For anyone who might be interested, there is now an article called "SONAR 4 Vocal Production Workshop" on CakewalkNet. The direct URL to the article is: http://www.cakewalknet.com/index.ph...b6&PHPSESSID=cad28c9b0d5fcc1cc1a64c3125961ce1 If that wraps or otherwise doesn't work, you can also go to www.cakewalknet.com and just click on the link to the article near the upper left-hand corner of the page. The article covers lots of different areas of vocal production in SONAR 4 (some of the techniques will work in earlier versions of SONAR, but some rely on new SONAR 4 additions such as the Mute tool and track layers), but primarily focuses on things that happen after the vocals are on disk, including comping, editing, tuning (using AutoTune 4), etc. There are plenty of audio examples to illustrate the techniques, too. There is also a short sidebar review of the Antares AutoTune 4 upgrade (i.e. over AutoTune 3). Also new yesterday was Fred Grittner's brief reviews of several Loopmasters sample CDs. If you haven't been to CakewalkNet in awhile, there are also relatively recent reviews of Drumcore 1.5 and Arturia ARP 2600 V by Fred Grittner and Glen Heffner, respectively. Rick -- ===================================== Rick Paul Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP) Web: http://home.earthlink.net/~rickpaul MP3s: http://www.soundclick.com/rickpaul =====================================
Rick Paul wrote: > For anyone who might be interested, there is now an article called "SONAR 4 > Vocal Production Workshop" on CakewalkNet. The direct URL to the article > is: > > http://www.cakewalknet.com/index.ph...b6&PHPSESSID=cad28c9b0d5fcc1cc1a64c3125961ce1 > > If that wraps or otherwise doesn't work, you can also go to > www.cakewalknet.com and just click on the link to the article near the upper > left-hand corner of the page. > > The article covers lots of different areas of vocal production in SONAR 4 > (some of the techniques will work in earlier versions of SONAR, but some > rely on new SONAR 4 additions such as the Mute tool and track layers), but > primarily focuses on things that happen after the vocals are on disk, > including comping, editing, tuning (using AutoTune 4), etc. There are > plenty of audio examples to illustrate the techniques, too. There is also a > short sidebar review of the Antares AutoTune 4 upgrade (i.e. over AutoTune > 3). A lot of that stuff is even applicable to other DAWs, since it's mostly about choices you make while manipulating recordings, more than about the specific Sonar techniques. And it's indeed quite heavy on Autotune. I prefer Celemony Melodyne myself > Also new yesterday was Fred Grittner's brief reviews of several Loopmasters > sample CDs. If you haven't been to CakewalkNet in awhile, there are also > relatively recent reviews of Drumcore 1.5 and Arturia ARP 2600 V by Fred > ===================================== Arturia's Arp 2600 ain't half bad, but I myself am eagerly awaiting the VST version of Timewarp's version: http://www.timewarp2600.com/products.html RS
"Richard Smol" <> wrote in message news:... > Rick Paul wrote: >> For anyone who might be interested, there is now an article called "SONAR >> 4 >> Vocal Production Workshop" on CakewalkNet. The direct URL to the article >> is: >> >> http://www.cakewalknet.com/index.ph...b6&PHPSESSID=cad28c9b0d5fcc1cc1a64c3125961ce1 > > A lot of that stuff is even applicable to other DAWs, since it's > mostly about choices you make while manipulating recordings, more > than about the specific Sonar techniques. This is quite likely in that I'm not intimately familiar with Cubase, Logic, ProTools, etc., nor with latest versions of some things I have tried in the past (e.g. Samplitude, N-Track Studio). Probably a fair portion of the subjects covered, and even the generalized techniques, could be done in most anything. With SONAR specifically, though V4 was a big boost for the efficiency of vocal comping due to the addition of track layers and the Mute tool (especially its "isolate clip in track" use). Prior to SONAR 4, it was necessary to use multiple tracks, and do a lot of Solo/Mute button juggling, to do the same things, and that was nowhere near as efficient, both in terms of the manual overhead to toggle multiple track states (e.g. to change the take you wanted to listen to from one to another -- previously you'd have to unsolo one and solo another, or mute one and unmute another, whereas now you simply Ctrl-Click on the one you want to hear and all the rest of the clips in the same horizontal position get muted while the