I have a Peavey AT-200 Guitar with Auto-Tune here

[MrKnobs]

Originally Posted by Anderton

Well, thanks to the miracle of the interwebs and having my music computer turned on, you can judge for yourself from the attached MP3. The first part is a Fender Twin clean sound, the next part is through an amp sim with distortion. You'll hear what I mean about the consonance of the distortion.

That sounds no better or worse in tune than the average electric guitar.

If the only useful purpose is for cutting 40% of the time spent tuning when doing sample libraries, at least it's useful for me

I'll take your word for that.

I can't think of a bigger buzzkill than having to retune because I hit some energetic power chord and had to pay the consequences. For me, the less I have to think about or maintain an instrument while playing, the more energy I have and the more I can stay "in the groove."

You could instead buy a better guitar and stretch the strings out properly before the show.

... and of course block the trem bar if the guitar has one. And maybe some locking tuners (over the nut) and / or Sperzels.

Seriously, for any practical purpose this just seems a non-issue to me.

I will admit that when I used to play my Jackson Fusion at shows (Floyd on it) and a STRING BROKE in the middle of the song (never happened if I changed the strings before the show, but I sometimes didn't) thus causing the remaining strings to go out of tune, I'd use the trick on my VG-8 where you strum the strings open and the VG autotunes them (by pitch correction) to the normal pitches.

But man, if I had a guitar that went out of tune at shows for no good reason (sudden change from 10F to hot stage lights is a good reason) I'd cut it up for firewood. Only exception is my custom shop Brian Moore i2.13 which has g string issues. Like a ditzy hot little girlfriend that guitar is just too pretty to get rid of so it gets a pass.

Terry D.

[Anderton]

Originally Posted by MrKnobs

That sounds no better or worse in tune than the average electric guitar.

Well, a properly-tuned guitar will sound like a properly-tuned guitar. The point with the AT-200 is how quickly you get there.

Some were high position full barres, though, that I normally wouldn't use because the difficulty I have in not pushing on the 4th so that it's slightly sharp.

You could instead buy a better guitar and stretch the strings out properly before the show.

Doesn't help alternate tunings, though. No matter how good a guitar you have, alternate tunings are a pain. Now, when Gibson told me about how great it was that the Robot guitars could do alternate tuning, my reaction was "Well that's nice, but I never use alternate tunings." But once they became so painless to do, I did indeed start using them, and I'm using them more and more. Slide guitar is now a major part of my reality

Seriously, for any practical purpose this just seems a non-issue to me.

Yeah, but it's a package. It's not just near-instant tuning of six strings simultaneously, it's alternate tunings, modeling and guitar emulation, integrated footswitch control, all that stuff. It's a system. Any one element may not be a huge deal, but put it all together, and you have a pretty interesting package.

But man, if I had a guitar that went out of tune at shows for no good reason (sudden change from 10F to hot stage lights is a good reason) I'd cut it up for firewood.

I'm pretty hard on strings, I play with a thumb pick and use .010s or .011s. Sure, the guitar pretty much stays in tune, but to be able to touch up the tuning in two seconds is really convenient.

[rasputin1963]

Be prepared for McGuitar McSolos.

[Hard Truth]

It would be interesting to have just intonation (or another tuning system) that optimized tuning for each key without the compromises in equal temperment.

I would like to see a comparison of the autotune, the Gibson robot, the Transperformance self-tuning guitar
and the Evertune systems by someone who used each for a couple of weeks. Without having used any of them I'm most interested in the robot, but if it is slow to tune then it wouldn't help much.

[JeffLearman]

Originally Posted by Anderton

[AT 200 example.mp3]

Actually, it sounded a lot less rock solid than I was expecting, which is a good thing. That is, it didn't sound unnaturally perfectly in tune. I do hear what you mean by the consonance of the distortion on the hi-gain stuff ... that can sound really terrible when only a little out of tune.

