Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Moog's MF-401 Auto De-tune Fixes Music

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the good-bye-fm-radio dept.

Max Romantschuk writes "Moog Music has released the MF-401 Auto De-tune, a revolutionary new DSP device that promises to undo the clinical results of Auto-Tune. According to Moog Music, 'even a T-Pain vocal can be restored to its complete original character, scrubbing the pitch correction and leaving the untreated vocal in all its wavering sharp or flat glory.'"

79 comments

  1. first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    death to autotune!

  2. Too bad this isn't real by drcosquared · · Score: 3, Funny

    Lady Gaga as a drunken sailor...endless possibilities

    --
    It is no coincidence that in no known language does the phrase 'As pretty as an Airport' appear.
    1. Re:Too bad this isn't real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lady Gaga doesn't use auto tune. What the hell are you babbling about?

    2. Re:Too bad this isn't real by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      How would you know again?

    3. Re:Too bad this isn't real by WarlockSquire · · Score: 1

      what do you do with a drunken sailor,
      what do you do with a drunken sailor,
      what do you do with a drunken sailor, early in the morning...

      shave his belly with a rusty razor,
      shave his belly with a rusty razor,
      shave his belly with a rusty razor, early in the morning... ...

    4. Re:Too bad this isn't real by JBMcB · · Score: 2, Informative

      Loads of "recording artists" use Autotune. When used properly you can't tell it's being used. Guys like T-Pain just crank the rate of note blending way down so it's more obvious.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    5. Re:Too bad this isn't real by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 5, Funny

      Lady Gaga as a drunken sailor

      That would be Amy Winehouse.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    6. Re:Too bad this isn't real by Bakkster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      She may not crank it up to 100% in-tune and 0ms transition time (T-Pain/Cher level), but I'm willing to bet that either she does it herself, or the producer or record label does it for her. I doubt any pop music created in the last several years doesn't use auto tune, on at least a subtle level.

      Any artist who doesn't use it probably points it out already. Unfortunately, it's about as common now as compression. I doubt we'll see it go away any time soon.

      Though I do wish I could buy one and turn every singer to the Florence Foster Jenkins setting.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    7. Re:Too bad this isn't real by MachDelta · · Score: 1, Funny

      My kingdom for a mod point.

      And a towel to wipe up the water I just spit out laughing.

    8. Re:Too bad this isn't real by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      YAY music continues it's downward spiral into the toilet!

      Compression + autotune = crap.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    9. Re:Too bad this isn't real by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Well, it's obvious on a lot of artists anyway---if you can't sing worth crap and it's shifting the pitch a long way, it sounds like crap even if you have Auto-Tune set to a slow response time.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    10. Re:Too bad this isn't real by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong with auto-tune, per-se. A bit of subtle auto-tune means fewer overdubs and punch-ins. The problem only comes when it's overdone and locks the singer's voice in perfect pitch, removing any sense of emotion.

      Similarly with compression, a little bit goes a long way. When there's background noise especially (which is most of the time we listen to music anymore), 20dB of headroom means the quiet bits can become inaudible. The problem isn't with compressor, it's with the loudness war. Compression makes the average level of a song louder, and psychologically louder sounds better. Cue the battle to make each pop song comparatively louder than all the others on the radio. In an ideal world, compression would be performed on the player only when needed (like on the subway with your iPod).

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    11. Re:Too bad this isn't real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah! how would I know what a pop star sounds like. YOU HAVE PUT ME IN MY PLACE.

    12. Re:Too bad this isn't real by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      I was pretty much saying that, except also pointing out that the AC is in a point of no authority on the subject. It's just much more concise in my response, IMHO. :-)

    13. Re:Too bad this isn't real by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      Right, I was definitely agreeing with you, just expanding on what you said.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    14. Re:Too bad this isn't real by treeves · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree. "In all things, moderation."

      I heard an interesting podcast from Time magazine about Auto-Tune.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    15. Re:Too bad this isn't real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How exactly is that offtopic?

      Next you'll tell us that the clean-up isn't part of the sex.

