Is Antares Autotune 3 worth the bread?

[Yadi]

I use Sonar and would like to hear from Sonar users who use this product. I know purists don't endorse it, but it could become a useful tool.

[dachay2tnr]

Originally posted by Yadi
I use Sonar and would like to hear from Sonar users who use this product. I know purists don't endorse it, but it could become a useful tool.

If you can sing, but have occasional pitch problems, it is an excellent tool.

If you can't sing, save your money. You still won't be able to.

If you decide to go for it, make sure to learn and use its graphical mode. Automatic mode is a complete waste of time, and the results are horrible.

[James Argo]

What the almighty dachay said...

I just realized that my general audio editing time is:

15% on compressor/gate/limiter plugins
15% on reverb plugins
10% on chorus/modulation
10% on noise reducing

...and 50% on Autotune

It's good, but not that easy to tweak...

BTW, I used it occasionaly with CoolEdit Pro 2 while editing.

[keerus]

the automatic mode is NOT a waste of time. if you have a very good vocal track, and you use the automatic, it will turn it into a perfect take (in terms of pitch, anyways). the graphical mode is powerful, too, but not so powerful as to make the automatic mode useless. most people use automatic as opposed to graphical anyway. make sure you keep in mind, though, that it won't turn someone who's tonedeaf into some great broadway singer.

justin

[dachay2tnr]

Originally posted by keerus
the automatic mode is NOT a waste of time. if you have a very good vocal track, and you use the automatic, it will turn it into a perfect take (in terms of pitch, anyways). the graphical mode is powerful, too, but not so powerful as to make the automatic mode useless. most people use automatic as opposed to graphical anyway. make sure you keep in mind, though, that it won't turn someone who's tonedeaf into some great broadway singer.

justin

Sorry, have to disagree here.

Automatic mode will work on every note - which you hopefully shouldn't need to begin with. It will tend to make the track sound unnatural (as you might expect a "perfect" track to sound)It will often make wrong decisions as to which note to correct to, eliminate many of the vocalist's nuances, and it is death on vibratos (tends to make them sound like quivers).

Use graphical mode, and only use it where necessary. If you want automatic mode, buy OBTune and save yourself a bunch of money.

[tkingen]

I've never used Auto-tune, so please correct me if this is wrong...
I would guess that you would highlight only the note that needs correction, or maybe split that note into it's own clip for processing.
It sounds like you guys are using it to process an entire track?

Terry Kingen

[Qwerty]

Being the perfectly pitched singer that I am, *harrumph*, I have never found the need to use Autotune.

However, when I have been tracking my incredibly tone deaf friend, Scott - (yes, he is reading this thread), I use it in Automatic mode as Terry describes above.

- Highlight the dodgy note
- Set the voice type
- Set the key
- Fiddle with the correction parameters so as to avoid the dreaded "Cher" effect
- Problem solved.

I do agree with Dachay though that using it to just blast an entire track will make it sound weird. It comes out as somehow too correct and doesn't do good things to your ears.

The best vocal tracks do typically include some degree of pitch sliding into and out of notes for most contemporary music. It is hard to preserve these "nice" pitch slides when throwing Autotune at a track to fix other more glaring errors.

Ciao,

Q.

[dachay2tnr]

Originally posted by tkingen
I've never used Auto-tune, so please correct me if this is wrong...
I would guess that you would highlight only the note that needs correction, or maybe split that note into it's own clip for processing.
It sounds like you guys are using it to process an entire track?

Terry Kingen

Actually you tend to work with phrases. In my experience you need to cut out a clip that has a bit of a pause both before and after. It is pretty difficult to cut out just a single note, without creating problems,

However, using graphical mode allows you to just apply correction to a single note within the phrase. Or even to just a portion of the note if you desire.

Automatic mode, in that example, would be applied to entire phrase. However, in my experience, most people use automatic mode on the entire track.

It probably works OK in Qwerty's example, but I would still use graphical mode, which allows you to control exactly where and how much correction is applied.

The thing most people miss (IMHO) is that some degree of pitch deviation is not only normal, but is actually more pleasing to the ear. A track that is perfectly in pitch will tend to sound robotic and cold.

The appropriate use of autotune is simply to correct the occasional note that "sounds bad." Or more accurately, that sounds bad because of intonation.

