Latest on MJJC
- Latest Michael Jackson News
- Click Here to Join Our Community
- Follow us on Twitter
- Wanna talk Michael? Come join the chat rooms
- The Michael Jackson Chart Watch
- Become an MJJC Patron
- Join the Premium Member Group and Get Lot's of Extra's
- Major Love Prayer - Worldwide Monthly Prayer Every 25th
- MJJC Exclusive Q&A - We talk to the family and those in and around Michael
- Join us in the Chat Rooms
- Find us on Facebook
Ladies and gents, I do not know what this type of singing is called, wether its falsetto or head voice...
But one thing is for sure, there is nothing like this on the Cascio songs. These are just examples I thought about in my head:
http://soundcloud.com/pentum/mj-special-falsetto
Tell me "believers", do you hear this in the Cascio songs? If so, where?
But one thing is for sure, there is nothing like this on the Cascio songs. These are just examples I thought about in my head:
http://soundcloud.com/pentum/mj-special-falsetto
Tell me "believers", do you hear this in the Cascio songs? If so, where?
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
And also a nice snippet of what JM is capable of to fool the MJ fans:
http://soundcloud.com/pentum/do-i-do-hq-snippet-aca
http://soundcloud.com/pentum/do-i-do-hq-snippet-aca
you know what I started writing you a reply but then deleted it all. Because once again you fail to discuss the issue and turn this to a personal post about me with your "you" statements. Every time I regret that I stop ignoring you.
You my friend is quite insulting. Goodbye.
Chamife
Proud Member
^^^Sounds a bit Justin Timberlakish *shrugs*
The Do I Do snippet.
The Do I Do snippet.
Last edited:
you are a lot smarter to understand that I don't mean the message to be addressed to me with a "you" but I'm mentioning the unnecessary personal statements made about me such as
And your simple answer - belittling my answer / opinion
You obviously believe what fits your arguments. - unnecessary comment
Do you ever question what you read? Or do you put pink glasses on before reading things? - unnecessary personal attacks
You are advocating for common sense and being rational, but you are being irrational with such an argument. - unnecessary personal comment
You CAN make your points without putting me , my personality etc into the mix. If you CAN'T then you go on to my ignore list.
----
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
You're being oversensitive. Ask and I'll explain instead of accusing me. I have no interest in personally attacking anyone.
Read again your own post. I was using your own words. You said
, so I used your own formulation and said "your simple answer" without belittling you.
You accused me of supporting Elvis's forensics making people believe with your public post that I believe in things that suit my theory, when I clearly stated black on white that Elvis's Estate was much more clever than MJ's Estate for not rushing to trust the forensics and release the tracks as genuine. You were completely deforming my words and put words into my mouth that I had never said.
This is not a personal attack but a genuine question. Why do you question Elvis's forensics and not MJ's? Regarding the pink glasses, it's a figure of speech, not an attack.
You do present yourself as rational, I was just repeating your own words. And I explained the reason why your argument with Elvis's forensic didn't sound rational. You don't really know the man and you already judged him guilty. What if he was right? Have you ever tried to imagine if that forensic was right about Elvis's voice?
----
@Bumper
I don't care. I don't like your tone towards me. You have changed a lot. I don't want anything to do with you. It's my fault to again start responding to you thinking that things will change or be better. You as always lack empathy (yes a personal statement). The End.
I don't care. I don't like your tone towards me. You have changed a lot. I don't want anything to do with you. It's my fault to again start responding to you thinking that things will change or be better. You as always lack empathy (yes a personal statement). The End.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
I was talking about Cascio tracks and the similar situation with Elvis's forensics. I don't even know why you are changing the subject.
Once you say the situation is similar but not as I think. And another time you say the situation is similar more than I think.
Now, all of sudden we're talking about empathy and goodbyes.
*sigh* What a beautiful sound :wub:
ADKIc3mAnX
Proud Member
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
Billyjeanplxiv
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,564
- Points
- 48
wtf happened?
StellaJackson
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,737
- Points
- 63
I know this is old but I thought it was interesting enough for a repost. It has nothing to do with me. It was done by the French fans. It has been translated quite poorly.
IMPORTANT : comparative analysis of "Keep Your Head Up" and "Break of Dawn" by a scientific expert in signal processing and conclusions .
Good evening again everyone,This comparative analysis and its conclusions are published by 'JOY', a Michael's fan, on the MJFrance.com's website (French fans club), here below the translation :
'I entrusted the comparative analysis of ‘Keep Your Head Up’ and ‘Break of Dawn’ to a scientific expert in signal processing, its conclusions are follows: - Regarding ‘Keep your head up’, the cutoff frequency is (Very strange) to 11 khz while much of the energy Michael Jackson's voice was at frequencies between 12 and 14 Khz. - The characteristic spectral lines of Jackson's voice doesn’t found in ‘Keep your head up’. - This recording (‘keep your head up’
has the meaning of frequency term a rectangular form which suggests the possible use speech synthesizers. - We can not find anywhere rays at 7.5 khz, or lines at 5 khz, or lines at 12.5 khz or at 13.1 khz lines... characteristics of the true voice of Jackson. - Conversely, the frequencies appear at 4.1 kHz, at 8.5 kHz, at 10.2 kHz, at 12.2 kHz (even if it was very artificially vert attenuated) that the real Michael Jackson did not use.