I use a handful of alternate tunings on acoustic, but not on electric. I can see the benefit, though, for someone playing slide. I do everyone a favor and leave the slide in my case. It's stayed there for about 20 years, and nobody's complained about that yet. Back when I used it they did.

For the acoustic, I'd need robotuners. THAT would be lovely, but I don't think I want to hack up my HD28.

[JeffLearman]

 

Originally Posted by Hard Truth

It would be interesting to have just intonation (or another tuning system) that optimized tuning for each key without the compromises in equal temperment.

 

As a keyboard player, I'm glad this isn't common among guitarists. It's hard enough getting them to just turn down to sane volumes. Getting them to play out of tune, intentionally, to match the keyboards would be even harder!

[Anderton]

 

Originally Posted by Hard Truth

I'm most interested in the robot, but if it is slow to tune then it wouldn't help much.

 

The speed depends on a couple things. First, the newer the model, the faster the tuning; the system keeps evolving. Second, it depends on how far out of tune the strings are. If a couple strings are a little out, it's a couple seconds. If you're going from one radical alternate tuning back to pitch, it takes longer. Figure on 10 seconds as pretty much the maximum, unless you're using the Robot technology to change strings.

[Anderton]

Originally Posted by learjeff

Actually, it sounded a lot less rock solid than I was expecting, which is a good thing. That is, it didn't sound unnaturally perfectly in tune.

It's still based on the even-tempered scale, so it can't be unnaturally/perfectly in tune.

I do hear what you mean by the consonance of the distortion on the hi-gain stuff ... that can sound really terrible when only a little out of tune.

Ah, good...I'm glad you could hear what I'm talking about. Remember too, that the strings themselves were out of tune...I wanted it to be a fair example.

I use a handful of alternate tunings on acoustic, but not on electric. I can see the benefit, though, for someone playing slide. I do everyone a favor and leave the slide in my case. It's stayed there for about 20 years, and nobody's complained about that yet. Back when I used it they did.

For the acoustic, I'd need robotuners. THAT would be lovely, but I don't think I want to hack up my HD28.

[Philter]

Originally Posted by MrKnobs

Only exception is my custom shop Brian Moore i2.13 which has g string issues. Like a ditzy hot little girlfriend that guitar is just too pretty to get rid of so it gets a pass.

Terry D.

What is it about the G-string... I have had many guitars over the years where the g string was always a problem. That issue where just as you approach correct tuning, it "pings" and jumps over or under the pitch... one guitar after another had done that to me.

[UstadKhanAli]

Originally Posted by MrKnobs

That sounds no better or worse in tune than the average electric guitar.

This is good, right? I mean, it's supposed to sound like a normal guitar. That's supposed to be the idea, right? I think people would dump all over this unless it sounded like a normal guitar unless anyone is expecting a $500 guitar to sound like a $5000 guitar.

And having owned two Antares rack mount units in the past, I'm highly skeptical that this thing sounds even remotely natural.

And given this, I'm guessing that sounding like an average guitar is a victory for Peavey then.

It sounds like a normal guitar to me as well. I say great.

[Mark L]

Originally Posted by Philter

What is it about the G-string... I have had many guitars over the years where the g string was always a problem. That issue where just as you approach correct tuning, it "pings" and jumps over or under the pitch... one guitar after another had done that to me.

I currently use 13s with a wound 3rd. My G-string now stays in tune!

Obviously, I can no longer do string-bends. But to be honest, I hardly ever play lead anyway. I'm more of a chord merchant

[MrKnobs]

Originally Posted by Philter

What is it about the G-string... I have had many guitars over the years where the g string was always a problem. That issue where just as you approach correct tuning, it "pings" and jumps over or under the pitch... one guitar after another had done that to me.

