Cathy Davey

Yap Stam

lordgoat wrote: »

Zing!

Seriously Yap are you honestly comparing a concert to a bird or insect? Do you need someone to point out the massive difference to you? It's like saying you'd use the same equipment to climb Everest as you would go hiking in the wicklow mountains. Just give it up.

Thats exactly what I'm saying- you've ended up supporting my point, thanks. When Pope John Paul II spoke in St. Peter's square they had to use a special microphone to pick up his ailing voice because normal microphones didn't work.

I don't see whats so crazy about using different microphones for different singers- guitarists use different types of strings depending on what style they play.

Why don't you actually go and record and produce some music, you might see how all of this stuff works- although I've a feeling you lot are the type who know the exact model no. and purpose of everything inside a studio; but have never actually done anything.

I've met your type before.

iamnothim

okay - to end all this. Yap Stam - you are wrong. Very wrong. I'm a professional, I know makes, model numbers, all that ****, and I use them all. Frequently. There's no such thing as a 'special' mic to boost a weak sound. There's different types of mics for different purposes, there's also a lot of variety of mic with different frequency ranges, sensitivities, directionality, quality, durability and tone etc. Judging from photos like this (which I took)



It would appear cathy davey uses a neumann KMS105 condenser mic live. This is a very good live mic and very expensive. In my opinion, it's a better vocal mic than the industry standard shure SM58 dynamic mic used at 99% of shows worldwide - but it's also far more delicate and far more expensive. It's very likely Cathy owns this mic herself and brings it with her for live shows. It is very unlikely she uses it in studio. Studio mics are a whole different ballgame.

Yap Stam

iamnothim wrote: »

There's different types of mics for different purposes, there's also a lot of variety of mic with different frequency ranges, sensitivities, directionality, quality, durability and tone etc.
Studio mics are a whole different ballgame.

Thats what I said, I used 'special' as a way of distinguishing from the rest.
Whats funny is you even mentioned 'sensitivities'- exactly the point I was making, some microphones are more sensitive than others.

Its getting ridiculous now.

cornbb

Why don't you actually go and record and produce some music, you might see how all of this stuff works- although I've a feeling you lot are the type who know the exact model no. and purpose of everything inside a studio; but have never actually done anything.

Yap Stam, with respect, its obvious you don't have a clue what you're talking about. This isn't coming from an elitist, its coming from a guy who's still learning about this stuff himself. There's no such thing as "special" microphones or "normal" microphones, there are just different types which are useful for different things. Try reading up on different basic mic types (condenser, dynamic, ribbon), on different pickup patterns (cardioid, hypercardioid, omnidirectional, figure of 8) and on other techniques used to capture quiet or difficult sounds (compression, gating, EQing).

EQing is also a different ballgame, it is the process of filtering an audio signal in order to boost or cut certain frequency ranges. There's no turning it "up" or down.

yo boy

Yap Stam wrote: »

In the world of recording theres a thing called 'EQ' (it stands for 'equalization'). If you have a singer that has a weak voice what a producer will do is put the EQ up really high, this brings out their voice alot more and makes them sound alot better and strenghtens the voice. The problem is that in order to make the voice seem stronger everything has to picked up, thats why you hear all the inhalations of breath and when the letter 's' is pronounced it gets smudged -a bit like the way a radio presenter sounds when you can't get good reception. I watched Ms. Davey's performance at the Irish music awards thing, i expected her not to sound as good as her recordings but she was much worse than I thought. She kept being drowned out by the musicians behind her (even though they were struggling to keep it down) and on top of that I noticed that she can't hold a note for a very long time, because her voice is just too weak. These days they use special microphones in stadiums which can project otherwise weak voices at very loud volumes- but you've still got the problem relating to the general quality of the vocals. The songs are catchy and they are proving a hit, but lets call a spade a spade here and acknowledge the fact that her singing is more a result of studio trickery rather than any kind of training or perfection, she has alot to thank her producer for.

