The Frye test is, at bottom, a filter that aims to keep unreliable conclusions from being presented in court. Before this time, the test for an expert was whether or not scientific methods would assist the trier of fact to ascertain the truth, from the (raw) evidence.
When the question involved does not lie within the range of common experience or common knowledge, but requires special experience or special knowledge, then the opinions of witnesses skilled in that particular science, art, or trade to which the question relates are admissible in evidence.
So, to that point, I think it was Doddington who said that human recognition of voices, lay-people, are pretty darned reliable. More so than software, at any rate. That would augur against a need for experts AT ALL. However, the screams are amenable to speculation, and MAYBE science has an answer. That is the threshhold questions. Not what tools does science have, but do the tools answer the question.
Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.Frye vs. US, 54 App. D. C. 46, 293 F. 1013
We think the systolic blood pressure deception test has not yet gained such standing and scientific recognition among physiological and psychological authorities as would justify the courts in admitting expert testimony deduced from the discovery, development, and experiments thus far made.
(DC Cir. 1923)
I think there is enough slack in this writing to take the Frye test either way. It can be read as only testing the instrument / conclusion pair; or it can be read to also capture the raw evidence fed to the instrument. If one considers WHY the test exists, as a legal principle, the decision clearly favors the defense. One has to throw the principle of law out (the principle that the court disfavors speculative and potentially misleading testimony), in order to read Frye as admitting Owen and Reich.