I think it's a nut issue on my Brian Moore (which is what your issue sounds like too). Weird thing is that no one (guitar luthiers here in Austin) can figure it out. First I thought it was a stretching issue, but I pre stretch new strings on all my guitars to avoid this and the BM is the only one with this issue. Then I assumed it's because I use an unwound G, but a wound G has the same problem.

Now I'm working under the assumption that the Sperzel (locking) tuner isn't locking very well on that string, so I'm putting winds on it instead or relying on the string lock. Seems to be helping some. The GK-2A pickup on my Jackson has bit the dust, so lately I'm forced to use the BM for shows, at least temporarily.

I say temporarily as, through the kindness of my masters here at HC I was able to pick up a Roland GC-1 guitar (Roland Ready Strat) at a small discount and if I can remanufacture that cheap piece of crap (a Squier, basically) into something not too terrible it will become my gig guitar.

Originally Posted by UstadKhanAli

This is good, right? I mean, it's supposed to sound like a normal guitar. That's supposed to be the idea, right? I think people would dump all over this unless it sounded like a normal guitar unless anyone is expecting a $500 guitar to sound like a $5000 guitar.

And given this, I'm guessing that sounding like an average guitar is a victory for Peavey then.

It sounds like a normal guitar to me as well. I say great.

Well, if adding a bunch of complex electronics to a normal guitar results in it still sounding like a normal guitar, then it certainly begs the question, "What's the point?"

Terry D.

[UstadKhanAli]

I think it's supposed to sound normal but offer things like perfect tuning, perfect intonation, alternate tunings, etc., doing everything perfectly and quickly, so I see the point. Now, it's not a guitar I want to have, but I see the point.

[Mark L]

 

Originally Posted by UstadKhanAli

I think it's supposed to sound normal but offer things like perfect tuning, perfect intonation, alternate tunings, etc., doing everything perfectly and quickly, so I see the point. Now, it's not a guitar I want to have, but I see the point.

 

I want one

[Anderton]

Originally Posted by MrKnobs

Well, if adding a bunch of complex electronics to a normal guitar results in it still sounding like a normal guitar, then it certainly begs the question, "What's the point?"

Terry D.

In addition to what Ken said, here's what the optional Complete Pack software adds by exploiting the electronics:

Tunings

Standard Tuning
Drop D
DADGAD
Open E
Open A
Open E minor
Open G
Open D
Open A minor
Open D minor
Double Drop D
Bass
Bass Split

Doubling

Twelve String #1
Polyphonic Octaver Down
Seven String #1 (E1 + A0)
Fifth Up
Twelve String #2
Polyphonic Octaver Up
Seven String #2 (E1 + B0)
Fourth Up

Guitar Models

Modern Humbucker
California Single Coil
Acoustic
Nashville Single Coil
Mini Humbucker
P-90
Junior P-90
Vintage Humbucker
Vintage Lipstick-tube
Bass

Virtual Capo Range

Up to 12 half-steps up
Up to 12 half-steps down

MIDI Features

MIDI Save/Load Presets (64)
MIDI Function Control
MIDI Pickup Select Control
MIDI Tone Control
MIDI Gain Control
MIDI Pitch Shift Control
MIDI Pitch Bend Message
MIDI Software Select

There's all kinds of info here.

[MrKnobs]

Originally Posted by Anderton

In addition to what Ken said, here's what the optional Complete Pack software adds by exploiting the electronics:

Tunings]

The mp3 you put up was a guitar in standard tuning, right? That would sound natural as the Antares unit would be disengaged like 99.9% of the time, same way it works with their rack mount unit, I'm guessing.

So now that we've established it's pretty useless except for alternate tunings, could we hear a clip somewhere of what it sounds like doing those?

Terry D.

[Anderton]

Originally Posted by MrKnobs

The mp3 you put up was a guitar in standard tuning, right? That would sound natural as the Antares unit would be disengaged like 99.9% of the time, same way it works with their rack mount unit, I'm guessing.

Actually, all the strings were out of tune before I recorded that just to make it interesting. So, it was engaged like 99.9% of the time.

