www.pacificparanormal.com

LESSON #2:  Defining Class C EVPs
I thought I would get us going on a discussion of Class C EVPs by continuing the thread I began as a series of articles--or, rather, a series of lessons to help our forum visitors sort out the murky process of identifying and classifying audio evidence.

Class C EVPs are the most common variety, and the ones you will most likely capture as an investigator just starting out.  Why are they the most common, you may ask?  Probably because they're the least likely to be paranormal.  Some could be paranormal, certainly, but they're usually too obscured to say with any certainty that they're not caused by some other normal acoustic source in the environment, much less interpret what exactly they're saying.  Filters and equalization can help, but ordinarily so much augmentation of the original sound source is required that what you're listening to more often than not is an artifact of the filtering.

Here are a few of the main reasons that Class C EVPs typically do not stand up to scrutiny or are not admitted into the final record of evidence.

• White Noise Matrixing:  There's an entire cult of paranormal enthusiasts dedicated to the "capture" of white noise EVPs.  Probably the most infamous of these is a west coast woman named Charli, who has referred to her coffee pot as a spirit communication portal.  Although the title of her book is "The Coffee Pot Ghost," Charli doesn't make claims her percolator is haunted; rather, she believes the white noise generated by the brewing coffee is a medium through which transient spirits are stopping by to say hello.  She's collected thousands of alleged EVPs this way, and she inspired a generation of ghost hunters to create white noise generators in order to create more optimal conditions for detecting these sotto voce spirits.  More often than not, what is captured instead is just a lot of white noise, recorded with equipment that has even greater acoustic precision than the human ear can discern. People expect white noise to be static and random, but the truth is that it is really a confluence of random sounds whose waves occasionally intersect to create musical notes, or whose cadence and patterns occasionally sound a little like human speech.  Why don't we hear revving cars and recitations of the Ghettysburg Address instead of human spirits chattering away?  Because our brains are conditioned to recognize human voices and human faces, and to make order out of chaos--a psychological phenomenon referred to as pareidolia.  We just can't help ourselves.  It's the same phenomenon that occurs when you watch static "snow" on your television:  when it looks like some of the static is moving with intent in a single direction, it isn't really; it's just your brain finding intent.  So it goes with most White Noise matrixing in EVP.  This isn't to say that every poor quality EVP is just a load of matrixed white noise.  However, a sizable amount of it is.  And, to make matters worse, many will attempt to convince themselves and others that it is not merely white noise, by performing as much cosmetic surgery on the clip as they can.  I'm speaking here of over-filtering.
  
  
• Over-Filtering: In an effort to isolate what is suspected to be a very quiet EVP, the anomalous sound is first amplified, which boosts the volume on the white noise in which the anomaly is embedded.  This is usually a disappointing result, so the anomaly and the white noise are both subjected to further fiddling-about:  equalization to tease out the quieter high-pitched details, reduction of bass, high pass filters, and noise reduction.  To quote the witless cosmetic surgery victim in Terry Gilliam's masterpiece, Brazil, "My complications have had a little complication."  A perfect little mess results, all in an effort to create a stable beauty.  There's a psychological component to this sort of EVP, too, which explains why some are so defensive and religious about it:  they've invested so much work trying to make the EVP clearer and more audible that they begin to find the sounds in the noise that will validate their efforts.  An overly filtered EVP generally points back to an overly determined evidence analyst, who has confused alchemy for science.
  
  
• Environmental Sounds:  People often make the mistake of thinking that a recording source imitates the human ear in its discernment of environmental sounds.  A scream may be heard in the evidence that the analyst knows for sure wasn't heard in the environment, so it must be an EVP.  Well, no.  Like it or not, our sound equipment hears better than we do.  Its range is far more sensitive, and audio recording devices are only becoming more so in time.  Our equipment is designed to enhance sounds in the environment, so it should come as no surprise to us that we hear things in the audio we didn't hear when we were in the environment where we recorded it.  A sneeze in your neighbor's house might register on a digital voice recorder as a whispery "Hey!" in your living room.  Perhaps the best example of this problem in the field of paranormal investigating lies with a piece of equipment once thought of as the great "white noise" hope of EVP and AVP recording:  a parabolic dish mic.  It's designed to converge sound into a narrow, compressed area at the focus of the dish:  one could point it in almost any direction and hear things the human ears could not detect.  For a while, its results were so fantastic that people thought it proved spirits to be ubiquitous.  The problem was, it created a very focused "column" of sound, and the termite munching on the foundation was heard almost as clearly as the squealing brakes of the taxi on 4th and Maple.  Ironically, all that exacting focus didn't make it any more discerning.  The parabolic mic still has its advocates today and, to be fair, its full potential is still being debated.  However, this sort of error commonly occurs with technology we presume to be dependable, but which cannot always discern between sounds near and far.   Sometimes these minor moments of cacophony occur because we aren't entirely in command of the acoustic environment:  we're not noticing noises or shutting out unwanted audio contamination.  Other times, they occur because we don't think of ourselves as a source of environmental noise.  Our whistling noses, or our gastric gurgles, or even our stretching vocal cords--all these can create some funny sounding stuff, and unless a video recording has documented what is occuring in the environment (as it should, of course), the source of the anomaly may never be sussed, leading one to conclude presumptuously the anomaly is an EVP.  'T ain't necessarily so.

This hasn't been an all-inclusive discussion of Class C EVPs, but it's a good start because, honestly, if you're just getting started with EVP hunting, this classification is the one you'll probably be working with.  And why not?  Throw yourself deeply into the part if you want to train yourself to analyze EVP.  Capture, catalog and analyze dozens of them in a single sitting. A healthy attitude about Class C EVP is that they're the small fry you gently dislodge from your fishing hook and throw back into the water to wriggle away.  However, if you want to learn how to cast a fishing line, you have to get used to catching fish that are not "the big one."  Trust me, you'll know when the really impressive EVP is calling to you.

