>> ^vex:

>> ^TheSluiceGate:
OK, 2 things really suspicious about this video:
1) I'm pretty sure I can hear autotune artifacts (I work with audio / vocalists a lot) and a vocal that is consistently too in pitch.
2) Notice at 2:49 the microphone is absolutely miles from her mouth and the vocal is still entirely consistent, no evidence of a change in level or tone that you'd expect a microphone to display (re: proximity effect) - this hints to me at the vocal being pre-recorded. They also cut away at this point which makes me even more suspicious.
Also:
3) The US version of the same show, produced by the same production company, has admitted using autotune: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11056050
This coming from a person who got goosebumps for the amazing TV debut performances of both Alexis Jordan and Bianca Ryan who were both imperfect, but utterly thrilling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcEo5H97CLM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xno4Y7r8Ov8

1. I think you're hearing things. Specifically, some of her high to low runs and a couple rising melodies beginning with low notes at the bottom of her range are slightly off key. The way she leads into notes using the back of her throat creates a slight buzz that makes her voice sound autotuned.
2. The beginning of the word "butterflies" comes out at a lower volume as she brings the microphone to her face.


1) It's the texture of the audio of the vocal and not the pitching that leads me to believe it's auto tune. Autotuning has a sound, and it's not necessarily to do with the pitching of the note. A bit like how tape or MP3s of even a specific type of pre-amp has a specific sound carachteristic.

2) I think that any slight dip in volume is because it's a low note outside of her range, but my point was not to do with volume, but to do with proximity effect. With the exception of omni-directional microphones the frequency response of a microphone changes with distance from the source of the sound- simply put: the further the mic is away from the person's mouth the thinner and less bassy it becomes. Even a change in gain / volume will not mask this.

>> ^TheSluiceGate:

OK, 2 things really suspicious about this video:
1) I'm pretty sure I can hear autotune artifacts (I work with audio / vocalists a lot) and a vocal that is consistently too in pitch.
2) Notice at 2:49 the microphone is absolutely miles from her mouth and the vocal is still entirely consistent, no evidence of a change in level or tone that you'd expect a microphone to display (re: proximity effect) - this hints to me at the vocal being pre-recorded. They also cut away at this point which makes me even more suspicious.
Also:
3) The US version of the same show, produced by the same production company, has admitted using autotune: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11056050
This coming from a person who got goosebumps for the amazing TV debut performances of both Alexis Jordan and Bianca Ryan who were both imperfect, but utterly thrilling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcEo5H97CLM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xno4Y7r8Ov8


1. I think you're hearing things. Specifically, some of her high to low runs and a couple rising melodies beginning with low notes at the bottom of her range are slightly off key. The way she leads into notes using the back of her throat creates a slight buzz that makes her voice sound autotuned.

2. The beginning of the word "butterflies" comes out at a lower volume as she brings the microphone to her face.

OK, 2 things really suspicious about this video:

1) I'm *pretty sure* I can hear autotune artifacts (I work with audio / vocalists a lot) and a vocal that is consistently *too* in pitch.

2) Notice at 2:49 the microphone is absolutely miles from her mouth and the vocal is still entirely consistent, no evidence of a change in level or tone that you'd expect a microphone to display (re: proximity effect) - this hints to me at the vocal being pre-recorded. They also cut away at this point which makes me even more suspicious.

Also:

3) The US version of the same show, produced by the same production company, has admitted using autotune: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11056050

This coming from a person who got goosebumps for the amazing TV debut performances of both Alexis Jordan and Bianca Ryan who were both imperfect, but utterly thrilling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcEo5H97CLM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xno4Y7r8Ov8

@spoco2

Anything worth watching gets canceled or threatened anymore. And they wonder why they have trouble keeping certain demographics when they only keep the teen-angst drama stuff, CSI, and game shows.

Ever notice they also have big surges of similar TV shows debuted every year? One year it's lots of cop shows. Next year it's medical. I've always wondered why they don't try .....alternative their releases so they aren't all putting out the same "new" themed shows.

>> ^brycewi19:

Hey, did anyone catch that Cruise sounds kinda like a chipmunk?