[Blue Bear Sound]

Originally posted by keerus
the automatic mode is NOT a waste of time.

I disagree as well.... the worst way to use autotune is throwing across a whole track.

[crosstudio]

i use automatic mode when i'm dealing with a singer whose off-key singing is only noticeable on long notes.

otherwise,

i use graphical mode for real vocal surgery.

[Yadi]

i use graphical mode for real vocal surgery.

Ha...thats a good analogy.

I've played around with their demo, using the auto feature, across entire tracks. Even when the vocals are 98% in tune, it seemed to create an unatural Cher effect on notes as they varied pitch....does that make sense?

So...I think I probably would use it on phrases or "soundbytes" or even less.

I can't remember the layout, but is there a control of "attack" with it?

[MaKettle]

I agree that it's best to use graphical mode on vocals, but I must say that I accidentally pitch corrected an entire double bass track and it didn't sound noticeably unnatural, as it does on vocals. I intended to undo the mistake, but after listening to the track, left it corrected. I suppose which mode you use could depend on what you are correcting. With vocals, it's biggest benefit is that it can save time, and a singers voice, since you won't have to do a zillion takes to get through a few trouble spots.

[Qwerty]

I have only ever played with a demo and an old colleague's copy. What does it go for these days?

Q.

[tombuur]

Never tried this Antares autotune. There are other similar products I haven't tried either. Which one is the best?

I have a TC-Helicon VoiceWorks bought for live use and chorus primarily. But it can do pitch correction and has a 24 bit digital interface, so I guess it could be an alternative for me.

[moskus]

Originally posted by tombuur
Never tried this Antares autotune. There are other similar products I haven't tried either. Which one is the best?

I'm guessing that Antares Autotune is the industry standard because it is the best, but I don't know...

Apparently Melodyne 2 is now a plugin and can be used via ReWire.

[tombuur]

So Antares it is. Don't know if I need it though. The TC-Helicon is okay in live situation where you can't always hear your own voice perfectly and also got part of your attention focused on the guitar. In case of recording I believe I get pitch okay. This could mean two things:

1. I am good at hitting the right pitch
2. My self-assessment is lousy

So if the Antares or other device doesn't make the vox sound worse, maybe you should apply it just as a safety precautions? Some listeners may have a better perception of pitch than you have.

[pdaniels]

If you listen to the radio, every pop song sounds totally in tune. You can't get away with "kind of" being in tune today if you want to sound at all mainstream or commercially viable.

This isn't the 80's.

If you ask your average person on the street if somebody can sing (is a singer any good), he will consider 2 things to decide: pitch accuracy and performance, and usually with much more importance on pitch. At least there is a way to ensure you are always in tune.

I also sing quite in tune, but I use pitch correction as a failsafe to ensure I am always totally in tune. This way I don't listen to something I recorded and say "what was I thinking? that note is kind of flat!"
I have a Voiceworks also, and I track vocals through it. It took a few days to get used to monitoring my voice post-correction while singing, but it has made a big difference because the results sound more natural than Antares.

Hope that helps...

[Chris Shaeffer]

I found it really usefull (even in automatic mode) for the lots and lots of backing tracks that I sometimes do. 12 tracks of vocals, all set really low in the mix, really jell together when they are in tune...

...and I'm typically up ***very*** late at night when I decide to do such silly things with my voice and the autotune is saving my hours of trying to fix something that I could never get perfect anyway.

I never use it on the lead vocal track, though I might give it a try with graphical mode. I usually like to leave the lead natural. Who cares if its a little pitchy? Its real.

Take care,
Chris

[tombuur]

pdaniels,
Thanks for your information about VoiceWorks. If you think it sounds better than Antares, why would I spend money on the latter, already owning a VoiceWorks. I do, however, wonder why you don't just track the vox and then pitch correct afterwards, since VoiceWorks can connect digitally. Never tried it myself, though. Also I have found VoiceWorks to add some noise, but this may only be through analog connection?

Anyway, concerning pitch correction. One of the local Danish bands (singing in English) at the moment have a hit, regurlarly played on the radio. The lead voice is weak and slightly out of tune all the time. Somehow they have created a great result by breaking the rules here.