White Noise Matrixing	Over-Filtering	Environmental Sound
Example 1 My name is "no one" (http://www.pacificparanormal.com/articles/EVP_Classifications/Class_C/Class_C_WN1_EVP.mp3)  (Caution:  audio clip is loud) This EVP requires repeated listening, and even in its enhanced form it is difficult to hear anything.  Something, however, IS buried in the white noise.  Is it a voice?  Or, is it a random convergence of sound waves?	Example 1 Whispering sweet nothings 1 (http://www.pacificparanormal.com/articles/EVP_Classifications/Class_C/Class_C_OF1a_EVP.mp3) Whispering sweet nothings 2 (http://www.pacificparanormal.com/articles/EVP_Classifications/Class_C/Class_C_OF1b_EVP.mp3) The first of these two clips captures what sounds like a gravelly whisper.  The second clip uses a noise reducing filter to enhance it.  What results sounds distinctly like a girl's voice.  However, the DVR evidence proves the original sound was caused by a nylon jacket rustling as the investigator walked across the floor.	Example 1 Yeah, Mikey. (http://www.pacificparanormal.com/articles/EVP_Classifications/Class_C/Class_C_ES1_EVP.mp3) This one creeped me out a little at first.  It sounds as though a possessed male spirit is making fun of me after I've just said the source of a light anomaly is the rim of my glasses.  You'll hear what sounds like "Yeah. Mikeeeeee."  Actually, it's me stretching my vocal cords as I'm turning my head, and saying, "Yeah.  It might be."
Example 2 Emoticon of the dead? (http://www.pacificparanormal.com/articles/EVP_Classifications/Class_C/Class_C_WN2_EVP.mp3) This bit of random noise could be a ghostly sigh.  However, the sound quality of the audio is so bad that it's more likely an artifact of the digital voice recorder trying to clarify the silence.	Example 2 Listen to all three of these clips first and then read on. Inhuman growl 1 (http://www.pacificparanormal.com/articles/EVP_Classifications/Class_C/Class_C_OF2a_EVP.mp3) Inhuman growl 2 (http://www.pacificparanormal.com/articles/EVP_Classifications/Class_C/Class_C_OF2b_EVP.mp3) Inhuman growl 3 (http://www.pacificparanormal.com/articles/EVP_Classifications/Class_C/Class_C_OF2c_EVP.mp3) What you've heard is a stomach growl captured, amplified and then noise reduced into what sounds like a human voice.  In this instance, my stomach really was talking to me.	Example 2 Things that go bump in the night (http://www.pacificparanormal.com/articles/EVP_Classifications/Class_C/Class_C_ES2_EVP.mp3) In this alleged EVP, a male voice seems to offer a one-word response to my question, but is it everything it seems?  Outside, on the adjacent road, the staccato rhythm of cars driving over a speed bump provides the clue of its likely origins, but, to be honest, we're still not entirely sure.  The coincidence of speed bump sounds, however, forces us to rule this out as a reliable datum of evidence.
Example 3 Tumbleweed (http://www.pacificparanormal.com/articles/EVP_Classifications/Class_C/Class_C_WN3_EVP.mp3) This EVP is a lesson in restraint.  It's probably a true EVP, but it's too faint, and the conditions too unreliable, to admit it as evidence:  a eleven-year-old girl was involved in this investigation, and her whereabouts could not be verified at this particular moment.  It doesn't dismiss the reality that something like the word "tumbleweed" is anomalously captured in this audio.		Example 3 Bang! You're dead? (http://www.pacificparanormal.com/articles/EVP_Classifications/Class_C/Class_C_ES3_EVP.mp3) In this clip, mysterious bangs and the faint utterance of a disembodied spirit are captured in an empty garage on wireless audio.  Wow!  Voice of the dead?  Yes, and no.  In the kitchen next door, one of the investigators was trying to determine if a mic was picking up sound and slapped the counter three times; he informed the others that the mic was dead.

Again, by no means should this introduction to Class C EVPs be taken as the be-all and end-all of the discussion about their salient features and their reliability.  However, is a starting point for you to consider the factors that need to be weighed in the determination of the most prolific class of EVP entered into the record, and the most misidentified classification at that.  And, what are those factors?

Sounds in the immediate environment (including yourself):  announce ANY sound you hear in the environment that might be mistaken later for a paranormal anomaly.

Corroborating evidence:  use a video recorder, or other audio recorders, in the same recording session so as to verify the presence of an anomalous voice, or to attribute it to a visible acoustic source.

Over-determination:  keep your own attitude in check about how badly you want to find something in the evidence; get a second opinion about whether or not you're making too much out of the evidence.

Understanding your equipment:  know the strengths and limitations of your audio recording devices, and anticipate how they might create audio artifacts mistaken as EVP

Be realistic: force yourself, no matter how painful it may seem, to discount evidence that will not convince others or persuade them to hear what you hear, even if you think it's an actual EVP.  Keeping a skeptical attitude about your own evidence will build your credibility, and when you're ready to stand by an EVP as hard evidence, others will take you more seriously.

Next time, we'll take on the most difficult category of EVP:  Class B.  For now, we'll categorize this discussion as "Class Dismissed." ;)

Thx for the informative post Karl.

Quick question.  I know there is no "right and wrong" answer, just looking for PPI's theory on this.  Rather then enhancing an EVP to bring it above the background noise, how do you feel about instead filtering out the ambient noise itself, leaving the EVP on it's own?  For example, instead of trying to bring the "voice" over the "hiss" of the recording, removing the "hiss" instead.

Quote from: MichaelF on March 01, 2008, 07:43:38 PM
Thx for the informative post Karl.

