Antares ATR1A AutoTune Rack
- Thread starter Jeyan
- Start date
I often use the Antares Autotune 3 DX plugins. There is also another good one, witch is Akai PitchRight 1.01. Doing a good job...but I prefer Antares.
In fact, I use the Akai PitchRight when Amplitube is used in the same project. Autotune and Amplitube cant be active in the same project, they freeze my PC!
In fact, I use the Akai PitchRight when Amplitube is used in the same project. Autotune and Amplitube cant be active in the same project, they freeze my PC!
Middleman
Professional Amateur
I have used the software and hardware versions but prefer the hardware version. It's just cleaner sounding. The software is good but slightly non clear compared to the hardware results.
You can't go all that wrong either way and the software is very convenient. I went with the external hardware based on sound quality though.
You can't go all that wrong either way and the software is very convenient. I went with the external hardware based on sound quality though.
LongWaveStudio
New member
i got the plugin version for nuendo.
i prefer this because sometimes, i might tune up a bunch of backing vocals to get a certain "tight" effect with them. for that, the plug in is benneficial for me because i can tune up quite a few tracks in a project without doing any of it offline.
i prefer this because sometimes, i might tune up a bunch of backing vocals to get a certain "tight" effect with them. for that, the plug in is benneficial for me because i can tune up quite a few tracks in a project without doing any of it offline.
Jeyan
New member
Re: Re: Antares ATR1A AutoTune Rack
Not everyone is perfect, all professionals use pitch correctors, why not me????????
Middle man, could you tell me what difference you felt between the hardware and the software sound qualities? I prefer not to use it in real time and I do care about quality a lot. So which one would you recommend?
fenix said:
Not everyone is perfect, all professionals use pitch correctors, why not me????????
Middle man, could you tell me what difference you felt between the hardware and the software sound qualities? I prefer not to use it in real time and I do care about quality a lot. So which one would you recommend?
Not all professionals use pitch-correction...
Price is big issue too, as well as added noise. I think the rack version is only like 30 dollars more now (it used to be over 100 more), but that could be spent on a better mic cable or a box of CD-Rs.
I wouldn't recommend tracking with Auto-Tune, so adding later can also introduce extra noise that could be avoided with the software.
Finally, the process sounds alot more natural if you just tune the specific notes that need them- in software, you could highlight the offending syllable and drag it up/down to where it needs to be. This will make it sound alot less auto-tuned.
Also, check out the Akai piece as well as the Oberheim OB-Tune plugin, which is only 50 bones. It's Antares' technology, but just a stripped down version. I think the only thing missing is the ability to slur notes a la Cher-Bot and Brittany Spears....and I know you'd never wanna do that.
Peace
Chris
Price is big issue too, as well as added noise. I think the rack version is only like 30 dollars more now (it used to be over 100 more), but that could be spent on a better mic cable or a box of CD-Rs.
I wouldn't recommend tracking with Auto-Tune, so adding later can also introduce extra noise that could be avoided with the software.
Finally, the process sounds alot more natural if you just tune the specific notes that need them- in software, you could highlight the offending syllable and drag it up/down to where it needs to be. This will make it sound alot less auto-tuned.
Also, check out the Akai piece as well as the Oberheim OB-Tune plugin, which is only 50 bones. It's Antares' technology, but just a stripped down version. I think the only thing missing is the ability to slur notes a la Cher-Bot and Brittany Spears....and I know you'd never wanna do that.
Peace
Chris
Middleman
Professional Amateur
Re: Re: Re: Antares ATR1A AutoTune Rack
There is no denying that the software version is more convenient. Multiple vocals being processed, the software is faster.
Regarding tracking, actually if you keep it real light it works out OK with hardware or software. Regarding noise when applied to finished tracks, there is no audilble noise unless your paths in and out of the computer have a problem, the hardware itself is virtually noiseless.
Sound quality, well the hardware sounds more clear and rich, more ambient. Heck its using a dedicated processor to generate the sound versus your computer CPU which is already dancing with other plugins and tasks. Plus your depending on your soundcards A/D D/A to generate the sound. If your converters on your soundcard are low end then the analog hardware is gonna sound better.
Now, its gonna take a lot longer editing with the hardware but to me, it sounds better.
Hope this helps.
Jeyan said:
There is no denying that the software version is more convenient. Multiple vocals being processed, the software is faster.
Regarding tracking, actually if you keep it real light it works out OK with hardware or software. Regarding noise when applied to finished tracks, there is no audilble noise unless your paths in and out of the computer have a problem, the hardware itself is virtually noiseless.
Sound quality, well the hardware sounds more clear and rich, more ambient. Heck its using a dedicated processor to generate the sound versus your computer CPU which is already dancing with other plugins and tasks. Plus your depending on your soundcards A/D D/A to generate the sound. If your converters on your soundcard are low end then the analog hardware is gonna sound better.
Now, its gonna take a lot longer editing with the hardware but to me, it sounds better.
Hope this helps.
Jeyan
New member
Thanks Middleman, that was really helpful. I use a Motu as my soundcard and an Aphex tube pre amp as my d/a converter, so I am confident with the quality of the vocals and very much satisfied with what I have now. I was afraid to introduce a piece of junk in between and make the quality low. Hope Antares wont let me down. Thanx everyone that was a great discussion.
LongWaveStudio
New member
bear in mind, if you're going to use the hardware, it's another stage in your conversion.
i wouldn't track with auto tune at all man.. auto tune is meant to save a take. you could destroy a take tracking with it.
track it right without it. do all you can without the antares. then if you really need it, reach for it on playback.
i wouldn't track with auto tune at all man.. auto tune is meant to save a take. you could destroy a take tracking with it.
track it right without it. do all you can without the antares. then if you really need it, reach for it on playback.
Middleman
Professional Amateur
LongWaveStudio said:
I agree, 99% of the time you should not even need Autotune on tracking or you can do a mult and have one dry and one autotune track. Generally it should be applied after tracking. Sorry if it sounded like I was promoting its use while tracking. I meant to point out that it can be done if necessary, but generally should not.
LongWaveStudio
New member
i would track with it 100% of the time. unless you've got a real problem playing the vocal back through the unit, i would never track with it. too dangerous, it's got big potential to screw up the vocal if you dont set it up right. plus, you could maybe miss a note which it's corrected really noticably. once that's done, that's commited to tape/disk.
