pitch-correction in live performances?

[[email protected]]

I completely understand the concept of pitch correction in recorded
music. have even studied a bit of the math.

I don't understand how pitch correction could be done in a live vocal
performance.... unless the paradigm is that only certain pitches
(notes) are pre-programed to be allowed in the vocal for each
particular song?

Or... was that vocal track actually "cleaned up" later, in between the
time the performance occured, and the time it got played on my CD
player at home?!?

Which boxes can do pitch-correction on live vocals?

Is there any school which is good at teaching the techniques of this
specialty?

[Brian]

On 28 Mar 2007 06:58:29 -0700, wrote:

>I completely understand the concept of pitch correction in recorded
>music. have even studied a bit of the math.
>
>I don't understand how pitch correction could be done in a live vocal
>performance.... unless the paradigm is that only certain pitches
>(notes) are pre-programed to be allowed in the vocal for each
>particular song?
>
>Or... was that vocal track actually "cleaned up" later, in between the
>time the performance occured, and the time it got played on my CD
>player at home?!?
>
>Which boxes can do pitch-correction on live vocals?
>
>Is there any school which is good at teaching the techniques of this
>specialty?

I'd say the best pitch correction technique would be for the performer
to practice and get it right to start with. Seriously.

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>
>I don't understand how pitch correction could be done in a live vocal
>performance.... unless the paradigm is that only certain pitches
>(notes) are pre-programed to be allowed in the vocal for each
>particular song?

Right. The system basically looks at each note, and shifts it to the
nearest half-step.

The end result is horrible. Very unpleasant and robotic.

>Or... was that vocal track actually "cleaned up" later, in between the
>time the performance occured, and the time it got played on my CD
>player at home?!?

Oh, that happens ALL the time. The vast majority of live albums out
there have the vocals at least tinkered with in post, and a lot of
them have the vocals completely overdubbed in post. Do not at any
point think the concert recording released by the band bears a lot of
connection with the actual concert. It may, but it may not either.

>Which boxes can do pitch-correction on live vocals?

Autotune is a common one, and TC Electronic makes one also.

>Is there any school which is good at teaching the techniques of this
>specialty?

What specialty? Wrecking music with Autotune?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Chris Whealy]

wrote:
> I completely understand the concept of pitch correction in recorded music. have even studied a bit of the math.
>
> I don't understand how pitch correction could be done in a live vocal performance.... unless the paradigm is that only certain pitches (notes) are pre-programed to be allowed in the vocal for each particular song?
>
See http://www.temple.edu/ispr/examples/ex03_08_25.html

Whether you auto tune or not depends largely on the ability of the
singer(s) and the style of music being performed.
An auto tuner will totally mangle any style of singing in which notes
are deliberately bent or the singer wants to slide between notes as they
would in Jazz singing.
> Or... was that vocal track actually "cleaned up" later, in between the time the performance occured, and the time it got played on my CD player at home?!?
>
This is how its usually done. But then a pitch corrected voice always
sounds processed and less natural. So only use it if you have to, and
then sparingly.
> Which boxes can do pitch-correction on live vocals?
>
The same ones that do it in post production. E.G. Antares AVP-1
> Is there any school which is good at teaching the techniques of this specialty?
>
Yes, the School of Hard Knocks. You will find this school in session in
any place where you get "experience" and make "mistakes".

Chris W

--
The voice of ignorance speaks loud and long,
But the words of the wise are quiet and few.
---

[Mike]

On 2007-03-28, Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> > wrote:
>>
>>I don't understand how pitch correction could be done in a live vocal
>>performance.... unless the paradigm is that only certain pitches
>>(notes) are pre-programed to be allowed in the vocal for each
>>particular song?
>
> Right. The system basically looks at each note, and shifts it to the
> nearest half-step.
>
> The end result is horrible. Very unpleasant and robotic.
>

I had someone put this in my mic line without telling me (going to both
main and monitor!), and it was bizaare. I could tell something was
wrong, but not quite what it was. I felt like I was singing with
congestion, which usually affects my performance in more than one way
because I don't feel as confident.

