define the "Cher effect" ?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Believe" is imprinted rather well in my mind, but I'm not certain why
folks say that the pitch-correction processing on this thing is extreme
relative to other pop songs. I _do_ hear all sorts of effects, but I
don't hear any obvious "correction".... which presumeably is the goal
of a corrector?

Can I get a definition of the "Cher Effect"?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> "Believe" is imprinted rather well in my mind, but I'm not certain why
> folks say that the pitch-correction processing on this thing is extreme
> relative to other pop songs. I _do_ hear all sorts of effects, but I
> don't hear any obvious "correction".... which presumeably is the goal
> of a corrector?

You have got to be kidding. It is so strong that it goes beyond correction
and is more of an instrument. If you can't hear the distinct effect in that
song then you are tone deaf. If you can't hear the artifacts in most pop
songs (in particular female country) where it compensates for poor vocal
technique then you have no business applying the effect for any reason.

> Can I get a definition of the "Cher Effect"?

She makes people vomit by wearing slutty clothes at age 50.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Well basically its using Autotune or some pitch correcting program set to
extreme settings to get that effect.


<alanh_27@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105902848.202148.208680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> "Believe" is imprinted rather well in my mind, but I'm not certain why
> folks say that the pitch-correction processing on this thing is extreme
> relative to other pop songs. I _do_ hear all sorts of effects, but I
> don't hear any obvious "correction".... which presumeably is the goal
> of a corrector?
>
> Can I get a definition of the "Cher Effect"?
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:14:08 -0800, alanh_27 wrote:

> "Believe" is imprinted rather well in my mind, but I'm not certain why
> folks say that the pitch-correction processing on this thing is extreme
> relative to other pop songs. I _do_ hear all sorts of effects, but I
> don't hear any obvious "correction".... which presumeably is the goal
> of a corrector?
>
> Can I get a definition of the "Cher Effect"?

According to the producer, it was a Digitech vocal effects stomp box,
rather than Autotune. I read that in an SOS inteview so time ago, though
it sure sounds like Autotune to me.

Anyway, don't the sustained notes in the vocals sound like a loop of a
tiny bit of audio rather than a voice in places to you, with no modulation
or expression at all?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 2005-01-16, alanh_27@yahoo.com <alanh_27@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Can I get a definition of the "Cher Effect"?

She used autotune as a flanger effect for her voice -- it's all over the
track. A bunch of people copied it, it became a sylistic element.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 2005-01-16, Sugarite <nobody@home.com> wrote:

> She makes people vomit by wearing slutty clothes at age 50.

59, and today is her birthday. Shame on me for knowing that.
 
T

Troy

Distinguished
Sep 26, 2003
694
0
18,980
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

definition of the "Cher Effect" = Lots of plastic ,wigs and youger men.





<alanh_27@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105902848.202148.208680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> "Believe" is imprinted rather well in my mind, but I'm not certain why
> folks say that the pitch-correction processing on this thing is extreme
> relative to other pop songs. I _do_ hear all sorts of effects, but I
> don't hear any obvious "correction".... which presumeably is the goal
> of a corrector?
>
> Can I get a definition of the "Cher Effect"?
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <slrnculr1e.i2l.fishbowl@radagast.home.conservatory.com> fishbowl@conservatory.com writes:

> 59, and today is her birthday. Shame on me for knowing that.

Shame on you for finding out.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<alanh_27@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105902848.202148.208680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> "Believe" is imprinted rather well in my mind, but I'm not certain why
> folks say that the pitch-correction processing on this thing is extreme
> relative to other pop songs. I _do_ hear all sorts of effects, but I
> don't hear any obvious "correction".... which presumeably is the goal
> of a corrector?
>
> Can I get a definition of the "Cher Effect"?


Much copied and now totally tiresome. Avoid it.

geoff
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"james of tucson" <fishbowl@radagast.home.conservatory.com> wrote in message
news:slrnculr1e.i2l.fishbowl@radagast.home.conservatory.com...
> On 2005-01-16, Sugarite <nobody@home.com> wrote:
>
> > She makes people vomit by wearing slutty clothes at age 50.
>
> 59, and today is her birthday. Shame on me for knowing that.

Although most of her face is probably under 5 years old......

Geoff
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Autotune blends a synthesised vocal range "instrument" in with the original
voice when it senses the vocal is off key. You can adjust how much synth vs.
how much voice. The Cher effect is very synth heavy.

