 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
OK, so the CDs I ordered arrived this morning. I'm listening to them
now, and... well...
Can't tell if elite or AutoTune.
In a nutshell, that's what it comes down to. The backing singers are
singing some pretty complicated block chords in /perfect/ synchrony,
without the slightest waiver in pitch - even for chords which are a bit
ungainly on the ear. These people either possess exquisite pitch singing
and immaculate timing... or a copy of AutoTune. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25/09/2012 05:49 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Can't tell if elite or AutoTune.
According to the sleeve notes:
John Dobinson would like you to search your own hearts and record
collections to ensure there's a special place for the following artists,
whose seminal works had a huge influence on him which continues to this
day, despite all the therapy and counselling...
So I guess these guys have a sense of humour.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25-9-2012 18:49, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:> OK, so the CDs I ordered
arrived this morning. I'm listening to them
> now, and... well...
>
> Can't tell if elite or AutoTune.
>
> In a nutshell, that's what it comes down to. The backing singers are
> singing some pretty complicated block chords in /perfect/ synchrony,
> without the slightest waiver in pitch - even for chords which are a bit
> ungainly on the ear. These people either possess exquisite pitch singing
> and immaculate timing... or a copy of AutoTune. :-P
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.
In an unrelated note: why does pressing reply above the message in
thunderbird reply to the sender and the reply in the menu-area to the
newsgroup?
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 25/09/2012 21:34, andrel nous fit lire :
> In an unrelated note: why does pressing reply above the message in
> thunderbird reply to the sender and the reply in the menu-area to the
> newsgroup?
because the "smart"-ass at thunderbird find it good to now put by
default the "reply" (to sender) as the first button. You want
"follow-up" instead.
(I customised my GUI to swap these two; before that I kept hitting the
wrong one)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmail com> 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.
Why not?
--
- Warp
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.
Well, listening to the likes of Dion, The Darts or Mud suggests that
these people were not able to sing with such immaculate perfection. The
songs I'm listening to sound just a little "too perfect" - like the sort
of thing a machine would produce.
I'm not completely /sure/, however.
> But as you don't tell us what CDs you are talking about no meaningful
> comment is possible.
You may listen in crappy clipped and compressed quality here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA3LFd8g9bY
The lead singer sounds "real" enough, but those backing vocals sound
just a bit too perfect to me...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25-9-2012 22:18, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> 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.
>
> Why not?
>
because she started too late taking singing lessons and was too busy
with her career to spend enough time on it.
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25-9-2012 22:27, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> 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.
>
> Well, listening to the likes of Dion, The Darts or Mud suggests that
> these people were not able to sing with such immaculate perfection. The
> songs I'm listening to sound just a little "too perfect" - like the sort
> of thing a machine would produce.
>
> I'm not completely /sure/, however.
>
>> But as you don't tell us what CDs you are talking about no meaningful
>> comment is possible.
>
> You may listen in crappy clipped and compressed quality here:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA3LFd8g9bY
>
> The lead singer sounds "real" enough, but those backing vocals sound
> just a bit too perfect to me...
I don't think so. I didn't know but apparently the equivalent of 'that
looks shopped' is I can see from the pixels' for audio is 'that sounds
AutoTuned, I can hear from the spectrum'.
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 25-9-2012 22:18, Warp wrote:
> > andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> 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.
> >
> > Why not?
> >
> because she started too late taking singing lessons and was too busy
> with her career to spend enough time on it.
Madonna made her first hit songs in the early 80's. Autotune was first
released in 1997. I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I don't think so. I didn't know but apparently the equivalent of 'that
> looks shopped' is I can see from the pixels' for audio is 'that sounds
> AutoTuned, I can hear from the spectrum'.
I don't know the exact algorithm for autotuning, but it wouldn't surprise
me if it didn't leave some characteristic revealing marks or patterns in
the sound that could be analyzed to see if it has been autotuned. (After
all, pitch correction while retaining the correct timing requires more
than just playing the sample faster or slower.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 26/09/2012 01:53, Warp nous fit lire :
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> because she started too late taking singing lessons and was too busy
>> with her career to spend enough time on it.
>
> Madonna made her first hit songs in the early 80's. Autotune was first
> released in 1997. I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about.
>
it was not for her singing talent alone. It was a different time and a
different musical industry.
Madonna was first part of the dancers of Patrick Hernandez (1979).
At least, at that time, songs & shows had some messages in them, even if
faint. And these messages were assumed by the artists.
Nowadays, it's a totally different business.
Best illustrated with the Star Wars movies.
The only original trilogy allows identification with the hero (a young
man discovers the world and love, outside of his nest, bad guys turn out
to be not so bad, and all that with some stunning effects for the time,
and a romance between three too).
The last perpetration is just about cashing money on filming a story.
No reflection, no message, just entertainment.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-09-25 19:53, Warp a écrit :
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 25-9-2012 22:18, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> 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.
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>>
>> because she started too late taking singing lessons and was too busy
>> with her career to spend enough time on it.
