Evp, Spirit Voices, Ghost Box, and ITC Communication

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are voice-like sounds discovered in audio recordings that some investigators interpret as possible spirit communication. The related terms ghost box and instrumental transcommunication (ITC) describe other attempts to use electronic equipment to contact the dead. For more than a century, researchers and enthusiasts have asked the same question: can a voice emerge from a recording when no one present recalls hearing it?

I’m Tim Wood, founder of LiveSciFi.tv. Since 2007, our team has shared livestreamed ghost hunts so viewers could follow what happened in reportedly haunted locations as it unfolded. Audio experiments have been part of that broader effort. One of the most important distinctions I’ve learned to make is between what a microphone recorded, what we think we hear, and what may have caused it. Those are not automatically the same thing.

This guide revisits EVP history, explains how spirit boxes work, looks at research by our team member Michael Esposito, and shows how to assess an unusual recording without losing its original context.

What Is EVP, and How Is It Different From a Ghost Box?

An EVP usually refers to a voice-like sound noticed on playback of a recording, even if no one heard speech at the time. In a classic session, an investigator records ambient sound, asks questions, leaves quiet pauses, and reviews the unedited audio later. A reported EVP might resemble a whisper, a single word, or a short phrase.

A ghost box (or spirit box) instead provides rapidly changing sound from a scanning radio receiver, which investigators may listen to in real time. ITC is the broader umbrella term for claims of communication through audio, television, video feedback, computers, or other electronic media. These labels describe investigative methods and reported experiences; none by itself establishes that a voice came from a deceased person.

A History of Electronic Voice Phenomena

Spiritualism, recording technology, and Thomas Edison

Interest in technologically assisted spirit contact grew alongside Spiritualism in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Telegraphs, photographs, microphones, and recording systems inspired the idea that subtle signals might be captured by a machine. In an October 1920 Scientific American interview, Thomas Edison discussed the possibility of an apparatus for communicating with personalities after death. The interviews became part of paranormal folklore, but a working Edison spirit-communication device has not been reliably documented. It would be wrong to present the rumored machine as an established invention.

Attila von Szalay, Raymond Bayless, and tape-recorded voices

American photographer Attila von Szalay experimented with recording apparent spirit voices beginning in the 1940s. Working with writer and psychical researcher Raymond Bayless in the 1950s, he used microphones and recording equipment in an acoustically isolated setup and reported voice-like sounds that participants did not hear during recording. Their work helped establish the idea of comparing the live listening experience with later playback. The existence of unusual sounds on tape, however, does not settle their origin.

Friedrich Jürgenson and Konstantin Raudive

In 1959, Swedish artist and filmmaker Friedrich Jürgenson reported hearing what he believed were human voices on recordings originally made of birdsong. His accounts inspired Latvian-born psychologist and writer Konstantin Raudive, who accumulated many recordings and popularized the subject internationally. Raudive’s book was published in English in 1971 as Breakthrough: An Amazing Experiment in Electronic Communication with the Dead. Read the Association TransCommunication’s historical profile for further context.

Raudive’s supporters heard compelling messages; critics questioned whether different listeners could independently identify the same words. This remains a central test of EVP interpretation: can someone who has not been told what to hear arrive at the same transcription?

Sarah Estep and the beginnings of organized EVP research

In 1982, Sarah Estep founded the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena (AA-EVP), bringing together people who wanted to document and compare recording experiences. The organization later became the Association TransCommunication (ATransC). Estep helped popularize practical recording techniques and the familiar Class A, B, and C terminology for describing apparent voice clarity. Those classes are informal investigator ratings, not a scientifically validated scale for proving that a recording is paranormal.

Spiricom, Frank Sumption, and the Rise of Ghost Boxes

In the early 1980s, William O’Neil and George Meek promoted Spiricom, an experimental audio system they claimed could support two-way spirit communication. The reported conversations drew attention, but they were not independently reproduced under convincing controlled conditions. Spiricom matters historically because it shifted attention from voices discovered after recording to the possibility of an immediate reply.