    16. Re:Too bad this isn't real by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      I read that article when it first came out, a great read. My favorite quote:

      The program's retune speed, which adjusts the singer's voice, can be set from zero to 400. "If you set it to 10, that means that the output pitch will get halfway to the target pitch in 10 milliseconds," says Hildebrand. "But if you let that parameter go to zero, it finds the nearest note and changes the output pitch instantaneously"--eliminating the natural transition between notes and making the singer sound jumpy and automated. "I never figured anyone in their right mind would want to do that," he says.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    17. Re:Too bad this isn't real by raddan · · Score: 1

      Studios have been employing tricks for a long time to make artists sound better than they actually are. This is nothing new.

      I know a former studio engineer who (among the many stories he told me) once had to do a similar trick. A well-known folk artist (who happens to live in my hometown... so keeping quiet about his name here) was having trouble hitting a particular note. After dozens of re-takes (and this is in the tape era, when do-overs were expensive), this guy just says "good job, everyone" and up and walks out. The engineer and producer look at each other in momentary panic... and then call in a session musician. She comes in, sings one note, and leaves. IIRC, this story was in reference to how good union scale can be if you're a professional musician.

      Anyway, I'm OK with auto-tune. I mean, it's not like any of you who hate it would like T-Pain or Cher if they didn't use it. Employed properly (i.e., not for effect), it makes an engineer's job a heck of a lot easier. If it also makes a recording more tolerable, power to them. I think auto-tune inherits people's general distaste for pop music.

    18. Re:Too bad this isn't real by AthleteMusicianNerd · · Score: 1

      Damn, you beat me to it!

    19. Re:Too bad this isn't real by Miseph · · Score: 1

      I would suggest the precise opposite. When auto-tune is used to camouflage poor musicianship, it just feels dishonest, but when used to overtly alter the sound such that it can be used as an effect it is merely another form of distortion. We don't discriminate against wah pedals or guitarists who use them... why should autotune or vocalists be forced to play by different rules?

      That said, T-Pain is a crappy singer and none of his vocal parts are interesting for any reason other than his liberal use of autotune. And Cher is totally a trap (I can tell by the pixels, and from having seen quite a few dickgirls in my day). Bash away.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    20. Re:Too bad this isn't real by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      I would suggest the precise opposite. When auto-tune is used to camouflage poor musicianship, it just feels dishonest, but when used to overtly alter the sound such that it can be used as an effect it is merely another form of distortion. We don't discriminate against wah pedals or guitarists who use them... why should autotune or vocalists be forced to play by different rules?

      My thoughts exactly: if it's noticeable and used for effect, I'm totally alright with it.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
  3. damnit by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This would be awesome and perfect - if it weren't April 1st.

    *sigh*.....you can only dream.

    1. Re:damnit by rnturn · · Score: 1

      "you can only dream"

      My dream device would be one built into every radio that automatically changes the station to one playing a song that's not using Autotune. That way "artists" that are so bad that they have to resort to Autotune to sound passable would sell so few CDs/MPs that they'd find other ways to spend their time instead of making awful music.

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    2. Re:damnit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're so bitter that you want artists you don't listen to to not be able to make a living? Let me guess, this is also somehow a reason to pirate, right?

  4. Cool by rapturizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Now I can hear the artist in their original glory. Sort of like colorization for music. This will revolutionize music!

    1. Re:Cool by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      It's beyond me how the summary didn't mention the "Original Star Trek cast member attempts to make pop music" preset.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Cool by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 1

      Bilbo!!!!

  5. Damn by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

    I'd buy one.

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
    1. Re:Damn by GungaDan · · Score: 1

      Fuck just buying one, I'd mandate it like insurance. Along with banishment to Elba for anyone caught using auto-tune ever again. Horrid, horrid noise.

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    2. Re:Damn by tnk1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know as well as I do that Elba wouldn't work. Unless you want an extra Hundred Days of processed music, send them straight to St. Helena.

  6. Hurray! by kheldan · · Score: 1

    The music industry is saved!

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Hurray! by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      But studies show that teens, college kids, and young adults *like* the "sizzle" found in compressed ipods and autotuned music. The industry is just giving them what they want. Right?

      Correct?

      Hello?

      Okay maybe not. Fine. I'll toe the official line. Modern pop music sucks and has sucked since the 90s (or 80s) (or 70s) (depending on your age).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:Hurray! by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      The eighties did not have autotune. The eighties had pop singers who could actually sing. You notice when people attempt to do karaoke versions of "Take on me" or "Still haven't found what I'm looking for" at the original pitch...

