Scott Dorsey wrote:
Chad wrote:
I am disappointed, however, at the lack of professionalism by some who
use this site. I would like to use this forum again for questions,
but I am hesitant. If I walked into your business and was treated the
way I was here, I would look elsewhere for a better experience.
Well, it's Usenet, what did you expect?
I think the whole ghost sound thing is bunkum also, but that's because I
have never seen any reasonable evidence. So, it would be in my best interest
to tell you what I consider reasonable evidence, which is what plenty of other
people will as well. (And that involves no lossy compression, etc.).
I don't think there is a good book out there on forensic audio work, really.
Maybe Eddy Brixen will write one someday.
There's a nice introduction with links to further reading he-
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan1.../forensics.htm
One thing that you will find is that it's a *lot* easier to get useful
results if you start with a stereo recording of the soundfield.
Also, bear in mind that in areas where hauntings have been reported,
there is often a strong VLF (1-10Hz) sound source, so you possibly need
a recorder that will go down that low.
Slightly OT, on the subject of pictures of supernatural events, I have
met a couple of people, claiming to have seen ghosts, but with unusable
pictures, who haven't even gone to the trouble of learning to combat
sensor noise in a digital camera. The pictures were a lot clearer after
they started using the right processing algorithms. No ghosts, though...
--
Tciao for Now!
John.