other gets soloed within the track) and in terms of impact on CPU use if you wanted to audition things with track FX. > And it's indeed quite heavy on Autotune. I prefer Celemony Melodyne > myself I haven't even tried Melodyne. Never really felt the need since AutoTune has always worked pretty well for me (I've been using it since V1.3, and I don't think Melodyne was even available on Windows at that time). I'm curious if the basic techniques described in the article for AutoTune would generally be applicable to Melodyne as well, or if Melodyne uses a totally different model than the graphic tuning that AutoTune and RBC Voice Tweaker provide? Rick -- ===================================== Rick Paul Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP) Web: http://home.earthlink.net/~rickpaul MP3s: http://www.soundclick.com/rickpaul =====================================
Melodyne is VERY different. Autotune is better on most things (like vocal pitch correction), but harmonies are easier in Melodyne; also note length is easier in Melodyne. I like Autotune because - less artifacts during pitch correction. I like Prosoniq (cake pitch stuff time/pitch/MPEX) it seems to be better than melodyne's length correction stuff. Max Arwood "Rick Paul" <> wrote in message news:9nNFe.5770$... > > "Richard Smol" <> wrote in message > news:... > > Rick Paul wrote: > >> For anyone who might be interested, there is now an article called "SONAR > >> 4 > >> Vocal Production Workshop" on CakewalkNet. The direct URL to the article > >> is: > >> > >> http://www.cakewalknet.com/index.ph...b6&PHPSESSID=cad28c9b0d5fcc1cc1a64c3125961ce1 > > > > A lot of that stuff is even applicable to other DAWs, since it's > > mostly about choices you make while manipulating recordings, more > > than about the specific Sonar techniques. > > This is quite likely in that I'm not intimately familiar with Cubase, Logic, > ProTools, etc., nor with latest versions of some things I have tried in the > past (e.g. Samplitude, N-Track Studio). Probably a fair portion of the > subjects covered, and even the generalized techniques, could be done in most > anything. With SONAR specifically, though V4 was a big boost for the > efficiency of vocal comping due to the addition of track layers and the Mute > tool (especially its "isolate clip in track" use). Prior to SONAR 4, it was > necessary to use multiple tracks, and do a lot of Solo/Mute button juggling, > to do the same things, and that was nowhere near as efficient, both in terms > of the manual overhead to toggle multiple track states (e.g. to change the > take you wanted to listen to from one to another -- previously you'd have to > unsolo one and solo another, or mute one and unmute another, whereas now you > simply Ctrl-Click on the one you want to hear and all the rest of the clips > in the same horizontal position get muted while the other gets soloed within > the track) and in terms of impact on CPU use if you wanted to audition > things with track FX. > > > And it's indeed quite heavy on Autotune. I prefer Celemony Melodyne > > myself > > I haven't even tried Melodyne. Never really felt the need since AutoTune > has always worked pretty well for me (I've been using it since V1.3, and I > don't think Melodyne was even available on Windows at that time). I'm > curious if the basic techniques described in the article for AutoTune would > generally be applicable to Melodyne as well, or if Melodyne uses a totally > different model than the graphic tuning that AutoTune and RBC Voice Tweaker > provide? > > Rick > -- > ===================================== > Rick Paul > Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP) > Web: http://home.earthlink.net/~rickpaul > MP3s: http://www.soundclick.com/rickpaul > ===================================== > >
Yeah, AutoTune is definitely not a harmonizer. I've used the MPEX stuff in SONAR 4 (which is quite good) for some bigger shifts, sometimes also some other stuff like the DSP/FX pitch shifter, but mainly for correction, not harmonies. I've also used RBC Voice Tweaker for octave shifts, and its formant shifting can sometimes make it work for some purposes, but it tends to get glitchy artifacts in addition to some of the normal pitch shifting stuff, so I've really only used it when desperate, preferring to just sing any harmony parts needed if I can reach the notes. Some easier note length stuff could be very welcome for aligning background vocals and fixing phrasing problems. I've used MPEX a bit for that, but it's not all that user friendly having to guesstimate