[KinGensai]

It seems to me to be a stretch that not only is there some part of human hearing that we don’t understand but we are also inadvertently recording whatever that property might be on equipment that was designed and built to record what we do understand.

Also, if the recording equipment has captured something that exists in real world sounds but we still don’t understand wouldn’t we then be able to measure it because it has been captured on equipment that we do understand ?

I don't know where you fall on paranormal stuff, but mics/ADCs pick up EVPs that are inaudible to humans on occasion. Sometimes it's audible, but most of the times I've come across it it's of the inaudible variety.

If nothing else, I think that is an indicator that there are factors beyond our current understanding in the actuality of sound.

 

[gregorio]

Only one guy among them was into HiFi in any sense, but he basically was like me in his approach (even if he probably had a differing worldview).

I agree with what you said about audio engineers, although in my field of audio engineering pretty much everyone is into HiFi, although in the literal sense of “high fidelity” rather than in the sense than many audiophiles seem to use it.

I think the common way that the "subjectivist" and "objectivist" divide in audio is defined is simply that subjectivists "trust their ears" and objectivists "trust the measurements".

Again, I agree that’s the common way most audiophiles seem to use/define the terms, but that is why they are wrong! I would certainly be classified as an “objectivist” because I ”trust the measurements”, however, I also “trust my ears”. The apparent difference between me and a typical audiophile subjectivist is that I trust both the measurements and my ears, but I trust them for different things! I trust the measurements to tell me the actual properties of the audio/sound and I trust my ears to tell me what I (and many/most others) perceive. Measurements are generally inaccurate or even completely useless in some cases for determining perception, while our ears are generally inaccurate/imprecise (compared to measurements) or completely useless in some cases for determining audio/sound properties. And, as pretty much any competent professional, I use the right tool for the job. That means in my case, I trust my ears a lot of the time, because my job is primarily concerned with how my decisions will affect the perception of my clients/consumers. So effectively, I am primarily a subjectivist but am falsely described in audiophile terminology as an objectivist, while the actual reality is that I’m actually both (and without conflict)!

Pretty much all discussion about sound on Head Fi is in respect of recorded music. That music is recorded on man made equipment that is designed and built in accordance with our current knowledge and technology. If we can only record items A, B and C that make up what we need to faithfully replicate a song how can we possibly hear D within that recording that might be some intangible thing that we don’t yet understand about human hearing ?

Exactly and that is the simple logical flaw which sinks so much of the audiophile belief/nonsense! In fact, it’s even simpler than that because we can only record and reproduce A, there is no B or C, so we cannot possibly hear B, C (or D or anything else)! Digital audio is just a measurement of one thing: Voltage amplitude over time. That’s the only thing we can record or reproduce, so if there were something that cannot be captured with that measurement, then it cannot exist when reproducing a digital audio recording.

G

 

[gregorio]

I don't know where you fall on paranormal stuff, but mics/ADCs pick up EVPs that are inaudible to humans on occasion.

No, they don’t. Mics pick up sound waves (relatively fast variations in air pressure) and some amount of RF or other EMI, depending on their construction/design. Mics also introduce (rather than “pick up”) their own noise/distortion, due to the fact they’re electro-mechanical devices.

If nothing else, I think that is an indicator that there are factors beyond our current understanding in the actuality of sound.

What mics actually pick up (or introduce) does not indicate or even hint at any “factors beyond our current understanding in the actuality of sound”. In fact, quite the opposite, it confirms our current understanding of sound!

G

 

[KinGensai]

No, they don’t. Mics pick up sound waves (relatively fast variations in air pressure) and some amount of RF or other EMI, depending on their construction/design. Mics also introduce (rather than “pick up”) their own noise/distortion, due to the fact they’re electro-mechanical devices.

What mics actually pick up (or introduce) does not indicate or even hint at any “factors beyond our current understanding in the actuality of sound”. In fact, quite the opposite, it confirms our current understanding of sound!

G

Is it then your contention that EVP and ITC (instrumental trans-communication) are strictly pareidolia and entirely explainable by mundane circumstances?

 

[gregorio]

Is it then your contention that EVP and ITC (instrumental trans-communication) are strictly pareidolia and entirely explainable by mundane circumstances?

It’s my contention that mics only pick up/introduce what I mentioned. I have no idea what causes the perception of EVP and ITC, although pareidolia seems highly probable.

G

 

[KinGensai]

It’s my contention that mics only pick up/introduce what I mentioned. I have no idea what causes the perception of EVP and ITC, although pareidolia seems highly probable.

