Jump to content

leftybassman392

Members
  • Content Count

    2,570
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

leftybassman392 last won the day on October 2 2020

leftybassman392 had the most liked content!

Total Watts

4,959 Excellent

3 Followers

About leftybassman392

  • Rank
    Never knowingly underrated
  • Birthday 16/05/1953

Personal Information

  • Location
    Dog’s country

Recent Profile Visitors

4,309 profile views
  1. Here's a very interesting version of a Simon & Garfunkel classic. I don't know much about the band beyond what I've read, but I'm led to believe this is somewhat outside their normal oeuvre...
  2. I'm much too polite to say such things... but now that you have...
  3. Without wishing to sound contentious (no, really), I have to say that quoting singers like these as a reason for not using pitch correction is not an argument I understand. Are you saying you shouldn't use pitch correction for fear of missing out on another Rod Stewart?
  4. Not aimed at anyone in particular, but... I don't buy the 'things produced in a studio aren't real music' line. Of course it's real music! It has notes, tunes, chords, rhythms and everything else that makes music music (and please, for goodness' sake, don't talk to me about live music having a 'soul'). To claim otherwise frankly looks perverse to my jaundiced eye; it just hasn't been done in the way you would like to see it done is all. [/rant] As you were.
  5. It may also be worth making the point that many who might want to be present at the esteemed pianist's performances will, for any of a wide variety of reasons, not be able to do so. That being the case, should media producers always and only reproduce performances warts 'n' all? And what about live streaming? I'd be willing to bet that very few livestreamed broadcasts are completely faithful to the original performance, and I know for a fact that the BBC (for example) have been 'enhancing' live performances for public broadcast for decades. Arguments can be made on all sides, but the simple fact is that we are where we are. For want of a better cliché, the genie's out of the bottle.
  6. Another little factoid from me. It's to do with quantization (which several people have already indicated they don't like, so perhaps we can take that as a given...?). Most folk around here probably think of quantization (if they think of it at all) as a musical phenomenon. In fact it's a mathematical term, and the meaning as it applies to the music business is derived from the parent meaning. In simple terms, quantization is the mapping of a (normally) infinitely large set of data points onto a smaller (read as: finite) set of specific values. It is in common everday usage, and has applications in the fields of science and technology, audio and video processing and many others. Common everyday uses would include things such as reading the temperature to the nearest degree, telling the time to the nearest minute, rounding decimal numbers to the nearest whole number... the list is very long. In audio and video processing it's most common (but by no means only) use is to carry out analogue->digital conversion tasks (CD and DVD are the obvious example here). In music production, the standard interpretation relates to the use of rhythm generation technologies. In this application, the continuous (read as: analogue) timestream is divided up into a series of discrete timing points, with the aim of fitting the percussive elements of a musical performance to those points. Example: in a bar of 4/4 time with a semiquaver rhythmic feel, there would be 16 discreet timing points (yes I know this is an oversimplification thanks for asking, but it makes the point in a way anybody can understand). What the quantization process does is to 'lock' all the rhythmic content to those points, thus ensuring pinpoint rhythmic accuracy. Whether this is a good thing is a matter for debate of course, but that's what it does. At it's most basic level it functions as a click track (with the caveat that the percussionist has the option to follow it or not). What may not be quite as obvious is that a quantization process is at work on the melodic (read as: pitched) elements of the music as well. Musical scales are a textbook example of quantization of the audio spectrum. Pitch processing - at least in the traditional 'autotune' model - performs essentially the same function (i.e. mapping the audio continuum onto a range of specific, discrete points) on the melodic elements of the music as rhythmic quantization does on the percussive elements. Again, whether (and to what extent) this is a good thing is a matter of debate (hence this thread of course), but that's what pitch correction does. Self-styled purists (the term 'old school' has been used by several posters) tend to demur, while industry professionals tend to do what needs to be done to fulfil the customer's specifications. You pays yer money and all that...
  7. Well yes, I was under the impression I'd already sort of made that point, but hey! This was quite a while ago mind, so while I have a feeling he SR16 had it, I'm not so sure about the DR770.
  8. Thinking about quantization, I used to have a couple of drum machines in my studio. I have a recollection that at least one of them had a setting that allowed the rhythm to deviate slightly and at random from the quantization. Not enough to make it sound like anything but a digital drum track, but all the same... I had an SR16 and a DR770, so if anybody is familiar with them perhaps they could speak to this.
  9. Well since it's a subject I have studied at some length (and as a mathematician by original training), I would personally welcome the opportunity to have a detailed discussion on the subject, though I suspect it would detract from the brief I set out in the OP, and put off people who might otherwise want to contribute. In any case, I and others have already had numerous and extended discussions on this and related matters in the pages of this forum, so perhaps another day...? As to the other two points I raised, I note with interest that the honourable gentleman has declined to offer comment. p.s. I really must stop watching parliamentary debates before posting here.
  10. https://www.celemony.com/en/melodyne/what-is-melodyne
  11. It's a good point well made, but wouldn't you agree that: 1) Even very good singers are rarely absolutely bang on pitch all the time (as in 'accurate to the point that a pitch correction algorithm would have no effect on the received signal') - indeed very slight fluctuations in pitch can be viewed as part of that singer's vocal 'personality' (criticisms of Autotune being 'too perfect' are often cited as one of the reasons people don't like it); 2) What is tolerable varies as between musical styles; 3) in certain circumstances, what counts as perfect intonation can differ according to the style (I'm thinking in particular of early music, which uses older temperaments with differing tunings), and can also vary slightly according to what instrumentation is present?
  12. You're welcome. As to Autotune, well it's been a few years since I've used it, but on the hardware version I had one of the controls you set alters the time lapse (in milliseconds IIRC) before the correction triggers. If you set it very short you get a very specific vocal effect of the kind originally made famous by Cher (I can't remember the title but you know the one I mean hopefully). If you set it longer the system eases in the correction more slowly. This allows it to let things like gliss and vibrato through before it steps in. I haven't really looked at the software version, but AFAIK it still has that basic functionality plus a few bells & whistles that the original didn't have. Come to think of it I have it on Garageband on my Mac, so if you like I can have a look when I get a bit of time to play with it and report back. Alternatively there may be someone on the thread who can fill us both in...
×
×
  • Create New...