linda & john,
i thank you both for your responses. my purpose in the original post was to challenge the explaination of the singer's formant. i don't feel that a correlative relationship between what a machine hears and what we hear has been 'actually' demonstrated. i don't think the sampling has been wide enough. it is not as bad as "i was vocalizing just before the earthquake therefore, i started the earthquake (i think it was my 'singers formant' that did it)."
if you look at the questions i posed- if it is the singer's formant that allows the singer to be heard over the orchestra, then how do the mid-range sounds, vowels, make it through? couldn't they make through on their own? or are they somehow connected to the 'singer's formant'? and i want those who would claim that to demonstrate it beyond a reasonable doubt. science changes its mind with each new installment of data. the universe still exists whether we think it the result of a 'big bang' or an afterschool activity by some fairy tale god.
the judgment of one's life being horrible is subjective. perhaps candide just has different taste than we.
mike
|
| |