Let's talk about pitch correction.

[zbd1960]

I don't want to open a complex discussion about temperaments, but curious as to 'what' they autotune to? I assume that since keyboards are likely to be involved, as well as fretted instruments, then it must be equal temperament. But ET itself is a compromise, and at times will sound out of tune especially on major thirds. There are purer temperaments around which have nicer (narrower) major thirds and purer (wider) perfect fifths (there are complex reasons why we tend not to use them, not least being you can't be in tune for all keys at the same time). 

[Woodinblack]

Just now, zbd1960 said:

I don't want to open a complex discussion about temperaments, but curious as to 'what' they autotune to?

Its software, it can be set to whatever you want. Different systems default to different things, and most studio autotunes have an instrument or type selector.

[BassTractor]

4 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

Its software, it can be set to whatever you want. Different systems default to different things, and most studio autotunes have an instrument or type selector.

Can the software do this on a note-by-note basis depending on the chord structure? I'd imagine it technically possible by now, but is it done?
 

[Woodinblack]

35 minutes ago, BassTractor said:

Can the software do this on a note-by-note basis depending on the chord structure? I'd imagine it technically possible by now, but is it done?
 

It would be entirely possible for this to happen, but the only autotunes I have are the one in voicelive, whcih is more concerned with keys for harmonies etc, and the one on Logic Pro which is just a generic 'how close do you want to an even scale'. I presume the fancy ones that people pay for do more, but whether they do or not, I don't know.

https://www.antarestech.com/product/auto-tune-unlimited/

[leftybassman392]

42 minutes ago, BassTractor said:

Can the software do this on a note-by-note basis depending on the chord structure? I'd imagine it technically possible by now, but is it done?
 

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

Edited May 11, 2021 by leftybassman392

[leftybassman392]

5 hours ago, zbd1960 said:

I don't want to open a complex discussion about temperaments, but curious as to 'what' they autotune to? I assume that since keyboards are likely to be involved, as well as fretted instruments, then it must be equal temperament. But ET itself is a compromise, and at times will sound out of tune especially on major thirds. There are purer temperaments around which have nicer (narrower) major thirds and purer (wider) perfect fifths (there are complex reasons why we tend not to use them, not least being you can't be in tune for all keys at the same time). 

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.

[cheddatom]

On 11/05/2021 at 09:29, Woodinblack said:

I think the problem is that people are still confusing the use of auto-tune as it was intended, to correct pitch with the use of auto-tune as an effect. I hate autotune as an effect, its like your mobile is out of range, and just as annoying, but auto-tune as a correction well, I can't hear that.

I seriously doubt there has been many albums made without autotune used in some way this century

What I'm saying is that these people are trying to do pitch correction, not "as an effect", but they overcook it until it's too perfect and sounds horrible to me EG Michael Buble

[Woodinblack]

2 hours ago, cheddatom said:

What I'm saying is that these people are trying to do pitch correction, not "as an effect", but they overcook it until it's too perfect and sounds horrible to me EG Michael Buble

I don't know what Michael Buble sounds like really apart from tv shows he has been on - maybe he is perfect. but maybe you aren't his target market, he certainly isn't mine. As I said, I doubt there is any album made in the last decade that doesn't have some kind of pitch correction and with the majority of that, where not used as an effect you wouldn't know.

TBH, I am not bothered about pitch correction, it seems fine for what it is used by, I would prefer it any day of the week compared to the evil that is quantisation.

[BigRedX]

6 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

TBH, I am not bothered about pitch correction, it seems fine for what it is used by, I would prefer it any day of the week compared to the evil that is quantisation.

If your DAW is any good you can quantise to anything - it doesn't have to be simple 8th or 16th notes. In the days when I was creating  music using loops, I'd take the loops into Recycle, extract the timing information from them and quantise the rest of the instruments to that. If I used different loops in different parts of the song I'd either change the quantisation to fit each loop or re-quantise the loop itself to fit the main quantisation pattern.

