Melodyne DNA seems to be a scam

[Nisse Hult]

Just got this, how can they expect that we are satisfied with there answeer

"DNA is not a fake and no scam. Currently, the release plan is in approx. two to three months from now."

With best wishes, Ulf Kaiser

[konkaos]

if a product that isnt out yet is stopping you from creating music then....

[Nisse Hult]

I bought it for the DNA

[MikeFFG]

It says blatantly on their website several times that DNA is not yet available...you just didn't research it enough.

[musikwerks]

You bought Melodyne specifically for a feature that the company said was in development and not yet available?

[thenoiseflower]

Originally Posted by Nisse Hult

I bought it for the DNA

you scammed ur self dude.

get real.

[SurveillanceP]

P-h-a-i-l-e-z-o-r-

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by Nisse Hult

I bought it for the DNA

The problem is (and I've said it before) is that it's probably not going to work as well in practice as everyone seems to think.

I've had an email from Ulf regarding this...apparently on clean recorded DI lines it should work fine - but it's unlikely you're going to be able to move one note in a horn section, for example - there's just too many harmonics involved. Maybe enough to fudge it into a mix....but yes, to buy a product on a possible future development is a bit daft.

[hipass]

Originally Posted by Nisse Hult

I bought it for the DNA

You see marketing Vapourware does work!

[terminal3]

Seriously. Just record it right in the first place and nobody needs this sh*t.

[Goliath|Audio]

Originally Posted by terminal3

Seriously. Just record it right in the first place and nobody needs this sh*t.

This is also a remix tool.

[terminal3]

Originally Posted by Goliath|Audio

This is also a remix tool.

How? It doesn't exist. Surely all the remixes that have ever been done up to this point did not require this DNA technology.

[Dean Roddey]

It does seem pretty bait and switchy though. How long has it been being pushed and announced. I see ads for it constantly and have been for it seems like almost a year. If it's not shipped yet, then I think that they seriously over pre-announced it, unless I'm missing something.

[terminal3]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

It does seem pretty bait and switchy though. How long has it been being pushed and announced. I see ads for it constantly and have been for it seems like almost a year. If it's not shipped yet, then I think that they seriously over pre-announced it, unless I'm missing something.

This wouldn't be the first time in the software world that's happened... the question is, will they deliver eventually?

[Prime Tire]

Originally Posted by terminal3

Seriously. Just record it right in the first place and nobody needs this sh*t.

Totally. There are more things out there to correct bad performances than to help get good performances to begin with.

[hipass]

Originally Posted by terminal3

Seriously. Just record it right in the first place and nobody needs this sh*t.

But what if the producer wants to make changes and the singer is not available?
Do you ever use punch-ins?
I can tell you that if you make a singer do 200 takes "to get it right" you will be freaking the confidence of that singer.
Why would make someone work possibly blow out their voice for the day or longer instead of taking 10 times to change tuning or try something different with timing.
Sometimes it's not even a point of fixing something it may just wanting to try something different to hear how it sounds.
A true professional knows when to use the correct tool for the right job.

[Batchainpuller78]

Originally Posted by terminal3

How? It doesn't exist. Surely all the remixes that have ever been done up to this point did not require this DNA technology.

are you sure? i'm pretty sure Humans were involved and we are a nifty little product from DNA technology

But i'm with ya, leave it on the shelf, we are not through the auto-tune trauma yet.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by Goliath|Audio

This is also a remix tool.

yeah right. It ain't gonna work. They've gone down the harmonic analysis route - and I can tell ya from ten years of maths research before I did this for a living - it's the wrong route. Image process on spectrograms is by FAR the better way for doing this kind of thing, as CEDAR have proven already...... FFTs - no F-ing way.

They jumped in early with a special case result - and have now found what a research team found out back in the nineties - not all harmonic content has a correlated relationship... it changes very quickly over short periods of time completely affected by local acoustics.....

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by hipass

But what if the producer wants to make changes and the singer is not available?
Do you ever use punch-ins?
I can tell you that if you make a singer do 200 takes "to get it right" you will be freaking the confidence of that singer.
Why would make someone work possibly blow out their voice for the day or longer instead of taking 10 times to change tuning or try something different with timing.
Sometimes it's not even a point of fixing something it may just wanting to try something different to hear how it sounds.
A true professional knows when to use the correct tool for the right job.

200 takes..... i'd ask them to leave :)

[kafka]

DNA is just one of those products that I'll have to see to believe. The general case of the problem they claim to solve is so ridiculously complex that I just can't see how it would work. I think Melodyne is great, but they should have kept quiet about DNA until it was a lot closer to release.

However, I think they were pretty straight up that it's not out yet, and that when *ahem*, if it ever comes out, it will be at additional cost.