Frank Sumption later developed the device known as Frank’s Box. His design used rapidly tuned radio signals and fragments of audio to create a constantly changing sound bed. That opens an intriguing possibility for investigators but also an obvious alternative explanation: ordinary broadcast speech can be broken into syllables that seem responsive when a listener is expecting an answer. A 2009 Scientific American commentary described this challenge when evaluating Frank’s Box.

In my own LiveSciFi archive, a photograph from the Sallie House identifies Frank’s Box 72 being used during one of our investigations. That’s an important piece of field history, but the mere presence of a device or a strange-sounding reply does not establish a supernatural source. For the location and our later broadcasts, read Sallie House History and Haunting and Sallie House Dark Secret Exposed.

The Panasonic RR-DR60 and Traditional EVP Recorders

Among paranormal investigators, the discontinued Panasonic RR-DR60 has acquired a reputation for producing unusual voice-like recordings. Some enthusiasts prize its recognizable recording artifacts and its status in EVP history. Those qualities are also reasons to approach individual clips carefully: microphone sensitivity, compression, internal processing, handling noise, and playback changes may influence what listeners perceive.

A costly or hard-to-find recorder isn’t a prerequisite for an audio investigation. For repeatable comparisons, a modern recorder with an external microphone, an uncompressed WAV option, visible recording levels, and the ability to preserve original files can be more useful. When testing a legacy recorder, document the exact model, settings, batteries, and recording environment so another investigator can compare the result.

Michael Esposito: EVP Research, Sound Art, and Phantom Airwaves

Michael Esposito is an EVP researcher and experimental sound artist associated with Phantom Airwaves—and is featured in the LiveSciFi team biography as an EVP specialist and paranormal investigator. His work brings a different perspective to this subject, combining field recording, sound experimentation, and questions about how people interpret ambiguous audio.

In a May 29, 2025 interview with Bloody Disgusting, Esposito described how his involvement in experimental music led him toward EVP. He discussed possible distinctions between residual recordings—interpreted by some investigators as traces of past events—and interactive recordings, in which a sound appears to respond to a question. These are research ideas and paranormal interpretations, not established physical explanations.

Esposito also discusses listening to audio in reverse, exploring frequency ranges, and treating recording equipment as part of the experiment. Some of his proposed mechanisms are speculative and should not be confused with confirmed acoustic science. But his emphasis on examining the signal itself raises a useful question for any team: what information survives when we separate the raw recording from enhancement, expectations, and the story of the location?

For historical and artistic context, see Esposito’s profile at Sleepers Records. The most compelling way to explore claims like these is to compare audio, methodology, and independent interpretations rather than rely on a dramatic transcription alone.

What Does Science Say About EVP?

There is no broadly accepted scientific demonstration that EVP recordings are messages from the dead. One explanation for many apparent voices is auditory pareidolia: the tendency to hear familiar speech patterns in ambiguous sound. This is a normal feature of human perception, not evidence that a listener is being dishonest. Radio interference, distant conversation, microphone handling, mechanical noises, and recording artifacts are other ordinary possibilities.

In research published in Applied Cognitive Psychology, Michael Nees and Charlotte Phillips found that framing ambiguous recordings as paranormal influenced some listeners’ reports of hearing voices; listeners showed low agreement about the words allegedly spoken. A later 2022 peer-reviewed study of pareidolia and purported EVP reported a more nuanced, partial replication of earlier priming findings. Neither result identifies the cause of every unusual clip, but both underline why blind listening tests matter.

Earlier controlled experiments also produced sobering results. In a 2001 paper titled Failure to Replicate Electronic Voice Phenomenon, psychologist Imants Barušs reported that his recorded voice-like events were too ambiguous to establish a paranormal cause. The central lesson isn’t that investigators should stop recording; it’s that a compelling personal experience and reproducible evidence are different things.

