TC-Helicon VoiceLive 2 Vocal Harmony and Effects Processor

[Jon Chappell]

 

Originally Posted by Chumly

I have sung unison and muted my main vocal to obtain the harmonies live in real time with many singers, many different harmony units, over a number of years.

 

Yeah, I figured I didn't invent this.

Any tips? War stories? Amusing anecdotes?

[Chumly]

Only that at lower stage volumes what the audience hears may not be what you hope they hear given that (at least for me) my unamplifed voice can project, plus of course how you emulate the other person's phrasing matters to the outcome.

I've been using various vocal harmonizers in my solo act for so long now (starting with the DigiTech IPS33B way back when) the oddness many people experience with them is in the faded past.

There is no doubt that a solid sense of relative pitch is required as is the ability to quickly obtain and sustain the given pitch with precision. Many people who think they can sing well realize that a vocal harmonizer can easily exacerbate their technical shortcomings, as you learned with your partner.

Not to denigrate Dylanesque vocal styings but...pity the poor ears having to listen to the output of a machine tracking that!

[gc24]

So are the 3rd and 5th up harmonies that much better than the ones with the HG?

[tradivoro1]

Has anybody experimented with using contrapuntal harmonies being fed to the machine via midi? For instance, the song "If I fell" by the beatles, is very contrapuntal and not just parallel thirds or a voice above or below...

I understand that you can play a midi line and if you sing against that, it will create a voice from the midi line... You can also play the midi line into your sequencer... You'd have to have the sequencer play drums or something as well just to keep time for live performance... This is on page 26 of the manual...

[Jon Chappell]

 

Originally Posted by Chumly

There is no doubt that a solid sense of relative pitch is required as is the ability to quickly obtain and sustain the given pitch with precision. Many people who think they can sing well realize that a vocal harmonizer can easily exacerbate their technical shortcomings, as you learned with your partner.

 

Very true. You have to "learn" how to best work a vocal harmonizer--even one as good as the VoiceLive 2, with its excellent tracking, humanizing elements (differing degrees of portamento for each voice, for instance), etc. I found in my own singing that while I was good at nailing sustained tones (at the ends of phrases), sometimes the rapidly moving voices in between were, how shall I say, a little "swimmy." The harmonizer had no problem making this painfully evident.

 

Not to denigrate Dylanesque vocal stylings but...pity the poor ears having to listen to the output of a machine tracking that!

 

Yes, there are some things it just won't work on. (I can't think of a better example than Dylan.) And worse, it makes it screamingly and comically obvious when it doesn't!

[Jon Chappell]

 

Originally Posted by tradivoro1

Has anybody experimented with using contrapuntal harmonies being fed to the machine via midi?

 

Yes, I have (see below).

 

For instance, the song "If I fell" by the beatles, is very contrapuntal and not just parallel thirds or a voice above or below...

I understand that you can play a midi line and if you sing against that, it will create a voice from the midi line... You can also play the midi line into your sequencer... You'd have to have the sequencer play drums or something as well just to keep time for live performance... This is on page 26 of the manual...

 

You make a good point (no pun intended) about counterpoint. You clearly understand how it works (and I'm here to tell you it works exactly "as advertised"), but for those who would like clarification, here's what we're talking about:

If you use the audio input (guitar or mp3), as opposed to MIDI, the unit harmonizes in parallel or oblique motion. Oblique motion is where one voice moves and the other remains stationary. For example, if you're singing a C on a C chord, the VL2 will "sing" E a third above. If you keep singing a C while changing chords to F, the VL2 will move its third up to F, the closest chord tone. You stay put, the harmonizer moves, based on the harmonic input (guitar audio, in this case). The converse is also true (the VL2 will sustain while you move).

One of my first tests was Crosby, Stills & Nash's "Helplessly Hoping." On the line where it goes: "They are three together, they are for____ each other," the word "for" has a chord change from G (the tonic) to F (the flat-seven). But the lead vocal sustains a D note throughout. If you know about harmony and about harmonizers, to hear any unit do this blows you away.