Quick question.  I know there is no "right and wrong" answer, just looking for PPI's theory on this.  Rather then enhancing an EVP to bring it above the background noise, how do you feel about instead filtering out the ambient noise itself, leaving the EVP on it's own?  For example, instead of trying to bring the "voice" over the "hiss" of the recording, removing the "hiss" instead.

That's a fair question, Michael.  One major problem I've experienced in trying to isolate an EVP from the "surrounding" frequencies is that they ordinarily are so very brief, that without the context of the white noise they scarcely make sense.  The ear needs to take in the couple of seconds of the "native" sound before and after the EVP in order to recognize it at all.  (I'll try to post a clip in here to demonstrate what I mean.)

Also, if you intend to present your EVP as evidence to others, it's essential that it be left relatively unaltered by filters, but only mildly enhanced in ways easily reproduced.  Soap-ing the file to elevate the voice above the hiss is fine for demonstration purposes, but if the clip is offered only in this way, its integrity will be questioned. It's analogous to those Weekly World News stories claiming to have captured the face of Satan in the billowing smoke of the 9-11 attacks:  all it takes is a little filter or two to isolate a pattern above the chaos and make it seem like it's more than it is.  With EVPs it's crucial that, for every modified version of the clip, you also make available the original version so that the listener has a clear, unspoilt, and honest idea about how far you've taken the enhancements.  Try to keep a detailed log of the type and degree of enhancement you've made, too, which will establish the clip's integrity.

Sometimes a good practice is to go on-line and listen to as many EVP clips as you can find, posted on private websites.  What leaves you unconvinced and why?  What "wows" you and why?  Those same factors should influence how you select, enhance and present your own EVPs.  And authenticity means everything.

Besides, tell me this isn't really Burgess Merideth. . . .

Here's an example of what can happen when EVPs are set against the background of filtered white noise, or just a simple reduction in volume.  The first clip contains the filtering.  The second is an unaltered version of the clip.  This is probably one of our more impressive captures.  It contains two separate responses to the investigator's question.  The second EVP in this clip (a Class A anomaly) holds its own in your suggested style of enhancement, but the first (a Class B anomaly), which is not as strong or clear an answer as the second, does not; in fact, without its context, one might not even be certain it contains a word.  I'm not saying this will be universally true for all Class C EVP, but the factors that make them poor in the first place usually end up being isolated and showcased all the more, rather than just the EVP alone.  Give a listen to the following audio to see what I mean:


Here's the transcript:
DW:  Junior Officers, huh?  How old were you?
EVP 1:  [male; adult] Twenty.
EVP 2:  [male; adult] Twenty-seven.

WOW Karl, that was an awesome example with the Junior Officers ones.  When your were explaining, I wasn't quite sure what you meant, but those two comparisons nailed it.  With the background noise there, your ears are able to "settle in," and then isolate the EVP.  Without the background noise, all you get is a burst of sound, that makes it hard to tell what is said.

I've casually been searching for and listening to EVP's sorta all my life, but only recently has my life reached a point where I can start to investigate "seriously."  Thanks a lot for the help, information, and time.

Quote from: MichaelF on March 01, 2008, 11:13:43 PM
WOW Karl, that was an awesome example with the Junior Officers ones.  When your were explaining, I wasn't quite sure what you meant, but those two comparisons nailed it.  With the background noise there, your ears are able to "settle in," and then isolate the EVP.  Without the background noise, all you get is a burst of sound, that makes it hard to tell what is said.

I've casually been searching for and listening to EVP's sorta all my life, but only recently has my life reached a point where I can start to investigate "seriously."  Thanks a lot for the help, information, and time.

Great!  I'm glad that worked well to explain it.  My personal preference for "clarifying" ambiguous EVPs is to leave the sound as it is and to mark a waveform in the locations I think the voices are occurring.  It's usually just a matter of performing a screen capture but, of course, you have the option to add other info such as the text of the clip.  (Some of my colleagues prefer to use a spectrum graph instead.)

thats crazy the second one sounds like 22 to me idk lol thats just me