EVP recording technique - analogue vs digital, and does equipment quality actually matter?

I've been recording EVP (electronic voice phenomena) sessions at Borley Rectory in Suffolk for about six months now, and I'm getting increasingly frustrated with my equipment setup. I'm currently using a Sony PCM-D100 digital recorder, which is absolutely brilliant but costs £3,500 and feels like overkill for what might just be background noise and pareidolia.

My question: is the expensive gear actually capturing things the budget stuff can't, or is EVP quality more about technique and location than equipment? I've noticed some researchers swear by old analogue cassette recorders claiming they're more 'sensitive' to paranormal activity, which sounds like bollocks to me, but I want to know if there's any truth to it.

Also, has anyone experimented with white noise generators versus silent recording? I've been running both methods and the white noise sessions seem to produce more 'voices,' but that could be my brain being primed to hear patterns.

The £3,500 Sony is genuinely good kit, but honestly, a £50 dictaphone will pick up EVP just as well. The quality difference is negligible for paranormal work. What matters is consistent methodology, environmental control, and honest analysis. Analogue cassette believers are usually just nostalgic - digital recording is objectively superior for this.

White noise generators are interesting but yes, they introduce confirmation bias. Your brain is pattern-matching. Try running sessions with and without, then randomise the playback so you don't know which is which before analysis.

Borley Rectory is the gold standard for EVP testing - good choice. I'd say stick with your Sony for consistency. You've paid for it, you're familiar with it. But do comparative recordings with a basic Dictaphone and compare results. If the Sony isn't pulling things the cheap recorder misses, you've got your answer and you can sell it.

is EVP quality more about technique and location than equipment

My advice: document your methodology obsessively, learn to distinguish genuine anomalies from artifacts, and for God's sake use proper acoustic analysis software (Audacity is free and decent) rather than just listening and deciding something sounds like a voice.

Analogue believers are wrong, but there's a kernel of truth: they're usually more careful about layering their methodology. Digital recorders can introduce digital artifacts that sound voice-like. Use your Sony but run everything through spectral analysis. Visual confirmation in Audacity is more valuable than your subjective hearing.

Have you tried the Frank's Box approach? Modified AM/FM radio with white noise sweeping, combined with recording? Some people swear by it, others say it's pure confirmation bias. Might be worth experimenting with at Borley - the location is active enough that if there's a genuine phenomenon, even dodgy equipment should capture something.