This analysis was done using the method of 'FFT' (Hamming’s method, at 65.5 khz).
The conclusions are that 80% of risks that it isn’t Michael Jackson who sings on ‘Keep your head up’, and the idea suggestiving vocal synthesis, in addition to an imitator in the choruses, is quite plausible.'
IMPORTANT : comparative analysis of "Keep Your Head Up" and "Break of Dawn" by a scientific expert in signal processing and conclusions .
Good evening again everyone,This comparative analysis and its conclusions are published by 'JOY', a Michael's fan, on the MJFrance.com's website (French fans club), here below the translation :
'I entrusted the comparative analysis of ‘Keep Your Head Up’ and ‘Break of Dawn’ to a scientific expert in signal processing, its conclusions are follows: - Regarding ‘Keep your head up’, the cutoff frequency is (Very strange) to 11 khz while much of the energy Michael Jackson's voice was at frequencies between 12 and 14 Khz. - The characteristic spectral lines of Jackson's voice doesn’t found in ‘Keep your head up’. - This recording (‘keep your head up’
has the meaning of frequency term a rectangular form which suggests the possible use speech synthesizers. - We can not find anywhere rays at 7.5 khz, or lines at 5 khz, or lines at 12.5 khz or at 13.1 khz lines... characteristics of the true voice of Jackson. - Conversely, the frequencies appear at 4.1 kHz, at 8.5 kHz, at 10.2 kHz, at 12.2 kHz (even if it was very artificially vert attenuated) that the real Michael Jackson did not use.This analysis was done using the method of 'FFT' (Hamming’s method, at 65.5 khz).
The conclusions are that 80% of risks that it isn’t Michael Jackson who sings on ‘Keep your head up’, and the idea suggestiving vocal synthesis, in addition to an imitator in the choruses, is quite plausible.'
StellaJackson;3656028 said:I know this is old but I thought it was interesting enough for a repost. It has nothing to do with me. It was done by the French fans. It has been translated quite poorly.
IMPORTANT : comparative analysis of "Keep Your Head Up" and "Break of Dawn" by a scientific expert in signal processing and conclusions .
Good evening again everyone,This comparative analysis and its conclusions are published by 'JOY', a Michael's fan, on the MJFrance.com's website (French fans club), here below the translation :
'I entrusted the comparative analysis of ‘Keep Your Head Up’ and ‘Break of Dawn’ to a scientific expert in signal processing, its conclusions are follows: - Regarding ‘Keep your head up’, the cutoff frequency is (Very strange) to 11 khz while much of the energy Michael Jackson's voice was at frequencies between 12 and 14 Khz. - The characteristic spectral lines of Jackson's voice doesn’t found in ‘Keep your head up’. - This recording (‘keep your head up’
This analysis was done using the method of 'FFT' (Hamming’s method, at 65.5 khz).
The conclusions are that 80% of risks that it isn’t Michael Jackson who sings on ‘Keep your head up’, and the idea suggestiving vocal synthesis, in addition to an imitator in the choruses, is quite plausible.'
It's creepy as hell that one of my dreams this last night had something to do with Keep Your Head Up and Break of Dawn...
Billyjeanplxiv
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,564
- Points
- 48
I think im a believer now.....derp
Kornex posted a mashup snippet called King of Pop with Higher quality Cascio tracks, a slower KYHU and a monster snippet.
Kornex posted a mashup snippet called King of Pop with Higher quality Cascio tracks, a slower KYHU and a monster snippet.
StellaJackson
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,737
- Points
- 63
Those snippets have been around for ages. It just makes the disparity between the voices even more obvious.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
YOu can try to slow down all the Cascio songs to maybe hear MJ.
Ins't it sad that you have to manipulate songs in order to maybe guessingly hear MJ's voice?Billyjeanplxiv
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,564
- Points
- 48
i dunno they seem alot higher quality than what we have.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
StellaJackson
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,737
- Points
- 63
Billyjeanplxiv
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,564
- Points
- 48
Ok? if you have something i dont please let me know. Im just saying, the ones i have "as a waveform" look like a highpass filter was run over them.
Chamife
Proud Member
So the purpose of that snippet was to show it is Michael on the Cascio songs? I wasn't sure, but thought that something like that was the idea behind it.
If that snippet is supposed to be convincing, than it says a lot about the person who made it. He doesn't hear what most doubters hear.
If that snippet is supposed to be convincing, than it says a lot about the person who made it. He doesn't hear what most doubters hear.
lom kit
Guests
Haha, just like when you slowdown Janets voice you get Michaels.
Chamife
Proud Member
Are you talking to me, Pentum? I didn't change my opinion?
Billyjeanplxiv
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,564
- Points
- 48
He is talking to me. Im still debating in my head if it really is 100% Michael. theres so much aganist the songs though...I do have an opinion...its just i tend to overthink things, and second, triple, and quadruple guess. Im also not a very good test taker lol I guess ill say on on a fine line "a tightrope if you will" in between doubter and believer, though i tend to stumble to the doubter side.
I still do think Monster is the most convicing out of all of them. though the Falsetto puzzles me should the song turn out to be Michael.
lol I guess ill say on on a fine line "a tightrope if you will" in between doubter and believer, though i tend to stumble to the doubter side.I still do think Monster is the most convicing out of all of them. though the Falsetto puzzles me should the song turn out to be Michael.