Odd Waveform

I can't see or hear any evidence of an edit at that point - removing the noise alone leaves the judge's cadence sounding natural (though I can't make out the word), and the same frequencies can be seen continuing before and after the place it is at.

Are you saying that your speech was recorded in a different channel, and removed from that without altering the time of the recording as a whole?  If so, I would expect to hear at least a trace of it through the judge's microphone, which I can't.

Paul

I agree- her cadence is not changed- all must be as it was; I don't know about my channel- or even whether this .wav is all four channels into one or if it's just the judge's channel; the reason i sent it is that the funky click sound is there; what  have found is that the 'click' si sometimes within the area where i absolutely know there was editing; sometimes it's in the same channel as editing, and at the same location; other times it appears to be in different channels than was edited. weird.

the 'click' is clear here; that's why i sent that one. otherwise, it's not a good example at all. I have many better ones, that are in exactly the point of editing.

so, any thought on what would make a sound like that?

here's one where the editing removed words in my sentence; and made a completely different meaning to what I said. listen to the 'jerkiness';

the editing was where it sounds like i said , "...by the way, money talks and I'm talking into this microphone..."

I believe I said "...by the way, money talks and I'm talking in this Court about crimes that occurred in another Court, now I'm talking into this microphone..."

it was three years ago; I don't remember the actual words; but i was very proud of what it was I said at the time. I didn't notice this edit; as there was another edit much earlier in the proceeding, where a large part was removed about subpoena for a judge, etc.; about a minute in length. I saw it was gone and responded immediately to the Court, NY Judicial Conduct Committee, etc.; with 'no investigation'. Now FBI, DA, OIG, IG won't investigate either.

I only realized recently that this edit had been done too, and many others in that proceeding, May 13, 2009. you can hear something's wrong with my speech; I did not say only what they changed my words to say.

 i'll look at the other channels and look for the 'click';

Hmm.  I can tell what you mean.

Going back to the click, it's actually quite an extended noise, with a couple of reiterations.  I can't see how it can be related to any editing.

Paul

oh, you could alter sample's amplitude, but not time (yep) in what software? Adobe Audition? (or was it CoolWave?)

Audition. Coolwave was one of those 'me too' lookalikes, wasn't it?

Oh, and that sort of noise you've got is somebody moving something very close to a microphone that wasn't picking up the speech being listened to - which means that you've got a composite recording from several mics. The last sample has been very badly edited!

I've only ever recorded court proceedings once - and it was quite an interesting experience, as it was at an employment tribunal hearing, and they'd never been asked to do this before. We established what I regard as a sensible procedure - both sides get identical copies of everything, which has to be seen to be recorded in the courtroom - and just in case of disputes, I kept a complete copy myself - all copies handed over in public with witnesses. So, 4 microphones, all fed into a mixer and the result recorded on three cassette recorders. Got paid a lot of money for doing it, but it was one of the most tedious things I've ever done, not helped by me having to halt the proceedings every time we needed to change sides on the cassettes...

The reason for the exceptional degree of care was that one side was actually paying for all the recordings, and the court insisted that it had to be fair, and seen to be fair as well. The reason that they were paying was that they'd had trouble with the individual concerned before, and he was strongly suspected of being a vexatious litigant - strong evidence required.

Sounds like the process where you are is Mickey Mouse!

Hmm.  I can tell what you mean.

Going back to the click, it's actually quite an extended noise, with a couple of reiterations.  I can't see how it can be related to any editing.

Paul

I know what you mean; but...you're thinking in terms of a 'sound', being recorded as a sound, if it had been made with a physical editing device; like cutting tape, etc., in the old days. This has GOT TO be a sophisticated editing system, since the editing occurs in separate channels, the channels are then put back together seamlessly, four back into one, while remaining separate; and restoring the timeline/running time to the original begin point with no indication of change.

So... the intensity of the click, duration and  location of it appears to vary; which tells me there may be a relation in the 'click' to the edited part; and the click may in fact BE the edited part; as it relates to what was removed. VERY different than splicing tape.