I've heard that...I also like his shorts.

Yer a DARLIN'
In reply to this comment by mintbbb:
*promote
I love (re)watching older movies/tv shows and going 'Oh wow, I didn't know this person was in this! And how young they look!' :
*quality

Perfect timing on this sift. My wife and I watched Matt Smith's debut for the first time last night. I already like him, but I think she still has the hots for David Tennant.

>> ^Asmo:

http://www.dreamworld.com.au/Rides/Thrill-Rides/Wipeout.aspx was debuted in 93, moves quicker and does a lot more flipping/inverting the riders. Seems similar to the Quake although it looks like the Quake doesn't invert.. =)
Better vid of the whole ride:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvJ7uMBitdw
And yeah, the negative g's are quite strenuous at some points.

But *Russian construction is much shoddier, so there's a higher risk-thrill factor. You never know when that thing is going to collapse.

http://www.dreamworld.com.au/Rides/Thrill-Rides/Wipeout.aspx was debuted in 93, moves quicker and does a lot more flipping/inverting the riders. Seems similar to the Quake although it looks like the Quake doesn't invert.. =)

Better vid of the whole ride:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvJ7uMBitdw

And yeah, the negative g's are quite strenuous at some points.

>> ^oOPonyOo:
As far as the reactions from some of the people in this thread go, it's very typical of the sift. The fact is, many of its most vocal members are self-admitted anti-theists. The sift loves videos that bash Christians, and loves anyone who says nasty things against the bible or Christians in general.
I've seen lots of your posts. I wonder why are you here then?


I'm here because I have been using the sift for a long time, probably since the year it made its debut. I decided to particpate in the community about a year ago, simply because the anti-christian bias was getting worse, and I felt I should represent the other side of the coin. Most people here are unaware that there is another side to the coin, but I can relate to them. I used to be agnostic and I didn't see any evidence for God or Spirit. I care about the people here because I know God loves them, even if they don't love Him back (or indeed hate Him with all their heart). God is so much bigger than what people know or believe about Him. It's not a question of these contentious social issues..it's simply about truth. These things are all peripheral to the question of truth. Before I was saved, I honestly desired to know the truth, irregardless of my preconceived notions. I could see the holes in my perspective, and my innate bias towards different people, ideas, and beliefs, and my emotional proclivities tainting what I understood about truth. I always saw obtaining the pure truth as the ideal goal. To understand what truth is, and how we could ever know it objectively, free from our subjective bias. I believe that was a blessing from God, a tender mercy from Heaven, to even be interested in such things. If you want to know the real truth, not just what you would like to believe, then God can reach you. If you don't, then even if God did reach you, you will ignore it, suppress it, mock it, or do everything other than follow it. I'm here to reach such people, and occassionally they will reach out. All I hope to do is help someone know the love of God for themselves.

Good point, actually I did enjoy that.>> ^Reefie:

>> ^ulysses1904:
Why did that dork Chevy Chase get the most screen time in this?

Seriously? You didn't appreciate seeing someone slap the crap out of Chevy Chase?

>> ^ulysses1904:
Why did that dork Chevy Chase get the most screen time in this?


Seriously? You didn't appreciate seeing someone slap the crap out of Chevy Chase?

Your video, 30 Famous Faces In Their Screen Debuts., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 14 Badge!

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^probie:
I never got into Frasier. Frasier Crane was my favorite character on Cheers and the Frasier on Frasier was not the Frasier on Cheers.
Perhaps this will help to explain the evolution of the character from one show to the next.

Soon after Frasier debuts on Cheers, he dates Diane Chambers (Shelley Long). They get engaged, but the relationship ends when Diane abandons him at the altar. Frasier nevertheless visits the bar often and eventually marries Lilith Sternin (Bebe Neuwirth), a fellow psychiatrist. Together, they have a son, Frederick, but Lilith cheats on Frasier with a colleague. The couple reconciles briefly, but between the end of Cheers and the start of Frasier, they separate permanently and divorce. During his separation with Lilith, Frasier publicly threatens suicide, to gain Lilith's attention and win her back, but the thought of his son stops him from doing so. Lilith gains custody of Frederick.