The big vocal tuning software thread Autotune-WavesTune-Melodyne-Pitchdoctor

[The_Phoenix]

PLEASE NOTE: THIS THREAD HAS MANY POSTS FROM DIFFERENT THREADS MERGED INTO ONE. THE WHOLE THREAD NOW SPANS 3 YEARS OF VOCAL TUNING SOFTWARE DISCUSSION!

Anyone try or use the Melodyme with a TDM system. How is the rtas version in pro tools? Would you prefer this plug-in vs. Auto Tune 4 TDM?

[C_F_H_13]

get melodyne.....

[Tetness]

I love melodyne. So easy to use. I can tune an entire vocal in seconds. Without making it sound robotic. It's not a perfect program, but I work around the kinks no problem.

[cdog]

Melodyne is amazing

[travista00]

i work with auto-tune in pro tools|hd as rtas and tdm plug-in and find that is sounds far superior to melodyne. the pitch-shifting algo's in melodyne sound very thin and fake to me, and the interface takes a long time to learn. melodyne has a lot of promise from a conceptual point of view, but, ultimately, there's a reason why auto-tune is a standard.

[Saudade]

1. Autotune is easier to use. Melodyne interface is a bit arcane at 1st, certain amount of learning involved.

2. Autotune is faster to use, Melodyne needs a 1st round of prepatory work of "melody detection" before the editing can start safely.

3. Autotune is less hard to screw up in terms of sound. Melodyne adds a strange out-of-phase cancellation type of sound to my ears at least (I have used version 1 to now 2.6 it has improved slightly) but can mostly be noticed only when material is heard in isolation.

4. Autotune can only correct pitch. Melodyne can correct pitch, timing, volume, volume transitions, vibrato strength and more for each note and the adjacent ones. And it claims to be able to transpose 1 octave without much artifacts. My experiments tells me it is very much "material dependent".

5. Autotune is more convenient to use. Melodyne (even with the Melodyne bridge thingy) is still a step away from total integration with the host DAW.



That aside, I use Melodyne.

[Lagerfeldt]

Originally Posted by Saudade

1. Autotune is easier to use. Melodyne interface is a bit arcane at 1st, certain amount of learning involved.

2. Autotune is faster to use, Melodyne needs a 1st round of prepatory work of "melody detection" before the editing can start safely.

3. Autotune is less hard to screw up in terms of sound. Melodyne adds a strange out-of-phase cancellation type of sound to my ears at least (I have used version 1 to now 2.6 it has improved slightly) but can mostly be noticed only when material is heard in isolation.

4. Autotune can only correct pitch. Melodyne can correct pitch, timing, volume, volume transitions, vibrato strength and more for each note and the adjacent ones. And it claims to be able to transpose 1 octave without much artifacts. My experiments tells me it is very much "material dependent".

5. Autotune is more convenient to use. Melodyne (even with the Melodyne bridge thingy) is still a step away from total integration with the host DAW.

Exactly, Melodyne has one of the crappiest interfaces ever seen to mankind. I bought this piece of junk and it is so incredibly bug ridden and user-hostile. Apart from that, the sound quality of the bouncing is quite bad with some phase cancellation (which you report too, I can see). So I gave it up, and lost $1.000 out the window.

So basically, it's been resting on my shelf, and I'm using Auto-Tune instead since it is so much easier to use and sound quality is good. A lot of people seem to think of Auto-Tune as a fire-and-forget piece of software (which it can be), but to get really good results you need to adjust it manually.

[jslevin]

A lot of people seem to think of Auto-Tune as a fire-and-forget piece of software (which it can be), but to get really good results you need to adjust it manually.

We've had that same experience ... hard to get usable results out of AutoTune without going into graphical mode. For those who have reached that conclusion, the next thing you figure out is that really getting it right in Melodyne is a lot faster than really getting it right in AutoTune. And that was clear after only a couple of hours with Melodyne after years of AutoTune. YMMV of course.

[Lagerfeldt]

A quick way of getting acceptable results with Auto Tune is to input a manual scale, i.e. only allowing the precise notes that occur in the melody so it won't anything funny. Perhaps make two individual tracks, one for verse and one for chorus with other settings being identical.