numbers. Rick -- ===================================== Rick Paul Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP) Web: http://home.earthlink.net/~rickpaul MP3s: http://www.soundclick.com/rickpaul ===================================== "Max Arwood" <> wrote in message news:mwUFe.2334$... > Melodyne is VERY different. Autotune is better on most things (like vocal > pitch correction), but harmonies are easier in Melodyne; also note length > is > easier in Melodyne. I like Autotune because - less artifacts during pitch > correction. I like Prosoniq (cake pitch stuff time/pitch/MPEX) it seems > to > be better than melodyne's length correction stuff. > Max Arwood > > "Rick Paul" <> wrote in message > news:9nNFe.5770$... >> >> "Richard Smol" <> wrote in message >> news:... >> > Rick Paul wrote: >> >> For anyone who might be interested, there is now an article called > "SONAR >> >> 4 >> >> Vocal Production Workshop" on CakewalkNet. The direct URL to the > article >> >> is: >> >> >> >> > http://www.cakewalknet.com/index.ph...b6&PHPSESSID=cad28c9b0d5fcc1cc1a64c3125961ce1 >> > >> > A lot of that stuff is even applicable to other DAWs, since it's >> > mostly about choices you make while manipulating recordings, more >> > than about the specific Sonar techniques. >> >> This is quite likely in that I'm not intimately familiar with Cubase, > Logic, >> ProTools, etc., nor with latest versions of some things I have tried in > the >> past (e.g. Samplitude, N-Track Studio). Probably a fair portion of the >> subjects covered, and even the generalized techniques, could be done in > most >> anything. With SONAR specifically, though V4 was a big boost for the >> efficiency of vocal comping due to the addition of track layers and the > Mute >> tool (especially its "isolate clip in track" use). Prior to SONAR 4, it > was >> necessary to use multiple tracks, and do a lot of Solo/Mute button > juggling, >> to do the same things, and that was nowhere near as efficient, both in > terms >> of the manual overhead to toggle multiple track states (e.g. to change >> the >> take you wanted to listen to from one to another -- previously you'd have > to >> unsolo one and solo another, or mute one and unmute another, whereas now > you >> simply Ctrl-Click on the one you want to hear and all the rest of the > clips >> in the same horizontal position get muted while the other gets soloed > within >> the track) and in terms of impact on CPU use if you wanted to audition >> things with track FX. >> >> > And it's indeed quite heavy on Autotune. I prefer Celemony Melodyne >> > myself >> >> I haven't even tried Melodyne. Never really felt the need since AutoTune >> has always worked pretty well for me (I've been using it since V1.3, and >> I >> don't think Melodyne was even available on Windows at that time). I'm >> curious if the basic techniques described in the article for AutoTune > would >> generally be applicable to Melodyne as well, or if Melodyne uses a >> totally >> different model than the graphic tuning that AutoTune and RBC Voice > Tweaker >> provide? >> >> Rick >> -- >> ===================================== >> Rick Paul >> Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP) >> Web: http://home.earthlink.net/~rickpaul >> MP3s: http://www.soundclick.com/rickpaul >> ===================================== >> >> > >
Well I had time to read most of your piece last night. I was rendering video stuff again. 1%.........................1%.............................1%................ ................2%................... etc,etc,etc. Had plenty of time to read!! I just wanted to thank you for taking your time which you could have been recording to write that detailed info! Good stuff. Max Arwood "Rick Paul" <> wrote in message news:ch_Fe.18242$... > Yeah, AutoTune is definitely not a harmonizer. I've used the MPEX stuff in > SONAR 4 (which is quite good) for some bigger shifts, sometimes also some > other stuff like the DSP/FX pitch shifter, but mainly for correction, not > harmonies. I've also used RBC Voice Tweaker for octave shifts, and its > formant shifting can sometimes make it work for some purposes, but it tends > to get glitchy artifacts in addition to some of the normal pitch shifting > stuff, so I've really only used it when desperate, preferring to just sing > any harmony parts needed if I can reach the notes. > > Some easier note length stuff could be very welcome for aligning background > vocals and fixing phrasing problems. I've used MPEX a bit for that, but > it's not all that user friendly having to guesstimate numbers. > > Rick > -- > ===================================== > Rick Paul > Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP) > Web: http://home.earthlink.net/~rickpaul > MP3s: http://www.soundclick.com/rickpaul > ===================================== > > "Max Arwood" <> wrote in message > news:mwUFe.2334$... > > Melodyne is VERY different. Autotune is better on most things (like vocal > > pitch correction), but harmonies are easier in Melodyne; also note length > > is > > easier in Melodyne. I like Autotune because - less artifacts during pitch > > correction. I like Prosoniq (cake pitch stuff time/pitch/MPEX) it seems > > to > > be better than melodyne's length correction stuff. > > Max Arwood > > > > "Rick Paul" <> wrote in message > > news:9nNFe.5770$... > >> > >> "Richard Smol" <> wrote in message > >> news:... > >> > Rick Paul wrote: > >> >> For anyone who might be interested, there is now an article called > > "SONAR > >> >> 4 > >> >> Vocal Production Workshop" on CakewalkNet. The direct URL to the > > article > >> >> is: > >> >> > >> >> > > http://www.cakewalknet.com/index.ph...b6&PHPSESSID=cad28c9b0d5fcc1cc1a64c3125961ce1 > >> > > >> > A lot of that stuff is even applicable to other DAWs, since it's > >> > mostly about choices you make while manipulating recordings, more > >> > than about the specific Sonar techniques. > >> > >> This is quite likely in that I'm not intimately familiar with Cubase, > > Logic, > >> ProTools, etc., nor with latest versions of some things I have tried in > > the > >> past (e.g. Samplitude, N-Track Studio). Probably a fair portion of the > >> subjects covered, and even the generalized techniques, could be done in > > most > >> anything. With SONAR specifically, though V4 was a big boost for the > >> efficiency of vocal comping due to the addition of track layers and the > > Mute > >> tool (especially its "isolate clip in track" use). Prior to SONAR 4, it > > was > >> necessary to use multiple tracks, and do a lot of Solo/Mute button > > juggling, > >> to do the same things, and that was nowhere near as efficient, both in > > terms > >> of the manual overhead to toggle multiple track states (e.g. to change > >> the > >> take you wanted to listen to from one to another -- previously you'd have > > to > >> unsolo one and solo another, or mute one and unmute another, whereas now > > you > >> simply Ctrl-Click on the one you want to hear and all the rest of the > > clips > >> in the same horizontal position get muted while the other gets soloed > > within > >> the track) and in terms of impact on CPU use if you wanted to audition > >> things with track FX. > >> > >> > And it's indeed quite heavy on Autotune. I prefer Celemony Melodyne > >> > myself > >> > >> I haven't even tried Melodyne. Never really felt the need since AutoTune > >> has always worked pretty well for me (I've been using it since V1.3, and > >> I > >> don't think Melodyne was even available on Windows at that time). I'm > >> curious if the basic techniques described in the article for AutoTune > > would > >> generally be applicable to Melodyne as well, or if Melodyne uses a > >> totally > >> different model than the graphic tuning that AutoTune and RBC Voice > > Tweaker > >> provide? > >> > >> Rick > >> -- > >> ===================================== > >> Rick Paul > >> Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP) > >> Web: http://home.earthlink.net/~rickpaul > >> MP3s: http://www.soundclick.com/rickpaul > >> ===================================== > >> > >> > > > > > >
Rick Paul wrote: > "Richard Smol" <> wrote in message > news:... > > And it's indeed quite heavy on Autotune. I prefer Celemony Melodyne > > myself > > I haven't even tried Melodyne. Never really felt the need since AutoTune > has always worked pretty well for me (I've been using it since V1.3, and I > don't think Melodyne was even available on Windows at that time). I'm > curious if the basic techniques described in the article for AutoTune would > generally be applicable to Melodyne as well, or if Melodyne uses a totally > different model than the graphic tuning that AutoTune and RBC Voice Tweaker > provide? As far as I could tell, Melodyne offers far more extensive techniques to manipulate your tracks. All notes are layed out almost as if they were MIDI notes. You can very precisely decide what note to alter and by how much... both the length and the pitch. You can even totally switch things around and still have something that works. Autotune has a tendency to cause artifacts, especially in real-time mode. You only get artifacts in Melodyne when you do very extreme pitch alterations. But in general, I am more for re-taking something than to alter it in Melodyne. Then again, I realize that is not always feasible. Pitch-correction tools should be used with caution, though. RS
