Argument of the Day for no Auto-Tune

[Ernest Buckley]

"Rolling In The Deep" came on the radio today and I thought of this thread. I listened to it a bit differently than I have before. I wondered if any AutoTune had been used during the making of the record. I realized it didn't matter and I don't care one way or another. It's a great record and a classic vocal track and I love it. However it may have been achieved.

 

I agree. Great tune, great vocal performance, who cares if auto-tune was used?

[Lee Knight]

"Rolling In The Deep" came on the radio today and I thought of this thread. I listened to it a bit differently than I have before. I wondered if any AutoTune had been used during the making of the record. I realized it didn't matter and I don't care one way or another. It's a great record and a classic vocal track and I love it. However it may have been achieved.

 

Exactly. And we all know she can sing. Soulful and technically together.

 

I was reading an interview with the "performance engineer" on the latest John Mayer albums. He was talking about pocketing Steve Jordan's drums. (Remember the original dreadlocked drummer of Letterman's band way back at the beginning?) Pocketing Steve Jordan?!?!?!? Slam him to the grid and...??? No. Jordan is a DRUMMER! Jordan's got old school ethic, taste and chops. He's also the producer of the Mayer albums. Why pocket him? Just moving a few hits here and there. To facilitate a vision.

 

Oh, you hate John Mayer (not you Dave ^^). Of course. Steve Jordon too?

 

"Performance Engineering" doesn't have to be ham fisted and LOTS AND LOTS of records we are unaware of have it going on. Consider it.Vaseline on the lense to smooth her features. Consider it... choosing the right angles to light from. Oh... and what about dialog looping? How fake! What is to happen to the state of our Shakespearian actors! Will they rely on dialog looping? Fuzzy lenses? Endless edits to make the actor appear better than they ARE?!?!?!

 

I don't care. I want to dig the flick. Citizen Cain has ruined the fine art of film making!!!!!

[Phil O'Keefe]

 

I don't want to be difficult, but I could not disagree more when people say autotune can be used without detection. There are only two possibilities when pitch correction is used:

 

1) People can hear it, no matter how subtle but they don't know what is screwing up the sound because they're not engineers.

 

2) People like me can hear it, no matter how subtle, but we do know what it is because we are engineers.

 

That being said, the masses have become acclimated to pitch correction to some degree. It's everywhere and in everything. I hear it all the time in all genres and it's so distracting I can't enjoy the music.

 

People may think a touch of it sounds natural compared to other instances where it is less subtle, but compared to vocals with no pitch correction it can always be detected. If a recording engineer tells you he can use pitch correction and make it so no one will know its there, don't believe him/her. It's not possible.

 

Can you hear comps? Can you hear punch-ins? Sure... sometimes. But in the hands of a skilled engineer with good ears and technique, I seriously doubt you (or anyone) can hear those things - or Autotune. I'm not talking about it being used as an effect, or being used lazily in Auto mode... but if the engineer is aware of the potential side effects, knows how to use it in Graphic mode and how to get around those issues, and can manipulate the material in such a way that they can't hear it even with the vocal track soloed out, I doubt you could either.

 

You can definitely "hear" it being used when it isn't used well. But you don't hear it when it is... which means Autotune gets judged by the bad stuff, and whenever it is skillfully used it gets overlooked because the listener is totally unaware of it being used. IMHO, this is why it gets a bad reputation and a lot of negative press... because it's over-used, badly used, and all of that is relatively easy to hear... but when it's used well, no one knows about it.

 

I'm not an Autotune apologist. I'd rather I never had to use it... but I'm glad it exists, and sometimes it can be very useful.

[Phil O'Keefe]

 

 

I agree, but with few exceptions, I just don't think there's a need for pitch correction. And I can't stand the sound used as an effect. Use it once in a while to correct a couple of pitchy notes if you don't have alternate takes and the singer is not available, that kind of thing. I can totally understand that.

 

Regardless, I'm down with either steak or Doritos.