G

This is probably getting a bit off topic, but I'm intrigued now, hopefully this tangent won't go long.

For the vast majority of cases involving EVP from it's introduction as a concept with Edison[1] and early recorded instances of EVP[2] (Szalay & Bayless for example), I agree that it's pretty much all attributable to pareidolia and apophenia with a big side of expectation bias from priming[3]. This isn't a phenomenon exclusive to parapsychology, it happens in clinical psychology and all the different subtypes of adversarial psychology as well. I'm absolutely positive we agree on this one since we both accept DBTs/ABX as a sound standard for scientific testing.

However, that applies to the instance of EVPs as defined by Konstantin Raudive in his book on the topic. Since that time, multiple different classes of EVP have been recorded and classified, with the most convincing being in tandem with video recordings to help debunk other possible mundane causes of the sound. These all have their problems of course, namely that the conditions are not as strictly controlled as would be ideal (Skinwalker ranch comes closest to that maybe?) and the conditions being currently unrepeatable due to our inability to causally link the stimuli to the result.

Of these newer classes of EVP, I'm mostly in the camp of expectation bias combined with pareidolia until the noise created is clearly captured by a piece of recording hardware (as in clearly above the noise floor and intelligible) and is not heard by anyone at the time (which would be evidenced by a lack of reaction to that sound). This would encompass the unintentional capture of electronic only EVP or the intentional attempt to capture EVP via spirit recording (record using a digital recorder, say something, stay silent for a period). The other types of EVP capture are too dubious to count as anything besides circumstantial evidence IMO.

So the question I have is this: If there is no physical sound for people to detect in the moment, and if even other mics/ADCs didn't capture it, what is that phenomenon being recorded?

[1]: Clark, Ronald W. (1977). Edison - The Man Who Made the Future. G. P. Putnam’s Sons.
[2]: Senkowski, Ernst (1995). "Analysis of Anomalous Audio and Video Recordings, presented before the "Society For Scientific Exploration" US – June 1995"
[3]: "Effects of Priming on the Detection of Paranormal Phenomena: Evidence from an Online Psi Task", Chris A. Roe, Caroline Watt, & Kirsten Hodgson, Journal of Parapsychology, 2015, 79, 209-217. DOI: 10.30891/jopar.2015.01.04

 

[gregorio]

So the question I have is this: If there is no physical sound for people to detect in the moment, and if even other mics/ADCs didn't capture it, what is that phenomenon being recorded?

I already effectively answered that question. If there were no physical sound for people to detect, the phenomenon being recorded would be “some amount of RF or other EMI” and some amount of self noise/distortion produced by the mic, mic pre-amp and other electronic components in the recording chain, for example tape hiss or in the case of ADCs, dither. Any/All of these phenomena are detectable by people (when listening) given sufficient amplification. However, your question is purely hypothetical because there is always “physical sound for people to detect”.

G

 

[KinGensai]

I already effectively answered that question. If there were no physical sound for people to detect, the phenomenon being recorded would be “some amount of RF or other EMI” and some amount of self noise/distortion produced by the mic, mic pre-amp and other electronic components in the recording chain, for example tape hiss or in the case of ADCs, dither. Any/All of these phenomena are detectable by people (when listening) given sufficient amplification. However, your question is purely hypothetical because there is always “physical sound for people to detect”.

G

Yeah, the most frustrating thing about this stuff is the inability to replicate any alleged findings. I think there are distinct phenomenon happening besides normal noise in some of these recordings, but questions of motive and ease of fabrication makes credible evidence too difficult to come by.

 

[gregorio]

I think there are distinct phenomenon happening besides normal noise in some of these recordings, but questions of motive and ease of fabrication makes credible evidence too difficult to come by.

I’m not sure what you mean by “normal noise”? Assuming you mean physical (sound) noise, self (electronic/thermal) noise and tape hiss or dither, then that would leave us with the distinct phenomenon of “some amount of RF or other EMI and some amount of distortion”, the amounts depending on the construction/design of the mic and the settings employed on other equipment (say tape head alignment, mic pre-amp gain settings, etc.). We seem to be going round in circles, effectively repeating the same thing?

G

 

[KinGensai]

From what I understand, you are saying this is a mundane and completely debunking explanation, I'm saying this doesn't mean it's strictly a mundane phenomenon, but that distinction relies on interpretation which is inherently flawed and difficult to subject to scientific scrutiny in the contexts these recordings are made in.