[Woodinblack]

54 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

If your DAW is any good you can quantise to anything - it doesn't have to be simple 8th or 16th notes. In the days when I was creating  music using loops, I'd take the loops into Recycle, extract the timing information from them and quantise the rest of the instruments to that. If I used different loops in different parts of the song I'd either change the quantisation to fit each loop or re-quantise the loop itself to fit the main quantisation pattern.

I mean all albums and songs being locked  to a fixed  beat and all parts of that song being locked to it, until the whole thing is totally synced and unnatural. Happens also to most music. 

[BigRedX]

1 hour ago, Woodinblack said:

I mean all albums and songs being locked  to a fixed  beat and all parts of that song being locked to it, until the whole thing is totally synced and unnatural. Happens also to most music. 

It's still a fixed beat. Just not one that has been set to equal 8th/16th/32nd note intervals.

Here's one of mine - everything except the vocals and the legato guitar have been quantised to the beat points of the main loop

[Woodinblack]

1 hour ago, BigRedX said:

It's still a fixed beat. Just not one that has been set to equal 8th/16th/32nd note intervals.

Here's one of mine - everything except the vocals and the legato guitar have been quantised to the beat points of the main loop

Unfortunately can't listen without logging in to spotify.

Obviously some music is fine with drum machines, and some isn't - I mean very much like this:

 

[leftybassman392]

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.

[Woodinblack]

1 minute ago, leftybassman392 said:

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.

Indeed - a lot of drum machines and DAWs have that, but only around a fixed point. So you have a track which is 100bpm. It will always be 100bpm, but some beats will be ahead and some will be behind, there will be variation on a bar basis, but not on a song basis.

[leftybassman392]

4 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

Indeed - a lot of drum machines and DAWs have that, but only around a fixed point. So you have a track which is 100bpm. It will always be 100bpm, but some beats will be ahead and some will be behind, there will be variation on a bar basis, but not on a song basis.

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.

Edited May 14, 2021 by leftybassman392

[Sibob]

Bublé has been quite open about his use of pitch correction, that it's a tool to get onto radio, to fulfil the tonal expectation of that platform and audience. 
I remember reading the article/interview in which he said the above, and went on to say that there were other trad/swing tracks on that album where it wasn't used, because they weren't expected to get commercial radio play.

Welcome to the game.

Si

[BigRedX]

43 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

Unfortunately can't listen without logging in to spotify.

Obviously some music is fine with drum machines, and some isn't - I mean very much like this:

 

That's crap because he's doing it wrong.

Instead of correcting every drum hit to the nearest equal grid point, he should have built a new quantisation grid from where the important drum transients actually are. In Logic this is called "Groove Quantise" but there should be an equivalent function in all decent DAWs. You then quantise any errant drum hits and all the other instruments with hard transients to this grid. As it's based on where the drums actually are rather than strict 8th/16th etc. notes, all the feel of the original is maintained, the only difference is the whole arrangement becomes super-tight. Also it's a lot quicker to do that the process shown in the video, although it might be necessary to create a separate template for each important section of the song where the feel is noticeably different.

[neilp]

On 09/05/2021 at 14:55, leftybassman392 said:

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?

1) I totally agree, but the modern use of autotune (or Melodyne or whatever) is over-corrective and does correct even slight variations. Good musician CHOOSE how to tune each note, and removing that removes the humanity, just as editing to the grid kills the groove

2) True, but again, good musicians make choices, and unless you can play in tune (or sing in tune) to start with, you can't make the choices, because you don't have enough control

3) Same thing applies. When I play Baroque or Classical music, depending on what the conductor or Director wants, certain intervals will be played wider or narrower than you would hear on a piano or a guitar fretboard. Again, this is "in tune". It's about control, and awareness and intention, and the existence of Autotune etc seems to lead some producers and performers to believe that that level of skill is not required any more, when in fact that level of skill is what makes great music so musical. IMHO.... Apologies for the tardiness of my comment, I was busy playing music....

