This is a 2 part essay written by an investigator associated with International Paranormal Investigators community.  It was written as a practical study.  Please read and comment if you would like.

Take EVP to the Next Level - Part 1 -
Why should we maintain high standards for EVP Research?

The debate has gone on for some time between the use of high end equipment versus cheap voice recorders. I have proposed minimum standards for recorders elsewhere, some have said these were excessive and beyond what was needed to obtain EVPs.

If all you want is to capture a voice then I agree, the standards go beyond that. But if your gaol is to actually study EVPs and establish their origin then they probably are not strong enough. To establish where I am going with this consider the field of astronomy as an example.

The telescope is the primary tool the astronmer is using, just as the recorder is the tool of choice for the EVP researcher. Now let's suppose the astronomer is using a cheap telescope to look at a star. He sees the light from the star, maybe even can discern a little bit of color, yellow, white or blue-white. From this he can make a determination as to the temperature of the star but little else. He can direct the light from the telescope to a spectragraph and spread the colors out. But the lens of the cheap telescope has many flaws and the spectrum is distorted and not much value. His research has reached its limit; he has learned a little about the star in general, but details escape him.

Now he repeats the experiment using a quality telescope. The spectragraph display is clear; each color well displayed. Plus, the characteristic "lines" for hydrogen, helium, carbon, iron, and other trace elements are now visible. Their relative positions on the spectrum give a clue to the red shift this star exhibits. From this new data the astronomer can determine much more. The composition of the star based on the presence of certain elements, the red shift reveals the speed the star is moving away from us, which, based on certain physical laws allows a computation to establish its distance from us. From this its relative brightness, along with its color, helps detrmine its size. In short, much more data, some unrelated to simply observing the star, can be used to determine much more about the star.

Now, consider the EVP. Those who use the cheap voice recorder are akin to using the cheap telescope. You may get a voice, but the chances are very good that what you capture is false. The anomalies generated by inferior electronics are just like the imperfections in the telescope lens. At best they don't allow all the available data to be recorded, at worst they cause false positives which are mistaken for valid data.

So the solution is to use better quality equipment. Just like the astronomer, the improved gear will provide more and better data.

The arguement is made, why exceed what we can hear? Why go above the audio spectrum? This may best be answered using a hypothetical case.  We know for example that most places in this world there are power grids.  These generate a strong background field at 60 Hz (50 Hz in some countries) that can be detected on most audio recordings unless measures are taken to shield it. It could be reasonable to assume that if we were to open some kind of portal into another realm to communicate that some of this signal would escape along with our voice. It is also a reasonable assumption that any background signal from some spirit realm, if it exists, would also follow an EVP signal back here.

But what are the characteristics of this signal? No rule limits it to the frequencies present in our world (that we know of). So for sake of discussion let's assume it is 10 kHz. Now, suppose you and me both capture a suspected EVP. Me with a Marantz high end cassette deck, you with a voice recorder. We both take our recordings in for analysis.

But let's make one more assumption. It is sometime in the near future and Professor Smith, a long time serious researcher has found this 10 Khz signal IS the background signal from the other side. Now using his data all we need do to authenticate our EVPs is detect the presence of that signal.

The professor listens to your voice recorder first. He calls it false because the signal is missing. Why? Because your voice recorder is incabale of recording audio above 3 kHz. It captures the voice, but not the background. My recording, on the other hand is considered valid because that signal is present. The Marantz recorder has a frequency response up to 15 kHz. (typical response)

Of course such a signal may not really exist, the above was just a possible scenario to illustrate a point. But in fact we don't know whether or not, or even what characteristics may eventually be found associated with an EVP. Just like splitting the spectrum of light reveals many hidden facts about a star, future work with audio / EVPs may reveal truths about their source. And to capture this we need all the data possible, not just a distroted voice in the background that one must strain to hear. That is why I promote the highest possible standards we can set for EVP recording. Because the truth is, we don't know where that final clue that unlocks the mystery may come from. But one thing is certain, it is going to require ALL the available data, not just part of it. And to do that requires the best equipment we can get.

