Why do police criminal interviews/confessions always have such shitty audio?

"Spob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:45dfc444-a77a-4bae-9993-566beff09679@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>I listened to part of Kip Kinkel's taped confession and parts of it
> are largely unitelligible, not just because of Kinkel's blubbering but
> largely because of the atrocious recording quality.
>
> Others are similar - they set up an environment under the worst
> possible conditions for recording audio and use some pedestrian
> quality recording device or camcorder. Don't these people have A/V
> consultants? I realize they're not trying to win some Hi-Fi audio
> award but with something this important, you'd think they'd make some
> minimal efforts at bumping up the quality.

They're going for a film-noire feel :)

But seriously, I think that part of the reason may be that the mikes are
hidden, and the seating arrangment may be casual. Of course, the suspect is
advised that he is being taped, but mikes in the face would disturb the
delicate psychological atmosphere that leads to confession.

You might ask, isn't it possible to get better sound with hidden mikes? I'm
sure it is, but the level of sophistication, from use, to post-processing,
is not justified. If I'm not mistaken, the taped confession has to be
transcribed, and it is not valid unless the suspect signs the transcript. In
that way, any ambiguities are removed.

It's the same way with courtroom stenography. The stenographer has a little
recording device, and the audio is just so-so, but such recordings are not
part of the court record. Only the stenographic record is. And the
stenographer will frequently break in and ask for a repeat, or clarification
of what someone just said.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:35:41 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Spob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:45dfc444-a77a-4bae-9993-566beff09679@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>I listened to part of Kip Kinkel's taped confession and parts of it
>> are largely unitelligible, not just because of Kinkel's blubbering but
>> largely because of the atrocious recording quality.
>>
>> Others are similar - they set up an environment under the worst
>> possible conditions for recording audio and use some pedestrian
>> quality recording device or camcorder. Don't these people have A/V
>> consultants? I realize they're not trying to win some Hi-Fi audio
>> award but with something this important, you'd think they'd make some
>> minimal efforts at bumping up the quality.
>
>They're going for a film-noire feel :)
>
>But seriously, I think that part of the reason may be that the mikes are
>hidden, and the seating arrangment may be casual. Of course, the suspect is
>advised that he is being taped, but mikes in the face would disturb the
>delicate psychological atmosphere that leads to confession.
>
>You might ask, isn't it possible to get better sound with hidden mikes? I'm
>sure it is, but the level of sophistication, from use, to post-processing,
>is not justified. If I'm not mistaken, the taped confession has to be
>transcribed, and it is not valid unless the suspect signs the transcript. In
>that way, any ambiguities are removed.
>
>It's the same way with courtroom stenography. The stenographer has a little
>recording device, and the audio is just so-so, but such recordings are not
>part of the court record. Only the stenographic record is. And the
>stenographer will frequently break in and ask for a repeat, or clarification
>of what someone just said.
>
>Bob Morein
>(310) 237-6511
>
Interesting.

I have a question and you seem to be the man to answer it. Is it true
that court stenographers own the transcripts, and copies of
transcripts must be purchased from the stenographer, who can set any
price they want?

Spob wrote:
> I listened to part of Kip Kinkel's taped confession and parts of it
> are largely unitelligible, not just because of Kinkel's blubbering but
> largely because of the atrocious recording quality.

They're cops, not audio engineers :-)

>
> Others are similar - they set up an environment under the worst
> possible conditions for recording audio and use some pedestrian
> quality recording device or camcorder. Don't these people have A/V
> consultants? I realize they're not trying to win some Hi-Fi audio
> award but with something this important, you'd think they'd make some
> minimal efforts at bumping up the quality.

Keep in mind that there are some things that would be good for a
recording environment that wouldn't be good for police work. I'm sure
someone would notice the Sonex on the walls and Schoeps hanging from the
ceiling and conclude they might be recording what they say :-)

On 2008-06-17, Romeo Rondeau <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Keep in mind that there are some things that would be good for a
> recording environment that wouldn't be good for police work. I'm sure
> someone would notice the Sonex on the walls and Schoeps hanging from the
> ceiling and conclude they might be recording what they say :-)

The image I have from UK police dramas is a big obvious tape machine and
a boundary mic on the table, though that may not be the case.

There are mics out there designed for discreet installation in rooms
that are basic cardoids or omnis that are pretty flush with wall or
ceiling. Some even offer phantom power as a feature. I'd have though
you could get reasonable quality, although obviously not as good a say
close micing.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at gmail dot com
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone

Richard Corfield wrote:
> On 2008-06-17, Romeo Rondeau <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Keep in mind that there are some things that would be good for a
>> recording environment that wouldn't be good for police work. I'm sure
>> someone would notice the Sonex on the walls and Schoeps hanging from the
>> ceiling and conclude they might be recording what they say :-)
>
> The image I have from UK police dramas is a big obvious tape machine and
> a boundary mic on the table, though that may not be the case.
>
That's the usual setup here in interview rooms. The tape machine is a
dual cassette recorder, with one tape for the police & one for the
interviewee, which is handed to him/ her in a sealed bag immediately
after the interview, so that their lawyer can compare their copy with
the police transcripts & evidence given in court. The system is mono, &
the quality was only specified to be good enough for transcription. Auto
level control & the like, so the police don't need to do any more than
put the tapes in & push the record button, which is the only button on
the unit.

Some police forces now use video for interviews with a similar system of
giving the interviewee a copy of the tape afterwards.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 2008-06-20, John Williamson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
> That's the usual setup here in interview rooms. The tape machine is a
> dual cassette recorder, with one tape for the police & one for the
> interviewee, which is handed to him/ her in a sealed bag immediately
> after the interview, so that their lawyer can compare their copy with
> the police transcripts & evidence given in court. The system is mono, &
> the quality was only specified to be good enough for transcription. Auto
> level control & the like, so the police don't need to do any more than
> put the tapes in & push the record button, which is the only button on
> the unit.
>
> Some police forces now use video for interviews with a similar system of
> giving the interviewee a copy of the tape afterwards.

It's good that the interviewee gets a copy.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at gmail dot com
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone

"Richard Corfield" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:slrng5mlmr.1su.Richard.Corfield@gateway.internal.littondale.dyndns.org...
> On 2008-06-17, Romeo Rondeau <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Keep in mind that there are some things that would be good for a
>> recording environment that wouldn't be good for police work. I'm sure
>> someone would notice the Sonex on the walls and Schoeps hanging from the
>> ceiling and conclude they might be recording what they say :-)
>
> The image I have from UK police dramas is a big obvious tape machine and
> a boundary mic on the table, though that may not be the case.

They use substandard equipment on purpose. Well - at least the copy used
in court or that the defense gets is shit. The reason isn't price because
there is some terribly good equipment out there for less than $100.

On 2008-06-21, krp <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Keep in mind that there are some things that would be good for a
>>> recording environment that wouldn't be good for police work. I'm sure
>>> someone would notice the Sonex on the walls and Schoeps hanging from the
>>> ceiling and conclude they might be recording what they say :-)
>>
>> The image I have from UK police dramas is a big obvious tape machine and
>> a boundary mic on the table, though that may not be the case.
>
> They use substandard equipment on purpose. Well - at least the copy used
> in court or that the defense gets is shit. The reason isn't price because
> there is some terribly good equipment out there for less than $100.

A guess, but I wonder if it's one of those industries where you have to
use specially certified equipment - even if better equipment is
available at lower cost.

There was the story a while back about someone who happened to have a
portable recorded in their pocket during an interview and used that
recording in defense.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at gmail dot com
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone