|
Post by BillyJones on Jun 17, 2004 14:17:30 GMT
I agree
|
|
|
Post by yellowsub2 on Jun 18, 2004 8:06:22 GMT
the doctor who did the voice comparisons said he noticed 3 voices. Then all of a sudden he wouldn't say anything more or come forward. BTW - Where was this guy interviewed? I had sort of thought he was part of the original 'hoax' in 69??
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Jun 18, 2004 14:13:53 GMT
If I remember correctly, he was invited to do a talk show regarding the three different voices, but all of a sudden refused, saying he had been wrong. This is rather suspicious when he had come forward earlier and was very positive. In goes to reason that someone had no doubt threatened him and/or his family. The Illuminati would have no whelms killing children if they were not obeyed. That is another way they have kept friends and relatives of those who have been killed in line.
|
|
|
Post by yellowsub2 on Jun 21, 2004 8:58:14 GMT
If I remember correctly, he was invited to do a talk show regarding the three different voices, but all of a sudden refused, saying he had been wrong. This is rather suspicious when he had come forward earlier and was very positive. I've just done a little bit of reading - another site says he was interviewed by life magazine in 69, so looks like he was at least a real person.
|
|
|
Post by MMCDHoward on Jun 21, 2004 14:53:59 GMT
There are many other comparisons that have been done. It was rather odd that the doctor who did the voice comparisons said he noticed 3 voices. Then all of a sudden he wouldn't say anything more or come forward. Something tells me he was threatened with death to himself or his loved ones. The way these jerks work, it wouldn't surprise me in the least. I disagree, is it not possible that this doctor was proven wrong and chose not to admit his wrong, but rather to just stay out of the limelight, there are people in this world who wouldn't admit that kind of thing to save their souls, and he may very well be one of them.
|
|
|
Post by BillyJones on Jun 21, 2004 15:25:44 GMT
Within me, he was an EXPERT in vocal comparisons. He wouldn't have said anything, if he felt that his reputation would be on the line He said what he did because he GENUINELY HEARD THREE DIFFERENT VOICES.
|
|
|
Post by MMCDHoward on Jun 21, 2004 15:34:11 GMT
what do you mean? He thought he had found something to make his career, when it turned out wrong, he backed out before anyone could prove him wrong to his face.
|
|
|
Post by BillyJones on Jun 21, 2004 16:56:28 GMT
He already HAD a career. I don't know WHY he listened to the vocal recordings of Paul. I need to research this further before commenting further. I think you should do the same.
|
|
|
Post by SilverBeatle on Jun 21, 2004 18:44:21 GMT
FYI The Henry Truby/Paul McCartney voiceprint thing was from the Nov 7th Life magazine article. www.turnmeondeadman.net/IBP/Intro.html"Life magazine sent a crew to Scotland to track Paul down and take a photo of him. Paul had taken refuge from the Beatles' legal battles at his farm in Scotland and he was not at all happy to be confronted by reporters. When the crew from Life magazine appeared on his farm, Paul became angry and doused the photographer with a bucket of water as he took pictures. The reporters quickly left and Paul, realizing that the photos would cast him in a negative light, followed after them. In exchange for the film of his outburst, Paul agreed to let the Life crew do an interview. The resulting article, which went into some detail about the supposed clues to Paul's "death", appeared as the cover story for the November 7, 1969, issue.
"The Life article even contributed to the rumor by publishing sonagrams of Paul singing "Hey Jude," which would have been recorded after Paul's death, with Paul's voice from "Yesterday." The magazine quoted Dr. Henry Truby of the University of Miami, who found them to be "suspiciously different." "Could there have been more than one 'McCartney'?", the Life article asked"Now, that said, I don't think this was a bombshell by any means and that is the reason this "evidence" was swept under the rug as fast as it came forward. Of course Paul sounds different in "Yesterday" than he does in "Hey Jude"...or "Long Tall Sally" or "Lady Madonna" or "Hello Goodbye" or "Oh Darling" or "Michelle" for that matter. We're comparing apples & oranges. Paul possesses a voice much like Jim Carey's face...much as Carey can contort his face depending on the emotion, Paul can sound any number of different ways depending on what he wants to do in a song. A singing voice is much different than a speaking voice...and before I get jumped on about Paul's speaking voice also changing, there has been no voiceprinting ever done to my knowledge on his speaking voice...and even if they did you would have to factor in any number of legitimate reason for accents and tone changing due to age, where you live, etc just my opinion!
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Jun 21, 2004 18:55:03 GMT
As for Paul's speaking voice, I can hear him on the CD that came with Larry Kane's "Tickiet to Ride" book and wil often here his voice on the Beatle Brunch. When I hear Faul's voice it often seems he has very little accent. Or his accent is radically changed.
I would love to see a speaking voice comparison by someone with Dr Truby's talents and abilities,.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Jun 21, 2004 20:47:19 GMT
There are opinions and there is science..... Misinformation is all trolls' art. -At the urging of a Miami disc jockey, Dr. Henry M. Truby, director of the university's language and linguistics research laboratory, put the McCartney riddle to a "sound fingerprint" test. After 20 hours of running experiments on dozens of Beatle records dating from the early 1960's, the professor said there is "reasonable doubt" that three voices popularly attributed to McCartney are produced by the same set of vocal chords. "I hear three different McCartneys," Truby said. Speculation that McCartney died in an automobile accident in November 1966 has touched off a world wide controversy in pop music circles. The furor prompted Apple Corp Ltd., the Beatles London office to issue a brief statement from Paul: "I am alive and well and unconcerned about the rumors of my death. But if I were dead, I would be the last to know." But Truby, an audio expert, insists, "I heard three different McCartneys." Truby said experiments on a sound spectograph machine indicated there were six different voices on the records he tested. Three were clearly identified as those of Beatles John Lennon, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr. The three others sound "roughly" like the same person, the professor said, but the spectograph-which makes sound "fingerprints"-show a different authorship. "I cannot conclude that the same voice appears in these early and late passages," said Truby, who has spent 20 years in scientific audio studies.-
1969 -United Press International-
Henry M. Truby, Director of the University of Miami's Language and Linguistics Research Laboratory
..and...
From the Beatle Brunch interview, Robey Younge talks about Dr. Truby:
"We had experts on. We had a man a doctor [sic] Henry Truby from the University of Miami who specialized in voiceprints. He was the man who used to record baby's cries at birth and twenty years later be able to pick out the individual babies just by their voiceprints. And Dr. Truby told me on tape on television [sic], Rick Shaw and I made a little documentary on it and Truby appeared and said, 'It's defiinitely not the same person. All my research shows it can't be the same person.' Then we called Dr. Truby to come back and do retakes. He shut up. He clammed up and said, 'No. I can't say anything more about this.'"
...and...from the same interview Robey Younge continued:
"That we went as far as taking accurate photographs and measured the bridge of a person's nose, the 'previous' McCartney and the 'second' McCartney. And it was quite different. One nose was longer than the other." Sound spectograph machine is NOT Dr. Truby ears. Fast Fourier Transform analysis is NOT an "opinion" Ask Raymond Kurzweil about vocal recognition technology... BTW Who is Jim "Carey"? Mariah Carey's brother?
|
|
|
Post by SilverBeatle on Jun 21, 2004 22:23:40 GMT
Alriiiighty then oh wise one...where did I misinform? I posted my source. When you give sarcastic crass answers like this one you really make yourself look like a jerk. Sorry I spelled Jim's last name wrong...but for somebody who likes to hide behind the "I don't spell English well" veil you certainly have a lot to say about my spelling. Why are you so hostile to me SK? I'd love to speak with him...but who is he? I say let's bring him to the forum! Q: Who is Robey Younge and why should I believe him? Q: What is a Beatle Brunch? Q: Can you provide a source to prove this info? Q: What makes any of this info credible? Anyway...back to your original Dr Truby post...three voices, two voices, who cares...I sing for a living and I'm telling you people can sing differently and sound completely different. I know many,many people that make a living parroting different popular artists. They sound identical. Here is a barrel of info on voice technology: expertpages.com/news/voiceprint_identification.htmAs you'll read, it is fascinating stuff...but far from FULL LEGAL VALUE. There is much debate in the scientific community about the technology and while the error rate is small it is still there. Plus, as I've tried to explain, I just don't accept using the technology to compare singing voices. It's used for speaking voices (wire taps, etc) - to use it on studio manipulated recorded singing is absurd. Is the reason nobody gives this "angle" of evidence any credibility...otherwise this is your smoking gun. You shouldn't need and cross-fades or rubber ears.
|
|
|
Post by MMCDHoward on Jun 21, 2004 23:21:22 GMT
I didn't know you were Macca4Ever SilverBeatle, its good to know that someone else is fighting the fight in this place!
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Jun 22, 2004 6:36:57 GMT
FYI The Henry Truby/Paul McCartney voiceprint thing was from the Nov 7th Life magazine article. www.turnmeondeadman.net/IBP/Intro.html"Life magazine sent a crew to Scotland to track Paul down and take a photo of him. Paul had taken refuge from the Beatles' legal battles at his farm in Scotland and he was not at all happy to be confronted by reporters. When the crew from Life magazine appeared on his farm, Paul became angry and doused the photographer with a bucket of water as he took pictures. The reporters quickly left and Paul, realizing that the photos would cast him in a negative light, followed after them. In exchange for the film of his outburst, Paul agreed to let the Life crew do an interview. The resulting article, which went into some detail about the supposed clues to Paul's "death", appeared as the cover story for the November 7, 1969, issue. I saw you hiding from a flock of paparazzi You were hoping, you were hoping that the ground would swallow you I saw you hiding there...At first Faul thought "This is it, I've been rumbled" and panicked. But then he managed to get his act together and decided to bluff his way out of the situation; from this came the well-known quip "Rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated".
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Jun 22, 2004 7:42:23 GMT
* Each instrument produces its own "overtone signature," its own unique tone color or timbre, it's own characteristic array of relative energy (loudness) levels for each of the overtones. That's why you can instantly differentiate the sounds of numerous musical instruments * Your brain has evolved to accurately interpret the varying volume levels of the overtones produced by all manner of different sound sources. Not just musical instruments. Practically any source of sound. They all produce overtones, each with its own characteristic overtone signature, or tone color. * Just like musical instruments, every human voice has its own unique overtone signature. That's why you can tell different human voices apart, even when you can't see who's talking or singing. This capability of the human brain makes possible the modest little industries of radio and sound recording. Complete ChordsEvery music major in every music school anywhere knows these things. Music teachers tests students. They play an aria sung by Pavarotti--they "drop the needle", then stop after a few seconds. Then they ask you in an oral exam, out loud, in front of the whole class, who was that? This is a regular part of a music major's training. I'm not the best, I'm good, but there are no doubt hundreds of prodigies running around a whole lot sharper than me. The fact is, it is like telling the difference between colognes, or fruits aromas, or flower scents. The machine just puts a technical angle on it. It helps explain what the difference the brain distinguishes actually IS. Modified by PB to make the post fit the standard post width.
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Jun 22, 2004 7:47:21 GMT
Harmonic Profile, Sound Signature, and Voice Print When listening to a tone with its fundamental and overtones a listener should be aware that certain harmonics are stronger than others or they are missing entirely. The visual pattern (generated on an oscilloscope) of relative strength of harmonics of a given pitch, produced by a given source, constitute what may be called the harmonic profile or sound signature of that source. Every individual, whether speaking or singing, produces (with each pitch spoken or sung) a fundamental plus a series of harmonics. The pattern of relative strength of these harmonics is different in each individual voice and this individual harmonic series pattern determines the voice quality of an individual. Sound "quality" is determined by the harmonic profile or sound signature as a direct result of the specific pattern of intensity of individual components of the harmonic series of the sound source. The friend-in-the-dark's voice or the initial "Hello" on the telephone are both determined by the quality (harmonic pattern) of the voice. The human ear is very sensitive to harmonic profile or sound signature. In the world of crime detection, the unique quality of a specific human voice is called a "voice print". Individuals may be identified accurately by electronic analysis of their recorded voices. Music instruments also possess a unique harmonic profile and individuals discern the difference between musical instruments by their unique tone quality. All musical instruments of the same family have the same general tone quality. If a natural sound source has its harmonic profile electronically filtered and the harmonics of the source completely removed (or even partially removed), it is very difficult for the human ear to determine the source of the sound. A sound wave without any harmonic content is called a pure sine wave. Artificial sounds may be produced by electronic synthesis, and, for a given electronic sound, any number of harmonic profile combinations may be synthesized. By electronic synthesis the sounds of natural, acoustic instruments and human voices may be approximated, but individuals can often differentiate between natural sounds and electronically synthesized sounds. Synthesized sound technology is used extensively in all types of current musical activity, from the musical fine arts to popular culture and from movies to rock and roll. www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Arts/music/elements/generalities/harmonic/harmonic.htm
|
|
|
Post by devilsadv on Jun 22, 2004 15:13:31 GMT
I didn't know you were Macca4Ever SilverBeatle, its good to know that someone else is fighting the fight in this place! SilverBeatle's the best. He is always courteous and well mannered, and the logic is perfect.
|
|
|
Post by Palin on Jun 22, 2004 15:39:15 GMT
I don't see that there should be a problem with what Silverbeatle posted. Personally, as a musician, I have multiple post Beatle recordings where McCartney has completely different "voices" eg Monkberry Moon Delight, Coming Up (classic btw)However Absurd Waterfalls - he (whoever he is) had a great talent for manipualting his own voice. The vocal arguments don't convince me at all, regardless of what Truby says. For me, it's in the pictures, as pre-66 Paul did some strange things with his voice too.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Jun 22, 2004 17:50:36 GMT
John changed so many times his voice in his songs. But when he sung "Imagine" he had always the same voice. Why the character "Paul" changed so many times his voice singing "Yesterday"?
Human voice formant is made by oral cave dimension, vocal chords, nasal cavity all that resounding at an exact frequency that change from a man to another just like fingerprints.
Me, I can sing "Yesterday" imitating "Paul's" voice maybe better than Faul.
But sadly I am not James Paul McCartney
FYI Raymond Kurzweil is who has invented in 1984 the "Kurzweil 250" the BEST sample based keyboard with a tecnology unsurpassed EVEN those last times.
(How? You are a fine musician and you don't know about the Kurzweil 250... it "sounds" very strange....SilverBeatle....)
|
|
|
Post by MMCDHoward on Jun 22, 2004 18:53:45 GMT
John changed so many times his voice in his songs. But when he sung "Imagine" he had always the same voice. Why the character "Paul" changed so many times his voice singing "Yesterday"? Human voice formant is made by oral cave dimension, vocal chords, nasal cavity all that resounding at an exact frequency that change from a man to another just like fingerprints. Me, I can sing "Yesterday" imitating "Paul's" voice maybe better than Faul. But sadly I am not James Paul McCartney FYI Raymond Kurzweil is who has invented in 1984 the "Kurzweil 250" the BEST sample based keyboard with a tecnology unsurpassed EVEN those last times. (How? You are a fine musician and you don't know about the Kurzweil 250... it "sounds" very strange....SilverBeatle....) whats an oral cave dimension? and isn't admitting that people can change their voices weakening your case?
|
|
|
Post by devilsadv on Jun 22, 2004 19:27:49 GMT
A couple of points.
How many different versions of Imagine have you heard? The song came out in the early 70's and he dropped from the scene in 75 and died in 80.
With regard to Yesterday, there were intervals of 10 years or more between the versions of that song. By the way, if Paul died he only died once, so there should only be one change of voice, not many.
Also, please note the change of voice in Elton John. His voice in later years is vastly different than that in his early years. It is deeper and raspy or hoarse now. The difference is much greater and more noticable that any difference between Yesterday of 1965 and Yesterday of 1976 on the Wings tour. Yet Elton was not replaced; his voice just changed.
|
|
|
Post by BillyJones on Jun 22, 2004 19:29:24 GMT
He's saying that the shape of the inside of a person's mouth, vocal chords & nasal cavity is different from person to person. Honestly, I don't know if the technology existed in the late 1960's to give Faul the surgery necessary to shape those things so that he would sound exactly like Paul. I don't think it was. I don't know if they ever COULD do it, since they never had Paul's body so that the surgeon's involved could try to duplicate those things. So, there is really no way that Faul's voiceprints could be the same as James Paul's.
|
|
|
Post by devilsadv on Jun 22, 2004 19:46:17 GMT
By the way,
I'm no expert in the tecnology, but I know that certain effects were used when recording different songs. Some were slowed or sped up, there was over-dubbing as well as other electronic effects used in different songs. How would these effects affect the sound of the voice and voice prints?
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Jun 22, 2004 19:47:54 GMT
He's saying that the shape of the inside of a person's mouth, vocal chords & nasal cavity is different from person to person. Honestly, I don't know if the technology existed in the late 1960's to give Faul the surgery necessary to shape those things so that he would sound exactly like Paul. I don't think it was. I don't know if they ever COULD do it, since they never had Paul's body so that the surgeon's involved could try to duplicate those things. So, there is really no way that Faul's voiceprints could be the same as James Paul's. digilander.libero.it/p_truth/the_truth/go_Paul_Faul.aifdigilander.libero.it/jamespaul/interviews_comparison.html
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Jun 22, 2004 19:52:17 GMT
By the way, I'm no expert in the tecnology, but I know that certain effects were used when recording different songs. Some were slowed or sped up, there was over-dubbing as well as other electronic effects used in different songs. How would these effects affect the sound of the voice and voice prints? No. When the voice has no deep flanger or chorus effect the formant remains the same.
|
|