I was told I sounded good, but you couldn't prove it by me. I don't want
to go through that again, and I will probably be asking paranoid questions
on a regular basis now.

--
Mike

Be patient. God isn't finished with me yet. -- unknown

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike > wrote:
>I had someone put this in my mic line without telling me (going to both
>main and monitor!), and it was bizaare. I could tell something was
>wrong, but not quite what it was. I felt like I was singing with
>congestion, which usually affects my performance in more than one way
>because I don't feel as confident.

Anyone who would do that to a performer without warning deserves to be
taken out and shot.

>I was told I sounded good, but you couldn't prove it by me. I don't want
>to go through that again, and I will probably be asking paranoid questions
>on a regular basis now.

If anyone ever does this to you, shouting "turn off the ****ing autotune"
into the mike may be helpful.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Federico]

> If anyone ever does this to you, shouting "turn off the ****ing autotune"
> into the mike may be helpful.
> --scott

I am on your side.
but....
Why is it not the same thing about compression?
Autotune adjust your tune while a compressor adjust your dynamic.
Autotune is terrible if the user does not know how to use it. Just as
compressors.
A well set autotune is almost inaudible. The times you hear it is because
it's not well set.

Of course you cannot use autotune without telling the artist!
F.

[Chris Whealy]

Federico wrote:
> Why is it not the same thing about compression?
> Autotune adjust your tune while a compressor adjust your dynamic.
> Autotune is terrible if the user does not know how to use it. Just as compressors.
> A well set autotune is almost inaudible. The times you hear it is because it's not well set.
>
A badly setup compressor will destroy a singer's dynamic range. The
whole point of singers learning mic technique to be able to
self-regulate their volume in the way they want - not just when some
dumb piece of equipment says they've exceeded a threshold.

Chris W

--
The voice of ignorance speaks loud and long,
But the words of the wise are quiet and few.
---

[Mike]

On 2007-03-28, Chris Whealy > wrote:
> Federico wrote:
>> Why is it not the same thing about compression?
>> Autotune adjust your tune while a compressor adjust your dynamic.
>> Autotune is terrible if the user does not know how to use it. Just as compressors.
>> A well set autotune is almost inaudible. The times you hear it is because it's not well set.
>>
> A badly setup compressor will destroy a singer's dynamic range. The
> whole point of singers learning mic technique to be able to
> self-regulate their volume in the way they want - not just when some
> dumb piece of equipment says they've exceeded a threshold.

I have a friend who is a well-respected musician and recording engineer,
who is incredibly pro-compression. In his opinion, good mic technique
consists of staying up on the microphone and letting the compressor do
the work.

I have heard other people who are just as adamant the other direction,
claiming that good mic technique is a moving microphone combined with
vocal control to regulate volume.

I am just a hack, but personally I prefer the latter. Is there any
consensus in this group, one way or another?

--
Mike

Be patient. God isn't finished with me yet. -- unknown

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:00:05 -0000, Mike > wrote:

>On 2007-03-28, Chris Whealy > wrote:
>> Federico wrote:
>>> Why is it not the same thing about compression?
>>> Autotune adjust your tune while a compressor adjust your dynamic.
>>> Autotune is terrible if the user does not know how to use it. Just as compressors.
>>> A well set autotune is almost inaudible. The times you hear it is because it's not well set.
>>>
>> A badly setup compressor will destroy a singer's dynamic range. The
>> whole point of singers learning mic technique to be able to
>> self-regulate their volume in the way they want - not just when some
>> dumb piece of equipment says they've exceeded a threshold.
>
>I have a friend who is a well-respected musician and recording engineer,
>who is incredibly pro-compression. In his opinion, good mic technique
>consists of staying up on the microphone and letting the compressor do
>the work.
>
>I have heard other people who are just as adamant the other direction,
>claiming that good mic technique is a moving microphone combined with
>vocal control to regulate volume.
>
>I am just a hack, but personally I prefer the latter. Is there any
>consensus in this group, one way or another?