I do believe the editing was done IMMEDIATELY afterward, it was absolutely done the same day as the proceedings, then Transcripts were ordered to 'seal' their editing acts, as they wanted the fraudulent records to be documents in the case. My guess is that it is possible that the editor may have done the editing IN THE COURTROOM; where the hardware is, but it's not necessarily so, because there is a network computer system that allows 'annotating' of files, not 'editing'. the annotated file then returns to the original courtroom computer. of course, the original hard drive WILL HAVE recorded each and every alteration of the files, as the accessing and altering occurred; which is why NO AGENCY (so far) has allowed investigation; they know it happens, and would be proven by simple review of the hard drive. That's why I'm here; to try and get a reason to force investigation; and expose the editing system. Think of the next time you or someone you know is in court; do yu really want the lawyers to have the ability to edit the recordings and make the other guy win? I don't think so. That's why I'm here. they did it to me.

oh, you could alter sample's amplitude, but not time (yep) in what software? Adobe Audition? (or was it CoolWave?)

Audition. Coolwave was one of those 'me too' lookalikes, wasn't it?

Oh, and that sort of noise you've got is somebody moving something very close to a microphone that wasn't picking up the speech being listened to - which means that you've got a composite recording from several mics. The last sample has been very badly edited!

I've only ever recorded court proceedings once - and it was quite an interesting experience, as it was at an employment tribunal hearing, and they'd never been asked to do this before. We established what I regard as a sensible procedure - both sides get identical copies of everything, which has to be seen to be recorded in the courtroom - and just in case of disputes, I kept a complete copy myself - all copies handed over in public with witnesses. So, 4 microphones, all fed into a mixer and the result recorded on three cassette recorders. Got paid a lot of money for doing it, but it was one of the most tedious things I've ever done, not helped by me having to halt the proceedings every time we needed to change sides on the cassettes...

The reason for the exceptional degree of care was that one side was actually paying for all the recordings, and the court insisted that it had to be fair, and seen to be fair as well. The reason that they were paying was that they'd had trouble with the individual concerned before, and he was strongly suspected of being a vexatious litigant - strong evidence required.

Sounds like the process where you are is Mickey Mouse!

Pretty sure I read that Coolwave was the earlier Audition, doesn't matter though-)

oh, you could alter sample's amplitude, but not time (yep) in what software? Adobe Audition? (or was it CoolWave?)

Audition. Coolwave was one of those 'me too' lookalikes, wasn't it?

Oh, and that sort of noise you've got is somebody moving something very close to a microphone that wasn't picking up the speech being listened to - which means that you've got a composite recording from several mics. The last sample has been very badly edited!

I've only ever recorded court proceedings once - and it was quite an interesting experience, as it was at an employment tribunal hearing, and they'd never been asked to do this before. We established what I regard as a sensible procedure - both sides get identical copies of everything, which has to be seen to be recorded in the courtroom - and just in case of disputes, I kept a complete copy myself - all copies handed over in public with witnesses. So, 4 microphones, all fed into a mixer and the result recorded on three cassette recorders. Got paid a lot of money for doing it, but it was one of the most tedious things I've ever done, not helped by me having to halt the proceedings every time we needed to change sides on the cassettes...

The reason for the exceptional degree of care was that one side was actually paying for all the recordings, and the court insisted that it had to be fair, and seen to be fair as well. The reason that they were paying was that they'd had trouble with the individual concerned before, and he was strongly suspected of being a vexatious litigant - strong evidence required.

Sounds like the process where you are is Mickey Mouse!

I hear ya, Steve- Mickey Mouse with the pretense of fairness; using hi-tech solutions- then editing them for personal gain; btw the personal gain was for coverup of 17 lawyers and 3 judges. yow. seriously.

So, what you did was 'transparent' and open; where opportunity to alter recordings was eliminated as the recordings did not reside within the reach of anyone with interest or opportunity to alter them. The case here is that the recordings re4sided where there was access by the trusted officials; who operate within their own 'honor system'; and make determinations of whether it's in their interests to edit or not. whoever made the software was either a crook too; or believed the users of their software would be 'fair' in its use, putting away the 'bad guys'; LIKE ME, my parents, my children and our family..
the way you did the recordings didn't allow that 'honor system' to happen.

oh, you could alter sample's amplitude, but not time (yep) in what software? Adobe Audition? (or was it CoolWave?)

