>> I'm not sure what's more baffling - the fact that people do this, or the
>> fact that AutoTune is insanely expensive and yet people /still/ do this!
>
> I have heard rumors that one could acquire software via certain shady
> websites without paying for it...

Yeah, but seriously, who on Earth would do something like... oh, wait.

> Also, some people may actually pay for a licensed copy for their own
> musical endeavours and then noodle around the software autotuning David
> Cameron or Angela Merkel for fun.

Some people have seriously way more money than I ever will. :-(

Post a reply to this message

>> So... apparently AutoTune makes you sound like frigging GLaDOS. :-P
>
> Which is quite ironic, because the singer who voice GLaDOS is an opera
> singer and was able to get that autotune sound without actually using
> it.  (She talks about this in the Portal 2 developer commentary IIRC)

For GLaDOS, they didn't just autotune it; they fiddled with the spectrum 
in a few other ways to make it sound more computerised.

(And yes, she can sing in tune. However, no human can quantinise their 
vocal pitch as harshly and artificially as a machine can.)

Coming back on-topic, I would suggest that the amount of distortion 
introduced depends on how far the software has to retune the sound. If 
you're a talented singer and you're only using AutoTune as a safety net 
(and you have it turned down to sane settings), it probably sounds 
pretty natural.

Post a reply to this message

On 25/09/2012 08:34 PM, andrel wrote:
> Well, I know quite a few professional singers. And I am not talking
> about pop musicians but trained, talented people. What you describe is
> entirely possible without AutoTune, but not with people like madonna, no
> matter what other qualities she has.
>
> But as you don't tell us what CDs you are talking about no meaningful
> comment is possible.

Let us add some data to this discussion.

Consider the following recording:

   http://download.orphi.me.uk/Music/Darts1.wav

This was recorded in 1977. AutoTune did not exist in 1977. Ergo, we can 
be sure that this recording cannot have been electronically retuned.

As you can clearly hear, the pitch control excellent, BUT NOT PERFECT. 
There are very slight rough edges. It sounds like something sung by real 
human beings.

Now we turn our attention back to the Senti-Mentals:

   http://download.orphi.me.uk/Music/Sentimentals1.wav

Again, we find the notes are nearly in tune, but it's not perfect. It 
sounds like real humans could plausibly sing this well.

Next up:

   http://download.orphi.me.uk/Music/Sentimentals2.wav
   http://download.orphi.me.uk/Music/Sentimentals3.wav

To me, this doesn't sound real. It's just /too/ perfect. All those 
chords, and not one single note veering even slightly out of tune, even 
once? OK, it's a studio album, they have infinity takes to get this 
right. But seriously? This sounds like an electronic keyboard to me. It 
doesn't sound like something real humans could sing.

The whole album has this feel to it. The lead vocals seem real, but the 
backing is suspiciously perfect. (Especially considering the 
imperfections in the unaccompanied numbers they've done.) Obviously I'm 
not going to upload the entire album so you can check though. ;-)

My guess is that these people certainly /can/ sing, they're just using 
AutoTune to make minor corrections. But I do think these vocals are too 
perfect to be unprocessed. (Presumably they turned it off or turned it 
down for the unaccompanied stuff.)

Post a reply to this message

> Some people have seriously way more money than I ever will. :-(

Maybe they don't post to the POV newsgroups :-)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 17:56:14 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> So... apparently AutoTune makes you sound like frigging GLaDOS. :-P
>>
>> Which is quite ironic, because the singer who voice GLaDOS is an opera
>> singer and was able to get that autotune sound without actually using
>> it.  (She talks about this in the Portal 2 developer commentary IIRC)
> 
> For GLaDOS, they didn't just autotune it; they fiddled with the spectrum
> in a few other ways to make it sound more computerised.

Of course it was treated, I didn't say it wasn't.  Have you listened to 
the developer commentary?

> (And yes, she can sing in tune. However, no human can quantinise their
> vocal pitch as harshly and artificially as a machine can.)

I've heard people do pretty amazing things with their voices.  It takes a 
lot of training and practice, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't 
someone who could mimic the effect.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> Have you listened to the developer commentary?

Yes.

>> (And yes, she can sing in tune. However, no human can quantinise their
>> vocal pitch as harshly and artificially as a machine can.)
>
> I've heard people do pretty amazing things with their voices.  It takes a
> lot of training and practice, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't
> someone who could mimic the effect.

That's like claiming that there are people who can move their arm from 
point A to point B without it visibly passing through any of the points 
in between.

A machine with a hydrolic arm powered by fifteen tonnes of pressure can 
do this. A human being cannot.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 17:44:08 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> (And yes, she can sing in tune. However, no human can quantinise their
>>> vocal pitch as harshly and artificially as a machine can.)
>>
>> I've heard people do pretty amazing things with their voices.  It takes
>> a
>> lot of training and practice, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't
>> someone who could mimic the effect.
> 
> That's like claiming that there are people who can move their arm from
> point A to point B without it visibly passing through any of the points
> in between.

Not really, no - you're implying that peoples' speech/singing is 
constantly slurred, and that's clearly not true.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>> I've heard people do pretty amazing things with their voices.  It takes
>>> a
>>> lot of training and practice, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't
>>> someone who could mimic the effect.
>>
>> That's like claiming that there are people who can move their arm from
>> point A to point B without it visibly passing through any of the points
>> in between.
>
> Not really, no - you're implying that peoples' speech/singing is
> constantly slurred, and that's clearly not true.

I'm implying that there's a limit to how rapidly muscle can move, yes.

By contrast, digitally generated data has no such limitation.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 18:58:53 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>> Not really, no - you're implying that peoples' speech/singing is
>> constantly slurred, and that's clearly not true.
> 
> I'm implying that there's a limit to how rapidly muscle can move, yes.

And yet there are singers who can actually sing discrete notes with a 
small gap between them.  Amazing, isn't it?

> By contrast, digitally generated data has no such limitation.

Sure.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 01/10/2012 8:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> And yet there are singers who can actually sing discrete notes with a
> small gap between them.  Amazing, isn't it?

I heard Alfredo Kraus sing “Ah! mes amis, quel jour de fête!” with its 
nine high Cs when he must have been in his late 50’s. He could hit high 
Ds live without sliding (eat your heart out Pavarotti)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message