What is the voice effect used in that 'Cher' and 'Im Blue'
-
- KVRist
- 242 posts since 20 Mar, 2002
Cool, not seen any of thos tatsy little plug-ins before.Sascha Franck wrote:Regardless of what people are saying, Autotune will do the job fine and if you want something similar for free, try GSnap from GVST:
http://homepages.tesco.net/~graham.yeadon/gvst/
Nev
I span the genres, they call me the genre spanner.
-
- KVRist
- 393 posts since 19 Apr, 2005
I can get that very same effect using Melodyne Uno.
The trick is not only to correct the pitch,
but to remove every bit of vibrato and pitch drift.
And just by the way....the correct english is
"would've" ( abbreviation of "would have" )
not "would of"......
The trick is not only to correct the pitch,
but to remove every bit of vibrato and pitch drift.
And just by the way....the correct english is
"would've" ( abbreviation of "would have" )
not "would of"......
Last edited by GypsyJazz on Tue Oct 18, 2005 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- addled muppet weed
- 111306 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
Topic: What is the voice effect used in that 'Cher' and 'Im Blue'
annoying?
annoying?
-
- KVRian
- 769 posts since 2 Apr, 2005
This is basically a religious debate, with two major denominations with set 'beliefs' that can't see eye to eye. Typically - neither side has the ultimate truth.
There is the church of "It was Autotune" who can easily defend their faith because Cher herself said it was Autotune, and the tracks are very obviously Autotuned. Back then (1997?) there was no competition to Autotune.
But there is a splinter denomination that 'believes' that this effect was achieved with a vocoder and synth. The Church of the Digitech Talkbox and Nord Lead no less. The proponents of this faith have the written word of the engineer who created these tracks.
Each side has foaming-mouthed evangelists and doubting heretics. What is the truth?
Well actually - if anyone bothered to actually read what the engineer actually said in the Sound-On-Sound interview, and use their God given brains for one second ....
It's fairly obvious that the vocal track is severely autotuned. Get over it. BUT - it is also obvious to the discerning listener that there is something else going on, just in small phrases. The engineer explained that he created a vocoded synth track - and carefully spliced in tiny phrases or parts of words. He said he didn't use much of the vocoded/synth - just tiny little sections that make you go "what the?" but then the tail of the sound is the original vocal, so it's very confusing.
No doubt Attention Deficit Disorder, Alzheimers or just too much coke makes this a very, very difficult subject for many people to comprehend. It is best left to the initiated priesthood to deal with such matters of faith.
There is the church of "It was Autotune" who can easily defend their faith because Cher herself said it was Autotune, and the tracks are very obviously Autotuned. Back then (1997?) there was no competition to Autotune.
But there is a splinter denomination that 'believes' that this effect was achieved with a vocoder and synth. The Church of the Digitech Talkbox and Nord Lead no less. The proponents of this faith have the written word of the engineer who created these tracks.
Each side has foaming-mouthed evangelists and doubting heretics. What is the truth?
Well actually - if anyone bothered to actually read what the engineer actually said in the Sound-On-Sound interview, and use their God given brains for one second ....
It's fairly obvious that the vocal track is severely autotuned. Get over it. BUT - it is also obvious to the discerning listener that there is something else going on, just in small phrases. The engineer explained that he created a vocoded synth track - and carefully spliced in tiny phrases or parts of words. He said he didn't use much of the vocoded/synth - just tiny little sections that make you go "what the?" but then the tail of the sound is the original vocal, so it's very confusing.
No doubt Attention Deficit Disorder, Alzheimers or just too much coke makes this a very, very difficult subject for many people to comprehend. It is best left to the initiated priesthood to deal with such matters of faith.
-
- KVRist
- 255 posts since 13 Apr, 2005
greendoor wrote:This is basically a religious debate, with two major denominations with set 'beliefs' that can't see eye to eye. Typically - neither side has the ultimate truth.
There is the church of "It was Autotune" who can easily defend their faith because Cher herself said it was Autotune, and the tracks are very obviously Autotuned. Back then (1997?) there was no competition to Autotune.
But there is a splinter denomination that 'believes' that this effect was achieved with a vocoder and synth. The Church of the Digitech Talkbox and Nord Lead no less. The proponents of this faith have the written word of the engineer who created these tracks.