Oh, and that sort of noise you've got is somebody moving something very close to a microphone that wasn't picking up the speech being listened to - which means that you've got a composite recording from several mics. The last sample has been very badly edited!

i have heard sounds where actions have been recorded next to a mike, that have the same 'sound'; especially where it was loud; and 'saturated' the audio program, too loud to get it all in; one was the tearing of a piece of note paper, by the man holding the proceeding instead of the judge; he tore his notepaper at the exact location in time where the words I said were edited out. hmm. connection? of course; Joseph Shifflett knew that what I said was 'not a good thing' for the Receiver in another Court, who robbed us blind; and whoever edited the recording removed those same words I had said. The purpose was to remove the accusations I made UNDER OATH; otherwise the Court was mandated to investigate; removing my statement made it so they did not have to investigate- the theft of perhaps a million dollars worth of coins.

what's really weird about the click- is it is on different channels at different times. IF it was at a location, physical, next to a mike; it would always be at the same channel. It is not.

I know what you mean; but...you're thinking in terms of a 'sound', being recorded as a sound, if it had been made with a physical editing device; like cutting tape, etc., in the old days.

That noise is not the result of any form of editing - it is either acoustic, as Steve suggests, or to me it sounded a bit like a noise that could be created by a bad switch being moved, or even some kinds of electronic noise.  But neither physical tape editing nor computer editing would create anything remotely like that.  It's hard to say more without knowing far more about the actual recording setup that was used.

This has GOT TO be a sophisticated editing system, since the editing occurs in separate channels, the channels are then put back together seamlessly, four back into one, while remaining separate; and restoring the timeline/running time to the original begin point with no indication of change.

It wouldn't be sophisticated if it left that kind of evidence!  I assure you that when I edit, and I imagine when Steve edits, as he's got far more experience than me, you cannot tell from a technical point of view without having the original to compare with.  Of course, when there are constraints, as there would be in removing words from a recording of a sentence, it may be impossible to make it undetectable - but that's because of things like the acoustic the recording is made in and the cadence of the voice when putting words together.

So... the intensity of the click, duration and  location of it appears to vary; which tells me there may be a relation in the 'click' to the edited part; and the click may in fact BE the edited part; as it relates to what was removed.

This really is grasping at straws, I'm afraid.

Pretty sure I read that Coolwave was the earlier Audition, doesn't matter though-)

The antecedent of Audition was called CoolEdit.  When Adobe bought Syntrillium, CoolEdit Pro v2.1 was rebranded as Audition v1.0, and development continued from there.

Paul

I know what you mean; but...you're thinking in terms of a 'sound', being recorded as a sound, if it had been made with a physical editing device; like cutting tape, etc., in the old days.

That noise is not the result of any form of editing - it is either acoustic, as Steve suggests, or to me it sounded a bit like a noise that could be created by a bad switch being moved, or even some kinds of electronic noise.  But neither physical tape editing nor computer editing would create anything remotely like that.  It's hard to say more without knowing far more about the actual recording setup that was used.

This has GOT TO be a sophisticated editing system, since the editing occurs in separate channels, the channels are then put back together seamlessly, four back into one, while remaining separate; and restoring the timeline/running time to the original begin point with no indication of change.

It wouldn't be sophisticated if it left that kind of evidence!  I assure you that when I edit, and I imagine when Steve edits, as he's got far more experience than me, you cannot tell from a technical point of view without having the original to compare with.  Of course, when there are constraints, as there would be in removing words from a recording of a sentence, it may be impossible to make it undetectable - but that's because of things like the acoustic the recording is made in and the cadence of the voice when putting words together.

So... the intensity of the click, duration and  location of it appears to vary; which tells me there may be a relation in the 'click' to the edited part; and the click may in fact BE the edited part; as it relates to what was removed.

This really is grasping at straws, I'm afraid.

Pretty sure I read that Coolwave was the earlier Audition, doesn't matter though-)

The antecedent of Audition was called CoolEdit.  When Adobe bought Syntrillium, CoolEdit Pro v2.1 was rebranded as Audition v1.0, and development continued from there.

Paul

wish i was better at the 'quote thing.." anyway...here goes- 1- i can't rule out the possibility of the click being result of editing- because it exists right where editing happened; one thought is that it is placed there as a point to recall where editing was; not merely to remove the edited words; but to allow the editor to go back and hear them again later when they want. remember, the only person ever intended to hear the recordings is the transcriptionist, when making transcripts. their only concern is clarity of speech, the words said; not buzzes and clicks in the recording. the software engineer knew it wouldn't matter if a click was there at edit points. only people like us would ever care, if it does indicate a point of editing.

