The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Melodyne or Autotune... a current perspective. Pitch & Harmony Plugins
Old 9th February 2012
  #61
Lives for gear
 
studiostuff's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by escape View Post
Where will this lead to?
It's merely a style, you monkey! Like Reverb... or Tremelo...

I think we risk our immortal souls when we fail to listen through the processing and condemn the outcome because we fail to understand the difference between style and creativity.

YMMV
Old 9th February 2012
  #62
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Halo View Post
Wow, I'm honestly suprised! Not long ago, the High-End folks seemed to say Auto-Tune still sounded better in the end and Melodyne did funky things to the high end, etc

I have no horse in the race, just curious.

-a
I still say this
Old 9th February 2012
  #63
Deleted User
Guest
Hey studiostuff, thanks for calling me a monkey for expressing my thoughts.

What is "creative" about putting some talentless, uncool wannabees, who´s singing capacity is so non existent,
that they´d be probably better off to teach their arses to sing, next to some really good singers and make the public believe, all of them are great?
My uneducated guess is, it´s not at all about artistry or creativity and certainly not about style.

Then again my dear Studiostuff, it could be argued that, Le Petomane was "very stylish" in his art, even if his melodic execution, however flattering, would have benefited from a little bit of Melodyne. Maybe his style is yours.

i think we risk our immortal souls to allow musical expression to become more and more generic.

However, don´t wanna hijack this thread since it´s about melodyne vs Autotune. I own Melodyne.
Old 9th February 2012
  #64
Lives for gear
 

both are amazing programs.. I do like Autotune for singers who need just a touch of "auto mode". Nothing beats its simplicity. BUT Melodyne has some very power features that AT doesn't have (yet).. like pitch correcting a single note within a chord / polyphonic sounds. The technology is pretty mind blowing!
Old 9th February 2012
  #65
Gear Maniac
 
ericzang's Avatar
 

the DNA is great with violin when you get a double stop that needs some help.
Old 9th February 2012
  #66
Quote:
Originally Posted by escape View Post
Where will this lead to? I can´t hear any modern production on the radio where Melodyne has´nt been used extensivly.
Even the new Paul McCartney record has Melodyne written over it. It´s so depressing.

Some of the singers I heard live where really great, but you were´nt able to identify them on TV anymore, after the Melodyne treatment for all the suckers.
This is just symptomatic of the "bad" aspects of vocal tuning.

Done well, you can tune a lead vocal so it's undetectable - it just sounds like the singer, but "better".

This takes at least 2 things though - a singer who can actually sing, and a vocal engineer with taste and the ability to tune by ear and not by eye. Harder than you might think.

This is what AT and Melodyne were designed for - to make good singers better, and to save us all time/headaches. Unfortunately, what you refer to is making bad singers passable.
Old 9th February 2012
  #67
Deleted User
Guest
@psycho_monkey. Thanks for your reply.

I was making a comment about my observation, that Melodyne has hit Mainstreet and TV Stations to an effect I did´nt expect. Off course it helps me in my daily studio work, but what is "photoshop handsome" in visuals, became "perfect intonation for the not so gifted" in audio. It´s a totally new game! Not that I want to predict how, but that will have an effect on how artistic expression can be channelized or discredited. (probably not important to this forum)

I do however disagree with 2 things you said. One, that it´s undetectable. I´ve been experimenting and working with Melodyne for many years and while it´s possible to fool others into not hearing the actual tuned processing, the sound of Melodyne itself is hardly undetectable.
Two, i don´t think AT and Melodyne were designed to make good singers sound better. That´s a very optimistic statement. It´s a bit like saying, guns were designed to protect yourself.
I think they were designed because you could.

regards to London, I miss it quite a bit at times.
Old 9th February 2012
  #68
Lives for gear
 
Slikjmuzik's Avatar
 

I like Autotune still. I believe I'm using version V with the white/baby blue gui. Graphic mode is where it's at for me, even though it takes a bit longer.
Old 9th February 2012
  #69
Quote:
Originally Posted by escape View Post
I do however disagree with 2 things you said. One, that it´s undetectable. I´ve been experimenting and working with Melodyne for many years and while it´s possible to fool others into not hearing the actual tuned processing, the sound of Melodyne itself is hardly undetectable.
Oh I agree re the sound of melodyne. I hate what it does to the top end, especially once you stack vocals. That's why I avoid it and use Autotune!