>
> Madonna made her first hit songs in the early 80's. Autotune was first
> released in 1997. I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about.
>
If you listen to her earlier balads ("Live to tell", for example), you
can tell that when she's trying to sing "seriously" (as opposed to the
"girly" stuff like "Material girl" or "Like a virgin") she sometimes
misses notes and her voice cracks up.
Compare that to "Frozen", where you won't hear any of those mistakes.
I also think the absence of mistakes is the result of technology rather
than singing lessons.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-09-25 19:55, Warp a écrit :
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> I don't think so. I didn't know but apparently the equivalent of 'that
>> looks shopped' is I can see from the pixels' for audio is 'that sounds
>> AutoTuned, I can hear from the spectrum'.
>
> I don't know the exact algorithm for autotuning, but it wouldn't surprise
> me if it didn't leave some characteristic revealing marks or patterns in
> the sound that could be analyzed to see if it has been autotuned. (After
> all, pitch correction while retaining the correct timing requires more
> than just playing the sample faster or slower.)
>
It depends on the amount of autotuning required. If you only correct a
musician that's off by half a tone, it will probably be very difficult
to find, but it really sounds metallic when it's overdone (e.g.: those
"autotune the news" Youtube videos.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> It depends on the amount of autotuning required. If you only correct a
> musician that's off by half a tone, it will probably be very difficult
> to find, but it really sounds metallic when it's overdone (e.g.: those
> "autotune the news" Youtube videos.
But that's exactly what I was thinking about. Even if there's only a little
bit of autotuning, it ought to leave traces of that "metallic" sound that
could be algorithmically analyzed (even if the human ear doesn't discern
them because they are inundated by all the other sounds).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26-9-2012 1:53, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 25-9-2012 22:18, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> 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.
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>>
>> because she started too late taking singing lessons and was too busy
>> with her career to spend enough time on it.
>
> Madonna made her first hit songs in the early 80's. Autotune was first
> released in 1997. I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about.
About her singing skills, without AutoTune. Like a virgin was a catchy
tune and for the time an eye catching video, but I was not impressed by
her vocal skills, to put it mildly.
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> About her singing skills, without AutoTune. Like a virgin was a catchy
> tune and for the time an eye catching video, but I was not impressed by
> her vocal skills, to put it mildly.
Not everybody has to be a trained opera singer...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/09/2012 03:09 PM, Warp wrote:
> Not everybody has to be a trained opera singer...
FWIW, I hate opera.
Paradoxically, I really like Gilbert & Sullivan...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 27/09/2012 03:09 PM, Warp wrote:
> > Not everybody has to be a trained opera singer...
> FWIW, I hate opera.
You really shouldn't. There are many exquisite examples of true talent,
excellent singing performances and cool songs in opera. Try some of these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP9SX7V14Z4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPvAQxZsgpQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qHZkkgowdY
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> FWIW, I hate opera.
>
> You really shouldn't. There are many exquisite examples of true talent,
> excellent singing performances and cool songs in opera. Try some of these:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP9SX7V14Z4
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPvAQxZsgpQ
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qHZkkgowdY
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To me, this just sounds like bad
singing ruining really good music...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27-9-2012 16:09, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> About her singing skills, without AutoTune. Like a virgin was a catchy
>> tune and for the time an eye catching video, but I was not impressed by
>> her vocal skills, to put it mildly.
>
> Not everybody has to be a trained opera singer...
>
That wasn't the point. The question from Andy was if anybody can sing in
tune and my answer was: yes. Which I extended by remarking that in
modern popular music singing well is not a prerequisite.
For many people popular music is the frame of reference for music which
distorts their view of music in more or less the same way that Word does
for typography. Whether you think that is bad or not depends a.o. on
your age. I am a grandfather.
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/09/2012 11:39 PM, andrel wrote:
> That wasn't the point. The question from Andy was if anybody can sing in
> tune and my answer was: yes.
More precisely, the question was whether several people can sing
complicated harmonies with surgical precision without ever missing a
single note even by a tiny fraction. But anyway...
(It's no secret that some people can sing in tune. I've heard plenty of
people do that live. I've even heard people sing harmonies live. But
usually it doesn't sound this "perfect" when it's real.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25/09/2012 05:49 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Can't tell if elite or AutoTune.
For 87% more insanity, open YouTube and search "autotune".
Apparently there's an entire industry based around finding random video
clips and processing everybody's voices through AutoTune to turn it into
music.
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!
Obviously, YouTube is the home of cats, so:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP4NMoJcFd4
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/09/2012 01:06 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> For 87% more insanity, open YouTube and search "autotune".
>
> Apparently there's an entire industry based around finding random video
> clips and processing everybody's voices through AutoTune to turn it into
> music.
So... apparently AutoTune makes you sound like frigging GLaDOS. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> For 87% more insanity, open YouTube and search "autotune".
>
> Apparently there's an entire industry based around finding random video
> clips and processing everybody's voices through AutoTune to turn it into
> music.
