How far are we from REAL TIME HUMAN VOICE EMULATION?

[skunky_funk]

In light with all the advances in DSP where you can male-ify or woman-ify (also known as "Manizing" and "womanizing") I still cannot find any piece of hardware of software that can emulate SOMEONE ELSE'S VOICE IN REAL TIME.

 

Put it this way...

 

INPUT (anyone else's voice) -->MIC-->mic preamp-->VOICE EMULATOR (patch presets include George W. Bush, Eddie Vedder, Elvis, Madonna, Britney Spears, etc.)-->OUTPUT (desired voice)

 

Surely, this would be Bart Simpson's favorite toy...

[skunky_funk]

 

Originally posted by skunky_funk In light with all the advances in DSP where you can male-ify or woman-ify (also known as "Manizing" and "womanizing") I still cannot find any piece of hardware of software that can emulate SOMEONE ELSE'S VOICE IN REAL TIME. Put it this way... INPUT (anyone else's voice) -->MIC-->mic preamp-->VOICE EMULATOR (patch presets include George W. Bush, Eddie Vedder, Elvis, Madonna, Britney Spears, etc.)-->OUTPUT (desired voice) Surely, this would be Bart Simpson's favorite toy...

 

 

Before anything else, I am NOT talking about EMULATING SOMEONE ELSE'S VOCALS THROUGH SYNTHESIS. I was thinking more of SAMPLING someone else's voice, and making those samples work in conjunction with a voice emulator patch...

[Flaat]

I'm guessing decades.. We have yet to see a voice that resembles anything real (the vocaloid-stuff is still pretty far away), and then it should analyze your voice, technique and so on and use that on the other voice.. And a lot of the voice really comes from techniques, just as tone is in the fingers on guitar. It would be cool, tho.

 

 

 

Now that would bring up some interesting new copyright rules.. "You can't do that, because her voice is owned by BMG".

 

What would happen if someone naturally had a similar voice, then?

[Kiwiburger]

Any technology released to the public is decades behind the classified technology already in use. But vocal resynthesis is a tricky one. Obviously George Dubbya's imbedded voice chip is very advanced, but not flawless.

[Phil O'Keefe]

Originally posted by Kiwiburger Any technology released to the public is decades behind the classified technology already in use. That's been the case for years and years. But vocal resynthesis is a tricky one. True... and you would have to wonder what the military uses are. I'm not saying that there isn't any; only that the military isn't always the owners of the "state of the art" gear in a particular field... it depends on their need for that technology and its importance from a military standpoint. IOW, sometimes the military has the secrets and the trick gear, and other times, they don't. It all depends on what specifically you're talking about. IR suppressant clothing? Old news for the military from a technological standpoint - fairly new on the consumer market. Gore-Tex clothing? Old news for hikers, but the Marines weren't getting it issued until long after campers had it available to them. We won't even get into camping tents vs shelter halves or the really high tech stuff like, well, I can't talk about that. Obviously George Dubbya's imbedded voice chip is very advanced, but not flawless. Pretty funny, but that's a subject for the political forum.

[PhantomDan13]

 

. Now that would bring up some interesting new copyright rules.. "You can't do that, because her voice is owned by BMG". What would happen if someone naturally had a similar voice, then?

 

 

Surely they could not copyright a voice as it's not a specific performance or work in itself, but they could possibly patent it?

In fact, I might patent the way my heart beats, so you all have to license the technology from me, and pay royalties!

 

In a similar vein, I've always wondered what would happen if for example, you got a friend with a very recognisable voice (e.g. Willie Nelson) to sing on your record, and justcredit him with a different name, and deny it was him? I mean consensually, as in Willie wants to do it, but his label don't, so he comes by, does his vocals in his imitable style, then just says "wasn't me"

[BOOKUMDANO]

...."Surely they could not copyright a voice as it's not a specific performance or work in itself, but they could possibly patent it?..."

 

 

Not needed. The method used for the past twenty five or so years is to trademark. That's why you see/hear the "celebrity voice impersonated" thingy when commercial use of a certain voice is implemented....for big negotiated bucks I might add. The same laws will apply to new technology in this type of instance.

 

When voice synthesis gets here to that level (and it will), there will be a whole new area of profit to be had by the record companies and artists. And they already know it cuz this is already a topic with them just like sampling was fifteen years ago.

[PhantomDan13]

Hmmm. See in Britain I think the law must be different, cause I know a guy who does commercial voice overs and he sounds exactly like Sean Bean, but he is a lot cheaper. I don't think Sean Bean profits from all the ads that people THINK he is talking on, but I'm not sure.

 

I mean my friend does sound just like Sean Bean naturally, he's not impersonating him, so it seems unfair that he (or the ad company) would have to pay Sean Bean because it's his voice too.

[AtillaTheHungry]

I can't wait until Behringer is making the Ultra Tube Vocal Cord Modeller Pro! Just jam the spike on it right into your trachea and instantly become one of 30 legendary singers!