Take EVP to the Next Level - Part 2 - The Conclusions

I want to thank those who commented in this thread. The essay which opened this thread has been posted on several different forums in the hopes that a cross section of researchers may become involved. I have not responded to comments made regarding this topic in order to maintain the integrity of the visitor count. I did not want to skew the results by getting into an extended dialogue until the thread has been evaluated. I do intned to address comments made on each forum directly now that the project is complete. Instead I limited my interaction to simply reading the comments and midway through the week long cycle I
bumped the essay back up on each forum so that all would at least have the
opportunity to read and respond.

So what was the project? Many on the forums claim to be scientificly oriented in their investigations. By nature that involves going as deep as neccessary to get answers. So I posted an article which takes that pretext to its ultimate conclusion, it implies we must use the best we can to obtain data. I fully realize many of us cannot afford the level of equipment needed for this task, let alone equipment for analysis purposes that could literally cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Yet true science may require some to reach that level. Consider the cost of the spectragraph cited by the essay which the astronomer requires. I dare say none of us can afford that level of equipment. But we can afford the equipment which might provide the serious researcher who does have this level of equipment the data he may require for his studies. So I put out this essay to guage by feedback how many of us scientifc investigators were really serious enough about our research to consider taking it to this level. The conclusions were eye opening.

Conclusions: (A Critical Look At US!)

This essay was posted on 6 different forums. They ranged from a small group sponsored forum to a large form with membership in the 10s of thousands. Also considered was the beliefs of the members, I picked forums where science was almost universally the claimed driving force to the more metaphysical oriented. It was posted in the area of each forum dealing with either EVPs or General Research, and allowed to run for 1 week. Half way through this time period it was bumped back up to the top of the thread. In order to not skew the discussion, I intentionally have withheld any comments to responses made by others, either pro or con. Many claim to be scientific, yet very few commented in any way. This article essentially finds fault with all of us, yet few even bothered to respond. It stresses techniques which would be both expensive yet, possibly revealing, and few had anything to say. In fact the most direct comments came from some who wanted to justify their use of substandard techniques and equipment. They echo the claim that any evidence, even faulty, is better than no evidence at all. They get the results they want, and are unwilling to consider that any improvement needs made. This runs counter to any science, where change is expected, and an open mind a requirement. Cost was, as expected, the factor most cited. But true science has to look past cost toward results if any advances are to be made.

So the results were as follows:

(Neither the forum names nor specifics are included here because of privacy isues. But if you are reading this on a forum, know that your forum was involved in the study.)

Statistics are:

Total number of members on all forums : 33,340
(Note in fairness that not all members are active. As with all forums many may join and never return nor post. I had to include these people as their number is reflected on membership)

Approximate number of members active during the week: 2,225
(Sum total of all forums. This number is more meaningful than simply members. Estimated only as I do not have admin access to most forums to get exact numbers. The number was obtained from activity tabulated using the "New Posts since last visit" option.)

Total estimated number of posts made this week (All forums): 6,446

Overall page views: 128

Comments made to this posting: 13

Comments considered negative or adversarial to the article: 6

Comments considered supportive to the article: 3

Neutral or other comments: 4

What does this mean?
From a scientific point of view: the paranormal community is in trouble!

Using the figures from this little study, we see that out of approximately 2,225 people on 6 different forums who claim an interest in the paranormal, only 128 had the interest to read a scientific oriented subject. Then, out of those who did read it, only 10% (13) took the time to post a response one way or the other. To me this indicates very little interest in resolving the paranormal subject in a scientific manner. It seems most are satisfied with the status quo. Some spiritualism and some mumbo jumbo seems to be the norm.

But it gets even better. The majority of the responses were negative. That means the majority are opposed to pushing the envelope and digging deeper for answers. Most are satisfied with the results we are getting now. Scratchy voices that may or not be anything obtained on cheap equipment seems to be what most want. Of course 6 people out of 128 can hardly be considered a representitive sample. But neither can the 3 who support pushing the standards higher.

By far the largest group are the ones not heard from. I think it is significant that most didn't respond. That represents apathy. They are the ones who seem to be most prevalent in the field. They set the tone. It is from them that we can draw the obvious conclusion to the question about taking the field to the next level. The answer is clear.

We are not ready to move on yet.

Both parts of this essay may be reprinted to the credit of - J. Brown, Independent Research Associates