But to get to counterpoint. Yes, the only way to have the unit not only play counterpoint but any specific, prescribed harmony is to do it through MIDI. But this is still much faster than, say, multi-tracking your own voice. And better. For example, I downloaded some MIDI files of four-part Bach chorales (hymns, which have four independent, contrapuntal voices) and imported them into my DAW. Then I took the MIDI out and patched it into the VoiceLive 2. Listening to my DAW's click track through headphones, I was able to harmonize myself through sequencing (I can't play that many parts simultaneously on keyboard). And what's more, a single voice can't really sing from the lowest bass part to the highest soprano comfortably. So I avoided having to sight-sing four parts, overdubbing on each pass, plus I didn't have to go into Darth Vader mode or Chipmunks on helium to reach the lowest and highest notes.

And MIDI response is super fast--faster and more reliable even than the audio/pitch detection. (Though that's impressively speedy and accurate in this incarnation of the VoiceLive series.)

As I said earlier in the review, "re-voxing" (analogous to "re-amping" a guitar) with the VoiceLive 2 has major recording implications, even though the unit is aimed chiefly at the live market.

[zelmobeaty]

 

Originally Posted by Jon Chappell

Very true. You have to "learn" how to best work a vocal harmonizer--even one as good as the VoiceLive 2, with its excellent tracking, humanizing elements (differing degrees of portamento for each voice, for instance), etc. I found in my own singing that while I was good at nailing sustained tones (at the ends of phrases), sometimes the rapidly moving voices in between were, how shall I say, a little "swimmy." The harmonizer had no problem making this painfully evident.

Yes, there are some things it just won't work on. (I can't think of a better example than Dylan.) And worse, it makes it screamingly and comically obvious when it doesn't!

 

Don't be so sure about that. I have a Howlin Wolf/Tom Waits voice and the Harmony G tracks really good when using the upper third.

[Jon Chappell]

 

Originally Posted by zelmobeaty

Don't be so sure about that. I have a Howlin Wolf/Tom Waits voice and the Harmony G tracks really good when using the upper third.

 

I stand corrected. Just goes to show you, you should never assume anything until you've tried it.

[tradivoro1]

That's great to know... I know eventually I'll get this unit, it's definitely geared for the studio (88.1 and 96k sampling modes) as well as live performance, and I'm glad to hear that the guitar tracking unit is capable of doing the harmonic voice leading automatically...

I guess now I'll have to start learning palestrina and lasso motets as part of my repertoire... I think it will give me an edge over the guy doing the smoke on the water covers...

 

Originally Posted by Jon Chappell

Yes, I have (see below).

But to get to counterpoint. Yes, the only way to have the unit not only play counterpoint but any specific, prescribed harmony is to do it through MIDI. But this is still much faster than, say, multi-tracking your own voice. And better. For example, I downloaded some MIDI files of four-part Bach chorales (hymns, which have four independent, contrapuntal voices) and imported them into my DAW. Then I took the MIDI out and patched it into the VoiceLive 2. Listening to my DAW's click track through headphones, I was able to harmonize myself through sequencing (I can't play that many parts simultaneously on keyboard). And what's more, a single voice can't really sing from the lowest bass part to the highest soprano comfortably. So I avoided having to sight-sing four parts, overdubbing on each pass, plus I didn't have to go into Darth Vader mode or Chipmunks on helium to reach the lowest and highest notes.

And MIDI response is super fast--faster and more reliable even than the audio/pitch detection. (Though that's impressively speedy and accurate in this incarnation of the VoiceLive series.)

As I said earlier in the review, "re-voxing" (analogous to "re-amping" a guitar) with the VoiceLive 2 has major recording implications, even though the unit is aimed chiefly at the live market.