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    3. Re:Hurray! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I've heard the arguments for and against autotuning. On the one side are those that feel that it makes a performance illegitimate. On the other side are producers and engineers who say that it greatly speeds up the recording process because rather than doing numerous takes to get the perfect one, or literally stitching together parts of various good takes to produce a perfect one, they can take a decent take, clean it up and move on. As well, it's been pointed out that since multitrack recording became the norm, it was not unusual, at least so far as instrumental parts went, to replace out of pitch notes with a dubbed good one. This was very common on live albums, not simply because of a singer singing out of key or a botched chord on a guitar, but because even the best live rig can still pick up a lot of weird artifacts.

      In fact, two particularly notorious examples, both of live performances that were extremely popular; Kiss's Alive album and The Band's Last Waltz. Kiss rerecorded huge chunks of the album to get rid of botched notes and vocals, even adding more applause. The Band did the same thing, taking the audio recordings of The Last Waltz back to Shangri La studios for nearly a year, and heavily rerecording it, so much so that when Scorsesi and his editor went to match the audio recordings back to the film, they had extraordinary difficulty getting the cues right.

      So studio trickery, you might even call it fakery, has long been a tradition in recording. Processed vocals have been around since at least the mid-60s (the Beatles were big on it during the Revolver-Sgt. Pepper-Magical Mystery Tour period in large part because Lennon had come to dislike his untouched vocals). All technologies like autotune do, in a way, is automate the process. A multitracked overdubbed vocal performance that might have taken Queen, say, three or four days to lay out in 1975 probably takes an hour or two now.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Hurray! by twoallbeefpatties · · Score: 1

      The music industry is saved!

      Not until they also invent a De-Limiter to remove all the terrible over-compression. :D

      --
      Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
    5. Re:Hurray! by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      sizzle? that's bit error.

      The twinkle on the cymbals is NOT supposed to be there... but then most people under the age of 35 have never heard a set of speakers that cost more than $2500.00 on an amp that costs more than $5000.00 (not tuner, not receiver, plain old amp WITHOUT volume knobs) or even a properly mastered CD that doesn't have the soul compressed completely out of it. I cry for the generations of people that don't know what music is supposed to sound like.

      Note: you dont haveto spend that kind of cash for real gear, you can build it yourself. I helped a friend build a set of $15,000 speakers for about $2100.00 in drivers and wood. they are absolutely incredible sounding even on a el-cheapo Denon A1HD Amp..

      Honestly, people... go find a REAL high end audio shop and at least listen to what a real stereo is supposed to sound like.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    6. Re:Hurray! by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Um the 80's gave us Plenty that could not sing. Motley crew, RATT, Poison, Guns and dork, Cars, Sting.... ok he was 70's.... Falco.....

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:Hurray! by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      The eighties did not have autotune.

      Wrong.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    8. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not an autotuner. It does not do pitch correcting.

    9. Re:Hurray! by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      If you get rid of the compression effect, you will more than likely get a much uglier compression at the top end.

      A lot of times, compression is used to make headroom.

    10. Re:Hurray! by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Preaching to the (AVSforum) choir bro!

      Most folks just don't value quality anymore. Bunch of posers with their shit Bose gear. And they wonder why audiophiles don't respect their gear.

      You wouldn't of happened to posted plans and pics of you and your mate building the speakers along the way by any chance?

      Cheers

    11. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could care less about authenticity though, I simply don't like how it sounds. Great singers know how and when to go a little off pitch; autotuned vocals are too correct-sounding, many of the little imperfections and tics that make a vocal performance unique are removed.

      I've played around with autotune with a friend of mine who is really into it, and I understand how much time and effort it can save. I just don't like the result.

    12. Re:Hurray! by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 3, Informative

      The H910 had to be switched in and out manually to be used as a pitch corrector, so no, it wasn't autotuning. It was, however, still used to artificially manipulate vocals to the correct pitch, so the distinction is operation method, not principle.

