Creating Electronic Voice Phenomena through Ultrasound

[Verklagekasper]

Hi there,

I just made a video on how one can fake Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) without manipulating the recorder or the recorded files. It shows how to create an ultrasound sample that is inaudible but can become audible when recorded by a digital recorder or tape recorder. Check the clip for a full explanation and demonstration:



Cheers!
Burkhard

[Harryprice]

Interesting stuff! You say it is a method for 'faking' EVP. In fact, it is very easy to produce 'real' EVP with ordinary sound sources. Just take low volume ambient sounds, like moving furniture, and apply noise reduction to accentuate any frequency peaks, then remove all frequency components above 3000 Hz. In reviewing such a recording you should be able to isolate short clips that sound like voices. These changes fool our brains into thinking they might be hearing human voices.

If you are proposing your method as a way someone might fake EVP, I can't see the point as it is easy to get 'real' EVP by processing methods like those above (used by some EVP researchers, unwittingly making ambient sounds more voice-like). The big problem is that people might misinterpret your method as meaning EVP is derived from ultrasound, just as some people believe ghosts are visible in infrared! There is a myth that digital cameras are more sensitive to infrared than film cameras. The sensors are indeed more sensitive to IR but the camera manufacturers put permanent filters into cameras to remove it! I'm not sure if sound recorder manufacturers put filters into their machines to prevent aliasing - I suspect the in the more expensive models they may do.

[Verklagekasper]

If you are proposing your method as a way someone might fake EVP, I can't see the point as it is easy to get 'real' EVP by processing methods like those above (used by some EVP researchers, unwittingly making ambient sounds more voice-like).

I know that you can tamper with samples using "noise reduction", making them sound more voice-like. Well, I presented a method which works without tampering with the sample in post-procession, which can even be used on other peoples' recorders, and which yields determined results. If you can't see a point in that, well ok. But I guess I would have had a hard time creating "Merry Xmas and a happy new year" by recording ambient sound.

The big problem is that people might misinterpret your method as meaning EVP is derived from ultrasound, just as some people believe ghosts are visible in infrared!

The video is about how to create EVP by ultrasound. Just that. So far, I haven't seen anybody interpret it otherwise, so I think I was clear enough.

[Harryprice]

I know that you can tamper with samples using "noise reduction", making them sound more voice-like. Well, I presented a method which works without tampering with the sample in post-procession, which can even be used on other peoples' recorders, and which yields determined results. If you can't see a point in that, well ok. But I guess I would have had a hard time creating "Merry Xmas and a happy new year" by recording ambient sound.

Are you implying that anyone is faking EVPs? My point is that it is so easy to makle 'real' EVPs that I cannot imagine anyone would bother to fake it.

If you were presented with a recording that might, or might not, have been made by your method, how would you detect if it had?

The video is about how to create EVP by ultrasound. Just that. So far, I haven't seen anybody interpret it otherwise, so I think I was clear enough.

When Persinger showed that certain low frequency magnetuc fields could produce hallucinations resembling ghosts in certain people it seemed quite clear. However, years later people were claiming that ghosts actually emit magnetic fields! I guarantee someone will take your method and say it demonstrates EVP comes from spirits using ultrasound.

[Verklagekasper]

I'm not implying anything, and I don't regard it to be a big problem, let alone my problem, if people interpret it to mean that EVP is derived from ultrasound.

[Harryprice]

I'm not implying anything, and I don't regard it to be a big problem, let alone my problem, if people interpret it to mean that EVP is derived from ultrasound.

It could turn into a problem, as outlined. So please explain how to detect it!

[Verklagekasper]

It could turn into a problem, as outlined. So please explain how to detect it!

You cannot tell from a recording whether the sound you're hearing is an artifact caused by ultrasound. There's no special feature of these artifacts that would make them identifiable as such.

[bruce]

I think the point that Burkhard is making, is that by using this method, it would be possible to engineer a 'positive result' in an experiment, without the collusion of any of the participants.

Nice work, Burkhard.

[Harryprice]

You cannot tell from a recording whether the sound you're hearing is an artifact caused by ultrasound. There's no special feature of these artifacts that would make them identifiable as such.

What about resampling the recording at differemt frequencies to see if affects the intelligibility of the 'voice'?

I think the point that Burkhard is making, is that by using this method, it would be possible to engineer a 'positive result' in an experiment, without the collusion of any of the participants.

But who would do that and why?

[Verklagekasper]

Nice work, Burkhard.

Thank you!

[Cuddles]

But who would do that and why?

People who want other people to be convinced about EVP. As for the why, I have no idea. There are frauds in pretty much every other area of woo, so I don't see why EVP should be any different. Given how many of them spend most of their time digitally manipulating noise to make it sound more like voices, using ultrasound is hardly any more blatant.

