Pitch Correction...which is better?

[Anna Log]

I am curious if anyone has an opinion on which outboard pitch correction device is best?

[Kiwiburger]

Software is actually best. Hardware tends to be permanently in Auto mode, which isn't the best way to use these things.

 

Autotune is the industry standard, although Melodyne is prefered by many.

[Anna Log]

What is wrong with auto mode?

Does manual mean that I have to ride the knob?

Is Antares better than TC Helicon?

 

Thank you for your help.

[Kiwiburger]

Hardware in Auto mode is ok for live acts that can't sing in tune, or if the Autotune effect is part of your sound.

 

For normal recording work, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. But if you really need to autotune stuff, it's much better to tune just the parts that need it. Justing leaving it on autopilot is a good way to get undesirable artifacts.

 

You could possibly route the vocal to an external unit, record the processed sound to a new track. Then align up the phase so they match, and then splice the parts you need from one track to the other.

 

That's not as easy as using the software, avoiding unnecessary conversion and phase alignment, and automating the effect where needed.

 

Whatever you do, you don't want to track with an autotune effect. (Not as a safe working practice).

[aerorockjax]

Autotune and similar pitch correction really affects the tone of the voice in my opinion. Adds a digital graininess and digital artifacts. Excessive use creates a very computer processed robot fake cheap electronic keyboardesque quality. Of course if only lighty used its not as bad or noticeable.

[alcohol]

Autotune in graphic mode can fix some pitch problems. Autotune in automatic mode sounds artificial. Careful redrawing of the wave form so that it resembles an "in tune" note can give you imperceptible pitch correction.

[gtrbass]

A lot of people also mention Melodyne 3 as being a serious competitor to Autotune. Haven't used it, but I have seen it in use at another studio. Very impressive indeed.

[where02190]

I find, for someone who posses the natural talent to sing, a good vocal coach works best. For those without the talent, IMHO the best choice is a new career.

[Lee Knight]

 

Originally posted by where02190 I find, for someone who posses the natural talent to sing, a good vocal coach works best. For those without the talent, IMHO the best choice is a new career.

 

 

Yeah but... Pitch Correction...which is better?

[Red Winger]

Another difference is that Melodyne Studio works with polyphonic material, not just monophonic. I don't believe Autotune is capable of doing that. There's also a Waves pitch correction plug-in.

 

You can always try the demos for yourself:

 

Autotune 4 Demo

 

Melodyne Studio 3 Demo

 

Waves Tune Demo

 

Cheers,

Mark

[Kiwiburger]

Yeah, but which outboard pitch correction device is best?

[Red Winger]

Sorry. You were the one that brought up software and others were discussing it as well. While I clearly get the fact that the original post asked for outboard, I thought the thread was evolving to interest/discussion as to software verions, and I thought I'd at least provide a link to the obvious way to compare them -- demo versions. My mistake.

[where02190]

 

Originally posted by Lee Knight Yeah but... Pitch Correction...which is better?

 

 

Correcting at the source IMHO.

[Anna Log]

O.K where 02190

I guess in your humble opinion I should tell all my customers who can't sing to start a new career.

Why do we insist on treating each other like this?

 

Musicians just want a chance to express themselves...the autotune can help some people realize this.

I would like to offer it to my humble client list.

 

Hey if it wasn't for auto tune... none of us would have witnessed Brittanys ass shakin'.

 

Tolerance & understanding should rule our days.

[Kiwiburger]

I don't think there is anything intolerant or mis-understanding about suggesting you try to get it right at the source.

 

A good singer shouldn't sing off pitch - there is usually a reason for it. The reason is usually to do with your monitor mix. If the backing track is too loud, or too bassey, they will sing off key. They might require some reverb, to hear themselves. Or not. Each singer needs to find their own solution.

 

I use the manual pitch correction in Cubase SX. You can isolate sections that need tuning, and you can draw a curve if necessary.

 

It seems you are concerned about recording, not live sound, so I would suggest software is definately better than hardware. Unless you are a real technophobe.

 

Autotune or Melodyne are the big names - both are equally capable, just different features.

[Anna Log]

I just felt that the whole "get a new career" thing was a bit hard hearted.

I completely agree with doing your best to get it right going in.

[where02190]

 

I guess in your humble opinion I should tell all my customers who can't sing to start a new career.

 

No they should consider a career. If they cannot sing in tune, they don't have a career in music AFAIK.