      Autotuning was a function on the 1987 Eventide H3000 (IIRC), so the statement that there was no such thing in the 80's is still incorrect.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    13. Re:Hurray! by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      No real plans online. But it's a set of folded horns for bass with 15 inch woofers based on a clipsch design that have foreward firing 8 inch midbass drivers. (corner loaded to finish the large horn mouth) and a set of 6 foot tall linear array speaker tower that set on a specific point on the folded horns to minimize driver separation with 32 aluminum cone drivers in each speaker for the high and mids. acoustically and physically separated from the larger driver array to eliminate low frequency coupling.

      The folded horns each have 30 pounds of sand in the cavity's and the towers also have sand at the top and bottom to reduce resonance.

      They sound insane even though the room they are in sucks horribly.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    14. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget Jay Mascis. He still can't sing at all (but I still love his singing).

    15. Re:Hurray! by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between technical skill (which for instance Sting definitively has) and pleasant artistic impression, which is more arguable... To put it like that, it takes effort and training to sing poorly like Sting.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    16. Re:Hurray! by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      It's not in the same league. Maybe you could shift the pitch a little with this thing, like compressing a few seconds off a song and preserving the pitch, but I bet if you did anything like they do today, you would sound like a vocoder pretty quickly. (I haven't heard this thing you link to, would love to if you had a sample. I assume, though, that it couldn't have been better than early digital autotuning, or they wouldn't have switched?).

      A phenomenon I've heard people who teach children to sing use is "droning". Kids who drone sing an entire song on roughly the same tone. It's not just that they have a poor ear, it's like they haven't mastered the knack of conscious control over voice pitch. They are also called (maybe a little more PC) monotones.

      Some never get it, although adult monotones usually know of their inability and refuse to show it. Modern autotune could take droning and make it sound about like nickleback, with little or no effort from the studio technician.

      This changed singing style dramatically, which was my point.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    17. Re:Hurray! by AthleteMusicianNerd · · Score: 1

      How about LEARNING HOW TO SING!!!! Pitch correction sucks! It has got so bad now that I saw a Youtube comment saying "This guy is out of tune on every note./ about a live performance. The response was "Haven't you ever seen a live show?" As if to say no one can actually sing in tune.

      The younger generations ears have been trained to prefer the dissonance of pop singers. You can form fit a turd to a baking pan, but it will never be a chocolate pie.

    18. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they wonder why audiophiles don't respect their gear.

      Not to spoil the audiophile self-love, but seriously - no one wonders that at all. No one outside of your weird-ass club cares what you people think. No one. Really.

    19. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The H910 had to be switched in and out manually to be used as a pitch corrector, so no, it wasn't autotuning. It was, however, still used to artificially manipulate vocals to the correct pitch, so the distinction is operation method, not principle.

      An autotuner has knowledge of scale pitches built in and will shift an input tone which near a scale note to that scale note itself in real time, effectively removing vibrato completely as a side effect if you crank the settings that extreme.

      With an H910, the pitch shift is constant as set by a knob. A glissando remains a glissando, and amateur's wobbly voice remains just as wobbly, just changed in frequency. It'll put you off key in a different key. With an autotuner, it all gets nailed into the 12-tone scale.

      In particular, an H910 is useless for pitch correction when singing live since it does a constant shift. Autotuners let any idiot sing in tune since they pull your voice sharp or flat as necessary.

      In short, the OP's statement "The eighties did not have autotune" is essentially correct. It only came to be at the very end of the decade and didn't take off until the 90's.

      Your glib "Wrong" post response with a 1975 effects device was misleading bullshit.

    20. Re:Hurray! by twoallbeefpatties · · Score: 1

      That's not what compression I'm referring to, though. I'm referring to the way that many producers simply put a -9 crunch limiter on the 2-mix, creating a brick of sound with little dynamic range - but hey, it's LOUDER now! Compressing for headroom is different from limiting for loudness.

      --
      Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
    21. Re:Hurray! by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Just because you're ignorant of the difference between $50, $500, $5,000 and $50,000 speakers doesn't mean people who actually care about sound quality are in the weird ass-club. (Ok the $50,000 club is a little too insane for my tastes... "more money then brains. lol")

      There is nothing wrong with low-budget gear, hell we all have a budget. Its just funny to see idiots think they got some hot shitz when they listen to their muzik on crap gear. FFS man, have some self-respect, take some pride in yourself, and enjoy life and treat your ears for once. That's the real reason audiophiles make fun of non-audiophiles.