Hehe, you should YouTube "songify" - it's an app (for phones) that
records you speaking in a normal voice and then gives you the option to
autotune it to a list of various songs. Quite fun.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/09/2012 02:05 PM, scott wrote:
>> For 87% more insanity, open YouTube and search "autotune".
>>
>> Apparently there's an entire industry based around finding random video
>> clips and processing everybody's voices through AutoTune to turn it into
>> music.
>
> Hehe, you should YouTube "songify" - it's an app (for phones) that
> records you speaking in a normal voice and then gives you the option to
> autotune it to a list of various songs. Quite fun.
That explains it then. AutoTune itself is very, *very* expensive...
(That said, how the heck do you transfer the recording from a phone to a
PC to upload it to YouTube?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Hehe, you should YouTube "songify" - it's an app (for phones) that
>> records you speaking in a normal voice and then gives you the option to
>> autotune it to a list of various songs. Quite fun.
>
> That explains it then. AutoTune itself is very, *very* expensive...
With you I'm never sure if you're being sarcastic or not :-)
> (That said, how the heck do you transfer the recording from a phone to a
> PC to upload it to YouTube?)
Email, bluetooth, wifi, USB - or just upload directly from the phone if
you don't want to do any fancy editing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
> (That said, how the heck do you transfer the recording from a phone to a
> PC to upload it to YouTube?)
I usually move all the data from my phone (photos, GPS logs...) via
email. I actually have my phones email-client configured to add myself
on the Cc -field, so I don't even need to type my address, just click send.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/09/2012 03:15 PM, scott wrote:
>>> Hehe, you should YouTube "songify" - it's an app (for phones) that
>>> records you speaking in a normal voice and then gives you the option to
>>> autotune it to a list of various songs. Quite fun.
>>
>> That explains it then. AutoTune itself is very, *very* expensive...
>
> With you I'm never sure if you're being sarcastic or not :-)
I looked up the price this morning. $649. Ouch!
(As it happens, I already have a piece of software which does roughly
the same thing. If only my mic worked properly, anyway...)
>> (That said, how the heck do you transfer the recording from a phone to a
>> PC to upload it to YouTube?)
>
> Email, bluetooth, wifi, USB - or just upload directly from the phone if
> you don't want to do any fancy editing.
Oh yes, how silly of me... Some phones have Internet access.
(Annoyingly, my mum bought a bluetooth adaptor and it lets you access my
phone, my grandad bought a bluetooth adaptor and it lets you access my
phone, and I bought a bluetooth adaptor and... it won't let me access my
phone. Or rather, it let's me use the mic and the speaker, but won't
allow file transfers. WTF?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:19:51 +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)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-09-28 08:06, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 25/09/2012 05:49 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Can't tell if elite or AutoTune.
>
> For 87% more insanity, open YouTube and search "autotune".
>
> Apparently there's an entire industry based around finding random video
> clips and processing everybody's voices through AutoTune to turn it into
> music.
>
> 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...
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.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:45:29 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> 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)
Clearly you didn't hear this, because it's impossible. Andy said so. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/1/2012 9:44 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> 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.
There is some obscure Asian cult that involves desynchronizing one's
vocal cords, so that each one produces a different frequency and sound
(they normally approximate the same pitch at all times), so... not sure
how "impossible" it is.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 02/10/2012 04:33, Patrick Elliott nous fit lire :
> There is some obscure Asian cult that involves desynchronizing one's
> vocal cords, so that each one produces a different frequency and sound
> (they normally approximate the same pitch at all times), so... not sure
> how "impossible" it is.
If you are thinking about "overtone singing" ("chant diphonique" in
French), it's not about the two vocal cords at different frequency, but
about the choice of harmonic in the resonators (mouth/... )
You do not control the "frequency" of the vocal cords, only their/its
tension. The vocal cords are like the hands in the old koan:
Two hands clap and there is a sound. What is the sound of one hand?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:45:29 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
> > 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)
>
> Clearly you didn't hear this, because it's impossible. Andy said so. ;)
>
> Jim
True! The great naysayer says so. It must be true (or is that false?).
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/1/2012 8:46 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 02/10/2012 04:33, Patrick Elliott nous fit lire :
>> There is some obscure Asian cult that involves desynchronizing one's
>> vocal cords, so that each one produces a different frequency and sound
>> (they normally approximate the same pitch at all times), so... not sure
>> how "impossible" it is.
>
> If you are thinking about "overtone singing" ("chant diphonique" in
> French), it's not about the two vocal cords at different frequency, but
> about the choice of harmonic in the resonators (mouth/... )
> You do not control the "frequency" of the vocal cords, only their/its
> tension. The vocal cords are like the hands in the old koan:
> Two hands clap and there is a sound. What is the sound of one hand?
>
Umm. Pretty sure they had a scope on the show I watched about it, which
clearly showed the two vocal cords "out of sync". But, yeah, there are
several variations on how its done. I got the impression that while the
"standard" methods, like you are talking about, are not uncommon, its
somewhat rarer to find someone that can do the more extreme version.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