Thanks, Max. I'm glad you found it useful. Rick -- ===================================== Rick Paul Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP) Web: http://home.earthlink.net/~rickpaul MP3s: http://www.soundclick.com/rickpaul ===================================== "Max Arwood" <> wrote in message news:RY_Fe.1756$... > Well I had time to read most of your piece last night. I was rendering > video stuff again. > 1%.........................1%.............................1%................ > ...............2%................... > etc,etc,etc. Had plenty of time to read!! I just wanted to thank you for > taking your time which you could have been recording to write that > detailed > info! Good stuff. > Max Arwood > > "Rick Paul" <> wrote in message > news:ch_Fe.18242$... >> Yeah, AutoTune is definitely not a harmonizer. I've used the MPEX stuff > in >> SONAR 4 (which is quite good) for some bigger shifts, sometimes also some >> other stuff like the DSP/FX pitch shifter, but mainly for correction, not >> harmonies. I've also used RBC Voice Tweaker for octave shifts, and its >> formant shifting can sometimes make it work for some purposes, but it > tends >> to get glitchy artifacts in addition to some of the normal pitch shifting >> stuff, so I've really only used it when desperate, preferring to just >> sing >> any harmony parts needed if I can reach the notes. >> >> Some easier note length stuff could be very welcome for aligning > background >> vocals and fixing phrasing problems. I've used MPEX a bit for that, but >> it's not all that user friendly having to guesstimate numbers. >> >> Rick >> -- >> ===================================== >> Rick Paul >> Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP) >> Web: http://home.earthlink.net/~rickpaul >> MP3s: http://www.soundclick.com/rickpaul >> ===================================== >> >> "Max Arwood" <> wrote in message >> news:mwUFe.2334$... >> > Melodyne is VERY different. Autotune is better on most things (like > vocal >> > pitch correction), but harmonies are easier in Melodyne; also note > length >> > is >> > easier in Melodyne. I like Autotune because - less artifacts during > pitch >> > correction. I like Prosoniq (cake pitch stuff time/pitch/MPEX) it >> > seems >> > to >> > be better than melodyne's length correction stuff. >> > Max Arwood >> > >> > "Rick Paul" <> wrote in message >> > news:9nNFe.5770$... >> >> >> >> "Richard Smol" <> wrote in message >> >> news:... >> >> > Rick Paul wrote: >> >> >> For anyone who might be interested, there is now an article called >> > "SONAR >> >> >> 4 >> >> >> Vocal Production Workshop" on CakewalkNet. The direct URL to the >> > article >> >> >> is: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > http://www.cakewalknet.com/index.ph...b6&PHPSESSID=cad28c9b0d5fcc1cc1a64c3125961ce1 >> >> > >> >> > A lot of that stuff is even applicable to other DAWs, since it's >> >> > mostly about choices you make while manipulating recordings, more >> >> > than about the specific Sonar techniques. >> >> >> >> This is quite likely in that I'm not intimately familiar with Cubase, >> > Logic, >> >> ProTools, etc., nor with latest versions of some things I have tried >> >> in >> > the >> >> past (e.g. Samplitude, N-Track Studio). Probably a fair portion of >> >> the >> >> subjects covered, and even the generalized techniques, could be done >> >> in >> > most >> >> anything. With SONAR specifically, though V4 was a big boost for the >> >> efficiency of vocal comping due to the addition of track layers and >> >> the >> > Mute >> >> tool (especially its "isolate clip in track" use). Prior to SONAR 4, > it >> > was >> >> necessary to use multiple tracks, and do a lot of Solo/Mute button >> > juggling, >> >> to do the same things, and that was nowhere near as efficient, both in >> > terms >> >> of the manual overhead to toggle multiple track states (e.g. to change >> >> the >> >> take you wanted to listen to from one to another -- previously you'd > have >> > to >> >> unsolo one and solo another, or mute one and unmute another, whereas > now >> > you >> >> simply Ctrl-Click on the one you want to hear and all the rest of the >> > clips >> >> in the same horizontal position get muted while the other gets soloed >> > within >> >> the track) and in terms of impact on CPU use if you wanted to audition >> >> things with track FX. >> >> >> >> > And it's indeed quite heavy on Autotune. I prefer Celemony Melodyne >> >> > myself >> >> >> >> I haven't even tried Melodyne. Never really felt the need since > AutoTune >> >> has always worked pretty well for me (I've been using it since V1.3, > and >> >> I >> >> don't think Melodyne was even available on Windows at that time). I'm >> >> curious if the basic techniques described in the article for AutoTune >> > would >> >> generally be applicable to Melodyne as well, or if Melodyne uses a >> >> totally >> >> different model than the graphic tuning that AutoTune and RBC Voice >> > Tweaker >> >> provide? >> >> >> >> Rick >> >> -- >> >> ===================================== >> >> Rick Paul >> >> Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP) >> >> Web: http://home.earthlink.net/~rickpaul >> >> MP3s: http://www.soundclick.com/rickpaul >> >> ===================================== >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> > >
"Richard Smol" <> wrote in message news:... > As far as I could tell, Melodyne offers far more extensive techniques > to manipulate your tracks. All notes are layed out almost as if they > were MIDI notes. You can very precisely decide what note to alter and > by how much... both the length and the pitch. You can even totally > switch things around and still have something that works. This is interesting. The timing stuff could be very useful. If it does well with extreme pitch shifts (say less than an octave, but more than a step), it could also be useful for "instant harmonies" in a pinch. > Autotune has a tendency to cause artifacts, especially in > real-time mode. You only get artifacts in Melodyne when you do > very extreme pitch alterations. I have not found AutoTune to be very likely to cause artifacts in Auto mode (which is what I think you mean by real time mode) unless the singer is extremely out of tune, thus causing notes to get shifted in the wrong direction, and/or if you are using wide intervals in your scale so that notes that really aren't near the notes that are sung are getting forced into being. Even in the former case, but using a chromatic scale, I don't generally hear what I'd call artifacts, but more just tuning that can sound worse than the untuned vocal -- basically decidedly wrong notes versus just out-of-tune singing. (This is specifically when using the default AutoTune automatic settings, and the voice type matched to the singer.) Of course, I am mostly just running it on my voice, and occasionally a few other singers, so it could well be that different types of voices and vocal styles yield different results. By contrast, when I used to use RBC Voice Tweaker, before getting AutoTune, I got glitchy artifacts frequently and the overall tone of the vocal somehow got more electronic (not quite like going through a telephone, but with a sense of some filtering that was a much milder form along those basic lines). Nevertheless, I do use AutoTune's graphic mode most of the time, mainly so I can have more control over the tuning based on what I know the melody, and other intentions of the singer, to be, rather than relying on AutoTune to figure it out with a singer who may possibly be pitchy enough, at least in areas, to mislead AutoTune. One thing that is for sure, though, is that AutoTune really isn't a pitch shifter, such as for creating harmony parts. Shifts of more than a whole step generally don't sound very good with respect to preserving the basic timbre of the original voice, and can easily get glitchy, too. > But in general, I am more for re-taking something than to > alter it in Melodyne. Then again, I realize that is not always > feasible. Pitch-correction tools should be used with caution, > though. I used to do the retaking stuff all the time, out of necessity since I didn't have a pitch corrector. However, concentrating on pitch control tended to take away from the emotion of the performance and, ironically, made it more likely to have worse pitch problems. Since I've been using AutoTune, I can generally not worry if the pitch is a little iffy (if it's a lot iffy, that's another thing) and go for the emotion of the performance. And not having to worry about the pitch as much seems to actually make the pitch control come out better anyway. At least on good days... ;-) Rick -- ===================================== Rick Paul Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP) Web: http://home.earthlink.net/~rickpaul MP3s: http://www.soundclick.com/rickpaul =====================================