    22. Re:Hurray! by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      I assume, though, that it couldn't have been better than early digital autotuning, or they wouldn't have switched?

      Like much studio gear, price is the critical factor here. The basic Autotune software is around 5% the price of an Eventide ($5,500+), and you can't easily pirate hardware. The same can be said for LA-4A compressors and Pultec EQs...rare and expensive in meatspace, today anyone with ProTools can get the Bombfactory plugin equivalent for a fraction of the price.

      Maybe you could shift the pitch a little with this thing, like compressing a few seconds off a song and preserving the pitch

      Early Eventides shifted pitch by (short version) writing data to a memory buffer at one clock speed and reading it out at another in real time. This meant they could achieve up to a full octave shift using less than 16K RAM.

      Modern autotune could take droning and make it sound about like nickleback, with little or no effort from the studio technician.

      To do that you have to program the notes into a sequencer, which isn't difficult, but neither is it little or no effort. But that isn't "auto" tune, it's manual tune: a human is still required to enter the pitch data, which only differs from moving a dial in precision and convenience.

      And there's a limit to how far you can shift pitch, particularly vocals, before it starts sounding unnatural.

      This changed singing style dramatically, which was my point.

      Microphones changed singing style dramatically; opera fans ridiculed the crooners who were inaudible without one. Now they're standard, even in opera.

      Compressors changed singing style dramatically because they allowed singers to get the vocal qualities of both whispering and shouting without having to worry about levels or mic technique. Now they're standard.

      Distortion pedals changed guitar style dramatically with power chords and hammer solos. Now they're standard.

      What I find interesting is that nobody has satisfactorily explained to me why distortion is acceptable when autotune isn't without using the same arguments that were used against distortion or any of the other technological aids in their day. It seems to me to be a completely arbitrary distinction, more concerned with methods than results. And though they're not my cup of tea, I'd argue that in the context of heavily synthesised music like techno and R&B the synthetic voice quality is quite fitting...could it be possible that the kids like the autotune sound precisely because their elders don't and it's a defining feature of the music of their era, and the objections are simply history repeating?

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    23. Re:Hurray! by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      With an H910, the pitch shift is constant as set by a knob. A glissando remains a glissando, and amateur's wobbly voice remains just as wobbly, just changed in frequency.

      Which is why it's so hard to detect vocals that were shifted using one. It doesn't have the tell-tale impossible snap to note; all variations are preserved. The only give away is munchkinisation from excessive shift ranges.

      It'll put you off key in a different key.

      Or a fraction of a key for as long as the effect isn't bypassed, which is how they were used to correct pitch: if the second note in the third bar of the second verse was flat, set the machine to shift up by the same amount and hit the bypass button at exactly the right time while recording to another track. Yes, I conceded the H910 isn't automatic, but it may surprise you to learn that there was a time when faders didn't record moves and editing was done by cutting tape on a metal block with a razor blade.

      In particular, an H910 is useless for pitch correction when singing live since it does a constant shift.

      AutoTune is nearly useless live too, since it tends to lock on to the lowest fundamental frequency it can detect, which usually isn't the vocal unless the vocal mic is completely isolated (which means pretty much never). In those situations the pitch correction is keyed by a sequencer track, so it isn't automatic either; you're simply replacing someone twiddling a knob live on a H910 with a recording device playing back pre-recorded knob twiddling.

      And AutoTune can't fix bad timing or lack of breath control, so truly bad singers still mime (hello Britney).

      Autotuners let any idiot sing in tune since they pull your voice sharp or flat as necessary.

      Provided any idiot is less than half a semitone out (or tone if the key has been set), more than that and they snap to the wrong note. They don't work by magically divining the note you intended; if you can't carry a tune in a bucket, autotune won't help automatically.

      Your glib "Wrong" post response with a 1975 effects device was misleading bullshit.

      It's as much bullshit as saying that a third of a decade didn't exist, how obviously a technique is used is related to when it was first introduced, or that pitch correction being automatic or manual somehow makes a philosophical difference (either way, it's still corrected), so I think we're even.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    24. Re:Hurray! by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Just because you are ignorant does not make you right.

