the room) f*ckers could eat our souls. Heh!"

I've put "the room" in brackets because this is not at all clear and took me several attempts to work out. The word "souls" also sounds like "clothes" but when you slow it down by about 20% the 's' sound becomes obvious.

What's even more bizarre is when I reversed this section. A young female voice with a posh Dublin accent clearly and slowly says "What are you offering Brian?"

Creepy, or wha?!?

maccored

i could never work out what its saying. The only thing I can think of would be radio interference (had no datalogging system then). It was on all the recorders though - 8 of them I think so that would be a fluke for radio interference. Never really figured that one out.

DublinWriter

maccored wrote: »

i could never work out what its saying. The only thing I can think of would be radio interference (had no datalogging system then). It was on all the recorders though - 8 of them I think so that would be a fluke for radio interference. Never really figured that one out.

It really sounds much clearer backwards. Do listen to it again.

maccored

backwards and slowed down 20%? I'll try that ..

Fuzzy Clam

maccored wrote: »

The only thing I can think of would be radio interference (had no datalogging system then). I

It is absolutely not RFI. I can assure you of that, as someone who is an RF engineer.(but I've said this before and you ignored it)

What is interesting is that the vocal has the same amount of reverb as your voices which suggests that he/she was in the same room at the time of the recording.

maccored

I wont argue with you .... if its not RF then thats fine with me. There wasn't anyone else with us though. It was a very small cottage - literally four rooms with a corridor running down the middle.

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

It is absolutely not RFI. I can assure you of that, as someone who is an RF engineer.(but I've said this before and you ignored it)

What is interesting is that the vocal has the same amount of reverb as your voices which suggests that he/she was in the same room at the time of the recording.

maccored

I tried slowing it down and putting it backwards but it still makes no sense to me. When its backwards though, it does sound distinctly different than us talking int he background ... maybe because its just much louder.

If someone could solve that one for me, I'd die happy. Just rest assured, there were only three of us there and that wasnt one of us.

Andrew Flexing

Is the Slowed by 20% and reversed clip posted here?

maccored

no - i have the one I reversed and slowed down at home. I'll upload it later

maccored

Andrew Flexing wrote: »

Is the Slowed by 20% and reversed clip posted here?

I only put this up as you have asked ... personally I hear nothing in it, bar it seems louder and different than our own voices. It sounds as garbled as it did the other way

http://www.leinsterparanormal.com/sound2.aif