Fire your singers folks, Vocaloid 5 is here!

[lingyai]

Look at what I started.

I don't remember claiming that Blue could do it all, but it definitely sounds more realistic than Vocaloid.

Please post some examples of Vocaloid that sound anything close to this:

https://soundcloud.com/realitone/matthe ... blue-demos

Okay...

They bury her voice in a big arrangement so you REALLY can't hear her flaws. This is smart marketing. And every track of hers I've heard is like this. Big arrangement and airy vocals. If this is what you do and it's ALL you do, then she is an amazing product that probably has no competition because she's sample based with a very specific sound built into it that has no artifacts. But it's worthless for anybody who wants any kind of variety at all.

Try getting away with something like this, where the voice isn't buried in arrangement without tons of reverb and instead up front and naked in the mix.

https://soundcloud.com/steven-wagenheim ... sets/divas

I guarantee you, GUARANTEE YOU, that she will fail MISERABLY at something like this because she's not at all built for it. She's built for a specific thing and that's it.

I'd have very limited use for her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpPjS9-MXTI

[wagtunes]

Given what you consider to to be good music, based on your examples, I'm quite sure I cannot convince you of anything.

There you go making assumptions. How do you know what I consider "good music?"

You have no idea what artists I've listened to over the years. So how do you know anything about me musically other than a few songs I posted?

Again, play me what you have and let me decide for myself. I can actually be quite objective about music.

What part of "Given what you consider to to be good music, based on your examples" do you not understand?

You seem fanatically defensive about about Vocaloid. As though you need others to validate your choice to use it. And no criticisms or corrections allowed. Your demos and attitude I think make you something of an unwitting anti-ambassador for the product.

Just keep doing what you're doing, for goodness' sake. I don't care what software you like or dislike, it has no bearing on my life. But you shouldn't make false claims about other products. Owning software which you think is like Blue is not the same as owning Blue. If you owned Blue, you'd that it doesn't give you groups of words or any words at all for that matter. Simply does not. This is all pretty straightforward. You seem to have a Trump-like fondness for inventing your own "facts".

I'm still waiting for you to show me some examples or dispute, with facts, any of the assertions I made about the "quality" of the sound, regardless of how it is or isn't made.

Why are you unwilling to do that? I've certainly posted enough examples that I had no problem sharing.

[wagtunes]

Look at what I started.

I don't remember claiming that Blue could do it all, but it definitely sounds more realistic than Vocaloid.

Please post some examples of Vocaloid that sound anything close to this:

https://soundcloud.com/realitone/matthe ... blue-demos

Okay...

They bury her voice in a big arrangement so you REALLY can't hear her flaws. This is smart marketing. And every track of hers I've heard is like this. Big arrangement and airy vocals. If this is what you do and it's ALL you do, then she is an amazing product that probably has no competition because she's sample based with a very specific sound built into it that has no artifacts. But it's worthless for anybody who wants any kind of variety at all.

Try getting away with something like this, where the voice isn't buried in arrangement without tons of reverb and instead up front and naked in the mix.

https://soundcloud.com/steven-wagenheim ... sets/divas

I guarantee you, GUARANTEE YOU, that she will fail MISERABLY at something like this because she's not at all built for it. She's built for a specific thing and that's it.

I'd have very limited use for her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpPjS9-MXTI

Of course, just resort to childish postings.

Pointless to continue this.

[lingyai]

Look at what I started.

I don't remember claiming that Blue could do it all, but it definitely sounds more realistic than Vocaloid.

Please post some examples of Vocaloid that sound anything close to this:

https://soundcloud.com/realitone/matthe ... blue-demos

Okay...

They bury her voice in a big arrangement so you REALLY can't hear her flaws. This is smart marketing. And every track of hers I've heard is like this. Big arrangement and airy vocals. If this is what you do and it's ALL you do, then she is an amazing product that probably has no competition because she's sample based with a very specific sound built into it that has no artifacts. But it's worthless for anybody who wants any kind of variety at all.

Try getting away with something like this, where the voice isn't buried in arrangement without tons of reverb and instead up front and naked in the mix.

https://soundcloud.com/steven-wagenheim ... sets/divas

I guarantee you, GUARANTEE YOU, that she will fail MISERABLY at something like this because she's not at all built for it. She's built for a specific thing and that's it.

I'd have very limited use for her.

Resitance is futile, djanthonyw. Just accept Wagtunes' infallibility. He's like the Pope on these matters.

[lingyai]

Given what you consider to to be good music, based on your examples, I'm quite sure I cannot convince you of anything.

There you go making assumptions. How do you know what I consider "good music?"

You have no idea what artists I've listened to over the years. So how do you know anything about me musically other than a few songs I posted?

Again, play me what you have and let me decide for myself. I can actually be quite objective about music.

What part of "Given what you consider to to be good music, based on your examples" do you not understand?

You seem fanatically defensive about about Vocaloid. As though you need others to validate your choice to use it. And no criticisms or corrections allowed. Your demos and attitude I think make you something of an unwitting anti-ambassador for the product.

Just keep doing what you're doing, for goodness' sake. I don't care what software you like or dislike, it has no bearing on my life. But you shouldn't make false claims about other products. Owning software which you think is like Blue is not the same as owning Blue. If you owned Blue, you'd that it doesn't give you groups of words or any words at all for that matter. Simply does not. This is all pretty straightforward. You seem to have a Trump-like fondness for inventing your own "facts".

I'm still waiting for you to show me some examples or dispute, with facts, any of the assertions I made about the "quality" of the sound, regardless of how it is or isn't made.

Why are you unwilling to do that? I've certainly posted enough examples that I had no problem sharing.

I've no intention to defend a point I never made. My only point was that you lied about a feature of Blue. Rather than admit it, you are trying to change the subject to, basically, whether you think Vocaloid is great.

I do agree, however, that you've "certainly posted enough examples".

[wagtunes]

Now that that's over and done with maybe we can get back to talking about Vocaloid 5 which, by the way, I don't own yet. I guess that means I can't talk about that either.

As to what Blue is and isn't, it's sampled based and has a word builder. Those are the facts that have nothing to do with how it sounds.

[wagtunes]

And what I said was it's a "limited" word builder, and it is. If I have to find the section in the tutorial video where the creator himself says that it can't make every word possible but can make a good number of them, I'll find it. It's a 20 something minute video but I'll watch it again if I have to. It was that one section that made me decide that it was something I didn't want, not if it couldn't make any word at all possible that I could think of. And this was BEFORE I even got to the sound quality which is also limited to what it can do.

So don't go calling me a liar. I know what I heard in that video and I know why I passed on this product.

[wagtunes]

Okay folks. You watch this video and you tell me if this is something you want to work with for building complex songs with multiple verses, chorus and bridges.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goDHaTz62Fs&

I'd rather slit my wrists.

Oh, and listen to the quality of the voice not buried in an elaborate arrangement.

[baggagelizard]

I have Vocaloid 5, and it really is much easier to use for a beginner. Many of the more advanced features are still there, if you need them. On the topic of things such as Realivox, they have their uses. All sorts of vocal software has their uses, and some people gravitate towards those sample based libraries as that's what they want. You're not going to be able to get the same amount of control over it as you would with vocaloid, but if it's good enough for you, that's what's important.

I do hope Vocaloid 5, along with upcoming products like Voiceful and Emvoice Soho, will help Vocal Synthesizers become more popular with the Computer Music crowd. It's not going to replace a real singer, but it doesn't have to. You can think of it like a regular synthesizer, or you can think of it like tofu. You can replace real things (Instruments, meat) with them, but people can tell the difference. Some people like it, some don't, not much you can do about it. You can even combine Real instruments with synthesizers, or Meat with tofu, and have incredible combinations. They can hide the other's flaws.

There's room for all types of things in this world, and I hope to see great things done with all sorts of vocal synthesizers.

[brewt]

Seems I have to ask the question I always have to ask.
Does it support microtuning directly?
Symphonic choirs does, but only the ones east-west thought to put in directly, leaving one to have to retune monophonic midi lines using pitch bend to do something more useful.
The virharmonic choral libraries do, but only if you run them through falcon.
Virsyn’s Cantor 2 does.
Myriad’s Harmony/virtual singer does, thru macros. Not a vst, but it does have the advantage of being able to work directly with notation from the ground up.
All of these programs are an enormous amount of work to get anything plausible out of them, and none of them solve all possible situations.
Yes, the demos of V5 are impressive, but how long did Yamaha have to work on them? There’s always an enormous amount of tweaking necessary, once human voice emulation gets put into practice.
And since at least part of the point of making music with computers is to do things humans cannot do, microtuning becomes a necessary question.

[baggagelizard]

Seems I have to ask the question I always have to ask.
Does it support microtuning directly?
Symphonic choirs does, but only the ones east-west thought to put in directly, leaving one to have to retune monophonic midi lines using pitch bend to do something more useful.
The virharmonic choral libraries do, but only if you run them through falcon.
Virsyn’s Cantor 2 does.
Myriad’s Harmony/virtual singer does, thru macros. Not a vst, but it does have the advantage of being able to work directly with notation from the ground up.
All of these programs are an enormous amount of work to get anything plausible out of them, and none of them solve all possible situations.
Yes, the demos of V5 are impressive, but how long did Yamaha have to work on them? There’s always an enormous amount of tweaking necessary, once human voice emulation gets put into practice.
And since at least part of the point of making music with computers is to do things humans cannot do, microtuning becomes a necessary question.

