leftybassman392

Well yes, I was under the impression I'd already sort of made that point, but hey! This was quite a while ago mind, so while I have a feeling he SR16 had it, I'm not so sure about the DR770.

Thinking about quantization, I used to have a couple of drum machines in my studio. I have a recollection that at least one of them had a setting that allowed the rhythm to deviate slightly and at random from the quantization. Not enough to make it sound like anything but a digital drum track, but all the same... I had an SR16 and a DR770, so if anybody is familiar with them perhaps they could speak to this.

Well since it's a subject I have studied at some length (and as a mathematician by original training), I would personally welcome the opportunity to have a detailed discussion on the subject, though I suspect it would detract from the brief I set out in the OP, and put off people who might otherwise want to contribute. In any case, I and others have already had numerous and extended discussions on this and related matters in the pages of this forum, so perhaps another day...? As to the other two points I raised, I note with interest that the honourable gentleman has declined to offer comment. p.s. I really must stop watching parliamentary debates before posting here.

https://www.celemony.com/en/melodyne/what-is-melodyne

It's a good point well made, but wouldn't you agree that: 1) Even very good singers are rarely absolutely bang on pitch all the time (as in 'accurate to the point that a pitch correction algorithm would have no effect on the received signal') - indeed very slight fluctuations in pitch can be viewed as part of that singer's vocal 'personality' (criticisms of Autotune being 'too perfect' are often cited as one of the reasons people don't like it); 2) What is tolerable varies as between musical styles; 3) in certain circumstances, what counts as perfect intonation can differ according to the style (I'm thinking in particular of early music, which uses older temperaments with differing tunings), and can also vary slightly according to what instrumentation is present?

You're welcome. As to Autotune, well it's been a few years since I've used it, but on the hardware version I had one of the controls you set alters the time lapse (in milliseconds IIRC) before the correction triggers. If you set it very short you get a very specific vocal effect of the kind originally made famous by Cher (I can't remember the title but you know the one I mean hopefully). If you set it longer the system eases in the correction more slowly. This allows it to let things like gliss and vibrato through before it steps in. I haven't really looked at the software version, but AFAIK it still has that basic functionality plus a few bells & whistles that the original didn't have. Come to think of it I have it on Garageband on my Mac, so if you like I can have a look when I get a bit of time to play with it and report back. Alternatively there may be someone on the thread who can fill us both in...

I think he's brilliant!

Sorry bud, but with the best will in the world I have absolutely no idea what point you're making here. On one level I admire your passion, but the reality of modern recording is that pitch correction gets used all the time in a wide variety of situations; a point that has already been made several times by several people.

...aaand we're back to business.

Time for a bit of light relief I think... Technically it's a thread hijack, but then again it's my thread, so WTF! Pretty sure there's no pitch correction here...

Yes of course, you're right about the drop-in. I've been spending too much time editing the spoken word lately. Sorry about that. Edited accordingly. Be that as it may, you've still adulterated the original vocal. You could argue that at least it's still the singer singing the note, but the point has already been made by me and several others that note manipulation in commercial recordings is so common as to be ubiquitous, and if done well is completely transparent to the listener with no artefacts to give the game away (and it's still the singer singing). Easier for the singer; easier for the engineer; easier for everybody. If it could be done digitally to the point where nobody could tell the difference, is there any reason beyond personal pride not to do it? ETA: As a bit of an afterthought, if you really are lucky enough to work with singers who never, ever, get anything wrong then you are fortunate indeed. Not a dig by the way; I've worked with some very talented singers, but IME everybody messes up once in a while.

One last thought before I go bedside: What (if any) is the real-world difference between manipulating the pitch of a note that's slightly off digitally, and dropping in a better example to replace the bad one (the old way)?

It occurs to me that I need to talk a bit about the differences between some of the various studio technologies. From what numerous posters have said, it seems the difference between the major technologies needs to be spun out a little. Although they do a similar job, the way they work is very different. Please bear with me because this is important. The two standard products are Antares Autotune and Celemony Melodyne. I have a sense that many of the critics are conflating the two. This is a mistake. Autotune is an automated 'set and forget' technology (in truth there is a bit more to it than that, but that's the bit folks are familiar with). This automated functionality makes it easy to spot for people who know what to listen for, and gives rise to the perceived anodyne quality of the processed product. Words like 'bland', 'robotic' and 'soulless' have been used in this and other threads. Melodyne is a note-by-note manual analyser, allowing the user to decide which notes need changing and by how much. Again, there's a bit more to it than this, and it also does some clever stuff with chords, tempos and timings, but you get the general idea. This means that an experienced and skilful engineer can fine tune individual notes without affecting the rest of the recorded material. It's much more time-consuming than Autotune, and requires considerably more skill and musical know-how, but the results are very natural - so much so that without knowing the audio has been processed it's extremely difficult to spot, as the the usual 'too perfect' criticism doesn't really apply. In fact I'd go so far as to say that we've probably all listened to music processed with Melodyne at one time or another without realising it. NOTE: I'm not taking sides here (and neither am I trying to change anybody's mind), but most if not all of the criticism levelled at pitch correction seems to be assuming an Autotune model. If people are as keen to dismiss pitch correction as some posters appear to be, then surely they should at least know what it is they're dismissing. It's been labelled 'cheating' and summarily dismissed accordingly, but what if you didn't know that what you're listening to is a cheat? Given the virtual blanket coverage of pitch manipulation technologies in everything from pro studios to bedroom oiks with laptops, there's a good chance it's happened to you. TL:DR Autotune isn't the only way to do pitch manipulation. ETA: In the light of recent discussions, I should make clear that because of the way Melodyne works it's not really optimised for live performance, meaning criticisms made in relation to live performance don't really apply.