[T_R_S]

Originally Posted by narcoman

200 takes..... i'd ask them to leave :)

I just finished a song we had 2 singerss I did about 450 takes (not from to finish - including punch ins)
I got paid a lot ... I did not mind a bit. It sounded great. The big part of was changing parts after they were recorded. It was not a matter of "fixing"

[terminal3]

for the record, I have nothing against the basic melodyne technology. it works and I can see it being useful for many reasons you've all already posted. I have used it exactly once (the free one that comes with pro tools), but it helped.

the DNA stuff, however, appears to me to be a waste of time. we've gone this long without it, I don't see why people are making it out to be a "must-have" and complaining that it's not out yet and blah blah blah.

this is just MY OPINION. feel free to disagree.

[DontLetMeDrown]

I agree that it is scam-worthy how they are using DNA hype to help them move more units of the current Melodyne. Of course it's silly to buy if you are ONLY interested in DNA, but I guess for people who were already on the fence to buy Melo, it gives them one more reason to seal the deal.

[Nisse Hult]

Sure, i can be without it but why advitice it so hard thats for me a big scam and melodyne have consider if they want to be a company that people belive in, i dont any more, it s a scam

[Ciaccona]

I'd have almost purchased Melodyne a few times now because they're promoting it with a free DNA upgrade but have kept back because I didn't believe their promises.

each statement by the company sounds less enthusiastic about it.

I've seen the "classical guitar" demo and as a classical guitarist myself I think it's fake. I'd glady be proven wrong.

[triez]

Originally Posted by hipass

But what if the producer wants to make changes and the singer is not available?
Do you ever use punch-ins?
I can tell you that if you make a singer do 200 takes "to get it right" you will be freaking the confidence of that singer.
Why would make someone work possibly blow out their voice for the day or longer instead of taking 10 times to change tuning or try something different with timing.
Sometimes it's not even a point of fixing something it may just wanting to try something different to hear how it sounds.
A true professional knows when to use the correct tool for the right job.

It's how all of the great albums of the 60's, 70's and eighties were made. Singers are singers because they have that skill, and they train for it. if they can't sing well enough to get 3 good takes, and a few punch ins, then they (except in extraordinary circumstances) need to practice and train more.

The drummer is expected to be able to drum well, the engineer to be able to do his or her job right, the other instrumentalists and the producer are expected to be able to do their jobs to a high standard, and the singer is no different.

Yes, the human voice is fragile and variable, and some days a singer might not be in form with a cold or such, and that is accepted. But to make a prosthetic like Autotune or Melodyne normal practice on vocal sessions is lame.

[hipass]

Originally Posted by triez

It's how all of the great albums of the 60's, 70's and eighties were made.

Well that's not how it's one now, at least not by the record companies that I work for.
FWIW All the great albums by the Beatles, Supertramp, Pink Floyd, Genesis etc. All of them involved extensive overdubbing and editing. In the 80's lots of bands used Farilight's and Synclavier's

[topperf]

Originally Posted by terminal3

for the record, I have nothing against the basic melodyne technology. it works and I can see it being useful for many reasons you've all already posted. I have used it exactly once (the free one that comes with pro tools), but it helped.

the DNA stuff, however, appears to me to be a waste of time. we've gone this long without it, I don't see why people are making it out to be a "must-have" and complaining that it's not out yet and blah blah blah.

this is just MY OPINION. feel free to disagree.

I was in an accident 20 months ago, my spinal cord was damaged and I lost most movement below my shoulders (hands are 'gone')
I never paid sample libraries any attention before this, since I would play what I needed myself, but now they are a pivotal tool when I compose.
DNA will be a very important and creative tool for me especially since I dislike using non edited samples.
The possibility of editing chords is a very welcome change for me. this will open new doors in my way of working and I don't mind waiting a little longer, as long as it 'works' when it's released.

[terminal3]

Originally Posted by topperf

I was in an accident 20 months ago, my spinal cord was damaged and I lost most movement below my shoulders (hands are 'gone')
I never paid sample libraries any attention before this, since I would play what I needed myself, but now they are a pivotal tool when I compose.
DNA will be a very important and creative tool for me especially since I dislike using non edited samples.
The possibility of editing chords is a very welcome change for me. this will open new doors in my way of working and I don't mind waiting a little longer, as long as it 'works' when it's released.

Ah, now this is of course is an application I never thought of! Hope it works for you, you'll have to let us know (if/when it comes out) if it ends up being useful for you...

[topperf]

I will and I hope/have a hunch that this product will be very useful for this exact purpose and not so much for editing finished audio productions.
It's not that I dislike midi samples, but creating a midi guitar that sounds played is (at least for me) a very time consuming task.