Each side has foaming-mouthed evangelists and doubting heretics. What is the truth?
Well actually - if anyone bothered to actually read what the engineer actually said in the Sound-On-Sound interview, and use their God given brains for one second ....
It's fairly obvious that the vocal track is severely autotuned. Get over it. BUT - it is also obvious to the discerning listener that there is something else going on, just in small phrases. The engineer explained that he created a vocoded synth track - and carefully spliced in tiny phrases or parts of words. He said he didn't use much of the vocoded/synth - just tiny little sections that make you go "what the?" but then the tail of the sound is the original vocal, so it's very confusing.
No doubt Attention Deficit Disorder, Alzheimers or just too much coke makes this a very, very difficult subject for many people to comprehend. It is best left to the initiated priesthood to deal with such matters of faith.
FANTASTIC post.
Summary: It was Auto-Tune, but it a bunch of idiots believed a producer's interview that intentionally left out auto-tune but explained how some of the other effects were done.
Some people who don't know pitch correction believe the producer's interview (or his omission), but unfortunately cannot produce the "cher effect" using a digitech talkbox (because it's not possible).
-
- KVRist
- 230 posts since 25 Nov, 2004
Now THAT should be stickied.greendoor wrote:This is basically a religious debate, with two major denominations with set 'beliefs' that can't see eye to eye. Typically - neither side has the ultimate truth.
There is the church of "It was Autotune" who can easily defend their faith because Cher herself said it was Autotune, and the tracks are very obviously Autotuned. Back then (1997?) there was no competition to Autotune.
But there is a splinter denomination that 'believes' that this effect was achieved with a vocoder and synth. The Church of the Digitech Talkbox and Nord Lead no less. The proponents of this faith have the written word of the engineer who created these tracks.
Each side has foaming-mouthed evangelists and doubting heretics. What is the truth?
Well actually - if anyone bothered to actually read what the engineer actually said in the Sound-On-Sound interview, and use their God given brains for one second ....
It's fairly obvious that the vocal track is severely autotuned. Get over it. BUT - it is also obvious to the discerning listener that there is something else going on, just in small phrases. The engineer explained that he created a vocoded synth track - and carefully spliced in tiny phrases or parts of words. He said he didn't use much of the vocoded/synth - just tiny little sections that make you go "what the?" but then the tail of the sound is the original vocal, so it's very confusing.
No doubt Attention Deficit Disorder, Alzheimers or just too much coke makes this a very, very difficult subject for many people to comprehend. It is best left to the initiated priesthood to deal with such matters of faith.
-
Voidoid Surrealist Voidoid Surrealist https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=41079
- KVRAF
- 4048 posts since 18 Sep, 2004 from Places far less tedious than this blue trainwreck...
I want my "Cher Effect for Dummies" pic stickied, goddamnit! 
-
- KVRAF
- 4229 posts since 9 Apr, 2003 from Right here, in front of my computer...
Thankfully some people can both get it correct, and explain it in a clear and precise manner.
Nice one.
Can you sticky this on *every* damn music site around, maybe we can kill this once and for all!!
Nice one.
Can you sticky this on *every* damn music site around, maybe we can kill this once and for all!!
-
- KVRian
- 1398 posts since 9 Dec, 2002
Glad to see someone claiming the absolute truth isn't bitter about the previous times this topic has been discussed - would have been the funniest post of the week if it wasn't for the sad remarks that only go to show that the high priestess of The Absolute Truth Somewhere In The Middle That Keeps On Changing To Suite One's Stance had some trouble comprehending some of the discussion
I wonder which of the mentioned - coke, Alzheimer's or ADD is the excuse...
But hey, at least there seems to be a some sort of consensus now
I wonder which of the mentioned - coke, Alzheimer's or ADD is the excuse...
But hey, at least there seems to be a some sort of consensus now
Now available with added Inherently Suspect Justification!
-
- KVRist
- 73 posts since 15 Oct, 2004
greendoor wrote:This is basically a religious debate ... It is best left to the initiated priesthood to deal with such matters of faith.
Nice one, greendoor - best post I've seen on this highly contentious subject.Odd: I've never seen a thread asking, "Why does anyone give a monkey's how that Cher effect was done ?".