 

 

Musicians just want a chance to express themselves...the autotune can help some people realize this.

 

 

At what point does the deception end? If they cannot hit the notes, they are NOT talented singers. Perhaps some of them have the talent, and simply need the training, but not every one is a singer, however thanks to technology like this, everyone thinks they are, and the overly bullable public is buying it. Even when given black and white proof of a singers inablilty (Ashlee Simpson) the buying public still chooses to be ignorant and support this type of made for reality tv star.

 

When I ask does this insanity end and real music become appreciated again?

 

I know I know, what about editing, comping, fx, etc. All valid points, but, all routed with an actual person playing an actual part correctly somewhere. Autotune IMHO just takes it one step too far. It's one thing to play a repetive phrase and mixx a note in one of them and cut and paste it in, the note that's pasted in was actually played by you, just not at that point. But to pitch correct vocalists who obviously do NOT possess the inborn TALENT to perform as a vocalist is IMHO just wrong.

 

I'd flip burgers if my choices were that or autotune vocals.

 

I'm grateful to the musicans whom I work with that support my viewpoint. There is hope for music yet.

[Lee Knight]

post removed

[Lee Knight]

My removed post above was pretty caustic. Sorry if anyone saw it...

 

Now I'll make my point in a civil manner. Where ... because there are horrible abuses of AutoTune out there that have made careers out of people with no talent is no reason to dismiss the technology or attempt to belittle the person asking a valid question.

 

You point is a good one. I agree... and I use AutoTune when I feel I want to. That is my artistic decision as it is the initial poster's decision as well.

 

Attaching "IMHO" to a remark that's abrasive doesn't really make it any less so.

 

Just a thought.

[UstadKhanAli]

I don't have pitch correction devices in my studio. I don't cop a holier-than-thou attitude about it or anyone who uses it sparingly, but there's just something about pitch correction that bugs me.

 

That said, I found myself thinking that if I had to use pitch correction, I'd probably use it in this manner, as described by Phil O'Keefe:

 

If I HAVE to do pitch correction, I prefer to use Auto Tune. And there's nothing "auto" about the way I use it. I do it by hand, note by note, in graphic mode. It's the only way I have found that I can maintain the basic qualities of the notes - vibrato, etc.. and just correct the things I want to correct without mucking up too much of everything else. I can "hear" auto mode, but when I'm done, I can't "hear" what I do in graphic mode. It takes a lot longer, and you have to learn the tricks on how to pull that off, but IMO, the end results are worth the extra effort.

 

I would tend to use it in a very sparing manner, just to fix a note or two in an otherwise stunning performance.

 

Obviously, since I don't have pitch correction plug-ins, I have the singer sing it over.

 

And there's a lot of reasons why I think having the singer sing it over is better, "fixing it at the source':

 

- It usually takes a shorter amount of time than doing it by hand in graphic mode.

 

- It sounds most natural.

 

- The singer is actually giving a performance, and capturing a singer's performance interests me (and most other people) more than capturing an engineer's performance!

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

I'm a small studio. I don't generally have big-name clients. I do get some very talented people in here, but I also get people who work their ass off during the day and want to have FUN creating their own music, not as a career, but just for FUN and self-expression.

 

But even with amateur singers, there's rarely been a time in which I've thought, "Gee, if only I had AutoTune...". I have the singer record the song several times. We pick one performance that felt the best, and then maybe shift a part or three from the other performances over and then it's done!!

 

Now, if I can do this without pitch correction and get good solid vocal performances from people who have a kid and work two jobs and go to school part-time and struggle to meet the rent, I would question why someone who gets PAID to be a performer would require pitch correction.

[UstadKhanAli]

There's something else that I think people should consider.

 

I've noticed, especially among kids, that there's this general thought that a recording should be perfect.

 

Loops. Pitch correction. Everything edited so that it locks together. The chorus is the same as the previous chorus because I cut 'n' paste it.

 

For some kinds of music, of course, it sounds good this way.

 

But does it sound good for everything?

 

Are there vocal performances in which the performance is really good but a few notes are a little off? Sure. Of course there are.

 

But then, should one automatically reach for the pitch correction device? Or should one really step away from the vocal for a little while and just listen....listen...and consider whether it needs it or not?

 

Can't we all think of some of our favorite vocals where the vocals are not "technically" perfect in pitch, but in yet it sounds so good like that? Especially in pop, rock, folk, country, roots music, and so forth?