What do you mean exactly by microtuning? You can manually draw pitch bends and set pitch bend sensitivity. The ability to see the numbers of how much you're bending the pitch seems to be missing with the new version.

As to the demos, I made this in like five minutes.

https://instaud.io/2qL6

[WinterdrivE]

Seems I have to ask the question I always have to ask.
Does it support microtuning directly?
Symphonic choirs does, but only the ones east-west thought to put in directly, leaving one to have to retune monophonic midi lines using pitch bend to do something more useful.
The virharmonic choral libraries do, but only if you run them through falcon.
Virsyn’s Cantor 2 does.
Myriad’s Harmony/virtual singer does, thru macros. Not a vst, but it does have the advantage of being able to work directly with notation from the ground up.
All of these programs are an enormous amount of work to get anything plausible out of them, and none of them solve all possible situations.
Yes, the demos of V5 are impressive, but how long did Yamaha have to work on them? There’s always an enormous amount of tweaking necessary, once human voice emulation gets put into practice.
And since at least part of the point of making music with computers is to do things humans cannot do, microtuning becomes a necessary question.

I can't speak for Vocaloid 5 since I don't own it, but Vocaloid 4 does so I presume 5 does as well. In V4 you can set the universal tuning to anywhere from A=415.3 Hz to A=466.2, and while the piano roll input is strictly by the typical 12 interval system, it does have a Pitch parameter that has 8192 values of granularity that can be set to range from 0 to 24 half steps. That is, +/-8192 on the pitch parameter can be set to raise/lower the note by up to 2 octaves from the displayed note on the piano roll. If I have it set to 1, that gives me 8192 intervals between the written note and the next half step up and the next half step down.

[mllebienvenu]

Sorry to butt in, but I just wanted to share a Vocaloid cover I think exemplifies the sort of quality you can expect from Vocaloid if you -really- carefully work a song. This producer is one of the best I've seen for english Vocaloids. This is using V4. (Caveat here is that I've only heard this person do covers, so I'm not sure how they are at originals. They may be using the v4 plugin vocalistener, which analyzes a real vocal track and tries to map vocaloid parameters to it.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRAM7iz8MxI

As a casual Vocaloid user myself, I've found it helps to have a healthy foundation in actual singing to know how singers physically are affected by the shape of the music and then mimick those imperfections using the Vocaloid parameters. How a singer might run out of breath at the end of a phrase, causing the pitch to dip and vibrato to slacken, how pitches and timing might be a little mushy if the note changes are fast, where the stress lies in a phrase and how that might push the singer slightly sharp if they're going for some serious emphasis, stuff like that. 90 percent of vocaloid songs people post up just sort of plug in the notes and words and call it a day, that's why I wanted to post something that puts in the work a bit more than most.

I'm more interested in using Vocaloid in a classical sort of setting, so here's something I made myself as sort of an experiment. I'm by no means a good mixer, or even a good Vocaloid producer, but I thought I'd post this because it illustrates some amount of style flexibility. The Vocaloid singing 'I'm Yours' above is singing the part of Marius here. Every voice here is a Vocaloid, including the chorus. (bear in mind, some the vocaloids are from as far back as V2, so there's some varying vocaloid quality here to consider as well)

https://soundcloud.com/mlle-bienvenu/on ... re/s-xIH7U

[lingyai]

Seems I have to ask the question I always have to ask.
Does it support microtuning directly?
Symphonic choirs does, but only the ones east-west thought to put in directly, leaving one to have to retune monophonic midi lines using pitch bend to do something more useful.
The virharmonic choral libraries do, but only if you run them through falcon.
Virsyn’s Cantor 2 does.
Myriad’s Harmony/virtual singer does, thru macros. Not a vst, but it does have the advantage of being able to work directly with notation from the ground up.
All of these programs are an enormous amount of work to get anything plausible out of them, and none of them solve all possible situations.
Yes, the demos of V5 are impressive, but how long did Yamaha have to work on them? There’s always an enormous amount of tweaking necessary, once human voice emulation gets put into practice.
And since at least part of the point of making music with computers is to do things humans cannot do, microtuning becomes a necessary question.

What do you mean exactly by microtuning? You can manually draw pitch bends and set pitch bend sensitivity. The ability to see the numbers of how much you're bending the pitch seems to be missing with the new version.

As to the demos, I made this in like five minutes.

https://instaud.io/2qL6

Thanks for bringing some useful facts (as opposed to that other guy's defensive dogma) to this discussion about Vocaloid 5. Please continue to share demos as you make them. I might well get this. It would be good to hear examples.

[lingyai]

I'd rather slit my wrists.

Hmmm