That's actually painful!

No. That would be this:

At the risk of repeating myself, I don't recall claiming that it did. However I do recall agreeing with another poster who made essentially this same point some time ago. And again while I'm here, I do sometimes wish folk wouldn't speculate about what I might have meant, and pay more attention to what I actually said. ETA: my bad; it was you who made the point I agreed with. And now you've made it a second time.

Not asking you to like it (and as I said up top, it's clear that a lot of people don't - which is absolutely fine of course). I just posted it as an example of a fairly common modern studio technique. Also as I said up top, I think it's important to understand what pitch correction can't do, as well as what it can. And while I'm here, the bass singer (Tim Faust) has toured extensively with an acapella group, and is well used to looking into the eyes of an audience. Just so I've said it...

Probably worth saying that it's surprisingly rare for singers to be pitch-perfect for any length of time. Singing 'in tune' is in truth a bit of a loose way to describe it (no offence intended of course). It's common for a singer to be very slightly off-pitch, but most of the time it's not really an issue. Modern acapella groups commonly use pitch control technologies to ensure accurate pitching of multipart harmonies, especially when there are lots of parts and extensive layering. Here's an example of what I'm talking about (note: the 2 singers at work here are properly trained professional singers who are good at what they do):

It's a good point. IMHO there's a place for both, but I agree that live performance at it's best has a certain something that no amount of studio tinkering can recreate. One thing about this that might be worth comment is that when a band records a live performance for future release, it's very common to take the recording into the studio so they can 'fix' the bits they don't like or messed up. I'd be interested to hear whether people think that's a good thing or not.

This topic has come up a number of times in various threads that I've been involved in recently. Perhaps we should have a proper argument conversation about it. For the benefit of anybody who has recently arrived here from Mars, pitch correction is a studio effect that functions to massage vocals slightly to ensure correct pitching of notes. It's best known as a way of correcting slightly off-pitch vocals, but it can and regularly does work with all manner of pitched notes from pretty much any tuned instrument. Additionally, current versions are capable of numerous other functions - and uses - but we may or may not get round to talking about them here. Correcting pitch is what it does; it cannot compensate for dull or lifeless singing. Even within it's stated brief, there are limits to what it can deal with and still produce something of musical value; despite what I suspect many believe, it cannot be used as a get-out-of-jail-free card for any old tosh that's fed into it. There's more to being a good singer than (near) pitch-perfect note production. Many in and around the music industry have a very negative view of it's use, and it's not hard to find such commentary from a variety of industry sources. I don't doubt we'll see some links from time to time. Be that as it may, pitch correction has for many years been a ubiquitous studio technique that is in very widespread use: in truth you'll struggle to find many professional studios that don't use it on a regular basis. It's even available as a plugin on freebie DAW apps such as Garageband for Macs. At this point I'll refrain from putting my view up in any sort of detail, but suffice it to say that I don't look at it as heralding the death of 'real' music (whatever that may be) that some around here might. One caveat: I'm not here to defend pitch correction's honour. That said, I am aware that many people just don't like it. All opinions are valid in this thread, and even if I could (which of course I can't) I would make no attempt to censor opinions I don't agree with. Good arguments will speak for themselves. Over to the Basscht collective...

If we're being picky, it does the same job (plus a bunch of others) in a different way; but yes, pitch correction is it's base function. I don't recall suggesting it was anything else... Actually I think I'm going to start a new thread about pitch correction as a studio technique. That way I don't have to keep talking about it in the wrong place. @Geek99, profuse apologies for hijacking your thread. I'll go now.

See above

Actually it's more likely to be Melodyne But hey! who's counting?

Actually I was trying to be helpful and informative. Since you gave no indication that you were trying to be funny, I took you at your word. Perhaps you might get round to telling me wherein lies the patronage. Or not. Up to you really.