Neil R

"Geoff Duncan" <nacnud@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:41eb04ce$1@clear.net.nz...
>
> "james of tucson" <fishbowl@radagast.home.conservatory.com> wrote in
> message
> news:slrnculr1e.i2l.fishbowl@radagast.home.conservatory.com...
>> On 2005-01-16, Sugarite <nobody@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> > She makes people vomit by wearing slutty clothes at age 50.
>>
>> 59, and today is her birthday. Shame on me for knowing that.
>
> Although most of her face is probably under 5 years old......
>
> Geoff
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Neil Rutman" <neilrutman@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:BqCdnZsi3J9ukXbcRVn-iQ@speakeasy.net...
> Autotune blends a synthesised vocal range "instrument" in with the
original
> voice when it senses the vocal is off key. You can adjust how much synth
vs.
> how much voice. The Cher effect is very synth heavy.
>
> Neil R
>

???

Autotune is 100% wet, so its not the mix.....

the Cher effect is created when the retune rate is set to zero, thus
"quantising' the pitch instantly.

with slower Retune times, the effect becomes less obvious, and when applied
judiciously, is relatively inaudible. Although mostly , its not used
judiciously, and it 'sticks out like dogs bollocks.'

Although, I recall in an SOS mag that the guys who did "Believe" claim it
was done with a phaser and a Korg vocoder.
Funny, since the *identical* effect can be easily obtained by setting the
retune to Zero.......


Anyway....FWIW..........

Geof
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Geoff Duncan" <nacnud@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:41eb2a32@clear.net.nz...
>
>
> Although, I recall in an SOS mag that the guys who did "Believe" claim it
> was done with a phaser and a Korg vocoder.
> Funny, since the *identical* effect can be easily obtained by setting the
> retune to Zero.......
>

Here's the article in full:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb99/articles/tracks661.htm?session=9f8e95c22b1074b9a0cd81bb7c107528

FWIW I've heard people say he tells the story different every time (changing
what it actually was that did the effect) though it's pretty irrelevant as
it could be done a number of different ways.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <41eb2a32@clear.net.nz> nacnud@paradise.net.nz writes:

> Autotune is 100% wet, so its not the mix.....
>
> the Cher effect is created when the retune rate is set to zero, thus
> "quantising' the pitch instantly.

That's sure what it sounds like, and that was the speculation when the
record came out, but I recall reading an article with an interview
with the the engineer or producer who described how they did the
"Believe" vocal. It didn't involve AutoTune. There may have been
AutoTime applied to get it in tune (don't they do that routinely now?)
but the effect was done with something else, which of course I don't
remember.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Cher's "jugs" were not originally all that mammoth. And still aren't.
 
J

Jim

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
2,444
0
19,780
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"james of tucson" <fishbowl@radagast.home.conservatory.com> wrote in message
news:slrnculr1e.i2l.fishbowl@radagast.home.conservatory.com...
> On 2005-01-16, Sugarite <nobody@home.com> wrote:
>
> > She makes people vomit by wearing slutty clothes at age 50.
>
> 59, and today is her birthday. Shame on me for knowing that.

She's as old as my grandmother.. I wouldnt have guessed she was 59. What
times we live in.


--
Jim
[It's called an "Equalizer" not a "Compensator".]
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Gentlemen, We are speaking of an OSCAR winning actress here! It's true that
I still think of her as &Cher, and that her best perfomance was at Sonny'
funeral, no matter.
Sonny was the brains, except at skiing, He knew what he had, & ran with it.
Even back then, he knew image was everything.
One thing I'm pretty sure of, that &Cher had nothing to do with that effect,
and the effect itself was a "happy accident". You know, when you're fooling
around with new technology, accidents happen!
I know of a singer, I shall call him "Meatball", and after 40 something
tracks to get a "comp vocal", you too might look at Auto-tune as the Holy
Grail. The other posts might tell you how to achieve the effect, but I will
ask you, why would you want to? As for pitch correction, these days, you can
go in and change the pitch on any note you wish without AT, but since AT has
a "sound", that's very well known,, it's still useful to create that sound.

