Naff digital voice enhancement
 

This autotune system appears to be being used on recordings made by
perfectly good in tune singers as a kind of substitute fro double tracking,
but unlike its more obvious relative, it is far too precise, and if over
used sounds like the person is yodelling and completely ruins any attempt at
drama in a delivery. Our latest Eurovision entry shows this, and
unfortunatly even Michael Bubbles newest stuff is using it. Indeed I first
encountered its over zealous use on some tracks on a live album by Carole
King called The Living Room Tour, where her gritty wavering voice was
completely ruined by its use in a number of places.
Recently a new record by Cliff Richard and some people called The Piano
guys, whoever they are is using it and apart from the slight phrasing that
lets you know Cliff is on it, it could really be almost anybody.
I'd like to put out a public plea that we put this effect into the great
digital bin, at least until its capable of sounding vaguely hiuman when
used. OK its fun on some songs as an effect but the ring modulator and
vocoder have been around for years, but this sounds like the worst from
both.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!

Naff digital voice enhancement
 

I fear we're out of luck. This seems now to be an 'effect' so far as the
pop music biz is concerned. If they think it 'sells' they just go on using
it. The rest of us just have to avoid it if we find it idiotic or
irritating.

Jim

In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:
This autotune system appears to be being used on recordings made by
perfectly good in tune singers as a kind of substitute fro double
tracking, ...

OK its fun on some songs as an effect but the ring modulator
and vocoder have been around for years, but this sounds like the worst
from both. Brian

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Naff digital voice enhancement
 

Yes but why use it on aperfectly competent singer?
I find I can pick it up so often now that I know what it sounds like.
It does make everyone sound like a robot. Do they not listen to real
singers any more?

You could quite clearly herar it on Robbie Williams first solo hit Angels
beating with his voice. absolutely daft.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
I fear we're out of luck. This seems now to be an 'effect' so far as the
pop music biz is concerned. If they think it 'sells' they just go on using
it. The rest of us just have to avoid it if we find it idiotic or
irritating.

Jim

In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:
This autotune system appears to be being used on recordings made by
perfectly good in tune singers as a kind of substitute fro double
tracking, ...

OK its fun on some songs as an effect but the ring modulator
and vocoder have been around for years, but this sounds like the worst
from both. Brian

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics
https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Naff digital voice enhancement
 

On Sun, 14 May 2017 16:42:01 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Yes but why use it on aperfectly competent singer?
I find I can pick it up so often now that I know what it sounds like.
It does make everyone sound like a robot. Do they not listen to real
singers any more?

You could quite clearly herar it on Robbie Williams first solo hit Angels
beating with his voice. absolutely daft.
Brian

Cher is arguably perfectly competent yet she trailblazed the technique
20 years ago. Clearly as an effect, not a correction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Uu3...ature=youtu.be
--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

Naff digital voice enhancement
 

Yes but that was very very obvious. the modern voice enhancement is more
subtle and yet bad.


I can go back much further with this sort of thing for novellty value.
Herbie Hancock Sunshine, Stevie Wonder has used it many times as way back
then ring modulation was used in Sparkys magic piano. The latest incarnation
may well be digital and flips to the next pitch etc, but the suitability
for anything other than pure spot effect is a bit of an open question. My
main point is that its not actually needed on most of the places its used.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Graham." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 May 2017 16:42:01 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Yes but why use it on aperfectly competent singer?
I find I can pick it up so often now that I know what it sounds like.
It does make everyone sound like a robot. Do they not listen to real
singers any more?

You could quite clearly herar it on Robbie Williams first solo hit Angels
beating with his voice. absolutely daft.
Brian

Cher is arguably perfectly competent yet she trailblazed the technique
20 years ago. Clearly as an effect, not a correction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Uu3...ature=youtu.be
--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

Naff digital voice enhancement
 

Same could be said for a lot of effects, both audio and visual, in use
in modern media.

On 15/05/2017 09:02, Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes but that was very very obvious. the modern voice enhancement is more
subtle and yet bad.


I can go back much further with this sort of thing for novellty value.
Herbie Hancock Sunshine, Stevie Wonder has used it many times as way back
then ring modulation was used in Sparkys magic piano. The latest incarnation
may well be digital and flips to the next pitch etc, but the suitability
for anything other than pure spot effect is a bit of an open question. My
main point is that its not actually needed on most of the places its used.
Brian



--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Naff digital voice enhancement
 

You or I may think it daft or irritating. But once some of the 'hit makers'
decide in their infinite wisdom that it helps 'sell' their output, they'll
use it. Its the *money* they're after, and this is their 'product'. And
being able to do things like this can also help them establish a 'guru'
status which keeps them employed along the line to fiddle about with what
musicians and recording engineers have created.

Jim

In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:
Yes but that was very very obvious. the modern voice enhancement is more
subtle and yet bad.


I can go back much further with this sort of thing for novellty value.
Herbie Hancock Sunshine, Stevie Wonder has used it many times as way
back then ring modulation was used in Sparkys magic piano. The latest
incarnation may well be digital and flips to the next pitch etc, but the
suitability for anything other than pure spot effect is a bit of an
open question. My main point is that its not actually needed on most of
the places its used. Brian

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Naff digital voice enhancement
 

Once upon a time on usenet Graham. wrote:
On Sun, 14 May 2017 16:42:01 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Yes but why use it on aperfectly competent singer?
I find I can pick it up so often now that I know what it sounds like.
It does make everyone sound like a robot. Do they not listen to real
singers any more?

You could quite clearly herar it on Robbie Williams first solo hit
Angels beating with his voice. absolutely daft.
Brian

Cher is arguably perfectly competent yet she trailblazed the technique
20 years ago. Clearly as an effect, not a correction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Uu3...ature=youtu.be

A lot of singers lose the ability to hold the high notes perfectly as they
age.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

Naff digital voice enhancement
 

In article ,
~misfit~ wrote:
A lot of singers lose the ability to hold the high notes perfectly as
they age.

A lot of singers never had that ability anyway. Got where they were
through looks rather than talent.

--
*Don't byte off more than you can view *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Naff digital voice enhancement
 

On 15/05/2017 14:50, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
~misfit~ wrote:
A lot of singers lose the ability to hold the high notes perfectly as
they age.

A lot of singers never had that ability anyway. Got where they were
through looks rather than talent.


I never mentioned the Spice Girls!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Naff digital voice enhancement
 

Once upon a time on usenet Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
~misfit~ wrote:
A lot of singers lose the ability to hold the high notes perfectly as
they age.

A lot of singers never had that ability anyway. Got where they were
through looks rather than talent.

I was only going by musicians that I listen to. I wouldn't know about the
ones of which you speak...
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

Naff digital voice enhancement
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
~misfit~ wrote:
A lot of singers lose the ability to hold the high notes perfectly as
they age.

The vocal range contracts as a part of the ageing process.
Part of the vocal training for young singers includes excercises to
extend the top of the range. Some manage to do this by a fourth
(five semitones) but keeping it, is a different matter:-)

A lot of singers never had that ability anyway. Got where they were
through looks rather than talent.

Not just looks, but presentation.

Iain

Naff digital voice enhancement
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
I fear we're out of luck. This seems now to be an 'effect' so far as the
pop music biz is concerned. If they think it 'sells' they just go on using
it. The rest of us just have to avoid it if we find it idiotic or
irritating.

Jim


Yes indeed. The listening public are fickle, and vote with
their wallets, and are always interested in something new.
Remember rototoms? !!! Fortunately the fad passed.
But it is still fun to use them (sparingly:-) now and again.

But it seems to me Brian is talking about two different things:
pitch correction and pitch shifting. Pitch correction is these days
widely used, and if implemented well, I would say that 95% of
the public do not even know it has been used on a track, as they
have no "precorrected" reference to go by.

Pitch shifting has been with us a long time. Back in the day,
analogue multitrack recorders had synchronous motors, and no
varispeed. But most studios had a box by which one could vary
the supply frerquency and thus the speed of the capstan motor.
You could double track say a guitar solo with slightly shifted
pitch, and pan the two tracks to opposite sides - nice effect, and
set up in a very short time. You could of course retune the guitar
by say 25cents, but that takes a lot longer.


In 1974 the Eventide Corporation brought out the first commercially
available digital audio effects device, the "Harmonizer" which was a
digital delay and pitch shifter. The studio as which I worked bought
half a dozen, despite their price tag of USD 3k - that was a *lot* of
money in 1974!

It was magic. You could turn a Guild six string guitar into a twelve
string the likes of which had never been heard before - spread right
across the soundstage in a second.

But like all audio effects, these things need to be used with taste
and subtlety.

Iain