Another CHER vocal request

[Lunch Money]

How is it that it hadn't been used before! Brilliant, Meffy!

[greendoor]

Must be an awesome vocoder in Talker though if it as a byprocess strips information from the original vocals such as vibrato... just like Autotune does and just happens to sound like that Cher bit :O

I feel like bashing my head against a brick wall at the ignorance here. Obviously somebody has NO idea what the hell a vocoder is. Sigh. Just for the sake of those who have no clue - this is what a vocoder does. It MODULATES one signal with another. In this case - a midi controlled mono lead synth and Cher's backing track (probably Autotuned by this stage).
If you don't want vibrato, you don't apply vibrato to the lead synth patch. If you want it to instantly sweep from note to note without re-triggering, you apply the fastest portamento and overlap the midi notes. The vocoder (in this case the Digitech Talk box, but you could use any good vocoder plugin) MODULATES that signal with the vocal track. Of course it's going to sound like Cher - because it WAS Cher.

I don't actually have a copy of that song - but I think it was a good pop song and I don't mind hearing it. From what I can tell, there is a LOT more going on than a simple auto-tune effect. Agreed - that might be 95% of the effect. But I am sure I recognise some really mangled stuff that could only be done with a vocoded synth. All i'm saying is I believe both accounts - I don't think there is any conspiracy. Cher herself mentioned Autotune, so it's bollocks to say they were trying to hide this. Believe wtf you want to believe.

BTW - we are talking about the 'effecty' part of the vocal - not the whole vocal?

[duncanparsons]

Nah the whole vocal - she's actually a robot. The vocoder bits are normal, the human sounding stuff is what they had to work really hard with..

DSP

[jmh]

Must be an awesome vocoder in Talker though if it as a byprocess strips information from the original vocals such as vibrato... just like Autotune does and just happens to sound like that Cher bit :O

I feel like bashing my head against a brick wall at the ignorance here. Obviously somebody has NO idea what the hell a vocoder is. Sigh. Just for the sake of those who have no clue - this is what a vocoder does. It MODULATES one signal with another. In this case - a midi controlled mono lead synth and Cher's backing track (probably Autotuned by this stage).
If you don't want vibrato, you don't apply vibrato to the lead synth patch. If you want it to instantly sweep from note to note without re-triggering, you apply the fastest portamento and overlap the midi notes. The vocoder (in this case the Digitech Talk box, but you could use any good vocoder plugin) MODULATES that signal with the vocal track. Of course it's going to sound like Cher - because it WAS Cher.

Thanks. I do know what a vocoder is, apparentely it's you who didn't think it through.

So, let's put it another way... and try to think this through this time

Most likely Cher's original vocal bit wasn't robotically tuned - the way let's say applying Autotune with certain settings does...

So, if it was just a Digitech Talker in action you'd hear her pitch fluctuations, articulations and such despite the vocoder's carrier waveform being stable.

It'd just sound... you guessed, vocoded.

Instead in that track it sounds simply static, with very little in the way of how a vocoder sounds. All you really hear is her pitch change from the natural fluctuations into a static, shall we say robotic tone - remarkably similar to what you can achieve with Autotune...

Or are you perhaps implying that the vocal part was used as the carrier instead of modulator? Well... try it - and let us hear how close to that Cher thing you get

If you still feel like banging your head against the wall, provide us an example with the the vocoder of your choice which sounds like that Cher vocal clip.

If that vocal part includes vocoding, it must be rather impressive as it is practically impossible to detect - whereas that rapid autotuning is rather apparent to anyone who has ever fiddled with Autotune.

Clearer now?

Just further pondering... isn't it amazing that after Believe became a hit, all the followers could replicate that effect bit with a single piece of gear - you guessed it right, Autotune! With no vocoders in sight...

Regards,

JMH

[duncanparsons]

As it happens, I have an idea for a self modulating vocoder...

Won't give anymore details than that, but it'll probably be a betabugs thing in the next few months..



DSP

[Lunch Money]

jmh, it's interesting that you think ALL vocoders MUST behave in the exact same way and that you knew exactly what Cher's vocal track might have sounded like.

I'm not saying you're wrong-- I'm just saying it's bizarre how fixated you are on being right about this one... you're not entertaining ANY possibilities that it could have been anything but Autotune. Frankly, I think it DOES sound vocoded when you listen to it. There's something at play with her voice beyond simple pitch alteration and the "effect" of rapid autotuning.

Now before you get all hot and bothered, I already agree that Autotuning would produce a very very similar effect. I'm just surprised about how adamant you are.

Greg

[FnederGurkum]

Yeah, what a strange lie to make? I mean it´s obvious that Autotune is used on that track anyway!
I´ve used the Talker and that isn´t it, most likely it´s Autotune!

[No name]

I do da cha cha like a sissy boy.

[FnederGurkum]

Good for you !

[jmh]

Lunch Money Most vocoders work the same way, and thus produce similar results...

As for being fixated about it, my last reply wouldn't have been how it was if it wasn't for Greendoor's posting which pretty much stated that while he does know everything about vocoding, apparently I don't and offered his view on the matter as a fact to the public.

Then there's the factor at play that it's been discussed to death over the years, with enough interesting details for those who followed all the crapola related to it, including those conspiracy theories around why the name Autotune couldn't be mentioned originally...

