LISTEN: Man records crickets, and discovers angels and humans, singing to God. Listen


#1

[Permalink]


#2

Yeah, this is bullshit. The human choir voices are clearly edited in over the cricket chirping. This clip made the rounds a few months ago, and it wasn’t any more convincing then, either.


#3

I’m not saying it’s real because I don’t know, but the recording itself says it is two layers. One of regular speed and one supposedly slowed down. I don’t see how you can know it’s fake because one layer sounds edited in on the other.


#4


#5

Naturally, I am as skeptical as most on this, but I will tell you this,…for many years I have had the same noise in my ears that I have turned to accepting it as tinnitus. The sound is like crickets at night. So does that means I am continually singing to god?


#6

Your nervous system should be emitting a high pitched squeal. It’s all perfectly normal.


#8

You are blessed with Prayer Ears, like the Tibetan Prayer Wheels.


#9

I’m not entirely sure what’s going on, but it’s more than just two layers of crickets chirping at different speeds. Either distorted vocals & music was added, or there’s multiple layers of slowed-down cricket sounds manipulated such that they sound like human music.


#10

Taking the thing at face value, I don’t get it. What sort of microphone is being used and by how much is the cricket chirp track slowed down? If it’s slowed down enough to produce frequencies found in human choirs then that information must be present in the signal and we’d be able to hear it as a very fast, very high pitched choir. If it’s too fast or too high pitched for us to hear, then it’s approaching (or beyond) ultrasonic.Which most mikes wouldn’t be capable of recording. So this is just aliasing isn’t it?


#11

Well, I’m convinced.


#12

I agree.

If they want people to believe crickets actually sound like that slowed down, then provide a clean track of just the slowed down crickets. When sped up again, if it doesn’t sound like crickets chirping, something else is going on.

Why all the artistic stuff added to it if it would be amazing on its own?


#13

Nice to be reminded of this! I first heard Wilson’s recording 20 years ago; Robbie Robertson used it as the basis for the song “Twisted Hair” for his soundtrack to the 1994 TV series The Native Americans.

Here’s a fan-made video.


#14

I discovered that when I slowed down this recording to various levels

Yeah, sounds like multiple layers of different speeds.


#15

Awesome Song Thread!
#16

I keep hearing “The owls are not what they seem.”


#17

Seems like it would be pretty easy to record some crickets on your own and then slow down the recording. Or easy if it wasn’t the middle of November. Maybe that’s why it’s making the rounds now.


#18

The free audio software PaulStretch is excellent for ultra slo-mo of audio, leaving the original frequencies intact.
This recording? Very layered. And as LemoUtan said, any high frequencies (the choir) would’ve been too high-pitched to capture in the first place.


#19

It’s the high frame rate microphone in the new iPhone 6.


#20

Human choral singing ranges from about 80Hz (Bass) to 1kHz (bloody impressive soprano) but to get HiFi you’d really need to capture anywhere up to 12kHz for harmonics (those things that tell you it’s a human and not a muddy buzzsaw). But assume the worst and stick with the 1kHz tops. The purported voices are tenor to bass anyway so I’ll stick with the 1kHz for what we’re actually hearing as a ‘choir’. For that audio to have been present in the original cricket signal, it would have had to have been sampled at 2kHz (Nyquist) multipled by 2, 4, 8, 16 … pick the scale down factor you think was used. At half, quarter, maybe even eighth, speeds I’d imagine we’d still be hearing crickets, not humans. So I’m going to go for at least a 10 for the slowdown factor. Which just about squeezes into the recording capabilities (at 20kHz) of a pretty expensive pro-audio mike.

That’s an argument I’d try to make to support a j-u-s-t—p-o-s-s-i-b-l-e claim.

But on the whole, nope nope nope nope nope.


#21

I’m guessing here that Mark doesn’t spend a lot of time on Facebook.