[karl]

I never had a problem with autotune. Although I have TDM, I just got the RTAS version. I think some people think it's good enough to run AT live with a chromatic scale. That's where the problems start. Sometimes it will go to the wrong note or not tune fast enough. It only works well if you choose the scale and work on a part at a time. As for melodyne, I gave it a try and like what it can do. I just don't have that kind of time to work on vocals.

[aussie_techie]

In my experence Auto-Tune is from automatic. if you set the right scale it can do a decent job in automatic mode but for serious results you have to use graphic mode. running it in real time over an entire session is ridiculus aswell, i dont dont why anyone would do it. it should only be used on a few lines at a time and then printed.
if you have more than a few words in a song that need re-tuning then you need a new singer period

[s0nguy]

I have heard good things about Melodyne but Im an Autotune guy myself.

It seems that Auto-Tunes ability to correct has a lot to do wit hthe tone of the singer. I find that singers who have "Tim McGraw-ish" voices tend to tune very easily with minimal AT tweaking. However, if a singer has a lot of "twang" intheir voice like say....a...Randy Travis-ish.. AT is gonna play hell on the ends of notes And bends/sweeps like a Patsy Cline's "Blue" ... fuggedabouddit!

You just gotta know how AT behaves...and work around its shortcomings... I find the auto mode mixed with graphical mode with some plug-in automation in PT HD to be a good combo for almost anything.

-S0nguy

[C.Lambrechts]

if you want to keep as much as possible of the original sound the get Autotune.

If on the other hand you don't care that the lovely chrystal clear female voice you just recorded is going to sound like a 80 year old astmatic robot breathing through a second world war gass mask the you can get melodyne.

I keeps stunning me how many people like Melodyne. It makes me wonder if they actually listen to what they do or just stare at the screen.

And fwiw ... yes I'm pretty up to date with the sound quality of melodyne. 2.6 is the last version I tried. I hope 3 will solve the sound quality issues.

And that's just audio quality. Another thing that maybe stuns me even more is that you see people about things like sample accuracy , or say that Pro Tools bounce sounds different or worse then recording it and yet they have no worries when it comes down to melodyne which simply doesn't even allow you to put back the processed file at the same spot.

Like I've been saying since version 1 .... it looks good ... it promisses amazing things and the concept and technology is simply amazing. The actual result in a professional environment is humiliating for the term 'professional' at the least.


I remember calling them after buying version 1 and the guy said something like :

'yeah ... we know but you don't hear it in the mix all that much right ?'

[Tetness]

Has anyone checked out the new vocal tune by Waves. Looks pretty serious.

[cdog]

Originally Posted by C.Lambrechts

if you want to keep as much as possible of the original sound the get Autotune.

If on the other hand you don't care that the lovely chrystal clear female voice you just recorded is going to sound like a 80 year old astmatic robot breathing through a second world war gass mask the you can get melodyne.

Chris, I've done a fair bit of comparison and I have to say my results are quite the opposite of yours.

I find Melodyne preserves the timbre of the original track better, but then again, I'm only shifting a few cents. Of course, artifacts are possible to create with aggressive shifting but I never do this.

You can process brass, flute, oboe, entire mixes with Melodyne and get stunning results - try that with Autotune and see what happens.

Autotune is good for vocals, and its certainly fast, but the sound quality of Melodyne is its selling point over Autotune for me. I have both here, and I've played with them both a lot. For 90% of the vocal tracks I used it on, Melodyne was the clear winner in terms of timbre, formant preservation and overall sound quality.

Maybe try manual correction if you're getting poor resuts with auto "Correct Pitch."

"Correct Pitch" is fast but it isn't 100% accurate, you have to make sure it puts the wrong notes in the right places.

Also, you don't have to correct pitch 100%, try 60-80%, this can produce a slightly more "human" yet "corrected" track.