So now that we've established it's pretty useless except for alternate tunings, could we hear a clip somewhere of what it sounds like doing those?

I can do additional clips with alternate tunings. Wait until you hear the octave-down bass. But I think being able to emulate other guitar sounds, change tunings or sounds on the fly with a footswitch, do virtual capos over a two-octave range, and tweak tuning instantly are not useless features. Some people bought Variaxes so they would have to bring only one guitar and still get a bunch of different sounds - they didn't even care about the alternate tunings.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Originally Posted by Anderton

Actually, all the strings were out of tune before I recorded that just to make it interesting. So, it was engaged like 99.9% of the time.

 

Well, I'd say it was working then!! Outta curiosity, were they mildly or grossly out of tune?

[Anderton]

 

Originally Posted by UstadKhanAli

Well, I'd say it was working then!! Outta curiosity, were they mildly or grossly out of tune?

 

Enough to be seriously annoying. I'd estimate they went from around 20 to 60 cents out of tune.

[Mark L]

Terry hates The Beatles, so this guitar must be good!

[Anderton]

Here are some clips with radical transpositions. I did 'em real fast at 2 in the morning, but hey, you'll get the point.

The first clip has the bottom three strings transposed down an octave, and the top three strings at normal pitch so I could play bass against block chords.

The second clip has a Jaco-kinda 360 Acoustic amp bass, with a little chorusing.

The third clip has all the strings tuned down 5 semitones...I wanted to out-tune-down Queens of the Stone Age As the first part is sorta distorted, I closed out with some palm muting stuff so you could hear more of the "string sound." Well, at least the "transposed down five semitones" string sound.

[JeffLearman]

Originally Posted by Anderton

It's still based on the even-tempered scale, so it can't be unnaturally/perfectly in tune.

I'm taking that into account. I've played keyboards with guitar sounds, and there's more "movement" in what you recorded than we get with keyboard-driven guitar tones, unless we take the effort to introduce modulation. Believe me, even with an even-tempered scale, it can be unnaturally in tune. The result is very mechanical/electronic/synthetic, which might work for some kinds of music, but not the kind I like to make.

I used to think that perfection was best: the musicians with rock-solid intonation, immaculate articulation, and machine-like tempo were the ones I aspired to be like (with little success, sadly). Ditto for pianos with the least inharmonicity and most perfect tuning & intonation, with rock solid notes whose timbre didn't shift. But when we started being able to really achieve machine-like "perfection", I found that I didn't like it at all. What I really liked was "near perfection" with just a hint of movement that's the hallmark of the natural rather than the imitation.

Actually, all the strings were out of tune before I recorded that just to make it interesting. So, it was engaged like 99.9% of the time.

It seems to me that the tone generators have to be engaged 100% of the time. Otherwise we'd hear a tone change when switching between using the signal from the pups to the signal from the tone generators. Also, given that the volume is lower when not using the pups directly, they can't be switching between tone generator and pups.

I can see why Knobs isn't interested, but I confess I'm intrigued and impressed. It's a tool, and like all tools, isn't appropriate for all jobs.

One of the problems with the MP3's is that I find that in recordings, sims can sound great. But set them next to a real amp in a real room (even with a good PA for the sim), and there's really no contest at all, for the styles I play (blues tones on guitar, mostly: think single-coil pups with small vintage or boutique amps -- but even compared to a Fender Blues Deluxe or Hot Rod Deluxe).

[Anderton]

Originally Posted by learjeff

I'm taking that into account. I've played keyboards with guitar sounds, and there's more "movement" in what you recorded than we get with keyboard-driven guitar tones, unless we take the effort to introduce modulation. Believe me, even with an even-tempered scale, it can be unnaturally in tune. The result is very mechanical/electronic/synthetic, which might work for some kinds of music, but not the kind I like to make.