Compressors do not do the same thing as a competent singer, so it
can't be a case of one or the other. If you have an incompetent singer
you may need huge compression just to get the vocals audible
throughout the song. With a good singer you may apply a little just to
maximise the volume (and reduce expression unfortunately) - usually
because the backing has been compressed to hell too.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Jon]

Don Pearce wrote:

> Compressors do not do the same thing as a competent singer ...
> With a good singer you may apply a little just to
> maximise the volume

Compression can also create a sound -- to hear someone using it this way
listen to most of Kate Bush's work -- there's compression, in the
recording stage, to the point where it's reported that if she moved her
head slightly there would be feedback from her headphones coming too
close to the mic. It's a sound she was going for and fully intentional.

--
"Coloured and animated, the concerts and spectacles are as many
invitations to discover the universes of musicians and artists
who tint with happiness our reality."
To reach me reverse: moc(dot)xobop(at)ggeztran

[Chris Whealy]

Mike wrote:
> I have a friend who is a well-respected musician and recording engineer, who is incredibly pro-compression. In his opinion, good mic technique consists of staying up on the microphone and letting the compressor do the work.
>
Then what room is there for the years spent learning vocal control and
dynamics? This seems to perpetuate the music industries insatiable
appetite for new "talent". The electronics are now making it easier and
easier for people with little or no talent to become "singers". If
someone can genuinely sing, lets hear'em without all this gadgetry
noodling around with their voice. On the other hand, if they can't
sing, then they should get a job doing something they can do. I.E. not
singing.
> I have heard other people who are just as adamant the other direction, claiming that good mic technique is a moving microphone combined with vocal control to regulate volume.
>
> I am just a hack, but personally I prefer the latter. Is there any consensus in this group, one way or another?
Personally, for live gigs, I'm all for switching the compressors off on
vocals. If the singer's got any ability (which excludes many "singers"
in today's pop industry), they will want, and be able to control their
own dynamic range to create the expression and nuances that make live
performances "live". If everything's squashed flat by the compressor,
you'll kill the "liveness" out of the performance. I want to hear some
humanity in the performance, not an artificially cleaned up sound that
is impossible to create without rack loads of gadgetry.

Of course, I am making the rash assumption that the singer has some
genuine talent and skill... :-|

£0.025

Chris W

--
The voice of ignorance speaks loud and long,
But the words of the wise are quiet and few.
---

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
Federico > wrote:
>> If anyone ever does this to you, shouting "turn off the ****ing autotune"
>> into the mike may be helpful.
>
>I am on your side.
>but....
>Why is it not the same thing about compression?

It IS the same thing about compression. If the PA guy is using compression,
he NEEDS to let the performer know about it because if the performer does
not know, he cannot work with it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike > wrote:
>
>I have a friend who is a well-respected musician and recording engineer,
>who is incredibly pro-compression. In his opinion, good mic technique
>consists of staying up on the microphone and letting the compressor do
>the work.

That's fine.

>I have heard other people who are just as adamant the other direction,
>claiming that good mic technique is a moving microphone combined with
>vocal control to regulate volume.

That's fine too.

>I am just a hack, but personally I prefer the latter. Is there any
>consensus in this group, one way or another?

This is an audio group, not a vocalist group. Either one is fine. The
job of the SR operator is to make it possible for the vocalist to perform
well and be heard. If the vocalist wants compression, the SR guy should
provide it. If he doesn't, the SR guy shouldn't. Whatever allows the
vocalist to do his job is best.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Sammy]

Scott Dorsey schreef:

>> Why is it not the same thing about compression?
>
> It IS the same thing about compression. If the PA guy is using compression,
> he NEEDS to let the performer know about it because if the performer does
> not know, he cannot work with it.

"compr.. what??"

I can picture the faces of some of the 'performers' already ;-)


Sander

[Mike Heins]

On 2007-03-28, Chris Whealy > wrote:
> Personally, for live gigs, I'm all for switching the compressors off on
> vocals. If the singer's got any ability (which excludes many "singers"
> in today's pop industry), they will want, and be able to control their
> own dynamic range to create the expression and nuances that make live
> performances "live". If everything's squashed flat by the compressor,
> you'll kill the "liveness" out of the performance. I want to hear some
> humanity in the performance, not an artificially cleaned up sound that
> is impossible to create without rack loads of gadgetry.
>
> Of course, I am making the rash assumption that the singer has some
> genuine talent and skill... :-|
>
> £0.025

In my case, that last number would be the amount, but I do have some.