[jslevin]

If on the other hand you don't care that the lovely chrystal clear female voice you just recorded is going to sound like a 80 year old astmatic robot breathing through a second world war gass mask the you can get melodyne. ... The actual result in a professional environment is humiliating for the term 'professional' at the least.

So ... you don't like it? Is that what you're saying?

[C.Lambrechts]

Originally Posted by cdog

Chris, I've done a fair bit of comparison and I have to say my results are quite the opposite of yours.

.......

Milages vary ..... what can I say ...

The last time I played with melodyne I didn't even try pitch correction. I merely imported it into melodyne and exported it back to PT.

Let alone the fact that it is impossible to place both files sample accurately against each other due to the fact that melodyne insists to determine itself where it starts and ends (which is by next biggest beef with it) ... there was a very very very clear difference in sound between the 2 files due to the mere import / export quality of melodyne.

The astmatic robot might be exagourated - although the breaths DO sound like it's being processed by a 'robot' like FX. In general it sounded like a low pass filter applied on the original voice.

Like I said ... a soft with potential and I'm keeping my eye on every major update .... but as it is now only another toy to do crazy stuff with ... there's lots out there that can do crazy stuff.

[Toad]

So, which one is better?

[C.Lambrechts]

Originally Posted by jslevin

So ... you don't like it? Is that what you're saying?

I don't like what it does with your original sound. I love the features it claims to have ... how can you not ....

As a 'tuner' it is unacceptably bad imo.

As a gadget to create crazy stuff it's as cool as the next thing .....

[Lagerfeldt]

Originally Posted by C.Lambrechts

if you want to keep as much as possible of the original sound the get Autotune.

If on the other hand you don't care that the lovely chrystal clear female voice you just recorded is going to sound like a 80 year old astmatic robot breathing through a second world war gass mask the you can get melodyne.

I keeps stunning me how many people like Melodyne. It makes me wonder if they actually listen to what they do or just stare at the screen.

Amen!

Chris, you took the words right out of my mouth.

[James 'LA' Lugo]

I'm using Melodyne these days and the session I'm on is need of some serious tuning and I'm hearing some weird phasey sounds after I do the corrections. I think autotune may sound better. Compared to autotune, melodyne is fun and fast to use but...???

[djui5]

Not sure, but I pulled up Melodyne Uno and didn't see a user interface at all, like Autotune has? Did I miss something?

Also, I can't get the damm thing to work with rewire....and when I stuck it on a mono track it only allows 1 output, either left or right, neither of which work....'



whatever. I need to read the manual, I know.

[James 'LA' Lugo]

I figured out how to use it. Call me.

[djui5]

Originally Posted by James 'LA' Lugo

I figured out how to use it. Call me.

Ok, gimme a few. I'm running some light bulbs next door.

[James 'LA' Lugo]

Cool. It's a confusing little sucker.

[Rufuss Sewell]

Hey, there are some video tutorials that come with Melodyne that show you all you need to know. Go through the course... it awesome.

As for sound, I can get Melodyne to sound perfectly natural with even extreme settings. You have to make sure the transitions are right though. With a little practice it will blow autotune out of the water.

[James 'LA' Lugo]

Thanks man. To be fair to Melodyne, I am doing some of the most severe corrections I've ever done. :(~

[salomonander]

Hi James

I find that melodyne can do amazing jobs if used very carefully.
It is most important to seperate any "ss" or "ff" sounds from the
rest of the word and leave it completely unaltered.
It takes much more time when used this way but makes a big
difference in the final result.
It is also very important to not mess with the pitch curve too much
in order to have it sound natural.

best regards
Jakob

[jpupo74]

Originally Posted by Rufuss Sewell

Hey, there are some video tutorials that come with Melodyne that show you all you need to know. Go through the course... it awesome.

As for sound, I can get Melodyne to sound perfectly natural with even extreme settings. You have to make sure the transitions are right though. With a little practice it will blow autotune out of the water.

I haven't seen this one....I'll have a look....


Pupo

[Carlos Boll]

Melodyne 3 works really well. I do find that you have to go in and fiddle with note to note transitions and such on certain sounds but it's not that difficult.

I've used it to create some great harmonies.