|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
|
|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
In Reply to: RE: Why isn't science used for objective comparisons? posted by Todd Krieger on September 28, 2017 at 23:30:33:
Autotune is easy to hear when it's used to be heard. One rapper came into the studio and handed the engineer a slip of paper saying, "These are my autotune settings." Autotune for him changed his voice severely - no one could miss it. In his case, autotune was part of his performance.
It's also easy to hear when unintentionally misused, and there are some pretty famous singers with bad technique who rely on autotune to save the day. It doesn't. When it's used for this, it's always obvious.
But there are recordings where autotune was used and no one will ever know. No pumping, no change in timbre, no weirdness.
Check it out yourself if you have it: record a singer singing in the original key, and again a couple whole steps up or down, whichever is equally comfortable for the singer's voice, i.e. stay away from extremes and stay away from the passagio. Let's say the song is in G and the singer can do it in A with no change in the voice timbre. Record it in G, then in A. Then use autotune to retune the G performance to A, and the A perf to G. Then bring anyone in to listen to the two G perfs and the two A perfs and try to identify which are original and which are autotuned.
Autotune is not evil. It's a good tool if you know its limitations and stay within them.
WW
"Put on your high heeled sneakers. Baby, we''re goin'' out tonight.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Actually... not. - Bill Way 09/29/1711:30:24 09/29/17 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
