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 22nd December 2010
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Dirty Halo's Avatar
 

Question Melodyne or Autotune... a current perspective.

I know we've had many threads in the past, but I'm curious if there are current users of the newest versions of both Melodyne and Autotune:

Of the two, which more easily gives you the most natural sounding results?

Looking for sonic quality and ease of use (not loaded with most features, just getting the job done fast and easy)

Thanks for your thoughts!

-a
Old 22nd December 2010
  #2
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Halo View Post
I know we've had many threads in the past, but I'm curious if there are current users of the newest versions of both Melodyne and Autotune:

Of the two, which more easily gives you the most natural sounding results?

Looking for sonic quality and ease of use (not loaded with most features, just getting the job done fast and easy)

Thanks for your thoughts!

-a
For me the fastest and easiest is Melodyne. Sometimes the results can be a little un-natural in my opinion. But I love the interface.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #3
Here for the gear
 
DirtyChus's Avatar
 

waves tune is really good too.

...and they has the version little for reduce cpu performance.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #4
Lives for gear
 
nukmusic's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by guitarz View Post
For me the fastest and easiest is Melodyne. Sometimes the results can be a little un-natural in my opinion. But I love the interface.
I agree
Old 23rd December 2010
  #5
Lives for gear
 
gm5k's Avatar
 

Autotune if I sang a part really well/accurately. Melodyne...if I didn't heh
Old 23rd December 2010
  #6
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 

If you're going for the most natural and transparent tuning software then Melodyne wins by far. Obviously the best choice is to re-take and get it right with a natural performance but if that's not an option, (Which I really don't understand why it wouldn't be) then yes Melodyne is the best tuning software out there in my opinion.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #7
Gear Head
 
DigiAudiophile's Avatar
 

Definetely Melodyne is my primary weapon. You'll get pretty decent, natural and instant results. Especially interesting is the latest DNA (Direct Note Access) technology. This means that you can tune a polyphonic sound, such as guitar chord, strumming etc. And I'll recommend Autotune only as a secondary weapon just for getting some voice effect such as the good known t-pain effect etc. Good luck!
Old 23rd December 2010
  #8
Gear Addict
 
rob61's Avatar
 

I find Melodyne better when you want to save the subtle inflections and vibrato. However, even when you set correction to 100% it can still be a bit off.

Auto Tune is a bit more of a sledge hammer approach (which is why it can do the "T-Payne" stuff), but used sparingly it can still sound natural.

If I use Melodyne as the primary tool (because of a singer's style), I still might use a little select Auto Tune to touch up a few of the notes just a bit more.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #9
Lives for gear
 
paterno's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DigiAudiophile View Post
Definetely Melodyne is my primary weapon. You'll get pretty decent, natural and instant results.
Yes, poking a little fun here:
Not the most ringing endorsement of a product!!

For me, Melodyne is best for the most horrible singers. I think i've got DNA but haven't used it on anything serious.

For the good to kinda-bad singers, Auto Tune still works better for me -- of course doing it all manually and printing the fixes as I go [since it never really plays back the same way twice]. But then again, I'm more about getting great results rather than instant results.

Merry Happy...
John
Old 23rd December 2010
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Dirty Halo's Avatar
 

Exclamation

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
Old 23rd December 2010
  #11
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 

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...
-a
Birds of a feather, flock together
Old 23rd December 2010
  #12
Gear Head
 
DigiAudiophile's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paterno View Post
Yes, poking a little fun here:
Not the most ringing endorsement of a product!!

For me, Melodyne is best for the most horrible singers. I think i've got DNA but haven't used it on anything serious.

For the good to kinda-bad singers, Auto Tune still works better for me -- of course doing it all manually and printing the fixes as I go [since it never really plays back the same way twice]. But then again, I'm more about getting great results rather than instant results.

Merry Happy...
John
Well, imo, If you have a bad singer, whether is Melodyne or Autotune, you'll have a terrible results. The most important thing is the natural voacl performance, then, those tweaking knobs on that algorithm.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #13
Lives for gear
 
Lipps's Avatar
 

Melodyne or Autotune... a current perspective.

So did melodyn fix the high end issue with the newest version? Before it definitely killed some highs.