I think the movement you're referring to may be the way the string's harmonic structure is always moving over time. i spent many hours staring at guitar strings when designing octave dividers, and the harmonic content is always in motion. Auto-Tuning couldn't possibly "correct" for that.

I used to think that perfection was best: the musicians with rock-solid intonation, immaculate articulation, and machine-like tempo were the ones I aspired to be like (with little success, sadly). Ditto for pianos with the least inharmonicity and most perfect tuning & intonation, with rock solid notes whose timbre didn't shift. But when we started being able to really achieve machine-like "perfection", I found that I didn't like it at all. What I really liked was "near perfection" with just a hint of movement that's the hallmark of the natural rather than the imitation.

What's really interesting is if you start analyzing musicians who have a really good "feel." They do indeed incorporate those imperfections, but they're not random, they seem to be consciously driven and the best musicians are the most precise in their imperfections (if that makes sense). In other words, a Steve Gadd-level drummer can hit a drum 5 ms ahead of the beat, but do so consistently (which frankly blows my mind).

I've looked at a lot of my guitar solos and vocals as waveforms and so many times, notes come in early or late, or are off-pitch, but sound "correct." "Correcting" them actually makes them sound wrong.

It seems to me that the tone generators have to be engaged 100% of the time. Otherwise we'd hear a tone change when switching between using the signal from the pups to the signal from the tone generators. Also, given that the volume is lower when not using the pups directly, they can't be switching between tone generator and pups.

Very good point. There's never any switching between straight pickups and the Auto-Tuned output, when you engage Auto-Tune the straight pickup sound is out of the picture. I think perhaps what Terry meant by "engaged" (and how I responded) was that the Auto-Tune process was still active, but sort of idling in the background, and not correcting anything per se.

By the way one thing I forgot to mention it that when Auto-Tune is activated, the pickup selector still makes a difference in the sound.

I can see why Knobs isn't interested, but I confess I'm intrigued and impressed. It's a tool, and like all tools, isn't appropriate for all jobs.

It's technology's gift to those of us who create sample libraries, that's for sure!!!

One of the problems with the MP3's is that I find that in recordings, sims can sound great. But set them next to a real amp in a real room (even with a good PA for the sim), and there's really no contest at all, for the styles I play (blues tones on guitar, mostly: think single-coil pups with small vintage or boutique amps -- but even compared to a Fender Blues Deluxe or Hot Rod Deluxe).

I think Line 6 has solved that problem with the HD500/DT25 link system, where the amp provides the actual cab, real tubes, and moving air. You get the benefits of a sim in the front end, and the benefits of an amp on the back end. They call the combination of the two and a Variax the "dream rig" and I'm doing a pro review on it...I gotta say the sound is extremely satisfying.

What makes it REALLY incredible is that the DT25 can reconfigure itself in the analog domain - e.g., change the class of operation of the tubes, adjust the amount of feedback, etc. So if you have an HD500 preset with a Fender Twin, the DT25 adjusts itself to the Fender Twin's topology. Same with something like a Marshall. It's brilliant, actually.

[MrKnobs]

Originally Posted by MarkydeSad

Terry hates The Beatles, so this guitar must be good!

I don't hate them, I'm just sick of them! Turns out if you look around a bit there's been a lot of bands since then making very good music! I liked the Beatles when I was a kid then Zep as a teenager and now I'm fine never hearing either again, they're just played to death!

Originally Posted by learjeff

I used to think that perfection was best: the musicians with rock-solid intonation, immaculate articulation, and machine-like tempo were the ones I aspired to be like (with little success, sadly).

Me too. Then I looked around me and noticed that the bands who were succeeding didn't obsess on minutia. They wrote evocative songs, sang them emotionally, and played tremendous energy and passion. There are countless examples of people who don't sing like Celine Dion / Whitney Houston or play guitar like Malmsteen / Beck who have nevertheless achieved equal or great success.

I used to think there was a dotted line of minimum proficiency on guitar and above that you were missing the point. I've come to realize after the 80's ended that the line is a lot lower than I thought it was, and it is definitely FAR below any requirement that a note is slightly sharp due to a difficult fingering.

I can see why Knobs isn't interested, but I confess I'm intrigued and impressed. It's a tool, and like all tools, isn't appropriate for all jobs.

Well, I'm kind of a hypocrite on this issue as I gig using a Roland VG-88 and on some songs I use the pitch shift function to transpose (our singer never puts her capo in the same place twice) and on other songs I use a 12 string patch to add 5ths to the top strings and octave down to the low strings (try THAT with your Antares guitar!)

Speaking of that last application, Craig, can it do that? If you mentioned that you can split the strings and hear both the natural sound and the shifted sound, then I missed it. And if so, then that would mean you can simultaneously record the uneffected and shifted guitar and post a clip with both in it (perhaps in a stereo MP3 with the two panned far left and right).

One of the problems with the MP3's is that I find that in recordings, sims can sound great. But set them next to a real amp in a real room (even with a good PA for the sim), and there's really no contest at all, for the styles I play (blues tones on guitar, mostly: think single-coil pups with small vintage or boutique amps -- but even compared to a Fender Blues Deluxe or Hot Rod Deluxe).

For sure, and it's not just the room or the volume, though of course those affect our perception. It's also the feedback (even at low levels) between the guitar, the amp, and the PLAYER that sculpt the sound quality. Craig will say at some point (and he'll be right) that amp sims model what a mic put in front of the amp hears, not what the player hears, of course, so it's the recorded sounds that must be compared.

Originally Posted by Anderton

I've looked at a lot of my guitar solos and vocals as waveforms and so many times, notes come in early or late, or are off-pitch, but sound "correct." "Correcting" them actually makes them sound wrong.

I've found this to be true also. I went a little overboard with Melodyne when I first got a copy.

Very good point. There's never any switching between straight pickups and the Auto-Tuned output, when you engage Auto-Tune the straight pickup sound is out of the picture. I think perhaps what Terry meant by "engaged" (and how I responded) was that the Auto-Tune process was still active, but sort of idling in the background, and not correcting anything per se.

Yeah, that's what I meant as that's the way their last rack mount unit worked. You could set a window where the autotune let imperfections slide before it kicked in to fix them. Seems to me that it would be optimal if the autotune release was gradual as well. Obviously not a gradual mix release as then you'd hear both tones beating (or chorused a bit I guess) but a gradual release in terms of shift amount. This just off the top of my head, I'd have to think more on this.

You said in your paragraph above that there's never any switching between straight pickups and autotune output. But, as I asked above, are both outputs always available? That would be very useful for some alternate tuning applications like the one I mentioned. Seems like it would be pretty easy to mod the guitar to do that if they don't already provide that feature.

The other advantage of the VG system in this regard is that since both the effected and non effected note can be heard at the same time, then a little more computation and it's easily possible to create harmonies in real time.

One more question, and please forgive me if it's already answered somewhere. Does the Antares system have a hex pickup? Seems like it would have to. And if so, is there a hex out? Is it a ROLAND style hex out?

'Cause that would be super useful to me.

Thanks!

Terry D.

[MikeRivers]

I listened to your latest examples, and I've gotta say that I didn't like any of the sounds. Nothing there sounded like a guitar to me. I particularly didn't like the sound when it was playing an octave lower than the actual note. It reminded me of a bass part played on on a 20 year old keyboard synth. Now I suppose that these sounds might work in the context of certain songs, but if this is what it sounds like as an electric guitar, I'm not enthusiastic. In the mean time, I'll try to get more impressed by listening to your examples in the control room with some good speakers instead of on the computer with some mediocre speakers.



How about doing another example that's as clean and boring as it gets. That way I can put it through an amplifier or play around with a simulator as if it were a good guitar going straight into a DI to be messed with later.