FYI New Auto Tune Plugin

[soundtrack2life]

I just got an email today on this and thought I would share.

http://www.antarestech.com/products/auto-tune-evo.shtml

Joe

[TotalSonic]

Am I the only one who finds it kind of ironic that the name of the new version is just two letters shy of being called "evil" ? ;)

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Dave Labrecque]

Probably. Normal people probably think "evolution".:)

Mark

It's nice to see the New Yorker diversifying. :eek: Audio app reviews? :p

[Perry]

Am I the only one who finds it kind of ironic that the name of the new version is just two letters shy of being called "evil" ? ;)

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Possibly of more interest is that it looks a lot like Melodyne now.

[Tim Miskimon]

Auto Tune? What's that?

Since buying Melodyne last year I haven't opened that dog.

[Perry]

Auto Tune? What's that?

Since buying Melodyne last year I haven't opened that dog.

When I'm on my own I always prefer Melodyne but, when there's clients here what I find is that sometimes they don't want to take the time with Melodyne, even when I explain that the results will be better and that it really doesn't take long.

And so I end up using Autotune and sometimes I'm not happy with it but the client accepts it. :(

So I want to at least give the new AT version a chance. If it's an improvement over the previous AT I'll likely buy.

The upgrade isn't too bad... and there's some new features included that might be nice. I'll try the demo soon as I get time and report. Maybe someone will be quicker though? If so I'd love to hear the review. :)


Perry

[Tim Miskimon]

When I'm on my own I always prefer Melodyne but, when there's clients here what I find is that sometimes they don't want to take the time with Melodyne, even when I explain that the results will be better and that it really doesn't take long.

And so I end up using Autotune and sometimes I'm not happy with it but the client accepts it. :(

So I want to at least give the new AT version a chance. If it's an improvement over the previous AT I'll likely buy.

The upgrade isn't too bad... and there's some new features included that might be nice. I'll try the demo soon as I get time and report. Maybe someone will be quicker though? If so I'd love to hear the review. :)


Perry

My wife bought me the upgrade to Auto Tune last Xmas.
She didn't know that it required an Ilok.
I ordered one from Sweetwater and tried it out.
I didn't really care for it.
Fortunately most of my clients trust me and the ones that don't I'll suffer through Auto Tune with them.
Auto Tune has always been clunky to use unless you use the auto part so when I got Melodyne it was a blessing.
I have a feeling that when the new version of Melodyne (which allows tuning of single notes within a chord) comes out a lot more people are going to discover how much better it is than Auto Tune.
When that happens I can leave the Ilok in the closet forever...:)

[Perry]

My wife bought me the upgrade to Auto Tune last Xmas.
She didn't know that it required an Ilok.
I ordered one from Sweetwater and tried it out.
I didn't really care for it.
Fortunately most of my clients trust me and the ones that don't I'll suffer through Auto Tune with them.
Auto Tune has always been clunky to use unless you use the auto part so when I got Melodyne it was a blessing.
I have a feeling that when the new version of Melodyne (which allows tuning of single notes within a chord) comes out a lot more people are going to discover how much better it is than Auto Tune.
When that happens I can leave the Ilok in the closet forever...:)

I agree agree on all counts. :) But.... this is a new, 'different' version that's just out and isn't compatible with the earlier versions.

And so far, in my experience, it's indeed noticeably better than before, enough that I'll probably do the upgrade. I'm using it in Auto mode on something right now where the previous version didn't work well enough to use. I haven't tried the graphical mode yet.

For myself, I think I'll still prefer Melodyne in most cases mind you... but I will say that this new version of AT is saving the day on this particular project I'm doing. I'm running the 10 day demo for a few more days though before I fork over my money in case I change me mind. :rolleyes: :)

Cheers!
Perry

[rdubost]

I believe this (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/11ed201165)happened near Las Vegas. Does someone think that some processing had to be applied ?

[AudioAstronomer]

I believe this (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/11ed201165)happened near Las Vegas. Does someone think that some processing had to be applied ?

Processing?

Maybe just mute then play :p

[Ian Alexander]

I believe this (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/11ed201165)happened near Las Vegas. Does someone think that some processing had to be applied ?
There is so little bleed from monitors and house, I'm skeptical. Also, the breathing sounds and p-pops. Why would they choose that mic and position? I wonder if this is a very well produced fake.

[blessfingas]

i can seem to get autotune to work in saw. can somebody help

[Perry]

i can seem to get autotune to work in saw. can somebody help

Working OK here on my system with SAWStudio.. What seems to be the problem? Can you give a bit more info on what's happening (or not happening).

Perry

[Perry]

I agree agree on all counts. :) But.... this is a new, 'different' version that's just out and isn't compatible with the earlier versions.

And so far, in my experience, it's indeed noticeably better than before, enough that I'll probably do the upgrade. I'm using it in Auto mode on something right now where the previous version didn't work well enough to use. I haven't tried the graphical mode yet.

For myself, I think I'll still prefer Melodyne in most cases mind you... but I will say that this new version of AT is saving the day on this particular project I'm doing. I'm running the 10 day demo for a few more days though before I fork over my money in case I change me mind. :rolleyes: :)

Cheers!
Perry

To add to this.. I did buy the upgrade. And I am using it some whereas I had pretty much stopped using the previous version I had.

On the other hand... I switched to Melodyne in this same project for some things because 'Auto' mode in Auto Tune just wasn't doing the trick. Still useful though in some cases. Since it was an upgrade price it was worth it to me.

One problem now though I will mention is that since loading the new version onto my iLOK (Grrrr) my previous version stopped working. That wasn't supposed to happen. It's caused me some grief in opening EDL's with the older version and caused SAWStudio to crash trying to remove those plugins in the EDL. I had to go into the SS vst folder and physically remove the earlier version.

Haven't had time to figure this out at the moment.. later... hopefully.

In the meantime... Melodyne works miracles.

Perry

[Tim Miskimon]

To add to this.. I did buy the upgrade. And I am using it some whereas I had pretty much stopped using the previous version I had.

On the other hand... I switched to Melodyne in this same project for some things because 'Auto' mode in Auto Tune just wasn't doing the trick. Still useful though in some cases. Since it was an upgrade price it was worth it to me.

One problem now though I will mention is that since loading the new version onto my iLOK (Grrrr) my previous version stopped working. That wasn't supposed to happen. It's caused me some grief in opening EDL's with the older version and caused SAWStudio to crash trying to remove those plugins in the EDL. I had to go into the SS vst folder and physically remove the earlier version.

Haven't had time to figure this out at the moment.. later... hopefully.

In the meantime... Melodyne works miracles.

Perry


Can you imagine trying to get any of these EDLs with plugins to open 10 years from now...:eek:
That's why I use the plugin, render the effect to another layer and than dump the plugin.
At least when someone tries to play back my work someday they won't cuss me out so much...:D
...and I won't get so pissed off if and when I have to remix any of this stuff.

[Perry]

Can you imagine trying to get any of these EDLs with plugins to open 10 years from now...:eek:
That's why I use the plugin, render the effect to another layer and than dump the plugin.
At least when someone tries to play back my work someday they won't cuss me out so much...:D
...and I won't get so pissed off if and when I have to remix any of this stuff.

Yes.... I can imagine. But it's not a good thought. :) rendering the effect is a good idea... one that I do sometimes but probably should do more often. For me what happens though is that often I'm fiddling with things right up to the final mix and then can't (or don't) take the time to render the files... occasionally but not often enough.

OTOH... it's not too often that I DO come back to the actual mixes.

And the beat goes on. :D

Perry

[Carl G.]

I believe this (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/11ed201165)happened near Las Vegas. Does someone think that some processing had to be applied ?

Absolutely HILARIOUS!
Yeah- the live mic feed need to be switched to the house!
Oh...and also to the DAW - over the VO track in RECORD MODE!! :)
(then look for a new job)

[DominicPerry]

Am I right in assuming that re-masters of original 2" tape sessions were in an even worse position? Unless there was serious note taking at the time, you'd have no idea about what compressor was added to a track, or what the settings were etc etc. Or was there a lot more comp + eq during tracking in those days?

Dominic

[Dave Labrecque]

If you haven't already done so, the NARAS guidelines are good reading.


Nerd. ;)

[Cary B. Cornett]

Am I right in assuming that re-masters of original 2" tape sessions were in an even worse position? Unless there was serious note taking at the time, you'd have no idea about what compressor was added to a track, or what the settings were etc etc. Mark has mentioned some of the documentation methods used "back in the day". I was once told that some engineers would take polaroids of outboard equipment to document settings for a mix in case they were needed later. I also once read that Konrad Plank had, in the mid/late '70's, a custom camera/projector built into the ceiling above his console. He could snap a single picture that captured all console settings at once. Later, using the same lens assembly, he could project the resulting slide directly on the mixer. He could then turn knobs and such until everything matched the projected image (this was before SSL came up with their "total recall" feature for their consoles).

Or was there a lot more comp + eq during tracking in those days?
Probably. Back then, remember, we had to fight tape noise. EQ'ing to tape was quite common, and at least some compression was used when tracking vocals much of the time. For some styles of music, getting as much of the "finished" sound to tape as possible was almost a rule. I was told by "funk" engineer Larry Ferguson that, if a session was tracked properly, at mix time you should be able to put all of the console faders in a straight line and be pretty close to the proper balance for the final mix (that last bit DID seem a little odd to me).

I can tell you that my early experience in recording ingrained some of these ideas so strongly that my original design concept for a "road rig" assumed the use of four 12-unit racks so that I could carry multiple channels of outboard EQ and compression (not to mention a full patch bay). Fortunately I didn't get all that far building that rig before I finally realized that all that outboard hardware was simply not necessary for tracking anymore. My present road rig uses only 2 6-unit racks. Neither one of them is full, and for smaller jobs one of them is plenty. (Bob's brilliant coding and design obsoleted a LOT of stuff for me.)

[Ian Alexander]

[snip]
Back then, remember, we had to fight tape noise. EQ'ing to tape was quite common, and at least some compression was used when tracking vocals much of the time. For some styles of music, getting as much of the "finished" sound to tape as possible was almost a rule. I was told by "funk" engineer Larry Ferguson that, if a session was tracked properly, at mix time you should be able to put all of the console faders in a straight line and be pretty close to the proper balance for the final mix (that last bit DID seem a little odd to me).
[snip]
That last bit seems really odd to me, especially in the context of the tape noise comment. In my analog days, we went for the best S/N on each track and actually used the faders for mixdown.:)

[Dave Labrecque]

I've used the polaroid technique as well, even on console channel sections. It worked well on the old blue and grey Neve 8100 series consoles with white lines on the grey knobs that would easily show up on the photos.

Other color combos were not so camera friendly, especially using the flash.:)

I still have a photo of a jazz session console set-up from 1992, where the engineer...Joel Moss....walked in, set the console pre-amp, EQ and fader settings in advance of the musicians, and created an incredible result with minimal changes when the band started playing. That's what I call knowing your musicians, microphones, and console. Very impressive.

Mark

Ah, but had he ever been with a woman? :p

Nerd. :p

(kidding) ;)

(or... am I?) :confused:

[Bud Johnson]

What the he** are you talking about? I think I'm missing the joke!:confused:

Mark
Oh you are are you....or are you, you are!

[Dave Labrecque]

What the he** are you talking about? I think I'm missing the joke!:confused:

Mark

Sorry. Trying to reprise my "anyone who is so into this stuff must be either a virgin or a nerd; probably both" mentality/gag from yesterday.

Unsuccessfully. :o

[blessfingas]

Working OK here on my system with SAWStudio.. What seems to be the problem? Can you give a bit more info on what's happening (or not happening).

Perry
It won't show up in my fx choices

[Bob L]

If the plugin is a VST, then you must link to it in the SAWStudio VST_Plugins folder... read the helpfile section about using plugin effects.

There is also a 3rd party plugin available to create those links for you in the misc downloads on my website.

Bob L

[blessfingas]

If the plugin is a VST, then you must link to it in the SAWStudio VST_Plugins folder... read the helpfile section about using plugin effects.

There is also a 3rd party plugin available to create those links for you in the misc downloads on my website.

Bob L
THANX

[soundtrack2life]

To add to this.. I did buy the upgrade. And I am using it some whereas I had pretty much stopped using the previous version I had.

On the other hand... I switched to Melodyne in this same project for some things because 'Auto' mode in Auto Tune just wasn't doing the trick. Still useful though in some cases. Since it was an upgrade price it was worth it to me.

One problem now though I will mention is that since loading the new version onto my iLOK (Grrrr) my previous version stopped working. That wasn't supposed to happen. It's caused me some grief in opening EDL's with the older version and caused SAWStudio to crash trying to remove those plugins in the EDL. I had to go into the SS vst folder and physically remove the earlier version.

Haven't had time to figure this out at the moment.. later... hopefully.

In the meantime... Melodyne works miracles.

Perry

Perry, did you ever get both versions to work on the same system? I have been thinking about upgrading and was going to DL the demo. But I don't want to loose my working AT5. Which brings me to my next question . . .are they suppose to both be able to reside on a iLok / system?
Joe

[Perry]

Perry, did you ever get both versions to work on the same system? I have been thinking about upgrading and was going to DL the demo. But I don't want to loose my working AT5. Which brings me to my next question . . .are they suppose to both be able to reside on a iLok / system?
Joe

As far as I know they are supposed to work together.. if I recall correctly this is stated on their web site due to the fact that the new version doesn't 'upgrade' the previous one so the previous one HAS to work for backward compatibility with older projects.

Sorry, I haven't had time to look into what happened in my case. I DO plan to though and haven't forgotten about it... just hasn't been a pressing issue and I'm busy with other things. Definitely moving forward I'll use the new version over the previous one... but I also definitely don't want to lose backward compatibility.

The problem in my case MAY be due to the fact that I was still on version 4. It looks like with buying the new plug-in I got a 'free' upgrade to ver 5 but have never installed this.... which might explain why ver4 quit working. I could be wrong about that though; I have to look at this again when I get time.

I'd suggest writing to Antares tech support and asking them straight out... I'm sure they'll want to sort it out for you. And for what it's worth, though I didn't agree with some of their practices at the time, the guy from Antares I dealt with was easy to talk with and seemed intelligent and willing to listen to what I had to say. We just didn't agree... but hey.. that's life after all. :)

Tell 'em Perry sent you. ;):rolleyes:

Seriously though.. good luck with it!

Perry