Posted via the Gearslutz iPhone app
Old 23rd December 2010
  #14
CKK
Lives for gear
 
CKK's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgood View Post
...........Obviously the best choice is to re-take and get it right with a natural performance but if that's not an option, (Which I really don't understand why it wouldn't be) then yes Melodyne is the best tuning software out there in my opinion.
Hmmm - have to disagree here (not on the Melodyne bit). I would much rather have a pitchy performance with lots of personality and balls, and then fix the "pitchy" parts later on - than having a perfect performance pitchwise that is bland and ordinary. Most often singers can have a hard time "giving their soul" while staying in pitch for a whole pass, and it gets even more hard for them the more takes you make - at least in my experience.

Its the smallest things in a performance that will catch the listeners attention - the "right" breathing, the "right" rusty endings to certain words/passages, SEX - A "perfect" pitch is not one of them.

As always YMMV
Old 23rd December 2010
  #15
Deleted User
Guest
Melodyne for sure.

It's much more versatile for starters, and artifacts aren't as obvious on heavy tuning problems as they are with Antares Autotune.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #16
Gear Addict
 
Tim Davis's Avatar
 

I've found Melodyne absolutely destroys the esses in recordings, turning them into digitally aggressive thorns. - I have to cut all the esses out before tuning which is a nightmare.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #17
Lives for gear
 
dbjp's Avatar
 

Autotune sounds more natural to me.
Melodyne's got a better UI and I enjoy working on it more (well, enjoy wasn't the word I was looking for!), but I really don't like how the sound changes the moment you start using it, and that's even before any pitch correction.
I'll admit I haven't upgraded to DNA yet so they may well have fixed the issue.
Would like to hear someone chime in regarding this issue.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #18
Lives for gear
 
studiostuff's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Davis View Post
I've found Melodyne absolutely destroys the esses in recordings, turning them into digitally aggressive thorns. - I have to cut all the esses out before tuning which is a nightmare.
The way to successfully tune a vocal is to only use Melodyne on the stuff that needs repair.

Why are you trying to tune esses...?

I don't always drink auto-tuning software, but when I do, I prefer Melodyne.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #19
Gear Nut
 

I definitely prefer Melodyne. Even if the sound changes slightly(and I mean Slightly), its nothing that anyone would notice if they hadn't heard the raw track beforehand. The tuning is so much more natural. I also have never felt inclined to use Auto Tune on anything but vocals, but with Melo DNA, I have used it on acoustic guitars, piano tracks, and bass guitar. Almost always works perfectly.

I don't always use tuning software, but when I do, I hunt the singer down and beat him savagely until he pays me extra.
Old 24th December 2010
  #20
Lives for gear
 
grrrayson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Halo View Post

Of the two, which more easily gives you the most natural sounding results?

...just getting the job done fast and easy)
There's a slight conflict in what you wrote so that I'm not sure what your priority is between sound and ease of use.


Autotune still sounds better to me.

I use Melodyne for time-stretching, adjusting volume, and playing with harmonies; I particularly like it on bass (where I also tweak the pitch if necessary and I've found the formant shifting is useful for making a the B string on a 5-string bass sound like an actual bass guitar).

I heard from someone recently who worked at the Chocolate Factory that all the R. Kelly guys are big fans of Melodyne–perhaps new stuff coming out of there is a good example of Melodyne usage?


I know you're looking for an updated view, but it's basically the same old same-old to me: Autotune sounds better, Melodyne has more features, and I dislike ever having to use either of them so much.

Grayson

P.S. Tangent: Yesterday tuning some vocals I was wondering if Autotune 5 still might sound better in some cases...
Old 24th December 2010
  #21
Lives for gear
 
grrrayson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dpalasini View Post
I also have never felt inclined to use Auto Tune on anything but vocals, but with Melo DNA, I have used it on acoustic guitars, piano tracks, and bass guitar. Almost always works perfectly.
I've used Autotune on vocals, flugelhorn, upright bass, cello...all with great results.

I even tried both Autotune and Melodyne on acoustic guitar lately and Autotune sounded better.
Old 24th December 2010
  #22
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 

I have used both of the latest versions and once again I stand by what I said, melodyne sounds more natural with less artifacts. With the other DNA features it is also much more powerful.

If you want the "T-Pain" thang go with AT though fo sho.
Old 24th December 2010
  #23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Davis View Post
I've found Melodyne absolutely destroys the esses in recordings, turning them into digitally aggressive thorns. - I have to cut all the esses out before tuning which is a nightmare.
Yeah - even the latest version destroys esses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dbjp View Post
Autotune sounds more natural to me.
Melodyne's got a better UI and I enjoy working on it more (well, enjoy wasn't the word I was looking for!), but I really don't like how the sound changes the moment you start using it, and that's even before any pitch correction.
I'll admit I haven't upgraded to DNA yet so they may well have fixed the issue.
Would like to hear someone chime in regarding this issue.
I don't think they have fixed the issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by studiostuff View Post
The way to successfully tune a vocal is to only use Melodyne on the stuff that needs repair.

