[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Chad wrote:

Thanks for the help! I am excited to try some new software and
techniques and explore new avenues in terms of audio engineering.

First of all: get a wave-format recorder, Zoom H2 comes to mind and is
modestly priced.

I am disappointed, however, at the lack of professionalism by some who
use this site.

People gave advice to the point on the question you raised and were honest
about their opinions.

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.

Where do you want to shop, where people are honest about their opinions or
where the lie to you, smile and take your money?

Again, thanks to those who have given me insight.

You yourself need to have the openness of mind that accepts also a negative
result of the research you want to undertake as well as the openness of mind
to respect people that have sufficient insight in standard laws of nature to
validly assert that what you look for, listen for, is outside the
possibilities in the known laws of nature.

You need to understand the psychological mechanisms of brains pattern search
and the fallabillity thereof because it is a possible cause of false
positive results. This is in many ways the same issue as the issue of the
placebo effect that gets raised as relevant in quite many contexts here.

If you have tried adjusting a bypassed audio implement and agreed with a
co-worker about the positive effect of said devices audio processing - I
have - then you get some valid and well-earned respect for the tricks your
own mind can play.

The sonogram feature of Audition 3, possibly also available in Audition 5
which is Audition 4 re-branded to fit into irrelevant softwares version
numbering, is very useful to display ordered signal. If you think you hear a
word you should be able to show a sonogram display of that part of the audio
file that looks like said word spoken.

I didn't say go rush spend money, I don't know all software that is
available out there, but in my opinion a sonogram feature is well neigh
required to make the point you want to be able to make as well as btw.
starting out with well recorded audio. My recollection is that a fairly
modestly priced RØDE microphone has a good sensitivity as well as a very
good equivalent self noise, ie. is well suited for recording faint sounds.
Someone subjetively thinking they hear a word is not good enough, it has to
be objectively verifiable.

Coffee (caffeine) is btw. a known and proved cause of auditory
hallucination, so you should require of a listening panel - if you choose to
deploy one - that they do not drink coffee or "energy drinks" say for three
days prior to taking part. Read up on double blind test procedures, if he
reads this far I reckon that Arny Krüger may be able to provide link(s) to
literature about it, you may want or feel you need to resort to "making the
point via listening panel" and if so, you should comply with known and
proven procedures for getting statistically probable results.

In Bailey lingo: proof is generally a 5'th ray concept ... O;-) ... ie.
about concrete knowledge. Such is what we deal in in this here "shop", a
professional audio newsgroup on the usenet where skilled people offer their
know-how pro bono.

You have been well received, even by those who disagree with your
probability estimate, appreciate their honesty and appreciate and understand
their motivation for being honest and fair in their disagreement.

Chad

Kind regards

Peter Larsen