I'm not sure once all's done and dusted, if it's then distinguishable to hear the melodyne "sound" in a finished mix (ie not the fact that something's been tuned, merely that the process is active. I don't think that given a well tuned, well mixed vocal, anyone could determine whether Melodyne or AT had been used). I think it's probably possible to work round it with EQ. However, why bother with a great vocal sound if you're just going to destroy it with Melodyne?

What I mean is if you give me a well sung but not perfect vocal, I could make it that tiny bit better with some tasteful tuning - I'd literally only touch the bits that grate, whilst leaving all the rest of the inflections. I think in this situation, few would be able to tell what is a well tuned vocal, and what is a naturally perfect singer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by escape View Post
Two, i don´t think AT and Melodyne were designed to make good singers sound better. That´s a very optimistic statement. It´s a bit like saying, guns were designed to protect yourself.
I think they were designed because you could.
And because there was a market there. Mmm, I'm not so sure. Obviously there's a market for making pop puppets sound that tiny bit better. I don't think it was designed to make people sound like robots - we KNOW it wasn't designed for the "AT effect", that came later!

Quote:
Originally Posted by escape View Post
regards to London, I miss it quite a bit at times.
you wouldn't today, it's f'ing freezing....
Old 9th February 2012
  #70
Gear Addict
 
NeumannCollecta's Avatar
 

AutoTune gets my vote. Melodyne sounds a bit computerized to me, with AutoTune being more natural. People like the Melodyne interface? Well I hate it and think it needs a major overhaul. More points for AutoTune in my book!
Old 9th February 2012
  #71
Lives for gear
 
grrrayson's Avatar
 

Old thread—cool to see it still going. I've done the Autotune vs. Melodyne shootout again since 2010 and Autotune still wins for transparency. Melodyne has different features which are more appropriate for some tasks and I'm quite a manual mode ninja with Autotune so may be a little biased but apart from all of that, speaking purely of sonic quality, when I close my eyes and listen there's still a clear winner here for me.
Old 10th February 2012
  #72
Lives for gear
 
studiostuff's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by escape View Post
Hey studiostuff, thanks for calling me a monkey for expressing my thoughts.

What is "creative" about putting some talentless, uncool wannabees, who´s singing capacity is so non existent,
that they´d be probably better off to teach their arses to sing, next to some really good singers and make the public believe, all of them are great?
My uneducated guess is, it´s not at all about artistry or creativity and certainly not about style.

Then again my dear Studiostuff, it could be argued that, Le Petomane was "very stylish" in his art, even if his melodic execution, however flattering, would have benefited from a little bit of Melodyne. Maybe his style is yours.

i think we risk our immortal souls to allow musical expression to become more and more generic.

However, don´t wanna hijack this thread since it´s about melodyne vs Autotune. I own Melodyne.
I also own Melodyne and use the hell out of it for good and for evil. And thank you for the idea to use it to tune my farts... hadn't thought of that because I like to think of them as tuneful.

The term of endearment, "Monkey", was used because I am pretty sure your comment was a provocative overgeneralization... not worth a ton of consideration IMO. If your favorite style of music is not on TV, don't watch TV. That's my solution.

Your comment seemed to me like blaming the color blue for the bad art that has been produced using it. Everyone uses blue... sometimes in works of art.

I've said this before here... The best way to use Melodyne is with a singer who already sings very well... and then, sparingly, for small tweaks to polish an already super-fine vocal performance.

Have I ever used it to make someone who couldn't sing sound as though they could...? Yep, I'm ashamed to admit. Is it the downfall of civilization...? Nope, just the way it goes sometimes.

Most of the time I get to work with singers who kill with their voices and Melodyne helps me put a little extra sauce on the performances as needed. Most of the time, it is not obvious and I can hear Melodyne on a track in two notes.
Old 10th February 2012
  #73
Lives for gear
 
ionian's Avatar
I'm not the world's greatest singer but I found a good use for Melodyne by recording my lead vocal track, tuning the heck out of it 100% and then re-recording my lead vocal using the melodyned track as a guide vocal in my headphones to help my pitch. It's really helped me a lot.

