Why do Peer Review? Using a blind peer review panel method is a standard protocol in many research fields. In paranormal research, the presentation of anomalous sounds for a panel review, assists in keeping pareidolia and other artifacts (sources of false positives) from infiltrating research data.
Conclusions: Another great peer review! The audio anomally found in the recording drew a mixed bag of reactions. That tells me that the recording does not meet standards to be considered anything more than an incident of interesting noise. Thank you to everyone who registered a vote on the poll, emailed me, and posted comments on the various facebook groups where I asked for peer review assistance.
Advisory: Do not play any previously un-reviewed file found online at high gain/volume levels while wearing headphones, as it may harm your ears! Do not play any previously un-reviewed file found online at high gain/volume levels as it may harm speakers!
Back Story: March 2013; Private Residence;Recording is from a remote (unattended – video taped) synthetic voice EVP session; I had just walked into the room to end the session when this anomaly was captured. You will hear the synthetic voice ask a question and the door to the bedroom open; then I will announce the session is over. As I am bending over to turn off the preamp on the two microphone system, this anomaly is captured on a separate digital audio recorder; then you will hear me exhale as I am bending over to gather my gear.
Recording Specs: March 2013; Private Residence; Day Time Recording Session; Sony digital audio recorder, camcorder, two channel recorder with dynamic microphones. (4 audio sources); Site Isolation Protocols Followed, Site Security Protocols Followed, No Native Electronic Devices Allowed to Remain Operational, and Video Viewed to Rule Out Accidental Speech. Captured in a bedroom of a private residence. Digital audio recorder that captured this event was placed on bed in middle of room. Divergent dynamic microphone system placed about 2 feet from digital audio recorder. In between these two recording devices a MP3 player, played a series of synthetic vocal track questions. This possible capture was present but very weak on Dynamic Microphones (2). This possible capture was not on the camcorder audio track.
Conclusion: Gathered some great responses on the validation poll, as well as some great discussions on various Facebook groups. Having hit standard review thresholds in combination with applied investigations protocols; this recording can be classified and placed in the evidence archives. Thank you for everyone whom participated in the panel review!
Classification: Non-Specific, Grade B Capture Having been universally been located on the recording. Nearly universally identified as a voice. Lacking identification of specific information or meaning.
Captured in a bedroom of a private residence. Dynamic microphones places on the far ends of the bedroom from where I was standing, did not capture this event. Audio recorder that captured this event was placed on a solid surface in the middle of the room. Camcorder directly in front of me, also did not pick this audio recording up. I recommend using a set of quality headphones while review audio for best auditory results; March 2013; Private Residence; Day Time Recording Session; Sony digital audio recorder, camcorder, two channel recorder with dynamic microphones. (4 audio sources); Site Isolation Protocols Followed, Site Security Protocols Followed, No Native Electronic Devices Allowed to Remain Operational, and Video Viewed to Rule Out Accidental Speech; Overall file has been amplified for best Sound-Cloud presentation; in the file the final three playbacks are amplified slightly higher in volume than the first play through section. (minor) HighPass filtering 1000hz, 12db roll off cut off applied for best Sound-Cloud presentation.
Listener Review Panel Results: FEB 16-Feb 20th; 2013
Conclusion: After having the panel session open for several days. Gathered some great responses on the polldaddy validation poll, as well as some great discussions, on the various Facebook groups. On the pole by itself about 70% of the reply’s put review as this being a possible EVP. However if I take into consideration the various groups-persons on Facebook that weighed in on it. The percentage split was more 50%/50% on the matter. With such great responses coming in, I consider this a very successful review panel! Results bearing that this recording can only be considered “interesting noise” and not of evidentiary value, based on the open panel review. Objective ears are best! THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO WEIGHED IN ON THIS RECORDING!
The Recording Session: This recording was captured while conducting a follow-up audio session at a private residence on 2/15/2013. This is a daytime recording. Recording location was cleared of all occupants and pets, all media turned off, and exterior of property monitored for intrusions. The residence was secured and”locked down” during the session. No one was allowed in. Recording Equipment/Set Up: This recording is a Synthetic Voice, Remote Recording Session, deploying a two dynamic microphone pre-amp & digital audio recorder system; while using a MP3 player-speaker set up, to ask a series of pre-recorded tract questions using a synthetic voice – provided by Balabolka* text to voice software. ( Part of our original ASSIST US experiment ) Review File Specs: (SoundCloud Clip) The full clip is played once, followed by the suspected EVP which is played 2 times afterwards with amplification. Then it is played a third time slowed to 50% of original speed.
Below is the spectrogram image of the original EVP clip. The anomaly occurs at about 11.5 seconds and has a frequency cluster in the 2k-3k htz range.
** Peer review is the process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal. The work may be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected. Peer review requires a community in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish; and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries. Although generally considered essential to academic quality, and used in most important scientific publications. (Source Wikipedia)