OK....well, I hesitated to say this, BUT here it is...when you enter the second floor of the Erie County Hall, from the elevator, there is a really weird sound energy that is recordable on a recording device such as my palm treo 650. After I first noticed it, in a recording i made in the hallway there talking with people, I decided to make tests and record it in various locations there. The sound IS LIKE THE CLICKS; a click that has a steep rise time, slower fall off...kkk  cckkk,  kkcccck ,,etc etc. AT ALL TIMES when walking on 2nd floor. It is not on the first floor; it is not in the elevator. Then later, with my girlfriend in bed (ok, yeah it was) I heard it again when recording next to her iphone; so we did more tests; the click seems to maybe be recording the transmission of electronic signals...like from phones- maybe within that range??

So, the bad news is, this click sound being recorded by my Treo, I don't think it happened when I originally recorded in te courtroom, before they started confiscating my phone. Now...does that mean...there's some sort of transmitting device on second floor of the courthouse? Or that it's being 'listened to' by secret service? or...and...why does the click NOT come up in normal FTR recordings?? whyy? is it being turned off during court proceedings?

So...then another thought would be- since a 'click' occurs in various mikes (channels) at times where editing occurred; did the fact that editing was being done, at a time when the 'transmitter' was on (as opposed to it being off during proceedings) is that why a click sound is there at times of editing???

Ok, gentlemen, there's another crazy fact for your mystery. I guess I'll have to post a recording we made in bed. No, no, just the clicks. First, here is an example where about a minute was removed; between the words 'all right' and 'now'. Listen to the click.

I assure you that when I edit, and I imagine when Steve edits, as he's got far more experience than me, you cannot tell from a technical point of view without having the original to compare with.  Of course, when there are constraints, as there would be in removing words from a recording of a sentence, it may be impossible to make it undetectable - but that's because of things like the acoustic the recording is made in and the cadence of the voice when putting words together.

Absolutely. If you can detect, with no external reference, any edit I've made, then I'm a failure. BTW, you couldn't...

This regularly confuses the hell out of my customers, because even when they've performed  the stuff, they can't tell what I've done with it to suddenly make it sound okay! Sometimes you can even fake it with uncooperative backgrounds, but quite frankly at this point, you'd have to be desperate.

Ok, gentlemen, there's another crazy fact for your mystery. I guess I'll have to post a recording we made in bed. No, no, just the clicks. First, here is an example where about a minute was removed; between the words 'all right' and 'now'. Listen to the click.

I can hear a sibilant 'T', but I'm afraid that it's nothing like your previous click at all.

I assure you that when I edit, and I imagine when Steve edits, as he's got far more experience than me, you cannot tell from a technical point of view without having the original to compare with.  Of course, when there are constraints, as there would be in removing words from a recording of a sentence, it may be impossible to make it undetectable - but that's because of things like the acoustic the recording is made in and the cadence of the voice when putting words together.

Absolutely. If you can detect, with no external reference, any edit I've made, then I'm a failure. BTW, you couldn't...

This regularly confuses the hell out of my customers, because even when they've performed  the stuff, they can't tell what I've done with it to suddenly make it sound okay! Sometimes you can even fake it with uncooperative backgrounds, but quite frankly at this point, you'd have to be desperate.

cool- but-- if you went into the edits, like looking at one thousandth of a second...would there be any sign of it there?

Ok, gentlemen, there's another crazy fact for your mystery. I guess I'll have to post a recording we made in bed. No, no, just the clicks. First, here is an example where about a minute was removed; between the words 'all right' and 'now'. Listen to the click.

I can hear a sibilant 'T', but I'm afraid that it's nothing like your previous click at all.

what a cool word sibilant is; but, I'm sure you're not saying that the editor chose to make a sibilant sound and inserted it between judge howe's words just for fun. I absolutely guaran-f##king-tee you, this is where a minute of audio was removed, between the all right and now. Since the click sound IS there; and there would be no reason for the sound to remain there; and the click sound exists in other places where I personally know editing occurred, the click must have some relevance to the editing process. when you look at the click in fractions of a second, it DOES look the same. they all do.

well, I'd better start by apologizing for my language a minute ago- this issue is very near and dear to me; so, sorry-)
I just looked at 'click' sounds that were recorded by my palm treo 650 while i was only walking outdoors... might have been in my pocket-?
the clicks, when seen at .001 second have the same appearance as the clicks in the edit places, with no overshoots, and straight lines between samples, looking really squared off.

so, the clicks in the court recordings might just be clicks too; but sometimes very big ones.

what's weird is, you're saying that in editing digital audio, ( as I know too) when you cut sound out, it's just gone; no trace, no click.

That's what bugs me about these edits; and in separate channels.
what's the click??