Reply to “Speaker identification by speech spectrograms: some further observations” [R.H. Bolt, F.S. Cooper, E.E. David, P.B. Denes, J.M. Pickett, and K.N. Stevens, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 54, 531–534 (1973)]
John W. Black, William B. Lashbrook, Ernest Nash, Herbert Oyer, Charles Pedrey, Oscar Tosi, H. M. Truby · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 1973
In their letter to the editor, “Speaker identification by speech spectrograms: some further observations,” Bolt et al. [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 54, 531–534 (1973)] express an opinion on voice identification as produced in real-life cases by specially trained professional examiners using a combined aural and visual examination of speaker samples. The opinion of these authors is not based on personal experience or even on a direct observation of these examinations. In addition, they disregard crucial facts that strongly interact with the reliability of those positive decisions produced by professional, full-time examiners, such as their special training and responsibility, the five possible decisions they are entitled to produce after each examination, the number of samples, and the length of time used to perform each examination. It is our contention that opinions based on feelings other than in actual experience are of little value, irrespective of the scientific authority of those who produce such an opinion.