 

Edited May 15, 2021 by neilp

[neilp]

On 11/05/2021 at 09:37, zbd1960 said:

I don't want to open a complex discussion about temperaments, but curious as to 'what' they autotune to? I assume that since keyboards are likely to be involved, as well as fretted instruments, then it must be equal temperament. But ET itself is a compromise, and at times will sound out of tune especially on major thirds. There are purer temperaments around which have nicer (narrower) major thirds and purer (wider) perfect fifths (there are complex reasons why we tend not to use them, not least being you can't be in tune for all keys at the same time). 

That's exactly right, and is the reason we got the idea that certain keys have certain identifiable characters. In fact, on an equally tempered keyboard, there is no difference in character, only in pitch, whereas in just temperament, for example, there are identifiable differences

[Dad3353]

10 minutes ago, neilp said:

... in just temperament, for example, there are identifiable differences

Only to those aware of these notions; to everyone else, they're just out of tune. 

[neilp]

1 minute ago, Dad3353 said:

Only to those aware of these notions; to everyone else, they're just out of tune. 

Or beautiful, depending on context.....a bit of subtle sharpening of a leading note, for example, can make the resolution onto the tonic seem like Paradise found, rather than just the obvious last chord of a piece.

[BigRedX]

The last time I actually used Autotune myself (as an engineer/producer), the pitch correction was done by manipulating a pitch graph where the audio track could be pushed and pulled into (or out of) tune as required. Correction could be applied to just those parts of the audio track where it was deemed necessary and the pitch correction didn't have to be "perfect".

As with all these tools it's up to the person using them how they are applied. 

Of course if you have little talent as an engineer it's simple to slap on one of the preset corrections onto the whole track and leave it at that. It's the same as using any other correction tool or effect. There's probably a preset that will get you close to the result you want, but to do it properly takes time, effort and a decent ear and actual talent.

[wateroftyne]

27 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

…to do it properly takes time, effort and a decent ear and actual talent.

Out of curiosity - why did you have to tune the vocal? Was it a lack of time, or effort? Or was the singer lacking in actual talent?

[BigRedX]

14 minutes ago, wateroftyne said:

Out of curiosity - why did you have to tune the vocal? Was it a lack of time, or effort? Or was the singer lacking in actual talent?

The part in question was a complex harmony vocal with several notes held for a couple of bars. At the time of recording the vocal sounded fine, but during the production process I changed the arrangement of the backing which made in more obvious that a handful of notes were slightly out of tune. 

I could have got our singer back in to redo the vocal but that would have taken the best part of evening to set up and do the recording, and we might have had to redo more than just the "wrong" notes if we couldn't match the timbre/sound of the new vocals to the original recording.

In the end it was about 15 minutes work with Autotune to "fix" the notes I didn't like the tuning of, and then I was able to get on with the final mix.

The track in question is actually the one I linked to earlier in this thread regrading the use of "groove quantisation". See if you can spot which notes have been Atotuned.

Edited May 16, 2021 by BigRedX

[wateroftyne]

19 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

The part in question was a complex harmony vocal with several notes held for a couple of bars. At the time of recording the vocal sounded fine, but during the production process I changed the arrangement of the backing which made in more obvious that a handful of notes were slightly out of tune. 

I could have got our singer back in to redo the vocal but that would have taken the best part of evening to set up and do the recording, and we might have had to redo more than just the "wrong" notes if we couldn't match the timbre/sound of the new vocals to the original recording.

In the end it was about 15 minutes work with Autotune to "fix" the notes I didn't like the tuning of, and then I was able to get on with the final mix.

The track in question is actually the one I linked to earlier in this thread regrading the use of "groove quantisation". See if you can spot which notes have been Atotuned.

I could be mischievous and say in that case it was the ‘decent ear’ bit that didn’t meet the criteria, but I won’t 😄