“The software compared that audio to Zimmerman’s voice. It returned a 48 percent match. Owen said to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he’d expect higher than 90 percent.
“As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it’s not Zimmerman,” Owen says, stressing that he cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon’s, because he didn’t have a sample of the teen’s voice to compare.”
So, did they get a recent sample of Zimmerman’s voice as somebody repeatedly bashed his head into the pavement, again?
I would reckon that could change the pitch of his “normal” voice ~just~ a bit.
Nobody, anywhere, any time *ever* got a recording of Trayvon speaking?
With cell phone videos and all the other recording devices abundant *everywhere* these days, I find that a bit odd.
III - THE METHOD OF VOICE IDENTIFICATION:
"The first step is to evaluate the recording of the unknown voice, checking to make sure the recording has a sufficient amount of speech with which to work and that the quality of the recording is of sufficient clarity in the frequency range required for analysis. The volume of the recorded voice signal must be significantly higher than that of the environmental noise. The greater the number of obscuring events, such as noise, music, and other speakers, the longer the sample of speech must be. Some examiners report that they reject as many as sixty percent of the cases submitted to them with one of the main reasons for rejection being the poor quality of the recording of the unknown voice"
Link:
http://www.owlinvestigations.com/article1.html
The codec on the pbone can mess with the results. We had to go to a better quality evrc encoder in 2001 when performing voice recognition using Qualcomm chipsets. Unless you know the sampling/encoding and evaluation algorithms, I would treat the “experts” as suspect.