Regards,
Frank
Old 10th February 2012
  #74
Gear Head
I use both.

Melodyne first for the big boo boo's. Then some gentle antares for tightening up a wee bit more
Old 10th February 2012
  #75
Gear Head
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidklassic View Post
I use both.

Melodyne first for the big boo boo's. Then some gentle antares for tightening up a wee bit more
Examples-> FIVE8 - TU Y YO(YOU & I) by kidklassic on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free

and

FIVE8 - COME BACK HOME by kidklassic on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free
Old 10th February 2012
  #76
Gear Addict
 
monsieur x's Avatar
Melodyne.

One has to carefully separate the esses though, they can get very strange if the algorithm touches them.

Other than that, so extremely powerful. . .

I don't like Auto-Tune, the artifacts with Melodyne can sound more digital, and hard, than Auto-Tune, but as long as it's used by a trained hand it will sound better than Auto-Tune in my experience.

Anyway, wish you all the best,
Old 10th February 2012
  #77
Lives for gear
 
guittarzzan's Avatar
I'm no pro, but I would never even consider using any auto mode for touching up my vocals. In my humble opinion, if there's more than just an occasional note that needs a little love, it's worth the effort to hit the record button again and retake it.

Question: I use melodyne. Is it correct that the newest version ONLY touches the notes you tune and leaves everything else alone? Is that only when importing audio or is it the same when just pushing play and having Mel analyze the region?

cheers,
Steve
Old 10th February 2012
  #78
Gear Addict
 
dave gross's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by guittarzzan View Post
Question: I use melodyne. Is it correct that the newest version ONLY touches the notes you tune and leaves everything else alone? Is that only when importing audio or is it the same when just pushing play and having Mel analyze the region?

cheers,
Steve
You can test it by duplicating the track, inverting it, disable Melodyne on it, and see if they null.
Old 10th February 2012
  #79
Lives for gear
 
matskull's Avatar
 

After demoing At, melodyne and waves tune I went with waves tune.

I really liked the interface of melodyne, really, and it was more flexible in certain aspect but I heard that high end loss too.

I didn't like the autotune interface at all.

Waves tune sounded better to my ears and it was 100$ compared to 350$ for melodyne so I went with it.
I don't regret it, I got used to the interface and I also like that I can navigate through a session directly from the plugin, I don't have to click the protools edit window to change my position in time.
Old 10th February 2012
  #80
Gear Addict
 
monsieur x's Avatar
I used to suffer with latency, phase and artefact abnormalities with Melodyne, but I think all of that has been resolved now.

I trust Melodyne more than ever now, and trust it to be transparent wherever I don't touch the note.

Test it for yourself using your own ears if you like.
Old 10th February 2012
  #81
Lives for gear
 
matskull's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ionian View Post
I'm not the world's greatest singer but I found a good use for Melodyne by recording my lead vocal track, tuning the heck out of it 100% and then re-recording my lead vocal using the melodyned track as a guide vocal in my headphones to help my pitch. It's really helped me a lot.

Regards,
Frank
Hey cool trick! I'll have to try that thanks
Old 11th February 2012
  #82
Lives for gear
 
Showcase's Avatar
 

Been thinking about this for awhile, why are there are so many melodyne users, am I missing something?
Tried Melodyne but never really liked it, I use Waves tune which I think is much better, easy and you can do pretty much whatever you want with the tune, except stretching material wich I think melodyne can, like tempo sync?

Cant hear melodyne correct tune better than waves tune, in fact when using melodyne the vocal sound changes a bit? (like mp3ìsh the track) Even the mother of all vocal tune plugs Antares autotune doesnt do this, so why does everyone hooks up with melodyne?
Old 11th February 2012
  #83
Here for the gear
 

The reason people use auto tune is because they havent lived with the song long enough to actually sing in tune .
The average artist these days has been given a song by a publishing company.
Once they can actually remember the lyrics that they have written and the key for the song then only then can they sing the song from front to end instead of phrase by phrase.