 

I'm not for a minute suggesting that all pitch correction is evil or unnecessary. Far from it.

 

What I am suggesting is that some thought - and perhaps time - is given towards automatically reaching for pitch correction. Does it have vibe the way it is? Will pitch correction truly improve the recorded performance? Where does ultimate "perfection" in recorded music truly get us? Would it sound better if the singer simply sang it over or I borrowed from another track for this one little part? Should I just listen to this for a while to see whether it feels right? Can I fix it so that it does sound very natural? Am I seeing the forest for the trees? Am I too much in Microscope Mode right now? What would this sound like tomorrow? Next week?

 

In my opinion, these are some very real matters that anyone with pitch correction devices should strongly consider.

[Lee Knight]

Great post Ken. Here are a couple of ways I've used AutoTune recently.

 

I'm mixing this 14 year old kid's band (very good) and he sings like a cross between Cobain and Johnny Lang. He's 14! So when he goes down for this low note he was a little weak in execution. If I were tracking him, I spend all night to get it happening and enjoy the experience. But I'm mixing, not tracking. So... In Pro Tools I open an AudioSuite instance of AutoTune, I select only the note in question, and I audition the effect, playing with the speed at which the correction takes place, find a sweet spot and print the AudioSuite region.

 

Another one...

 

The chorus to the same tune is this soaring sustained single note lasting 6 beats or so... I made 2 copies of that note. The original is untouched by AutoTune. The copies are corrected and +10 cents, -10 cents and panned. It sounds grand, and his original voice, untouched, is intact.

[UstadKhanAli]

The Pursuit of Perfection extends to other things, too.

 

I occasionally use Drumagog, a drum replacement plug-in.

 

But wait, you say, how's that any different from AutoTune? "You're a hypocrite!"

 

And yeah, you'd be exactly right.

 

Ack!!!!

 

For some reason, the idea of AutoTune "bugs" me more than the idea of Drumagog. And I resisted getting Drumagog for a long time for similar reasons.

 

I do use Drumagog sparingly and blend it in with the real drums. I rarely use Drumagog, and when I do, it's only when I get people with {censored}ty drum sets who don't bother tuning. But still, that's no different from someone like Phil using AutoTune sparingly in Graphic Mode.

 

But there again, I don't condemn the use of AutoTune.

 

I'm just suggesting that more thought should be given to using things like pitch correction - or drum replacement devices - instead of reaching for it out of habit. And then when we do use it, to try and be as sparing as possible to create as natural of a sound as possible.

[UstadKhanAli]

Originally posted by Lee Knight Great post Ken. Here are a couple of ways I've used AutoTune recently.

 

Beautiful. See, I think those are two instances when it sounds like using AutoTune would make sense!!! But that'd just be my opinion!

 

I think the way you use it is creative, too, especially in the second instance. And in all cases, it's not just putting it on Automatic Mode and calling it good. It sounds sparing, tasteful, and appropriate. Just seems to make good horse sense to me.

 

I don't know how other people think about these things, but I do find myself considering with issues of appropriateness and musicality, hence my reluctance to get Drumagog for a long while.

 

It's different degrees of hypocrisy. While I tend to use Pro Tools as a glorified tape machine, I shift around bass notes that are grossly out of time to tighten up the rhythm section, and edit mistakes out of otherwise good performances. It sounds natural, so much so that the performers themselves often don't know (I don't deceive them - they just can't tell that I've made a correction sometimes even after I've told them!!). Where the line is drawn for each engineer is an interesting thing to consider!!!

 

And on that note, I'm off to the gym!!!

[Lee Knight]

 

Originally posted by UstadKhanAli I'm just suggesting that more thought should be given to using things like pitch correction - or drum replacement devices - instead of reaching for it out of habit. And then when we do use it, to try and be as sparing as possible to create as natural of a sound as possible.

 

 

Absolutely. My next production project is a very good Jam Band. That usually is not my style but these guys are very cool. I mean, they'll whip into Stevie's I Wish and do it spot on in the middle of a jam. Good stuff...

 

Will I be using AutoTune and Drumagog with these guys? I mean, they're GOOD. Yes, I probably will at times... and so what? I'm not going to slather the vox in a Cher-like fashion. The drum will be supported by some samples if needed. Hey, I trust my instincts and I don't go over board.

 

I've never once had an artist detect that I've used AutoTune or Drumagog on them. I have heard them say... "Hey, good job Lee".