How to Record and Evaluate a Possible EVP

1. Document the room before recording. Note the time, location, people present, open windows, nearby electronics, and potential radio or television sources.
2. Use an original recording. Prefer WAV when available, and preserve the raw file. Avoid automatic enhancement or noise suppression during the initial capture.
3. Ask one question at a time. Leave a quiet interval and note any movement, speech, or equipment noises.
4. Record a control track. A second recorder, preferably with a different microphone, may help identify sounds that were actually present in the room.
5. Listen before labeling. Have someone hear the clip without first supplying a proposed phrase. Record independent transcriptions and disagreements.
6. Check for contamination. Replay surrounding minutes, not just the isolated sound. Consider radio sweep fragments, overlapping voices, wind, and handling noise.
7. Keep the complete context. Archive the date, device settings, raw audio, edited clips, and the original question. Describe a sound as unexplained only when the limits of the investigation are clear.

A recording becomes more useful when other people can inspect its provenance and arrive at their own conclusions. That is one reason LiveSciFi’s paranormal episode archive and longer livestreamed ghost hunts matter: short highlights are easier to misread when separated from the minutes before and after an incident.

EVP During LiveSciFi Ghost Hunts

Audio investigation has intersected with several of our best-known locations. At the Sallie House, reports of voices and attempts at spirit communication formed part of the history we documented. At the Welles House, viewers can explore the story of a property linked to our Pennsylvania investigations. Our ZoZo Ouija board investigations likewise show why it is important to separate what a participant believed a response meant from what the equipment actually captured.

When a sound appears to answer a question, the moment can be unsettling. I don’t think the answer is to dismiss every experience outright—or to call every unexplained syllable a ghost. The better approach is to preserve the full recording and the conditions in which it was made so the audience can examine the same evidence.

EVP and Spirit Box Frequently Asked Questions

Can a digital voice recorder capture EVP?

Digital recorders can capture ordinary sound and unexpected audio artifacts that listeners may interpret as EVP. That does not, by itself, identify a supernatural source. Recording quality, microphone placement, and preserving the original file are essential.

Is a ghost box the same as an EVP recorder?

No. A typical recorder captures ambient audio for later review. A ghost box usually sweeps radio frequencies to provide fragments of sound for real-time interpretation.

What do Class A, B, and C EVP mean?

These are informal ratings used by EVP enthusiasts to describe how readily a purported message can be heard. Class A generally means clearest; Class C indicates greater ambiguity. They do not verify a spirit’s identity.

Are there scientific explanations for EVP?

Yes. Possible explanations include ambient voices, radio interference, artifacts, and auditory pareidolia. A particular clip may remain unresolved because the available evidence is incomplete.

Can everyone hear the same words?

Not necessarily. Studies of ambiguous voice-like recordings show that listeners may hear different phrases, especially after being prompted with a suggested transcription. Blind playback is a useful check.

Watch LiveSciFi Investigations and Explore the Evidence

The original version of this article featured this LiveSciFi video on EVP and ghost-box communication at the Sallie House.

Watch more: explore LiveSciFi paranormal episodes, revisit the Sallie House investigation, and browse the live ghost hunt archive. If you’ve recorded a voice you cannot explain, keep the original audio and the full session context before deciding what it means.

Research and Historical Sources

• Scientific American (1920) — Edison interview on speculative communication technology.
• Association TransCommunication — Jürgenson, Raudive, and historical EVP development.
• ATransC organizational history — Sarah Estep and the 1982 founding of AA-EVP.
• Scientific American (2009) — skeptical evaluation of spirit-box claims.
• Bloody Disgusting (2025) — Michael Esposito interview about EVP and experimental sound.
• Nees and Phillips, Applied Cognitive Psychology (2015) — auditory pareidolia and contextual priming (first published online in 2014).
• PLOS ONE (2022) — paranormal experiences and perceptual priming of pareidolia.
• Barušs, Journal of Scientific Exploration (2001) — controlled EVP replication attempt.