How can independent forensic audio analysts verify the authenticity of Substack-hosted recordings?
Executive summary
Independent forensic audio analysts seeking to verify the authenticity of recordings published on Substack must begin with the platform’s technical constraints: Substack-hosted audio files are stored on Substack-controlled servers and are streamed to listeners, and embedded audio may be intentionally non-downloadable [1] [2]. Analysts can therefore combine platform-level inquiry (account and distribution verification) with standard forensic best practices — but public documentation about server-side metadata access is limited in the available reporting, so confirmation often requires cooperation from the publisher or Substack itself [3] [4].
1. Understand where the audio lives and how it plays
Substack distinguishes between “hosted” audio saved on computers controlled by Substack and externally hosted audio that streams from other services, and playback can come from Substack’s servers or the external host depending on where the file resides [1]; Substack’s user-facing help explains that audio plays within the app and can keep playing in the background [5]. Those platform facts frame the analyst’s starting point: verifying authenticity on Substack means first determining whether the file is on Substack servers or an external host, because custody, metadata, and access possibilities differ by location [1].
2. Seek original files and publisher cooperation
Because Substack’s embed tool explicitly notes that embedded audio “cannot be downloaded by you or the listener,” the most direct route for forensic analysis is to obtain the original master file from the publisher or content owner rather than relying on the streamed copy available to listeners [2]. Substack’s own documentation about posting, recording and replacing audio notes that authors can upload or record voiceovers and manage those files from their dashboard, suggesting the publisher should be able to produce a source file if willing [6] [2].
3. Corroborate identity and distribution metadata
Platform-level verification bolsters provenance: Substack’s verification processes focus on confirming account identity and email address ownership, which helps establish who published content on the platform [3]. If a Substack voiceover was distributed as a podcast, third-party distribution steps — for example Spotify’s verification code sent to the podcast owner’s email — create additional artifacts and points of corroboration that analysts can use to cross-check ownership and timelines [4].
4. Use technical capture where possible, but note limits of public documentation
When direct access to the original file is unavailable, an analyst can attempt technical capture of the streamed audio during playback to obtain a working copy for waveform and spectral analysis; Substack confirms audio is streamed to the subscriber’s device, which implies such a capture is technically feasible in principle [1] [5]. However, Substack’s public support articles do not disclose whether server-side metadata or logs (file timestamps, upload hashes, access records) are retained in user-accessible form, so there is limited public guidance on whether—or how—platform logs could be requested or subpoenaed for forensic validation [1] [2].
5. Account for production signals but avoid overclaiming
Forensic analysts should analyze audible signals (editing artifacts, consistent microphone characteristics, background noise profiles) and compare them with publisher-supplied masters when available; Substack’s guidance that voiceovers can be recorded in-browser underscores that recordings may include artifacts tied to browser/microphone settings [6], and user comments show real-world recording errors and variability that can explain anomalies [7]. Still, because available reporting does not document Substack’s server-side metadata exposure, analysts must be cautious: platform-hosting facts are clear, but the ability to obtain authoritative server logs or embedded metadata from Substack itself is not covered in the provided sources and therefore cannot be assumed [1] [2].
6. Practical pathway and transparency posture
A practical verification pathway therefore runs: determine hosting locus (Substack vs external) via the post and embed data [1] [2], request the publisher’s original file and upload logs (publisher-controlled evidence) while seeking corroborating distribution verification such as Spotify confirmation if applicable [4] [3], perform standard forensic analyses on obtained masters, and—if necessary—seek platform-level evidence from Substack through legal or cooperative channels, acknowledging that Substack’s public help pages do not promise listener-accessible server metadata [2] [1]. Analysts should explicitly state where platform documentation leaves gaps and avoid definitive claims about server-side provenance unless supported by direct cooperation or disclosure from Substack.