If she wrote those songs than maybe she has a future as a songwriter, but whatshe's doing is not good singing.

Ella Fitzgerald- Now there was a voice, and she didn't need no special microphone or canny producer either.

actually dude its called compression....

yo boy

haha..hadnt read the entire post....nice try!!!!!!!!!

lordgoat

Yap Stam wrote: »

lordgoat wrote: »

Zing!

Seriously Yap are you honestly comparing a concert to a bird or insect? Do you need someone to point out the massive difference to you? It's like saying you'd use the same equipment to climb Everest as you would go hiking in the wicklow mountains. Just give it up.

Thats exactly what I'm saying- you've ended up supporting my point, thanks. When Pope John Paul II spoke in St. Peter's square they had to use a special microphone to pick up his ailing voice because normal microphones didn't work.

I don't see whats so crazy about using different microphones for different singers- guitarists use different types of strings depending on what style they play.

Why don't you actually go and record and produce some music, you might see how all of this stuff works- although I've a feeling you lot are the type who know the exact model no. and purpose of everything inside a studio; but have never actually done anything.

I've met your type before.

No i'm not supporting your point you word twisitng little sh-it.

I've met your type before too, a last word freak knowitall wannabe.

The only thing more annoying than your lack of correct inforamtion is the fact that you still think you're right.

unclebill98

I found this tread from about 10 miles away....the bull**** is really stinky!!!

This is the funniest tread I've ever read.....

Cathy has a great voice, something diff. She was not sure herself her voice would work singing as the main vocal. Until she heard...ah balls I can't remember...!! Anyway, someone else with a nice soft vocal.

Anyway...tread of the year...so far

madtheory

Yap stam, sorry, but you're a perfect example of how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!

If you need to record a quiet sound, you just turn up the volume (correct term is gain) on the mic! Don't confuse that with sensitivity. But this means that you will end up with all the background sound louder too. So if one were to do this with Cathy Davy's allegedly quiet voice, you'd just hear more of the rest of the band too! It's a little bit more complicated than you think, because mics have different pickup patterns, and are sensitive to different frequencies depending on where a sound source is within that pattern... it would take about 3 1 hour classes to explain the technicalities properly, so I suggest you sign up for a course!!

You seem to think that eq can make someone sound like they're in tune, but you're wrong. There is a "computer progam" called auto tune that can do this, but it's impossible to use in a live situation without causing other problems, so not many people do. Cathy certainly doesn't!

I respectfully suggest that you go to an actual Cathy Davy gig, and hear and see for yourself- she does sing in a soft style, but she doesn't need any trickery. She has talent, and there's no such thing as a talent button on the mixing desk. If there was, everyone would be doing it!

You do have a gift for entertainment, I'll give you that

buckfast4me

Whatever about her voice, I think her 2 main songs are very unoriginal with "borrowed" elements from other less well-known songs - examples

1) ruben - (elvis - his latest flame) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU18Uaz0jtY

2) and moving is basically supergrass-moving with the tempo increased- (around 1:35 you'll see what I mean) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di2WFaEBp5I

buckfast4me

Also certain parts of ruben sound a lot like - flaming lips - yeah yeah yeah song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNLJfb6jQVk

I knew from the moment I first start hearing her on the radio that it was very familiar and I'd heard it all before, fair enough if that's what your into - not my cup of tea though.

IanCurtis

buckfast4me wrote: »

Whatever about her voice, I think her 2 main songs are very unoriginal with "borrowed" elements from other less well-known songs - examples

1) ruben - (elvis - his latest flame) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU18Uaz0jtY

2) and moving is basically supergrass-moving with the tempo increased- (around 1:35 you'll see what I mean) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di2WFaEBp5I

Reuben is a total rip-off of the Elvis song, the least she could do is acknowledge the fact.

I've never heard her mention it once.