Any better alternative to Antares AutoTune?

[SonicBreeze]

I tried Antares Autotune using for various purposes. But sorry to say i am not satisfied with the results. It creates a vocoder/synthetic type effect in the end result. Am I using it wrong way or it is the problem with others too?

Is there any other alternative software for the same purpose which gives better results?

[A3ntar]

The only one I know of, and that I liked very much is Celemony Melodyne. Download the demo and hear it for yourself.

[pHz]

some more alternatives (no value judgements though) ...

akai pitchright (no longer available ??? )
leapgrog audio rephrase

... with the caveat that ANY software attempting to do this type of processing will create artifacts or obvious effects if you are attempting large adjustments to the source material ...

slainte rob

[Lagrange]

RudeFood.. Phz is correct all auto tuning plugs will add artifacts.. I use a combo of RBC audio tweaker (company in transition) and Melodyne..

http://www.rbcaudio.com/

I've always hated the freehand section of Antares's plugin.. In my opinion the best tuners are actually the external effects units like Antares Vocal Producer Rack Mount Processor, t.c. electronic's Rack Mount Vocal Pitch Correction Processor, Powercore (there are many on the market) cause you can plug them straight into a board with propriatary AD/DA converters/chipsets and can be employed in a 192/64 enviroment.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control ... sku=177950
http://www.boyntonproaudio.com/catalog/ ... cts_id=817

When recording vocals you have to look your source material..

1. Good mic with fairly good signal response.
2. Clock Speed and signal - I've gotten pretty flawless sound when I record vocals at 96khz and then tuned them.. I also compress my vocal pretty tight cause most software tuners are not smart enough to process "signal dropouts".
3. Formant and freehand - autotuning can be a bit ridged and jumpy from note to note so get to using freehand mode. Try to keep the formant shape of the vocal piece NEVER DRAW A STRAIGHT LINE to tune it will wreck the shape of the audio and therefore create artifacts.

Melodyne is really good with the "finding the closest note " senerio, it keeps the exact shape, speeds up the process with pretty close accuracy BUT TRUSS ME WHEN I TELL YOU THAT WHEN THEY DEMO OF THE PRODUCT THEY ARE NOT USING A PC WITH A SOUNDCARD.. http://www.celemony.com/cms/index.php?id=support

hope this helps

C

[A3ntar]

BUT TRUSS ME WHEN I TELL YOU THAT WHEN THEY DEMO OF THE PRODUCT THEY ARE NOT USING A PC WITH A SOUNDCARD

What are they using then?

[Lagrange]

A3ntar: a full digitally rigged system.. For instance a few years ago I was using a fostex digital mixer that was directly linked to into my comp through light pipe.. Major difference in sound when you are using the boards converters compared to what you get from a comp and a sound card alone.. A good friend of mine has one of those pro audio systems his board is doing the digital conversion and processing so it sounds much better.. That is what those guys at celemony are using PRO equipment.. When you use antares or melodyne on that kind of a set up its totally different (better)..

C

[Hink]

A3ntar: a full digitally rigged system.. For instance a few years ago I was using a fostex digital mixer that was directly linked to into my comp through light pipe.. Major difference in sound when you are using the boards converters compared to what you get from a comp and a sound card alone.. A good friend of mine has one of those pro audio systems his board is doing the digital conversion and processing so it sounds much better.. That is what those guys at celemony are using PRO equipment.. When you use antares or melodyne on that kind of a set up its totally different (better)..

C

just curious....do you know whay you're talking about? So what because you had a crap V22 (that was likeley the mixer correct) that is digital and it's more pro?...it sounds how much better. How about your frineds "pro audio systems"...I guess we here at kvr don't have pro audio set-ups...

Actually your sound quality when using a DAW is only as good as your ad/da converters. Believe it or not some companies make expensive digital stuff, that had crap converters...Fostex being probably the number 1 company for making crap digital stuff....I dunno I think I have a pretty pro set up...perhaps you should define what is pro.

Every so often a post like this comes along and I think to myself, if I could bring myself to being a slime bag I could go back into retail and find these people, I've alway wanted to take a world cruise...these days people will believe anything.

Dude I have a very large amount of money tied up in my gear, the only real important difference between myself and big studios is that I dont have rooms with proper sound treatment, or the ability to mic a drumkit.

But I assure you that autotune (which I have as well as the AVOX suite) will sound the same on my system as any other...the only real varible would be the talent and ears of the engineer.

That is what those guys at celemony are using PRO equipment.. When you use antares or melodyne on that kind of a set up its totally different

[jasonsantiago]

if you are getting 'artifacts' using Auto-Tune, you just aren't using it right. Remember that 90% of pop records on the top 40 use auto-tune. almost 100% of country music uses it also.

it just sounds like you aren't using the proper key/scale and retune setting. Or maybe your singer is just REALLY bad. hehe

[Lagrange]

Not being able to see what your setup is.. I was basically showing you an example between a Pro system and a Laptop (My personal experience)... Its not that complex yo.. either use a high clock speed to get less choppyness on the vocal tune, Use the "closest to method" and do not draw straight lines to keep it "natural". Or get yourself a board or system that has propriatary ad/da conversion that will do the work for you.. For me when it comes to digital audio period I realize that these companies that make the software are ALWAYS going to say ,"exceptional quality".. or ,"No artifacts" they gotta sell there shit right? I've just found ways around the bs of a sales pitch and made my vocals sound perfect while at it...



C

[Lagrange]

I noticed that all no one is asking are you using antares live? From wav aiff? what khz? What bit rate? where in the plugin chain? Its easy to be like ,"Well if you are getting vocoder/synthetic sounds, you aint using it right".. that defeats the purpose dont ya think??

C

[SonicBreeze]

I noticed that all no one is asking are you using antares live? From wav aiff? what khz? What bit rate? where in the plugin chain? Its easy to be like ,"Well if you are getting vocoder/synthetic sounds, you aint using it right".. that defeats the purpose dont ya think??

C

I am applying it on recorded wav, not live. Over doing of anything may create obvious artifacts I undertand. And ofcourse Autotune was the first thing in the chain,as an earlier post mentioned that it has to be applied before anything else.

But Melodyne looks cool and more usable for the purpose in any given setup. I need to give melodyne as much time as I have given to Autotune for trial and error.

Thanks for the insight.

[original flipper]

HI

Perhaps this might be a good time for someone to post an Auto-Tune tutorial?

I know someone here (who obviously has used it at great length) had stated they would compile a tutorial that gives hint's that a casual user might miss - and that might make a difference to their usage and quality of result.

I use Rephrase with decent result's - myself.

Flipper.

[Lagrange]

Rude: When I say "live" I mean without using the freehand mode...

C

[SonicBreeze]

Rude: When I say "live" I mean without using the freehand mode...

C

oops..got it. yes live.