Have to agree with BC good on his thoughts as well.

Cheers
Old 11th February 2012
  #84
Lives for gear
 
projektk's Avatar
 

I like melodyne more, honostly they are both powerful tools. Also someone taught me everything they know about melodyne, I'm still confused with Auto Tune. Just being honost.

Sent from my LG-P925 using Gearslutz.com
Old 11th February 2012
  #85
Gear Maniac
 

It depends on how you're using it. If you're tracking and you don't have time to get into detail on the tuning, AutoTune all the way. Set it and forget it.

But if you're mixing and you want it to sound better, Melodyne all day long.

I just learned about a new feature in Melodyne where you can convert audio to midi. This is a very powerful feature, so now you can analyze ANY track and get midi notes, then use that melody on a virtual instrument. Just imagine a singer who doesn't play an instrument singing a melody, then you convert that into midi, put a bass guitar patch on a virtual instrument, and you now have a bass track. OR you analyze a drum track, convert to midi, insert something like Ocean Way Drums or Addictive Drums on it, and beef up a drum track in a matter of minutes.
Old 11th February 2012
  #86
Melodyne (in my version which is old) occasionally has some audio artifacts - sometimes these are disturbing, but are usually solved by re-importing the audio. What it does to the audio however preserves the natural phrasing, vibrato etc.

Autotune on the other hand has no audible artifacts but destroys all the natural phrasing, vibrato etc.

If you can't hear the artifacts in melodyne you probably shouldn't be a sound engineer. If you can't hear what autotune does to phrasing you are no musician.

Because I care about the music, Melodyne is usually my choice.

The best solution is to get as good takes as you can and then treat them as little as possible.

If a guitarist can't play the chords he is probably out of the band. Why is it that people who can't sing can still call themselves vocalists? Leaving all their poor pitching in might just be the best thing you could do for the music business.
Old 11th February 2012
  #87
Lives for gear
 
Showcase's Avatar
 

I was more comparing waves vs melodyne! Though I use antares autotune aswell, especially on choir!

I can always in some way understand why ppl uses this or that, but I dont understand why more people doesnt use waves maybe its because melodyne can align the vocal track? The new DNA in Melo is a complete other story, insane!

I´ve tried to like Melodyne but dont get 100% along with it and end up going back to waves, you can change whatever you want, just draw it with the pencil and it sounds great ...works for me, just curious if Im missing something heh
Old 11th February 2012
  #88
Quote:
Originally Posted by AASteveo View Post
It depends on how you're using it. If you're tracking and you don't have time to get into detail on the tuning, AutoTune all the way. Set it and forget it.

But if you're mixing and you want it to sound better, Melodyne all day long.

I just learned about a new feature in Melodyne where you can convert audio to midi. This is a very powerful feature, so now you can analyze ANY track and get midi notes, then use that melody on a virtual instrument. Just imagine a singer who doesn't play an instrument singing a melody, then you convert that into midi, put a bass guitar patch on a virtual instrument, and you now have a bass track. OR you analyze a drum track, convert to midi, insert something like Ocean Way Drums or Addictive Drums on it, and beef up a drum track in a matter of minutes.
I would refine that and say its easier to get a good result quickly in melodyne. However, a skilled operator will get a sonically unchanged result in autotune, which isn't possible in melodyne. Might take longer though.

I also think in AT it's easier to only correct the bits that really need it. In melodyne it's much more tempting to "quantise all" even if it doesn't need it.
Old 14th February 2012
  #89
Deleted User
Guest
cleaningup

Last edited by Deleted User; 27th February 2012 at 09:37 PM.. Reason: cleaning up mess
Old 14th February 2012
  #90
Lives for gear
 
Demonslave's Avatar
By far Melodyne. Most of the guys in the biz doing big records I know are using it....less artifacts, but you can't have it cranked up either, it's for subtle stuff, not some crap ass singer!
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Lazer Toms / Music Computers
88
Deleted User / Music Computers
14
tazman / So much gear, so little time
10
duckyboard / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
1

Forum Jump
Forum Jump