 

[Jon Chappell]

 

Originally Posted by tradivoro1

I guess now I'll have to start learning palestrina and lasso motets as part of my repertoire... I think it will give me an edge over the guy doing the smoke on the water covers...

 

OMG, now you're taking me back to music school. Yeah, the VoiceLive 2 absolutely rawks out on sixth species counterpoint.

[Chumly]

 

Originally Posted by zelmobeaty

Don't be so sure about that. I have a Howlin Wolf/Tom Waits voice and the Harmony G tracks really good when using the upper third.

 

For what it's worth it was not little 'ol me that said it would not track but only "pity the poor ears having to listen to the output of a machine tracking that!"

Having said the above I'll add that if you're happy, then I'm happy you're happy about being happy.

[Jon Chappell]

 

Originally Posted by Chumly

For what it's worth it was not little 'ol me that said it would not track but only "pity the poor ears having to listen to the output of a machine tracking that!"

Having said the above I'll add that if you're happy, then I'm happy you're happy about being happy.

 

Chumly is right.

It was I, not he, who made the breach of logic by conflating a "pitiable sound" with "not working." They are two different things, of course. If you're polishing a turd, you don't blame the polish for doing its job well.

And I'm not equating Dylan/Wolf/Waits/Chuck with a turd, so no mail, please. And may I say that if Chuck sounds like a cross between Howlin' Wolf and Tom Waits, I'm jealous. And if I could write like Dylan, who cares that my voice sounds like geese farts on a muggy day? Oh, wait--that's Leo Kottke's self-assessment.

[tradivoro1]

Actually, I heard your version of danny boy just using the presets and chords and that was very impressive... I could see doing that with a keyboard with a volume off and the midi going into the machine, giving similar results...

I know in an irish bar, on st. patrick's day, at the right time of the night, just announce your going to do danny boy acapella... With that version, there won't be a dry eye in the house....

[Jon Chappell]

 

Originally Posted by tradivoro1

Actually, I heard your version of danny boy just using the presets and chords and that was very impressive... I could see doing that with a keyboard with a volume off and the midi going into the machine, giving similar results...

 

Well, that's almost exactly how I did it, except that I used a guitar. The singer sang, and I strummed chords behind him (adding substitutions to taste, such as the IV minor chord or a I to I7 into a IV--listen to Verse 2 for these--and a bVI/Italian 6th substitution at the final cadence). The VoiceLive 2 allows you to mute the output of the instrument input, so that it still hears it for harmonizing, but doesn't output it. If you used a keyboard with MIDI, you could get even more prescriptive and defined with the harmonies, though as you point out, using just presets produces a result that is pretty darn impressive.

 

I know in an irish bar, on st. patrick's day, at the right time of the night, just announce your going to do danny boy acapella... With that version, there won't be a dry eye in the house....

 

Not to mention all the tips they would shower upon you--or at the least unending offers for a pint of Guinness!

[uberandout]

hi all

I have owned the original Voicelive for about 5 years and am very happy with it despite some problems. I am very interested in the V2, especially regarding the guitar driven harmonies, an area I didn't fully utilize before.

I have developed my own vocal sound involving the thickener on V1, and wondered if the V2 has thickening as I have seen no mention of it? If so would it be in the mod or doubling section, and can it therefore be kicked in despite the preset being used? Is it possible to emulate the presets on V1 near enough? eg Can I get a close simulation for plate2 reverb with the V2?

Secondly, I experienced heavy feedback while using the V1 live in a band/small club setting, to the point where it was impossible to use any eq and little compression. This worries me with regards to the auto tone. Can the tone settings be manually overridden for say the eq, whilst still auto gating, compressing etc? And has the V2's propensity towards generating feedback been improved?

Finally I had a few problems with the confusing output overload led on V1, sometimes it seemed suggesting there was insufficient processing power for some configurations of the unit. Also the limiter on my machine stopped working. Has the input/output situation now been simplified with auto gain, is there still a limiter and has the output overload been negated? Is there also now enough processing power to cover all eventualities?