 

That's pretty much my approach Ken. I'd rather re-track first than reach for the pitch correction. If the singer's gone, I'd rather try to source the correction from an alternate take. That's usually my workflow - track, audition the takes, comp, re-record if needed... and then if there's still an issue - for example, something brilliantly phrased but slightly pitchy that the singer never quite duplicates no matter how many times we try, then I have no problem with correcting the pitch on that phrase, word, or even part of a word - purposefully and intentionally, and only on the part that needs it, and with an attitude of "if I can hear it when I solo the track, it gets vetoed and we try something else." But if I can make it work, then I can keep that line with the fantastic feel... and for that, AutoTune and Melodyne can be invaluable.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Synthesizers were huge in the 70s, then sort of took a back seat in the 80s-

 

I get your point, but I think you missed it by a decade or so. Synths were probably at their peak in the 80s.

 

Actually, I don't think they ever took a back seat...just that different sounds and forms of use became fashionable as the technology and tastes changed.

 

But as far as the "Cher Effect" being a passé sound? Well, unfortunately, the record business is notorious for beating trends into the ground and not moving on to something new until the last possible record can be sold with the old sound.

 

People talk about how grunge killed "hair bands" in the late 80s/early 90s. But that wasn't really what happened nearly as much as the record industry killed those sorts of bands themselves by signing a gazillion of them that all looked and sounded exactly alike and there was so much of it that the public started to puke at the sight of it.

[WRGKMC]

I haven't been doing allot of work with other bands so most of the stuff I do is with my own work.

My voice isn't that great to begin with so I do have multitrack my parts several times to get something good to work with. .

 

I've tried using Antares Auto Tune to fix pitch issues when I have them but the program just doesn't detect my voice pitch very well.

It also leaves behind artifacts which sound like jitter which I find very annoying. Lately I'd rather rerecord parts or do some heavy cutting an pasting and maintain the higher quality audio then to have to use the auto tune and hear that wavy distortion.

 

It may be the kind of guttural drive I add to my voice that the program fails to detect. I seem to be able to use it more effectively on other vocalists who have purer voice tones. For my stuff its pot luck. The times I have used it I'll be listening to the playback driving and the music will sound crisp and clear. The vocals sound like they were recorded to a cheap recorder with high frequency flutter.

 

I did a recording the other day with no auto tune. and the few notes that were off I could copy and paste the few words from a chorus in another part of the song. I put the mix down on my USB stick with the others and was able to A/B compare the song to others I had in rotation and the vocal quality of the same song with and without auto tune was more then noticeable. The high end air was much smoother and three dimensional sounding.

 

With higher fidelity vocals I could get a higher fidelity mix too. I didn't have to mix down to the lowest common denominator in the mix so it wouldn't be masked.

[Beck]

 

Can you hear comps? Can you hear punch-ins? Sure... sometimes. But in the hands of a skilled engineer with good ears and technique, I seriously doubt you (or anyone) can hear those things - or Autotune. I'm not talking about it being used as an effect, or being used lazily in Auto mode... but if the engineer is aware of the potential side effects, knows how to use it in Graphic mode and how to get around those issues, and can manipulate the material in such a way that they can't hear it even with the vocal track soloed out, I doubt you could either.

 

You can definitely "hear" it being used when it isn't used well. But you don't hear it when it is... which means Autotune gets judged by the bad stuff, and whenever it is skillfully used it gets overlooked because the listener is totally unaware of it being used. IMHO, this is why it gets a bad reputation and a lot of negative press... because it's over-used, badly used, and all of that is relatively easy to hear... but when it's used well, no one knows about it.

 

I'm not an Autotune apologist. I'd rather I never had to use it... but I'm glad it exists, and sometimes it can be very useful.

 

We could say I have super powers then I suppose. But no, there's nothing... absolutely nothing that uses pitch correction on vocals that I can't hear. Time and again when it's supposed to be subtle I can hear it... I can always hear it. Autotune is harsh and unpleasant. It has not arrived. We don't have it. It does not exist. It may exist in the mind (The world) of the "Electronic musician" who for decades has specialized and become accustomed to "genuine imitation." Autotune as we have it now has a sound that is very recognizable, like digital orchestral jabs. I'm sure everyone can hear those aren't real. I hope so anyway.

 

This is one of those situations where we need to look back and remember times when people swore they would know when "Artificial" was getting out of control. But human nature says different. People are like the proverbial frog in the pot of slowly warming water... boiled to death before he knows it.

 

People like me who have kept a connection to analog and rejected the apparent ease at which we can make the no-talents of the world sound passable probably have some advantage. I've always resisted the digital world. I'm not in it. I stand outside of it looking on in stunned silence at how people have lost perspective and killed the music recording industry.

 

Autotune is for amateurs. Trouble is amateurs have taken over the recording world so amateurs call the shots. There's no comparison between autotune and effects that help control dynamics or create a sense of space in recording. Those things have arrived a long time ago.

 

Autotune has not arrived... if you want to claim it can sound natural. The beauty of the natural human voice in pop music is the casualty. If you want to use as an effect that's up to the artist and that's fine, but don't tell someone you can fix their voice even if it seems like a good reason... like you need the client because you have to pay the rent.

 

I don't record for a living anymore, but if I did if a client wanted tighter vocals I still have a list of vocal coaches I would recommend. "Come back when you can sing on pitch because Autotune is an idea that doesn't work like you think... if you want a natural sounding vocal."

 

Here's another argument of the day against Autotune. It's from long ago and far away when people had to know how to sing to be worthy of recording.

 

Recorded to a 24-track Studer A820 analog deck using Ampex 456 tape, through the following gear

Neumann U87

Dbx 160X compressor

AMS RMX reverb

EMT 140 plate

 

But as usual youtube doesn't do justice to all that went in the recording this song. As with most older music you haven't heard it unless you've heard it on vinyl or tape, even cassette. Digital at the youtube level is at best a sample of a work and you need to purchase the music on a suitable format for the full audio experience.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvk5UmZ4ZKI

[Vito Corleone]

 

We could say I have super powers then I suppose. But no, there's nothing... absolutely nothing that uses pitch correction on vocals that I can't hear. Time and again when it's supposed to be subtle I can hear it... I can always hear it.

 

But what about when it isn't supposed to be either noticeable or subtle, but is supposed to be NOT HEARD AT ALL?

 

How do you KNOW it isn't being used simply because you can't hear it? How can you KNOW that the pitch you hear the singer hit is being done naturally or with the aid of technology? Any more than you can KNOW that a reverb is because of the room itself or done with a digital effect?

 

All you're telling me is you can hear it when it's used poorly. Well...yeah....my super powers are that good as well. I, too, can hear when it's used so subtly that one can BARELY detect it. But that's just the work of a lazy or underskilled engineer. He hoped no one would catch it's use but he wasn't that good.

 

But that's completely different from it being used so well that you CAN'T hear it being used.

[Phil O'Keefe]

Well, if we're going to start putting up examples... ELA M 251, 1272, Aphex compressor, Pro Tools...

 

Feel free to display your super powers by telling us which specific words (if any... ) have pitch correction used on them Beck.

 

[video=youtube;7ZEzqDRLhX4]

 

[Vito Corleone]

 

 

 

Here's another argument of the day against Autotune.

 

No, it isn't. Sorry. Yes, it's another great classic recording by a great singer, but it says nothing one way or the other either for or against the use of Autotune on other recordings by other artists.

 

 

[UstadKhanAli]

I think we're kidding ourselves if we think we can hear very skilled use of pitch correction.

 

I've got good ears, but I would be shocked if I could pick out, say, where Phil has used pitch correction and where he has not....even if I were to have heard the singer perform in person several times.

 

Although I personally don't like the sound of pitch correction when used overtly, I don't adopt an absolutist philosophy, saying it should never be used. I understand that there are some circumstances in which it is useful.

 

I post these examples in part because I hope that people can appreciate the beauty of awesome performances that, in my opinion, don't need pitch correction.

 

I love the sound of humans playing music. When people apply pitch correction, snapping to the grid, virtual instruments, virtual amps, drum machines, and so forth, it veers farther and farther from that sound of humans playing music as a whole. Now, I love electronica, but it's not as if that's even pretending to be played by humans. But when I dunno, when I want to hear someone playing a piano or a guitar and singing, well, call me silly, but I'd actually prefer it to be someone playing a piano or a guitar and singing.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

That's pretty much my approach Ken. I'd rather re-track first than reach for the pitch correction. If the singer's gone, I'd rather try to source the correction from an alternate take. That's usually my workflow - track, audition the takes, comp, re-record if needed... and then if there's still an issue - for example, something brilliantly phrased but slightly pitchy that the singer never quite duplicates no matter how many times we try, then I have no problem with correcting the pitch on that phrase, word, or even part of a word - purposefully and intentionally, and only on the part that needs it, and with an attitude of "if I can hear it when I solo the track, it gets vetoed and we try something else." But if I can make it work, then I can keep that line with the fantastic feel... and for that, AutoTune and Melodyne can be invaluable.

 

 

Yeah, that's where I'm at with this. I've never adopted an absolutist philosophy about this, and to me, this seems like a good, sensible approach to take.

[UstadKhanAli]

I'll approach this from another angle. I love music in which you can, for example, readily pick out who the drummer is. You hear a song you've never heard before, and you think, "Oh, that sounds like _______ on drums!" There's a certain style that the person has. Same with a singer. The phrasing. The voice. The emotion. Everything.

 

Those are the things that I hope aren't stamped out when you snap to the grid, when you slap on Auto-Tune set to stun, when you shift things around. There's really subtle tweaks just to fix something, and then there's stamping something out so it sounds like everyone else.

 

Are we moving closer and closer to the point where each drummer sounds like the other drummer? Each singer sounds like another singer? Are individual styles more difficult to identify?

[Vito Corleone]

 

Are we moving closer and closer to the point where each drummer sounds like the other drummer? Each singer sounds like another singer? Are individual styles more difficult to identify?

 

No. My parents thought all the music I listened to "sounded the same" as well. They couldn't tell BTO from Bad Company. All the singers did was scream. All the drummers did was bang. All the guitars were distorted and noisy. They didn't like any of it enough to want to understand the differences in the first place. They weren't going to listen to it long enough to find out. And the production standards of the day certainly helped fuel that instant similarity they heard. Which only reinforced their decision to not listen to it deeper. They would love to tell me about how "in their day" you could easily tell the difference between Frank Sinatra and Hank Williams. Because, back then, people made REAL music. They had (seemingly) forgotten about how many singers were around then that sounded an awful lot like those guys making records with similar production values within their separate genres.

 

In one regard, it is the same today in that if we aren't "living" the music, we aren't as likely to pick up the subtleties within the genre. I can't immediately pick out the difference between a Katy Perry and a Taylor Swift recording. But I'm pretty sure the kids can. This phenomenon is nothing new.

 

There isn't an era where it isn't pretty easy to guess when the recording was made by the style of singing and the production standards. I might not be able to quickly tell you if a record is by Petula Clark or Dionne Warwick, but I can call "mid 60s pop!" in an instant. Can you tell who drummed on "Downtown" or "Do You Know The Way to San Jose?" Or who arranged the strings and horns? I can't. I might get The Fixx and Simple Minds easily confused at first listen what with all the synths and baritone-y lead vocals, but we all know those records come from the 80s right away.

 

But the more important point is there are still a multitude of sounds and genres out there. Maybe now more than ever. Taylor Swift's recordings are difficult for you to listen to? Cool. Adele will have a new one coming out soon enough, I'm sure.

[Vito Corleone]

 

 

 

 

I post these examples in part because I hope that people can appreciate the beauty of awesome performances that, in my opinion, don't need pitch correction.

 

 

And no one disagrees with you. I don't think anybody is trying to encourage Adele to sing through AutoTune cranked up to 10 so she can sound more like T-Pain, are they? It's kind of a strawman you're building here to say by using these examples you're posting arguments against AutoTune.

 

"Hope that people can appreciate"? Who isn't appreciating Adele or Jeff Buckley? "In your opinion don't need pitch correction"? Has anyone argued they do? Has any offered an opposing opinion regarding those recordings? Sorry, but I'm just not seeing the argument here.

 

The fact that there is no audible autotune (if any at all) on any Adele records would be a pretty good argument that everyone (or at least her producers) agree with you that her records don't need them. So I'm really at a loss here to understand who you're arguing with.

 

But when I dunno, when I want to hear someone playing a piano or a guitar and singing, well, call me silly, but I'd actually prefer it to be someone playing a piano or a guitar and singing.

 

 

"Silly" is complaining that something that is one thing isn't something else. "Silly" would be the guy who plays an AC/DC record and then complains that the drummer doesn't use enough complex time signatures. If you prefer jazz, then you should listen to jazz not heavy metal.

 

Don't be that guy, and no one is going to call you silly.

[UstadKhanAli]

I'm not really arguing with anyone. Just offering my opinions on this fine day, ones that often comes between the absolutes, I think.

 

That said, I do think that some players, such as drummers, seemed to be more identifiable before. I know you disagree with me, and that's okay. Singers, I don't know, but drummers, in my opinion, seemed to be more identifiable before.

[Vito Corleone]

 

That said, I do think that some players, such as drummers, seemed to be more identifiable before. I know you disagree with me, and that's okay. Singers, I don't know, but drummers, in my opinion, seemed to be more identifiable before.

 

I can think of thousands of pop records recorded over the last 50 years where the drummers all basically sounded the same. Forgettable recordings for the most part. And maybe that's why you think there were more identifiable ones before. The passage of time compresses things.

 

Obviously the unique styles of playing and singing stand out. By definition.

 

But are you really going to tell me you can identify most of the players on these hit recordings just by listening to them? Or that the productions standards made anything more than just a handful of those records stand out from the rest?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_1966

 

Have we really lost so much in the last 50 years? Sorry, but I'm just not seeing it.

 

 

 

 

[UstadKhanAli]

 

I can think of thousands of pop records recorded over the last 50 years where the drummers all basically sounded the same. Forgettable recordings for the most part. And maybe that's why you think there were more identifiable ones before. The passage of time compresses things.

 

Obviously the unique styles of playing and singing stand out. By definition.

 

But are you really going to tell me you can identify most of the players on these hit recordings just by listening to them? Or that the productions standards made anything more than just a handful of those records stand out from the rest?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_1966

 

Have we really lost so much in the last 50 years? Sorry, but I'm just not seeing it.

 

 

 

 

 

That's why I posed the question. Are we? To me, it was easier to identify the drummer before. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you're right.

 

In either case, I never said t hat I can identify most of the players on hit records. YOU said that. I simply said that in my opinion, it was easier to identify drummers before.

 

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you're right.

 

I can think of thousands of pop songs recorded over the last 50 years where the drummers all basically sounded the same too.

 

But I feel I can identify more drummers from before than now. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you're right.

 

In either case, the overall gist I'm saying is not to let technology interfere with the beauty of the humans producing the music. That's it. Not very controversial, but maybe occasionally, it needs to be said. That's all. You seem to enjoy addressing many things I say and arguing against, then saying that I am arguing. But no matter, I appreciate your enthusiasm in the discussion.

[Vito Corleone]

You seem to enjoy addressing many things I say and arguing against, then saying that I am arguing. But no matter, I appreciate your enthusiasm in the discussion.

 

I like discussing things. And I do so with enthusiasm. So please, only take it in that context. And I don't feel like we're arguing. But...for the record....you ARE the guy who started the thread with the word "ARGUMENT".....

.

 

 

[UstadKhanAli]

Oh, yeah, that is true!!

[Geoff Grace]

I don't know why people hate pitch correction so much. They'll use EQ to compensate for tonal issues, faders to compensate for not recording hot enough, reverb to compensate for not recording in an acoustical space...It's entirely possible to use pitch correction in a way that no one even notices it's there. The REAL problem is that if someone is such a lousy singer that they're way off, adding pitch correction becomes really obvious and sounds annoying.

 

Remember, machines don't kill music. People do.

 

Agreed. Maybe these Auto Tune instructions will help.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Beck]

Well, if we're going to start putting up examples... ELA M 251, 1272, Aphex compressor, Pro Tools...

 

Feel free to display your super powers by telling us which specific words (if any... ) have pitch correction used on them Beck.

 

[video=youtube;7ZEzqDRLhX4]

 

This isn't going anywhere like this. I just have to say I'm not surprised so much as I'm dissapointed that more people can't say amen with me about how obvious pitch correction is, even when it's allegedly "transparent." It's sadness for me. It's a sign of the times. It's a loss that we (some of us?) (Very few of us?) (I) can say quite confidently that we did music better in the past without pitch correction being everywhere. To most of you my views can remain a curiosity, but I hope at least a few will do some rethinking of the issue... asking themselves could they possibly have become so immersed in the technology that they’ve lost the sensitivities and discernment that make an excellent recording engineer, mastering engineer, etc.

 

My only other experience in life that I can draw from is in younger days when I dealt with religious cults and helped people get out of them. They didn't know enough to know that they didn't know. People react pretty much the same way when you tell them their worlds don't exist... that the emperor has no clothes.

 

Maybe my perception is better. Maybe I am a super sensitive musical genius... I don't know. But I rather suspect there are simply fewer people in our midst that know the basics of recording 101. That seems to me what it always comes back to no matter the topic. I'm probably no superman... it's more like technology has allowed people to enter the music recording world that wouldn't be allowed to touch a soundboard when I was growing up in this industry. There's been a dramatic dumbing down and pitch correction is something that optimizes that.

 

The example of a "Real singer like Sade is simply an example of how I think it should be done... more takes until you get it right. I wouldn't butcher something from Sade with pitch correction.

 

Today everything is product oriented for amateur or home recordists. The idea that we can fix everything with digital plugs like Autotune is a religious conviction and the rock star salesmen that hock this stuff are no different than TV preachers like Mike Murdock and the seed faith gospel. It's all heresy. That is, it is simply untrue, but it's profitable to lots of people so they're going to keep preaching it. You don't have what you think you have with this stuff. You may not be a Mike Murdok, but one of his followers... a true believer and you honestly think what he says is true. Same in the recording world. You may not be one of those pitching this gospel knowing it is false. You honestly think it's real.

 

I don't just hear Autotune gone bad; I hear Autotune period. If you want an example of where it's most prevalent and doesn't belong at all and is supposed to be, "Transparent" look at contemporary country music. Good God! It's hideous!

 

Why do I hear it and many others don't? I don't know. I don't drink so I'm not inebriated when I listen to music. I've taken good care of my ears my whole life. I'm sensitive to the most subtle nuances of sound. Does it have something to do with that? I myself would like to know, but the fact is I do hear it on about everything these days and it is used on about everything these days, so that's no surprise.

 

All I'm getting out of these discussions is that there's a difference between us in what we can hear and apparently I'm not so acclimated to pitch correction that it gets by me. It doesn't get by me, like it or not that's just the way it is. And like I said in the beginning, it doesn't get by me and I can identify it. I know what it is. As recordists everyone should be worried about the general public who knows nothing about recording, but it doesn't get by them either. They just don't know what it is. They don't know what process is making the vocal sound unnatural or unpleasant. Ultimately they turn the music down or off because it's hard on the ears.

[techristian]

And then we have this ......a sound engineer didn't get paid so he posted a video with Courtney Love with isolated vocals....and garbage guitar playing.

 

[video=youtube;v-xUwDARVb4]

 

http://trendinghot.net/courtney-love...ow-hear-awful/

[Vito Corleone]

Yeah yeah yeah. Courtney Love sucks. We all hate her. Whatever.

 

I've seen that clip like 100 times all over the internet and in my email now, but seriously, I didn't think I'd see it here where there are pro sound guys who understand what an isolated track often sounds like.

 

Truth is, I've also heard that same recording with the band mixed in and her vocal sounds fine for the type of song and band it is and her guitar is just a prop. She's not even really trying to play it. She's just making noise with it and it blends in fine to the degree the sound guy even has it in the mix at all. (Didn't Elvis invent doing that???)

 

 

[video=youtube;_HDMp8j7i1E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HDMp8j7i1E

[Vito Corleone]

 

This isn't going anywhere like this. I just have to say I'm not surprised so much as I'm dissapointed that more people can't say amen with me about how obvious pitch correction is, even when it's allegedly "transparent." ...

 

 

All I'm getting out of these discussions is that there's a difference between us in what we can hear and apparently I'm not so acclimated to pitch correction that it gets by me. It doesn't get by me, like it or not that's just the way it is.....

 

Why do I hear it and many others don't? I don't know.

 

I don't know either. I'm trying to hear where you hear it and where I don't. So where were the autotuned notes on Phil's track? Teach me. I want to learn to hear it better than I already do. All of that post and you somehow neglected to mention where you think the autotuned was used.

 

Give me an example of where it is allegedly "transparent" but isn't and maybe I'll have an amen for you. Or you can be gladly be disappointed in me if I don't.

 

Because, so far, all I'm getting out of this is you CLAIM to hear it better than everyone else here but can't show that you actually CAN.