 

[gregorio]

From what I understand, you are saying this is a mundane and completely debunking explanation, I'm saying this doesn't mean it's strictly a mundane phenomenon,

If it is a mundane and completely debunking explanation, how is it not a mundane phenomenon?

but that distinction relies on interpretation which is inherently flawed and difficult to subject to scientific scrutiny in the contexts these recordings are made in.

Aren’t you just arguing semantics? Sure, science cannot prove a negative, so in a sense there cannot be a “completely debunking explanation” and therefore this phenomenon could be real, just as unicorns, mermaids, faeries and leprechauns could be real because science cannot prove they do not exist.

Also, we could argue about the meaning of “mundane”. There are some effects, such as cross-modulation or electronic resonances interacting with radio frequencies that may cause the demodulation of FM radio signals, resulting in us clearly hearing parts of radio transmissions through electronics without an explicit FM receiver unit. This can and does happen but it’s not common/mundane. Additionally, the interaction of noise is complex, we’re not talking about a single noise source but the combination of noise sources; self noise of the mic, self noise of the mic pre-amp and other electronics in recording chain, as well as the noise floor of the recording venue, which is itself a combination of various different noise sources. Furthermore, the only noise source guaranteed to produce a truly random result is dither, so unless we’re only summing different TDPF dither sources, the summing of noise sources will not result in entirely random noise. EG. Even recording in the same venue with the same equipment in the same position using the same settings, can/will result in differences that vary over time and are discernible (audible). This has a practical consequence, most notably in the field of Dialogue Editing in film/TV and the efforts required by the Dialogue Editor with regard to manipulating/manufacturing “Room Tone” (noise floor), a required skill dating back to the 1930’s. While this is all entirely mundane, though not noticed (hopefully) by consumers, very occasionally the result of this noise floor interaction is quite bizarre/surprising, unexpected patterns can emerge and this is not mundane.

G

 

[KinGensai]

What I'm arguing is that the nature of alleged EVPs rely on interpretation via context. Unlike organisms that are valid in theory but unsound due to no recorded evidence existing, some kind of kinetic or electromagnetic energy was recorded by these analog and digital systems, so the question comes to eliminating non paranormal explanations (audio engineers involved with these teams do this sometimes, I'm not in that field so I can't judge their work) and ruling out random chance by context. That's why it's difficult to make a conclusion in most of these cases, no matter how much contextually relevant intelligible sounds are captured, it won't ever be enough to overcome a standard of beyond reasonable doubt because it's conceivable that random chance could cause such chains of events.

I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind, I'm trying to explain that the causal relationship between the phenomena and the context surrounding it leaves room for doubt as to it's mundanity(by which I mean it's an event entirely understood and replicable without anomalous circumstances).

 

[castleofargh]

Astronomers have the "it's never alien" saying. Not because they think life couldn't have developed somewhere else at some point in time in this gigantic universe of ours, but because in practice, with enough time and tools, it turns out that we still don't have anything solid about it. And most of what we initially thought of as evidence, turned out to have alternative possible explanations or failed replication (like the life on Mars thingy).
Doesn't mean astronomers or usually biologists, would refute new evidence, scientists are scientists, and what could possibly be cooler than discovering new life forms in the universe? But the burden of proof is staggeringly heavy on the shoulders of the next guy saying it's alien. Rightly so.
I think it's the same with ghosts or telepathy or whatever someone thinks he has found within the noise picked up by any random device. Until someone firmly demonstrates that it is, it isn't.

 

[KinGensai]

@castleofargh
I agree. I do not concur with people who use the literature, sparse as it is, on the topic of EVPs as some sort of evidence for the soundness of some already existing ideology. Approaching anomalous phenomena like this with a conclusion already made up is classic motivated reasoning.

I admit that I have a bias in this topic, of course. I think our level of metaphysical understanding of actuality is still very shallow, so I am endlessly curious about anomalies like these. It has to do with my personality no doubt (type 5s like me have a heavy tendency to be drawn to the esoteric and occult). I just want to know the truth of the matter, and currently, the people closer to achieving repeatability on this topic are the parapsychologists given that the matter has not been definitively settled by a refutation via successful replication via null hypothesis.

 

[gregorio]

I think our level of metaphysical understanding of actuality is still very shallow, so I am endlessly curious about anomalies like these.

This is where I have a problem: There are no “anomalies”, there’s just a combination of noise and distortion sources. And, as there are no anomalies, then obviously there is no understanding of them. So maybe you are talking about “metaphysical understanding” in the sense of some sort of conception/appreciation of some imaginary thing/creature/phenomena but then of course we’re not talking about actuality and a shallow level of this conception/appreciation doesn’t make sense?

G