      And you sir are highly ignorant. Come back AFTER you go hear even low end decent. Go find a store that sells FM-45's from JBL and a cheapish $1500-$2500 receiver. This is pretty much what I have at home except I have a old kenwood sovereign receiver from 7 years ago. It does not sound fantastic, it sounds great. and it sounds fricking incredible compared to ANYTHING sold at best buy or any electronics store. total price? $5500.00 spent. I'm low end entry and even a good CD on a 20 year old CD player sounds 800X better than any junk that you youngsters (GET OFF MY LAWN!) listen to.

      Now epic level home made speakers are unbelievable. What I helped my buddy build cant be touched for under $50K in any store. Knowledge of audio engineering coupled with a master cabinetmaker is incredibly rare. I added in my Audio engineering experience and we had actually made 2 iterations of this setup, one was completed when we discovered we made a math error and caused a standing wave in the cabinet and no internal tweaking would completely eliminate it. so it was redesigned.

      I strongly suggest you pull that 12' long 4X4 pressure treated post out of your ass and GO LISTEN TO real speakers somewhere. at least know what the hell you are missing.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    25. Re:Hurray! by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Problem is "audiophiles" typically include the idiots that buy $1000.00 cat 5 cables from Denon and $90.00 a foot directional speaker wire.

      It's why I wont be called an audiophile and friends I know wont. and Yes, we drive those speakers with lamp cord... 8 runs of 18 gauge lamp cord for each speaker assembly.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    26. Re:Hurray! by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      Thanks. That was informative.

    27. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a good explanation (I'm not logged in, same guy as above): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRyIACDCc1I

  7. Is it possible? by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

    This being Slashdot, let me ask: is this even possible?

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Is it possible? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I doubt you could ever recover the original vocal in full fidelity, but it wouldn't surprise me if you could "deprocess" the vocal performance to some degree. It's not actually that hard to recognize autotuning even with the unaided ear, so I'm sure you could do processing on the vocal and essentially recover a reasonable approximation of the original performance.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Is it possible? by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      The page implies that it's not a reversal, like an expander to reverse the effects of a compressor. Rather, it's a de-tuner. In other words, it's totally possible to do. Just feed a couple of low-frequency oscillators to the target pitch of an auto-tuner. Bump it a few cents flat/sharp, let it drift another few cents every 5 seconds or so, and then warble a tiny bit at about 1Hz. Tada, auto de-tuned.

      However, assuming the artist in question uses subtle auto-tune which results in the recording being slightly sharp or flat, a similar process to an expander could push the pitch farther sharp/flat to estimate the original recorded audio.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    3. Re:Is it possible? by zygotic+mitosis · · Score: 1
      If autotune is just a function applied to a waveform, then an inverse function should be possible. Probably a fucking difficult thing to do, though, since most autotune I hear makes pitch changes abrupt (ie, the function is not continuous; a piecewise function. That sure makes a mess of things)

      //IANA mathematician or acoustician etc

    4. Re:Is it possible? by spazdor · · Score: 2, Informative

      Depending on the sophistication of the autotuning algorithm, sure it is.

      If the vocal is being corrected using naive pitch-shifting or phase synthesis or something like that(i think gsnap and Antares Autotune both fall in this category), then the vocal formants will be shifted up and down right along with it. Since formant frequency is usually constant (or close to), a signal processor could pick up on the modulation of the formant, and apply the reverse pitch-shifting in order to make the formant constant - in the process recovering the original pitch modulation.

      On the other hand, if the autotune was done in Melodyne, which allows you to flatten the formant modulation independently of pitch, all bets are off.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    5. Re:Is it possible? by digsbo · · Score: 1

      No. It's a lossy transform (you're replacing information), so there's no inverse function. It might be possible to detect artifacts of the original transform, and so it's possible you could apply an estimated inverse transform to simulate the original input signal, but it wouldn't be perfect restoration by a long shot.

    6. Re:Is it possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A function applied to a waveform that is then merged with a whole lot of other waveforms. How are you going to de-tune only the auto-tuned portion of the vocal track from the whole song mix?

    7. Re:Is it possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANA mathematician either, but I know that the mathematical response would be that not every function has an inverse function (functions being single-valued for any input, by definition).

      IANA audio engineer but it's likely that autotune works in the frequency domain: FFT a sample, find the primary frequency, shift to the nearest note on the chromatic or chosen diatonic scale, then inverse FFT (applying appropriate sample windows for the transforms, of course). There's no way to invert the middle part unless it is known how much shift was applied during autotune. Maybe the process leaves artifacts that could be processed to find the amount of shift, but I suspect that this extraction if possible would be error-prone not to mention difficult.

  8. /moogerfooger/ by al0ha · · Score: 3, Funny

    Seeing that was worth clicking on the link. LOL!

    --
    Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
  9. April fool? by KDN · · Score: 1

    It just doesn't sound right. Not that I would really know as I am seriously tone deaf.

  10. Definitely offtopic, but still by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 3, Funny

    I know there are lots of people here who hate Howard Stern, but did anyone else hear Richard and Sal prank calling the pizza parlor with Autotune on their voice? Completely ridiculous.

  11. Rane PI 14 Pseudoacoustic Infector by spmkk · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of this product:

    - Independent Power & Glory Switches
    - Continuously Variable This/That Level
    - Full-Function Ecstacy Generator
    - Variable This to That Crossover Frequency
    - Here-There Pan (Back Again Switching)
    - Program Dependent Sheen Removal
    - Anti-Resonant Concrete Chassis
    - Proprietary Paint to Reflect Odd Harmonic Light Frequencies to Reduce Nono-Linear Photon Radiation Interference
    - Time Warp Compression/Expansion to Synchronize Here/There Time Coordinates

  12. MF-401 mobile by fortapocalypse · · Score: 1

    It also has an optional carrying case and jack for headphones so you never have to listen to an un-altered version of "Believe" by Cher ever again. I blame that song for all the trouble that Auto-Tune caused, but I can't stop listening to the unaltered version!

  13. This has to be a fake because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...no man made device can ever hope to match the "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Foster_Jenkins" setting. The horror if it could...

    1. Re:This has to be a fake because... by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      Jenkins seems to be quite similar the other female setting, Mrs. Miller, who sings popular music instead of classical but is equally entertainingly awful.

      --
      Your brain is not a computer.
  14. Why is it.. by Mr_Miagi · · Score: 1

    Quite off-topic, I know.. Why is it that the old guy from the videos is a spitting image of Bob Kelso?

  15. Be Careful What You Wish For by howlingfrog · · Score: 3, Informative

    Some studio-manufactured AutoTune pop stars can actually sing, and some can't, and it's often surprising which is which. If you watched the Oscar telecast a few years ago, you know that Beyonce is a real musician. Christina Aguilera has talent (though chooses not to use it). Several of the High School Musical kids turned out to be decent singers or actors or both once they got out from under Disney's thumb. And on the other hand, despite the strong genetic component to musical talent, pre-AutoTune professional musician Billy Ray Cyrus's daughter can't sing at all without the help of her robotic overlord. As a film projectionist, I had to watch Last Song the other day. In one scene, Miley sings along with the radio AN ENTIRE FUCKING HALF-STEP SHARP! For non-musicians reading this, that's the interval between two adjacent piano keys. If you play two notes together that are separated by a half-step, it sounds awful. And anyone who's not completely tone-deaf can tell it sounds awful. It takes a modicum of musical training to identify the specific problem, but anyone can tell it's wrong. So remember, AutoTune is saving your ears from that crap every day. If it had never existed, there would be fewer no-talent hacks on the radio, but now that they're there, turning it off is a scary, scary idea.

    --
    The original Howling Frog is a fictional character and has no UID.
    1. Re:Be Careful What You Wish For by Rusty+KB · · Score: 1

      Turn it off and those no-talent hacks would go away. You said it yourself, even without knowing what's the problem is a layman can hear something's wrong....

    2. Re:Be Careful What You Wish For by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      It isn't the singing people are buying. It's the sex. No one wants to go to a concert or buy a CD of someone who is ugly. So they get all the beautiful people who can't sing. But singing can be fixed.

  16. Re:Definitely offtopic, but still by JThundley · · Score: 1

    When I heard that call I had to pull off the road.

    Bababooey to y'all.