Tom









"Troy" <alternate-root@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:ceFGd.95461$Xk.94174@pd7tw3no...
> definition of the "Cher Effect" = Lots of plastic ,wigs and youger men.
>
>
>
>
>
> <alanh_27@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1105902848.202148.208680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > "Believe" is imprinted rather well in my mind, but I'm not certain why
> > folks say that the pitch-correction processing on this thing is extreme
> > relative to other pop songs. I _do_ hear all sorts of effects, but I
> > don't hear any obvious "correction".... which presumeably is the goal
> > of a corrector?
> >
> > Can I get a definition of the "Cher Effect"?
> >
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

They may "say" they did it differently, but when you have to do it yourself
and accomplish it using aututune, a good bet is it was autotune.


"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1105963726k@trad...
>
> In article <41eb2a32@clear.net.nz> nacnud@paradise.net.nz writes:
>
>> Autotune is 100% wet, so its not the mix.....
>>
>> the Cher effect is created when the retune rate is set to zero, thus
>> "quantising' the pitch instantly.
>
> That's sure what it sounds like, and that was the speculation when the
> record came out, but I recall reading an article with an interview
> with the the engineer or producer who described how they did the
> "Believe" vocal. It didn't involve AutoTune. There may have been
> AutoTime applied to get it in tune (don't they do that routinely now?)
> but the effect was done with something else, which of course I don't
> remember.
>
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I heard it on the radio this morning and I'd say it is definately a vocoder.
It's only on during the stepping pitch shift thing, but the tone suddenly
changes to a "squashed" filtered sound, unlike the autotune artifacts, which
you can hear on a lot of the remaining vocals.





"Iain Fraser" <strawstud@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:iJZGd.38991$w62.30501@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> They may "say" they did it differently, but when you have to do it
> yourself and accomplish it using aututune, a good bet is it was autotune.
>
>
> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
> news:znr1105963726k@trad...
>>
>> In article <41eb2a32@clear.net.nz> nacnud@paradise.net.nz writes:
>>
>>> Autotune is 100% wet, so its not the mix.....
>>>
>>> the Cher effect is created when the retune rate is set to zero, thus
>>> "quantising' the pitch instantly.
>>
>> That's sure what it sounds like, and that was the speculation when the
>> record came out, but I recall reading an article with an interview
>> with the the engineer or producer who described how they did the
>> "Believe" vocal. It didn't involve AutoTune. There may have been
>> AutoTime applied to get it in tune (don't they do that routinely now?)
>> but the effect was done with something else, which of course I don't
>> remember.
>>
>>
>> --
>> I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
>> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
>> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
>> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
>> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:03:32 GMT, "Ricky W. Hunt"
<rhunt22@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Here's the article in full:
>
>http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb99/articles/tracks661.htm?session=9f8e95c22b1074b9a0cd81bb7c107528
>
>FWIW I've heard people say he tells the story different every time (changing
>what it actually was that did the effect) though it's pretty irrelevant as
>it could be done a number of different ways.

So many ways to make a nasty sound. So few to make a good one :)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Your memory is correct, it was described in an article in Sound on Sound.

regards,

Sytze



http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb99/articles/tracks661.htm?session=9ef580ee9cf950081557197e0ec155da




"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> schreef in bericht
news:znr1105963726k@trad...
>
> In article <41eb2a32@clear.net.nz> nacnud@paradise.net.nz writes:
>
> > Autotune is 100% wet, so its not the mix.....
> >
> > the Cher effect is created when the retune rate is set to zero, thus
> > "quantising' the pitch instantly.
>
> That's sure what it sounds like, and that was the speculation when the
> record came out, but I recall reading an article with an interview
> with the the engineer or producer who described how they did the
> "Believe" vocal. It didn't involve AutoTune. There may have been
> AutoTime applied to get it in tune (don't they do that routinely now?)
> but the effect was done with something else, which of course I don't
> remember.
>
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 17 Jan 2005 20:24:45 -0800, midicad2001@yahoo.com wrote:

>Cher's "jugs" were not originally all that mammoth. And still aren't. <snip>

True, they were originally skeeter bites, then swelled up, then
deflated. Maybe they have Schrader valves on them.

dB
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<midicad2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106022285.647504.10020@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Cher's "jugs" were not originally all that mammoth. And still aren't.

At least they stop her looking too anorexic around the waist....

geoff
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

DeserTBoB wrote:

> -Dump short Italian after he's served his purpose, get a heroin and
> alcohol addicted three-finger Hammond player instead.

Don't be dis'n Greg. He's done well with those three fingers, and even
better with his voice. And besides all that, he's Duane's brother.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom