wilpye Posted June 5, 2001 Share Posted June 5, 2001 Is there a program or method in existence or development to fractionate a digitally recorded rhythm guitar track into the six component pitches? Possibly with dedicated notch filters or whatever. The purpose of this would be to take as many as all six pitched notes at a given moment playing together and separate them so that a particular pitch out of tune can be routed through a monophonic program such as AutoTune. The last stage would be to recombine the corrected note back in sync with the other five. For simplicity let's assume the subject passage is a section with no string bending interfering with the initial six strings sounding together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Hughes Posted June 5, 2001 Share Posted June 5, 2001 "Is there a program or method in existence or development to fractionate a digitally recorded rhythm guitar track into the six component pitches?" In a word, no. This is currently impossible. And, I would guess, will be impossible for quite some time. Jonathan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffk Posted June 5, 2001 Share Posted June 5, 2001 Leave it in...mistakes rule! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miroslav Posted June 5, 2001 Share Posted June 5, 2001 Originally posted by Jonathan Hughes: In a word, no. This is currently impossible. And, I would guess, will be impossible for quite some time. AMEN!!! How anal must we get? "Ah...the pick attack on the second string of the third strum was .005 ms longer then the preceding two strums, so we'll have to split that chord up into its component notes and edit out that little difference." Hey...I've been guilty of that kind of anal microsurgery when I first started playing around with MIDI sequencing and then later DAWs. Never got much MUSIC done that ways...I think(hope) I'm over that phaseback to makin' music instead of slicin' & dicin' everything into oblivion. miroslav - miroslavmusic.com "Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilpye Posted June 6, 2001 Author Share Posted June 6, 2001 Guys, please forget whether this seems useful. Think and attack the problem in front of you. J. Hughes, I feel like Abraham wheedling God over Sodom & Gomorrah, but let me lower my expectations since you've seemingly stopped people from getting in to gear and addressing this by saying NO. Let's try again, if we have two separate recorded mono guitar notes, and we combine them....Is there a program or a way (knowing what they look like before combining them) that we can separate these two pitches back into the two original waveforms. We can put men on the moon, can we do this?? Just two pitches.... Think! This message has been edited by wilpye on 06-27-2001 at 04:54 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlChuck Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 There are many many ways that the same complex waveform could be decomposed into component parts... once the parts are combined, I doubt there is any information in the waveform itself that can really specify how to decompose it correctly. That is basically information that has been lost. Even two simple mono guitar notes are themselves pretty complex waveforms... how would the magic software know how far to go in decomposing the waveform it has to work with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gus Lozada Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 Originally posted by wilpye: [bThe purpose of this would be to take as many as all six pitched notes at a given moment playing together and separate them so that a particular pitch out of tune can be routed through a monophonic program such as AutoTune.[/b] Well... I guess it would be easier to expect ANTARES (or other company) to release a PolyPhonic AutoTune than a magic program which could fraction the notes in a chord... really ! For a single micro-sized segment of the guitar track where it sounds out of tune, you could pitch-correct it by hand with software ... I almost forgot... ask your guitarist to get a decent tuner... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif GG Lozada Músico, Productor, Ingeniero, Tecnólogo Senior Product Manager, América Latina y Caribe - PreSonus at Fender Musical Instruments Company Instagram: guslozada Facebook: Lozada - Música y Tecnología www.guslozada.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilpye Posted June 6, 2001 Author Share Posted June 6, 2001 Alchuck, now you're talking! Remember if I knew the answer I wouldn't be here, but lets run with your question "how would the magic software know how far to go in decomposing the waveform it has to work with?" Is it possible.... A program is trained to know what an eq. temp A440 for a particular old strat looks like by feeding it a test waveform. It is also fed a G392 one step under it. Now it knows both those waveforms, complex and rich though they may be. Can it now dig in and look at the combined waveform and pull out the desired two initial waveforms? We're cheating and doing everything we can to help the program. Why can't it separate the two pitches? If not, why not? Complex and rich shouldn't fly as an answer because it already knows what the two end product waveforms look like that its trying to reassemble. And it knows there's nothing in the combined waveform that should be left, since we've cheated and told it not only the anatomy of the two pitches but the fact there are only these two pitches. I await a serious reply(s). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gus Lozada Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 Originally posted by wilpye: Let's try again, if we have two separate recorded mono guitar notes, and we combine them....Is there a program or a way (knowing what they look like before combining them) that we can separate these two pitches back into the two original waveforms. We can put men on the moon, can we do this?? Just two pitches.... Think! That is why MULTITRACK digital recorders are for... combine them, keep the original tracks... don't like it? Go back and try again... Good Ideas, but there are tools to make a similar job in a common sense way... Músico, Productor, Ingeniero, Tecnólogo Senior Product Manager, América Latina y Caribe - PreSonus at Fender Musical Instruments Company Instagram: guslozada Facebook: Lozada - Música y Tecnología www.guslozada.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KBP Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 It would be cool if I could take say each individual string on a power chord and pan them throughout the stereo field. Or effect only one of the strings with delay or a vocoder or something like that. But I think the problem is (please understand I'm no scientist) that even though each note on each string represents what ever note it represents there are harmonics above and below the note specified that mix in with the other notes on the other strings so it gets very complicated and don't really know if this will ever be possible on a perfect level. You could though copy the track in question to five other tracks put something like a Waves C4 multiband compressor on the inserts of all 6 tracks then go through and find the basic frequency of each note in question, solo only one band in each plugin and tune that band on each plug in to the desired freaquency of each string you got going. But then this would only really work with a guitar part that does not change key or notes. Other wise you could change the settings for each chord change. Or you can do it the easy way and find one of those guitars with individual outs for each string. I've never seen one but I have heard about them. Then again still, I can't see how each individual out wouldn't have some sort of sound from the other strings sending vibrations into all of the pole pieces. I'm not sure if this was what you're asking but thought I'd have a wack at it. KBP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Genske Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 There is a new, innovative software which could have the potential to manage such tasks in the future. At the moment it works on monophonic material "only". I heard a demo which was very fascinating. Have a look: http://www.celemony.com/melodyne/Intro.html Roland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
- Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 Here's an idea, although I don't know if it would be stylistically appropriate for what you're doing... What if you used fairly heavy chorusing on the guitar and also tried to keep it near the back of the mix? That way, the pitches might be somewhat "smeared", although stylistically it might sound like the Police or some other '80s rock.... A couple other ideas... You could try muting the offending track, and see if the arrangement still works. Or, if only certain parts of the song are out of tune, you could copy and paste the good sections over top of the bad ones. If you can record the track again, the result would be many, many times better than anything I suggested above... You can't polish a turd -- you can only smooth it over! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
- Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 Ooops -- upon reading the post again, I realize you're asking if it can be done, not that you're asking for suggestions in a nightmare mixing situation... I think it might be able to be done one day to *some* extent, but I imagine there would be all kinds of weird artifacts you'd hear (like you often hear with regular pitch shifting) because in a guitar you have frequencies which are very close and which overlap with each other. For a computer to be able to separate each note and retain the tonality of the original recording I think would be near impossible. The computer would need to reconstruct harmonics *and* repitch them... I don't imagine the reconstructed tone sounding as good as the original recording. We kind of already have this capability now. If you're playing samples from a MIDI-equipped guitar, you can get perfect pitch and rhythm... And you can edit everything down to the most minute level possible. It doesn't sound natural or exactly like a real guitar, though. I have to agree with the other posters... I mean, how anal-retentive do we really want to get with pitch correction? If you can't play your instrument in tune, perhaps it's something not worth recording. This message has been edited by popmusic on 06-06-2001 at 09:50 AM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WFTurner Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 >>Let's try again, if we have two separate recorded mono guitar notes, and >>we combine them....Is there a program or a way (knowing what they look >>like before combining them) that we can separate these two pitches back >>into the two original waveforms. I assume this discussion is all theoretical... my thoughts are. Keeping to the two basic tones you mention... I think it'd be easy. This "Digital Sound Program" that is gonna render these two samples, sounds, notes, program it with the capability to store and remember the waveforms it handles. As you expose it to different sounds, the program will learn and build one heck of a database regarding "sounds" and will require vast amounts of memory..ie HD space. Then it could seperate the components exactly to a "T". But only components it has been taught to recognize. It'd be a monstrousity of a thing but how else would a piece of software recognise the exact way a note on a guitar, a sax, an obe a whatever, run thru any given mic, preamp, amp, effect, EQ, A/D converter, what ever you can think of and the unique harmonic content of that particular signal chain and deliver it back to you exactly as it was in it's original form when it entered the mix? Kinda gives me a headache thinkin about it. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif ------------------ William F. Turner Songwriter turnermusic William F. Turner Songwriter turnersongs Sometimes the truth is rude... tough shit... get used to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calfee Jones Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 And then of course it would not only have to *know* the correct pitches, but it would have to be able to recognize every variation of incorrect pitch around it. I see the problem of trying to isolate a single guitar string from the rest of the strings to be about the same as trying to isolate the eggs from the rest of the cake batter after it has been mixed. The other strings will also introduce sound elements that will also be valid for the string you are attmpting to isolate. How does the software make the decision to take one or the other, when both are valid? There are a multitude of similar problems that would face you as you attempt to program this thing. - If you teach it the right wave signatures for a specific guitar and string then you have to teach it all the wrong ones too! And the strings will not have the same signature individually as they will when they are played in a group due to the way frequencies interact with one another. Some frequencies will be cancelled, others will be excited from harmonics on other strings. As you dig into it, it becomes a complicated problem... - Calfee Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miroslav Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 Not trying to bash anyone just because they have an inquiring mind...I like to daydream too and think up silly "what if" questions. Thing is, when you start actually "theorizing" the "what if", you also have to add some realty into that "what if theorizing" . So asking this particular "what if" is almost equivalent to "what if we all had wings and we could fly"...have another hit...this is gooood shit!!! The reality of it is...it would just be much simpler to tell the rhythm guitar player to tune the guitar up before hitting record. If someone actually ever builds a box that can disassemble a complex multi-tone wave into its original single tones...well...then you will be able to throw a bunch of instruments down a flight of stairs, record that, run it through this "magic box" and create all kinds of real good tunes/mixes from that single "staircase rhapsody". And I thought the "...96kHz" thread on GM's forum was a bit far reaching. Compared to this thread, that one is as easy to read/comprehend as a Sunday Paper comic strip. I just want to know why? To what point? I am usually very open minded. This message has been edited by miroslav on 06-06-2001 at 12:13 PM miroslav - miroslavmusic.com "Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlChuck Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 wilpye, A program is trained to know what an eq. temp A440 for a particular old strat looks like by feeding it a test waveform. It is also fed a G392 one step under it. Now it knows both those waveforms, complex and rich though they may be. Both WFTurner and Calfee Jones nailed it pretty good there. Man, even just plucking the string hard or soft or in between and with a pick or fingernail or flesh and pick or two fingertips -- not to mention an ebow or a bottleneck -- will make the resulting waveforms very different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seclusion Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 Ever heard of chorus effect??? Works for me.. Brian Smile if you're not wearin panties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WFTurner Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 >>>And I thought the "...96kHz" thread on GM's forum was a bit far reaching. Compared to this thread, that one is as easy to read/comprehend as a Sunday Paper comic strip.<<< Hehe... 18 pages and growing... I haven't even found the mental courage to take a peek http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif. I love making music and learning how to make better music. Don't like to have to think a whole alot. ------------------ William F. Turner Songwriter turnermusic This message has been edited by WFTurner on 06-06-2001 at 01:25 PM William F. Turner Songwriter turnersongs Sometimes the truth is rude... tough shit... get used to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miroslav Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 Originally posted by WFTurner: >>>And I thought the "...96kHz" thread on GM's forum was a bit far reaching. Compared to this thread, that one is as easy to read/comprehend as a Sunday Paper comic strip.<<< Hehe... 18 pages and growing... I haven't even found the mental courage to take a peek http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif. Courage has nothing to do with it...as long as you are "mental", you can zip right through all 18 pages...hehehe. miroslav - miroslavmusic.com "Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halljams Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 I think the idea is great, because then all the people who are so into fussing about with gadgets would have even more fussing about to do, and would make less of that awful non-musical noise they make. But as far as the fun of speculating goes.... Why couldn't someone build a program that simply weeds out the strongest fundamentals of a wave. The user should be able to set the program to pick out say; 2 or 3 or 4 fundamentals,(if the voicing has 4 notes you choose "4") and it(the program) would pick the strongest fundamentals and tune them to the set parameters of the tuning algorithm? This wouldn't be able to tune an orchestra but might be useful for tuning pianos and other individual chordal instruments and small sections. Wouldn't that work? What a goofy topic. This message has been edited by halljams on 06-06-2001 at 03:16 PM Check out SUPERVIBE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Hughes Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 "Why couldn't someone build a program that simply weeds out the strongest fundamentals of a wave." I think that might work if you just wanted the program to tell you what notes were being played; but it wouldn't work if you were tryig to retune something, because you couldn't just retune the fundamental -- you'd have to retune all the overtones; and I have no idea how a program could possibly figure out what note (or string in this instance) an overtone belongs to. Jonathan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Worthington Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 Has anyone thought about using a hex pickup going to multiple tracks. Then you'd at least have each string isolated. Should be able to play the result back through a VG88 for some fun. I might have to experiment with this. jw Affiliations: Jambé Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilpye Posted June 6, 2001 Author Share Posted June 6, 2001 Many of the replies remind me of the expert panel at IBM who dismissed the idea of small personal computers because a poll of their customers found only 3% showed any interest at all. Popmusic warms up a little to the concepts, but then muses >>>I mean, how anal-retentive do we really want to get with pitch correction? If you can't play your instrument in tune, perhaps it's something not worth recording.<<<<< To how far with pitch correction do we want to go the answer is: Totally in tune! Because despite those who say clams rule, the truth is clams suck bigtime. Otherwise we'd all be a world of contented luddites. Some of his positive input:>>>If you're playing samples from a MIDI-equipped guitar, you can get perfect pitch and rhythm... And you can edit everything down to the most minute level possible. It doesn't sound natural or exactly like a real guitar, though.<<< Which shadows the purpose of my original post, midi to real is not natural. And yes its a lot of work messing with midi & then back. But a killer polyphonic tuning program would be better and ideally (if realized) little hassle. So let's review the positive input. I asked for serious replies and got some. Thanks gang. WFTurner says in response to my >>>if we have two separate recorded mono guitar notes, and we combine them....Is there a program or a way (knowing what they look like before combining them) that we can separate these two pitches back into the two original waveforms?<<< His response >>>Keeping to the two basic tones you mention... I think it'd be easy.... As you expose it to different sounds, the program will learn and build one heck of a database regarding "sounds" ... will require vast amounts of memory..ie HD space. Then it could seperate the components exactly to a "T". But only components it has been taught to recognize.<< But the negatives give him pause >>>Kinda gives me a headache thinkin about it.<<< Good negatives can be addressed. Remember, this theoretical program is dedicated in my argument to one particular old strat. For those who digress into other instruments, the program has to build up a background on each subject. But these are problems for the computer, not the engineer's overworked brain. OK we're narrowed to a particular instrument. What next? Calfee Jones weighs in >>>And then of course it would not only have to *know* the correct pitches, but it would have to be able to recognize every variation of incorrect pitch around it....If you teach it the right wave signatures for a specific guitar and string then you have to teach it all the wrong ones too! And the strings will not have the same signature individually as they will when they are played in a group due to the way frequencies interact with one another. Some frequencies will be cancelled, others will be excited from harmonics on other strings. As you dig into it, it becomes a complicated problem...<<< AlChuck agrees with Calfee Jones >>>Man, even just plucking the string hard or soft or in between and with a pick or fingernail or flesh and pick or two fingertips -- not to mention an ebow or a bottleneck -- will make the resulting waveforms very different.<<< Is it unrealistic to think with all the progress in the computer art of this new century that even these heebie jeebie worries can't be extrapolated enough to become predictable. The interreaction of a plurality of strings will indeed introduce artifacts, but they are all old science. Remember, the program is deconstructing from a known quantity following the same rules Mother Nature used to put the waveforms together in the 1st place. And programs can be taught to be correct and even out think Bobby Fisher. It can be done if the program knows the rules and these rules -are -not -infinite. OK, now the program has a deep, far reaching database of combinational rules of sound. It's fat and tuff and ready to procreate... What next? Miroslav >>>it would just be much simpler to tell the rhythm guitar player to tune the guitar up before hitting record.<<< I thought everyone understood we're not talking simple here. Simple is for kids.... Miroslav continues >>>I just want to know why? To what point? I am usually very open minded.<<< A good answer comes from KBP right here on this forum: >>>It would be cool if I could take say each individual string on a power chord and pan them throughout the stereo field. Or effect only one of the strings with delay or a vocoder or something like that.<<< Kudus to you KBP. I can add to the audience that when you really set your jaded fannies down and listen to the out of tune mess from contented losers (unnamed) compared to winners like Steely Dan you can appreciate the difference. Does Fagan obsess over having his tracks in tune because he did not want to be in the hall of fame? Miroslav. IT MATTERS. WFTurner closes us out for the moment >>I love making music and learning how to make better music. Don't like to have to think a whole alot.<<< WF, better music doesn't need a lot of thinking when you're making it. But there's nothing wrong with appreciating the massive thinking that went into that cool car when you get in it and enjoy your personal ride into the wild blue yonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fet Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 What th'?! ...Wilpye, relax, have a couple drinks and listen to some Howlin' Wolf and Jimmy Reed, is my advice. This may be what you need... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
- Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 Originally posted by wilpye: Popmusic warms up a little to the concepts, but then muses >>>I mean, how anal-retentive do we really want to get with pitch correction? If you can't play your instrument in tune, perhaps it's something not worth recording.<<<<< To how far with pitch correction do we want to go the answer is: Totally in tune! ... I can add to the audience that when you really set your jaded fannies down and listen to the out of tune mess from contented losers (unnamed) compared to winners like Steely Dan you can appreciate the difference. Does Fagan obsess over having his tracks in tune because he did not want to be in the hall of fame? Miroslav. IT MATTERS. Y'know, if you approach music purely from a technical -- not emotional -- standpoint, then your train of thought is valid. What you said about Fagan is a good example. Technically, Steely Dan's stuff is incredible... I don't think anybody could accuse Steely Dan of putting together shoddy-sounding records... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif However, just to follow your train of thought... Compare Steely Dan's '70s albums to Stevie Wonder's '70s albums. Technically speaking, you can find more pitch and rhythm "flaws" (if you want to call them that) on Stevie's albums than on Steely Dan's. Does it make Stevie Wonder's music less valid than Steely Dan's because Stevie's isn't as precise? While the notion of creating technically perfect music can be an interesting artistic goal, it's still not everyone's cup of tea. Maybe that's why some of us on this thread found the notion of tuning a guitar after it's been recorded as a slight bit offensive. Everyone approaches music in different ways, both in how they create and listen to it. If you approach creating music as if you were creating a computer program -- which it sounds like you are -- then I totally understand where you're coming from. I'm a computer programmer myself, and I take a 100% logical "everything has to be perfect/close to perfect" approach when I'm programming... But I *definitely* don't use that same mindset when I'm working on music. I would rather let some emotion and imperfections come through... It's what makes us human. Your mileage may vary. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif This message has been edited by popmusic on 06-06-2001 at 05:01 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Notape_dup1 Posted June 7, 2001 Share Posted June 7, 2001 The technology exists, it's just finding the right way of implementing it. I work in the audio/video conferencing industry and for the audio half of the communication, think of a speakerphone: you hear the person on the other end, and the person on the other end hears you. I'm gonna go off on a small tangent here, try this: put on a pair of haedphones, get a mic, speak into the mic, you can hear yourself right? Now, put a delay on the mic. Now try talking.....hearing youself delayed while talking isn't easy, the delay is fooling your brain, thus interupting your speech. Back to the speakerphone, Say I'm on a conference call with someone on the other side of the globe...We are both on speakerphones. In theory, it takes a while for that audio signal from the far end microphone to make it all the way to your speaker. The microphone on your end picks up the sound comming from the speaker. This is going to feedback into the mic, travel back to the far end... the person at the far end is listening to their own voice delayed and interrupting their speech. This is a problem in the conferencing industry. Cheaper speakerphones just mute the mic when the person on the other end is talking. High end speakerphones or conferencing systems have what is called an echo canceler. An echo canceler samples the rooms acoustical properties by 'listening' to the far end audio as it's fed back into the mic, then it creates a model of the room, mimmicing the rooms every reflection (This principal is used in some of them 'sampling reverb' boxes, like the sony dre-s777) as audio comes from the far end, internaly it is split into two signals: one signal is amplified and is heard through the speaker, the other signal is fed through the room modeler and fliped 180 degrees out of phase. As far end audio is fed back into the mic, the modeled signal is also fed into the outgoing signal canceling out the far end audio only leaving what signal the other end wants to hear, you. If we could find a way to model fundamental and harmonics of each sound or note as it is played from a guitar, you can cancel out notes. As far as differences in pickups, string guages, the equipment the guitar is played through (amps, effects).. all this can be modeled already. This is a very complicated problem, but so is echo canceling... and that's possible. I bet if enough people express their need for such an animal, I'm willing to bet that it can and will be made possible. Shit, what a long post, I hope no one is too confused. check out these links: www.aspi.com www.gentner.com -notape Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilpye Posted June 7, 2001 Author Share Posted June 7, 2001 Popmusic returns with >>>Does it make Stevie Wonder's music less valid than Steely Dan's because Stevie's isn't as precise?....While the notion of creating technically perfect music can be an interesting artistic goal, it's still not everyone's cup of tea. ... But I *definitely* don't use that same mindset when I'm working on music. I would rather let some emotion and imperfections come through...<<< This argument on Stevie Wonder is like the old guy who lived to a hundred and attributed it to his drinking and self abuse. Think how much longer & better his life would have been if he'd taken better care of his sorry ass. In other words, stop holding Stevie's former sloppiness up as wonderful. I prefer to think how nicer it could have been if his studio cohorts would have done better for him. I'll make a bet. Give Stevie a choice to record perfectly in tune and the old way, and his super ears would take 'in tune' any day. Please don't get lost in this >>let some emotion come through<< malarkey. Being out of tune contributes not one whit to emotion. However, at some point it does become gross. All we're really discussing is the point at which different people start to puke. Some personal standards may be lower than mine and I accept that they drink that different cup of tea. I'm not on a high horse here, but the difference to me is there. Out of tune tracks muddy up so damn fast when you mix them. Sludge is sludge. Roland Genske contributed an url for a new software (melodyne) that I couldn't access with my Mac. But I did reach the site using: http://www.gehlesoftware.de/celemony/melodyne/Intro.html This has three headers: intro, details, MP3 examples. These fellas sound like serious architects of sound. I will explore their program and I'm sure much interest from a lot of parties will spring from this. They say it will be available for Mac in a month. However, it is (as Roland said) not directed at extraction, but it seems to do everything else. This message has been edited by wilpye on 06-27-2001 at 05:07 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WFTurner Posted June 7, 2001 Share Posted June 7, 2001 .<< But the negatives give him pause >>>Kinda gives me a headache thinkin about it.<<< Not a negative. Good old human humor. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif Making sure the guitar is in tune isn't a negative... there's alot of Hall Of Famers, from long before we had this fangled digital and computer stuff who figured this out. Just good old human common sense. All this thinkin got something sizzlin on top of my head. Not a negative. Good old human humor. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif ------------------ William F. Turner Songwriter turnermusic William F. Turner Songwriter turnersongs Sometimes the truth is rude... tough shit... get used to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
- Posted June 7, 2001 Share Posted June 7, 2001 Originally posted by wilpye: This argument on Stevie Wonder is like the old guy who lived to a hundred and attributed it to his drinking and self abuse. Think how much longer & better his life would have been if he'd taken better care of his sorry ass. In other words, stop holding Stevie's former sloppyness up as wonderful. I prefer to think how nicer it could have been if his studio cohorts would have done better for him. I'll make a bet. Give Stevie a choice to record perfecty in tune and the old way, and his super ears would take 'in tune' any day. Please don't get lost in this >>let some emotion come through<< malarky. Ummm... Stevie in fact *has* released many technically perfect recordings (all sequenced, all synths) from the early '80s on... You're also linking Stevie Wonder to some sort of drinking/substance abuse issue? Uh... do you have some sort of proof of this, as I've never heard anything of the kind... "Think how much longer & better his life would have been if he'd taken better care of his sorry ass"?!?!? To the best of my knowledge, Stevie Wonder is still very alive and well. What planet are *you* from?!?!? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gif Sorry, I'm not about to have a battle of wits with someone who's half prepared. I think I'll sit the rest of this thread out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.