Thanks for your time and a wonderful unit.

cheers

J

[Jon Chappell]

 

Originally Posted by uberandout

I have developed my own vocal sound involving the thickener on V1, and wondered if the V2 has thickening as I have seen no mention of it? If so would it be in the mod or doubling section, and can it therefore be kicked in despite the preset being used? Is it possible to emulate the presets on V1 near enough? eg Can I get a close simulation for plate2 reverb with the V2?

 

Yes, Double (which is what I think you're describing as "thickening") is a dedicated footswitch that's preset independent. Here's an image of the front panel, along with page 74 in the manual. So it's quite powerful:

__

There are actually three ways to thicken a texture: 1) Use the dedicated Double function; 2) Use the microMod section, which gives you the standard chorus/flanging options; 3) Dedicate harmony voices to unison, then employ humanizing functions. #1 is definitely the best way, and #2 is viable, too. (I list #3 as a more theoretical method, but you can see the flexibility here.)

As to reverb, there are nine plate algorithms: Smooth Plate, Real Plate, Reflection Plate, Thin Plate, Bright Plate, Real Plate Short, Real Plate Long, Jazz Plate, and Quick Plate. Chances are, you'll be able to replicate your sound with one of those.

 

Secondly, I experienced heavy feedback while using the V1 live in a band/small club setting, to the point where it was impossible to use any eq and little compression. This worries me with regards to the auto tone. Can the tone settings be manually overridden for say the eq, whilst still auto gating, compressing etc?

 

Yes. You simply turn "Adaptive" to Off in the EQ tab. (Any of the four parameters can be individually set to Off or Adaptive.)

 

And has the V2's propensity towards generating feedback been improved?

 

I actually noticed that I had to be more careful about feedback once I had the VoiceLive 2 active as opposed to bypass. I don't know if it's been improved since the first generation, but it is one of my routines to more carefully position the speakers, etc., when setting up the unit for performance. Perhaps it's something inherent to vocal processing?

 

Has the input/output situation now been simplified with auto gain, is there still a limiter and has the output overload been negated? Is there also now enough processing power to cover all eventualities?

 

Input/Output is automated through the adaptive approach, and I assume the unit uses a limiter to prevent the "output overload" you describe. But the limiter is not user-configurable, or at least it's not called that. You can set the Shape and Compress parameters manually, or have them set via the automatic Adaptive method. This has been sufficient for every situation I've put the unit through, and as long as I set the unit up via a soundcheck with my vocalists, I have never experienced any failure of the unit to handle the range of singing styles and dynamics approaches I've thrown at it.

[Jon Chappell]

 

Originally Posted by uberandout

Has the input/output situation now been simplified with auto gain, is there still a limiter and has the output overload been negated? Is there also now enough processing power to cover all eventualities?

 

Just to clarify, I'm not sure I understand this very specific question (see my italics added above), as I've never been aware of an issue with output overload or lack of processing power. Perhaps Tom Lang can weigh in on this.

[uberandout]

hi Jon

Many thanks for you comprehensive reply, that's helped a great deal.

The issue with output overload is that the original Voicelive had 2 red leds on top, one for input overload and one for output overload. The input level of the mic was naturally adjusted so as not to overload the input led and the limiter was linked to this.

The output overload however was related to internal processing and could thus appear anytime. The manual told you to turn the level of the harmonies/fx down to cure the problem, but this didn't always work. However the issue was largely inaudible and sporadic.

That is until the last week when out of the blue the red output overload is already permanently on on default program1 when I turn on the machine, and affects about half the 100 presets, now causing a horrible distorted sound on one/both channels. It stays on even if I turn all the levels (lead, harmony, fx, instrument) down/off and even if I unplug everything?!*

Weirdly if I scroll up and down the presets it (sometimes) vanishes randomly and all presets return to normal. However this has been getting worse and at the last attempt I couldn't get rid of the problem.

It seems like the machine has somehow overloaded internally and now is partially stuck like that... all very confusing, and that's why I would rather not have to deal with an output overload at all, just an input level as with most other equipment.

Despite this apparently sad demise, I still love my machine and the concept hence the interest in an upgrade. (though it would be nice to fix my original somehow!).

Voicelive 2 does sound incredible and a real re-design rather than an upgrade. I'm moist I admit.

[Jon Chappell]

 

Originally Posted by uberandout

hi Jon

Many thanks for you comprehensive reply, that's helped a great deal.

The issue with output overload is that the original Voicelive had 2 red leds on top, one for input overload and one for output overload. The input level of the mic was naturally adjusted so as not to overload the input led and the limiter was linked to this.

The output overload however was related to internal processing and could thus appear anytime. The manual told you to turn the level of the harmonies/fx down to cure the problem, but this didn't always work. However the issue was largely inaudible and sporadic.

That is until the last week when out of the blue the red output overload is already permanently on on default program1 when I turn on the machine, and affects about half the 100 presets, now causing a horrible distorted sound on one/both channels. It stays on even if I turn all the levels (lead, harmony, fx, instrument) down/off and even if I unplug everything?!*

Weirdly if I scroll up and down the presets it (sometimes) vanishes randomly and all presets return to normal. However this has been getting worse and at the last attempt I couldn't get rid of the problem.

It seems like the machine has somehow overloaded internally and now is partially stuck like that... all very confusing, and that's why I would rather not have to deal with an output overload at all, just an input level as with most other equipment.

Despite this apparently sad demise, I still love my machine and the concept hence the interest in an upgrade. (though it would be nice to fix my original somehow!).

Voicelive 2 does sound incredible and a real re-design rather than an upgrade. I'm moist I admit.

 

Thanks for the detailed reply. The issue is much clearer now for your explanation.

Two things are obvious:

1) They've completely changed the VoiceLive 2 w/respect to "output overload." There's no indicator nor any mention in the manual of this. So they somehow have "designed this out" of the upgraded unit.

2) You clearly have a malfunctioning unit that should be fixed. The original VoiceLive is still being sold new ($500) and used (Musician's Friend lists 2 used units for $399 and $439), so you should send yours back to TCE, get if fixed, and turn it over in favor of the VL2, if you're keen on the guitar-input harmony driver, plus other improvements. (You obviously have an appreciation for these more esoteric functions.) TC is a very good company w/regard to customer support, so you shouldn't have any problem.

Since you brought up "guitar driven harmonies" as part of your incentive to consider upgrading, I think that alone is worth the effort. I point (again) to my Danny Boy recording, which is completely driven by my strumming guitar chords on the downbeat. I did this all in post but on the fly--taking the a cappella vocal and running it through the VL2, just switching presets after each line and playing different chords. Listen to verse 2, where I introduce more 7th and minor chord variations, for example. But the elegance of the interface, the increased feature set, and the overall power boost really make this a different animal than the original. Try to get your hands on one at your local music emporium, and page through the menus to get a taste of the expansion of the VL2 over the original.

Good luck.

[uberandout]

Hi Jon

Thanks for your reply and information.

I'm so glad the output overload has been sacked!

I have written to TC and they have given me an address to send the unit for repair. I'm wondering how expensive/economical it is going to be however as I am obviously outside of the warranty period.

As far as the VL2 is concerned, you have helped convince me it is the way forward and I am very excited about the prospect of fully utilizing all the programs thanks to guitar triggering. I will be acquiring one soon.

best wishes

Jay

[Jon Chappell]

 

Originally Posted by uberandout

I have written to TC and they have given me an address to send the unit for repair. I'm wondering how expensive/economical it is going to be however as I am obviously outside of the warranty period.

 

Well, based on your inclinations to acquire the VL2, I'd say it's definitely a sound economical strategy to go the repair route. This way, you can sell a working unit to finance the new one. The fact that the original VL1 is still in stock and selling new should be reassuring (though it's no guarantee). Simply subtract the repair and shipping fee from the selling price, and that's the $ that you apply toward the purchase price of the VL2. Obviously, you factor in the repair estimate into the equation before deciding.

Sure, there's risk, because you don't know what your final selling price will be--or whether your VL1 will sell at all, even after you've spent the money to repair it. But the VL2 is considerably more expensive than the VL1, which works in your favor, as it implies there are two markets for the VL series.

These two acts (selling the VL1, acquiring the VL2) don't necessarily have to happen in series, either. But it's true, no one can predict if you'll sell the VL1, so yes, it's risky. What I usually do is just prepare for the worst: if I can't sell a piece of gear that I've upgraded/replaced, I know I can donate it to someone worthy. Karma's a pretty good consolation, when you can't get real lucre.

[Chumly]

A few things of note with respect to the

TC VoiceLive 2**

TC VoiceWorks**

DigiTech Vocalist Live 4**

None of the three supply adequate phantom power for my AKG C420 condenser headset (distortion is evident on transients) so I need to use an outboard preamp tapped post trim/phantom - pre-fader/EQ.

All three lose transparency, all three lose transient response, and all three inject artifacts when in series with all processing off. Yes even when phantom power and initial buffering is supplied externally thus line-in is used on the units.

So they sound much better overall if run as a parallel effect...thus defeating a fair portion of the all-in-one benefit!

So they sound much better if phantom power (and likely initial buffering too) is supplied outboard...thus again defeating a fair portion of the all-in-one benefit!

How did I initially assess this?

AKG C420 condenser headset mic

AKG K 240 headphones (driven from the board's headphone amp not the unit's themselves)

Mackie 1640 VLZ (or equivalent)

You'd think by now they could easily implement a signal path that was virtually indistinguishable from the source when in serial bypass, but that's not the case with these three units. And funnily enough, I am not talking solely about a sterile studio environment because once I defined the testing procedure, I clearly noticed it with the following live setup.

AKG C420 condenser headset mic

Mackie 1640 VLZ mixer

QSC PLX 1804 power amp

EV ZX5 speakers

Now whether the three unit's issues (when run dry in series) can be readily noticed by the average ear (simply by listening to my live setup for example) is open to conjecture...but I can say with certainty that when I am singing the degradation by direct comparison is obvious. I would argue that there is merit to the claim that certain deficiencies are most obvious while actually singing versus listening to the results after the fact. Having said all that however I still think many people could tell the difference after the fact as well as telling the difference while singing.

And no it's not a question of the inevitable latency (it's always there when the units are in series - even with all effects off) nor was there any mixing of the original signal with the unit's dry signal, so phase cancellation was not a factor.

** I own both the TC VoiceWorks, and the DigiTech Vocalist Live 4 and thoroughly tested the TC VoiceLive 2.

Comments welcome.

[kvalois]

Jon or Tom or anyone!!!!

I would love to read a concise overview of how the Harmony G stacks up to the Voice Live 2.

Is the Voice Live 2 TOO DIFFICULT to master for people who are not savvy in all this "technical" talk????

Also, as "gmhuber" cautions in his You Tube video of the VL 2-- is there a problem with using the VL 2 to record?? According to "gmhuber," TC Helicon itself admits that there is a "bug" to be fixed!!!!!

Karl

[Chumly]

The Harmony G is inferior to Voice Live 2.

The Voice Live 2 is easy to use for neophytes.

It's no problem to record using the Voice Live 2.

To fully use any harmonizer "savvy in all this technical talk" is of benefit - knowledge will set you free.

[joe1]

Can you help me out with EQ on the Live 2? i do have the Voice Works Plus and there is on option to Eq the lead. can i do the same with this machine? if yes how do i do it?

Thanks