Why are you trying to tune esses...?
Well, just putting melodyne on a track (before tuning) noticeably affects the top end. It's not about tuning esses, it's about not processing them at all - hence having to cut them out before tuning.

I much prefer AT for sonics. Melodyne is way quicker and possibly more effective for terrible singers, but AT you can just touch the bits you need and not affect the rest AT ALL. Melodyne, the only way to do this is to print the whole thing then cut the edited sections back into the main take - possible, but fiddly.

Of course, most people don't seem to care about the lack of top end, or say (as has been stated) that if you hadn't heard the original vocal, you wouldn't notice the difference. Personally, if I'm going to go to the hassle of recording a vocal with a nice top end, I wouldn't then want to destroy it with clumsy tuning processing.
Old 24th December 2010
  #24
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Personally, if I'm going to go to the hassle of recording a vocal with a nice top end, I wouldn't then want to destroy it with clumsy tuning processing.
That's the whole point of not using any tuning at all. Both AT and Melodyne negatively effect the vocal. Somehow we have all these hits in the 70s & 80s that where produced with zero Auto Tune or Melodyne; and guess what? They sound better, go figure...
Old 24th December 2010
  #25
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 

Old 25th December 2010
  #26
Lives for gear
 
grrrayson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgood View Post
I have used both of the latest versions and once again I stand by what I said, melodyne sounds more natural with less artifacts.
It's so interesting to me how so many of us have simply opposite opinions on this.

I think what we need are some blind shoot-outs: several of us tuning some vocal passages with both Autotune and Melodyne and then posting the two different versions to see which everyone likes better. I think that may be the only thing that will give us insight as to how or why so many of us hear this differently. I'll see if I can get around to this over the holiday.

I should say that many of the responses here imply to me that people aren't taking advantage of manual mode in Autotune...
Old 25th December 2010
  #27
Here for the gear
 
idreaminstereo's Avatar
 

Melodyne editor

Melodyne is much more versatile. There is a learning curve
but once you work with it a bit there's really no comparison.
The polyphonic editing has just upped the ante
Old 25th December 2010
  #28
I remember when we used to have to sing on pitch and worked for hours getting really "in tune" backing harmonies on every song on an album, and then would recut the lead vocal to the "perfect" backing vocals so that everything was dead-on.

And if you couldn't do the job, someone else would.

It was real.

I have EVO Auto-tune and it always sounds off to me. I hear so much on radio that is pitch corrected and it is like a bowl of froot loops with maple syrup, brown sugar and even confectioner's sugar poured on top of it, with dr. pepper instead of milk: Sickening.

But, hey opinions vary and now manufacturing stars and hit singles is easier, if not more plastic.
Old 25th December 2010
  #29
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wardpike View Post
I remember when we used to have to sing on pitch and worked for hours getting really "in tune" backing harmonies on every song on an album, and then would recut the lead vocal to the "perfect" backing vocals so that everything was dead-on.

And if you couldn't do the job, someone else would.

It was real.

I have EVO Auto-tune and it always sounds off to me. I hear so much on radio that is pitch corrected and it is like a bowl of froot loops with maple syrup, brown sugar and even confectioner's sugar poured on top of it, with dr. pepper instead of milk: Sickening.

But, hey opinions vary and now manufacturing stars and hit singles is easier, if not more plastic.
Yep you're spot on. Just retake it until it's right.

Even if it's not a perfect performance, I'll take the sound of a human singing without digital tuning manipulation any day. It's time to step away from the over use of digital tools people. Step away from the plug, slowly, slowly.

Easy does it
Old 25th December 2010
  #30
Lives for gear
 

Melodyne degrades the sound just by importing audio into it. Anyone who can´t hear this degradation, shouldn´t be writing in the "High end" forum.

I didn´t spend thousands of $ for my vocal chain just to be degraded by Melodyne. I only use it in absolute emergencies for a word or two (haven´t used it in couple of years). I hope they would fix this sound degradation problem.

Autotune wins with the audio quality hands down, BUT I´ve heard that the new Autotune 7 might degrade the sound similarly than Melodyne. I hope that´s not the case, anyone has solid info about this?
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