In the end... you can get that effect with simple Autotune settings, whereas I've yet to hear a single example sound close enough to the Cher track, done with a vocoder. I still cannot comprehed how using a vocoder would strip the natural human voice fluctuations, neither when used as a carrier nor a modulator with a vocoder. Simple as that.

Entertaining the possibility of it being anything else than Autotune? I'm not saying there isn't more happening, but really... all I need is to HEAR an example of doing that with a vocoder - I've heard it done to deat h with Autotune and similar products, every time being very close to Believe, on countless commercial tracks, besides playing with such products.

You could really say that my "fixation" with this particular topic is the same thing I have with Josh Wink's Higher state of consciousness - despite him changing his opinion in every interview regarding which synth generated that riff, anyone who has access to those two named machines he namedropped interchangeably can hear for themselves where that sound came from - but it hasn't stopped the majority getting it wrong and still to this day insist on hearing their favorite one doing that riff despite being wrong - as there are so many others saying the same, they couldn't be wrong, could they

JMH

[Lunch Money]

There may be something to what you say.

[jmh]

According to a higher authority on this forum I'm just a smartass though

JMH

[Lunch Money]

It's partially true. <laff> Better than being a pain-in-the-ass, which is what I'm usually accused of.

Just as I was driving home, I heard this song on the radio that uses the effect... can't remember what it's called, but it's a dance track and it's a "duet" sort of... the guy sings, "Take me higher, girl caress my body, you got me going crazy..." during the "Cher" part.

In that particular song, it was clearly Autotune because of the unpredictable pitch-shifts. That's why I still insist it's not as easy as you think it is with Autotune. The results are largely unpredictable, whereas in "Believe", it sounds and IS entirely orchestrated to shift pitch at exactly the right time. That's why I buy the producer's story that when they had a few 'happy accidents' with the Talkbox, they then figured out what was going on and PROGRAMMED the shifts very precicesly, letting through enough of the actual vocal before glissing into the talkboxed bit (or however he explained it... I don't remember exactly, but it did involve precision and paying attention to each and every note shift).

If you don't have Autotune, download CarToon or GSnap and see if you can get a Cher effect very easily and predictably. I'm betting you won't. You will get LOTS of stuff that SOUNDS like the Cher effect, but it won't be carefully-timed and precise the way it is on "Believe". It'll be more random like that dance track I heard today.

Wanna bet the people who made that dance track heard about the Cher thing and said, "Meh, it's just Autotune!"

On the other hand, if they PROGRAMMED Autotune instead of just putting it on "auto" mode, I'd also believe that. I just don't see why they'd outright lie about the Talkbox thing... it's not like people couldn't get Talkbox and instantly perk up, saying "LIES! All LIES!!!" when they tried to dupe the effect.

Greg

[jmh]

Well, of course it is programmed, there's no disagreement on that part.

And I'm familiar enough with Autotune to know how such results can be achieved (as is everybody aping mindlessly that Believe thing instead of even trying out anything different).

And at no point did I say it's extremely easy, as in just turn Autotune on and there you have it?

As for the rest... that was part of the original conspiracy theory, when a lot of people noticed how Autotune can achieve similar results and sound really close to it, contrary to getting similar results with Talker or other vocoders. As the wars raged on (didn't it happen later on in here as well?), people in the know - I'm not naming any names as I can't recall such details from years back - commented that it might not be Talker after all but due to the record company's requests they're tight lipped about how it was achieved. Later on, some folks posted emails about the subject where yet another person whose name is obscured thanks to time passing by 'revealed' how exactly it was done.

Anyways... Autotune + vocoder I can buy, but as I've said already, I've yet to hear a vocoder that pulls it off alone - what's happening with Cher's voice is simply too robotic to be a result of vocoding alone. The very characteristic, tell-tale even, Autotune effect is present in it in a way that doesn't go unnoticed.

So, to repeat it once again... or rather, rephrasing it: all I need is to hear that effect replicated with a vocoder, without Autotune or similar product, and I'll change my mind for good and apologize for disturbing this thread I'm willing to accept I'm wrong about this, but all the "evidence" so far leads me to believe it simply isn't a vocoder, especially one with very little control over things that would be required (there's a vocoder or three out there with features such as freeze for momentarily playing back nothing but the last state the vocoder was outputting, sustained under user control, but haven't seen nor heard Talker providing that).

As for lying about it... I'd buy the explanation that as they were requested not to mention Autotune due to possible misunderstandings about Cher's vocal abilities, they left that part out of the story. Which would make a lot of sense on some level, as people undoubtedly would have just read the words Autotune and Cher and forget what was then a novel effect done with the vocals instead of getting an out-of-tune performer to sound better.

If I wasn't so knackered from having my third 18-hour session ina row to satisfy unreasonable clients with ridiculous deadlines, I'd spend some moments googling around... next teleconference in 10 minutes though, time to alt-tab back into Photoshop and get yet another revision of a webpage layout finished so the client has something more to bitch about (the only reason I'm putting myself into this is that they agreed to compensate me properly for this)

These occasional KVR visits are what keep me from going insane debugging various browsers' quirks and "standard compliant" rendering, I'm already seeing HTML and CSS in my dreams

Regards,

JMH

[Lunch Money]

Ah, it was jasonsantiago that said that about the auto setting. My mistake, I was thinking in my head that it was you. <chuckle>

Greg