[Harryprice]

People who want other people to be convinced about EVP. As for the why, I have no idea. There are frauds in pretty much every other area of woo, so I don't see why EVP should be any different. Given how many of them spend most of their time digitally manipulating noise to make it sound more like voices, using ultrasound is hardly any more blatant.

I really doubt there are many fake EVP recordings around. It is so easy to make 'real' ones that there is absolutely no point. Anyone who wants to can make recordings and, if they tend towards belief to start with, soon convince themselves.

[Cuddles]

It is so easy to make 'real' ones that there is absolutely no point.

I agree. Yet some people clearly do. As it is, pretty much all the instructions, software and so on for creating "real" EVP requires, or at least strongly suggests, some kind of digital manipulation. The rationale is that you're not actually manipulating it, you're just making the already obvious magical ghost voices more clear. If your argument is that the only real EVP comes from simply recording ambient sound and imagining you hear voices, there is probably very little real EVP around at all.

In any case, this is largely irrelevant. The point of this thread was not to claim that all EVP is created using ultrasound, or even that a large proportion of it is. It is simply that this is a possible method by which it could be done. Think of it in terms of magic tricks. A lot of tricks have more than one way of being done. The mark of a really good magician is not simply doing a trick, it's doing a trick and showing that it couldn't have been done in any of the ways you know. If you want to know what a magician is doing, it's not enough to find out a single way a trick could be done and then stop, you need to think about any way it could possibly have been done, even if you have no idea if it's been done before or not.

In my opinion, that's what Verklagekasper has done here. Sure, most EVP is not made using this method. But some might be, or could be in the future. What happens if someone comes along who can prove that they are not simply listening to ambient noise or manipulating files after recording? Now we can say "Sure, but what about this other method we happen to know of?".

[Harryprice]

I agree. Yet some people clearly do.

How do you know? How would you detect a deliberately fraudulent EVP? I'm not convinced fraud is anything other than incredibly rare in EVP, given how easy it is to do the 'real' way.

If your argument is that the only real EVP comes from simply recording ambient sound and imagining you hear voices, there is probably very little real EVP around at all.

I put real in quotes for a reason. What I mean is simply that they were not deliberately faked. However, that does not mean they come from anything other ambient sounds. Having examined hundreds of supposedly real EVP recordings, I found a large number could be easilly accounted for by ambient sounds. It is also possible to deliberately reproduce EVPs in this way quite simply.

In any case, this is largely irrelevant. The point of this thread was not to claim that all EVP is created using ultrasound, or even that a large proportion of it is. It is simply that this is a possible method by which it could be done. Think of it in terms of magic tricks. A lot of tricks have more than one way of being done. The mark of a really good magician is not simply doing a trick, it's doing a trick and showing that it couldn't have been done in any of the ways you know. If you want to know what a magician is doing, it's not enough to find out a single way a trick could be done and then stop, you need to think about any way it could possibly have been done, even if you have no idea if it's been done before or not.

If I came across a case where someone could PREDICT exactly what an EVP would say before the recording was made then the ultrasound method might be relevant. However, I haven't. Instead people make the EVP 'messages' fit into what they were expecting retrospectively, often using horribly contorted logic.

In my opinion, that's what Verklagekasper has done here. Sure, most EVP is not made using this method. But some might be, or could be in the future. What happens if someone comes along who can prove that they are not simply listening to ambient noise or manipulating files after recording? Now we can say "Sure, but what about this other method we happen to know of?".

The method is difficult and could easily fail for any number of reasons related to the exact specification of the equipment used. I can't see any reason why anyone would go to such trouble when making 'real' EVPs (ie. not deliberately fraudulent but not from spirits or other entities either) is so simple. By using 'genuine' methods it also mean they can allow others to watch them at work without fear of detection.

But my real fear is that 'believers' will start to argue that EVPs originate at ultrasound frequencies, starting yet another bizarre myth.

[Verklagekasper]

The problem is that many people are unaware that their audio gear may act funny if fed with signals that it has not been designed for. The video demonstrates one aspect of this, and it does so in a reproducible, unambiguous way that leaves no space for interpreting the voices in the video to be of paranormal origin.

For that matter, fearing that somebody may misinterpret presented facts is no valid criticism. And if you think there should be more information on how to create EVP by ambient noises, feel free to publish something on that.

I'm not so interested in ambient noise EVP since they are always ambigous. I'm more interested in explanations for the unambigous, so-called "Class A" EVP. I would love to get my hands on one of the old, discontinued digital recorders that EVP experts recommend, so I could check how easily they pick up radio signals. Unfortunately, those old recorders are so sought after by the EVP crowd that you cannot get one for a reasonable price. The most popular model which used to be retailed at $40 is nowadays sold on Ebay for $2000 upwards, no joke