--
Mike Heins

Be patient. God isn't finished with me yet. -- unknown

[Edwin Hurwitz]

In article >,
Mike > wrote:

> On 2007-03-28, Chris Whealy > wrote:
> > Federico wrote:
> >> Why is it not the same thing about compression?
> >> Autotune adjust your tune while a compressor adjust your dynamic.
> >> Autotune is terrible if the user does not know how to use it. Just as
> >> compressors.
> >> A well set autotune is almost inaudible. The times you hear it is because
> >> it's not well set.
> >>
> > A badly setup compressor will destroy a singer's dynamic range. The
> > whole point of singers learning mic technique to be able to
> > self-regulate their volume in the way they want - not just when some
> > dumb piece of equipment says they've exceeded a threshold.
>
> I have a friend who is a well-respected musician and recording engineer,
> who is incredibly pro-compression. In his opinion, good mic technique
> consists of staying up on the microphone and letting the compressor do
> the work.
>
> I have heard other people who are just as adamant the other direction,
> claiming that good mic technique is a moving microphone combined with
> vocal control to regulate volume.
>
> I am just a hack, but personally I prefer the latter. Is there any
> consensus in this group, one way or another?

I think both can be appropriate. What I find hard to deal with
(especially as someone who does a lot of location recording) is someone
who thinks they have good mic technique which consists of going way off
mic when the vocal gets a little louder than the normal. The problem I
have with this is that the tonality of the vocal completely changes and
most of the time, the artist is vastly overcompensating. When people do
it well, it's very effective, but often times it's too much too often.
When I ride the vocal during the mix, the sound of the voice changing is
really hard to compensate for and the level changes had been going on
would be a lot easier to deal with. Of course, it looks nice and
dramatic, but that doesn't show up in the recording.

Edwin

[Mike]

On 2007-03-28, Edwin Hurwitz > wrote:
> In article >,
> Mike > wrote:
>
>> I have a friend who is a well-respected musician and recording engineer,
>> who is incredibly pro-compression. In his opinion, good mic technique
>> consists of staying up on the microphone and letting the compressor do
>> the work.
>>
>> I have heard other people who are just as adamant the other direction,
>> claiming that good mic technique is a moving microphone combined with
>> vocal control to regulate volume.
>>
>> I am just a hack, but personally I prefer the latter. Is there any
>> consensus in this group, one way or another?
>
> I think both can be appropriate. What I find hard to deal with
> (especially as someone who does a lot of location recording) is someone
> who thinks they have good mic technique which consists of going way off
> mic when the vocal gets a little louder than the normal. The problem I
> have with this is that the tonality of the vocal completely changes and
> most of the time, the artist is vastly overcompensating. When people do
> it well, it's very effective, but often times it's too much too often.

The best thing for me is to work with a stand, because then I am more
likely to pull off the appropriate amount. I notice that if you are used
to playing small venues with less than full instrumentation, you pull
off more, because the direct path comes into play. In a larger venue
this could cause real problems -- not that I have much experience
there. 8-\

> When I ride the vocal during the mix, the sound of the voice changing is
> really hard to compensate for and the level changes had been going on
> would be a lot easier to deal with. Of course, it looks nice and
> dramatic, but that doesn't show up in the recording.

I don't know much, but I can sympathize. It can't be much fun to be a
human compressor/expander.

--
Mike

Be patient. God isn't finished with me yet. -- unknown

[Scott Dorsey]

Edwin Hurwitz > wrote:
>I think both can be appropriate. What I find hard to deal with
>(especially as someone who does a lot of location recording) is someone
>who thinks they have good mic technique which consists of going way off
>mic when the vocal gets a little louder than the normal. The problem I
>have with this is that the tonality of the vocal completely changes and
>most of the time, the artist is vastly overcompensating.

We give these folks an RE-20 or an RE-16, which reduces the amount of
tonal change when they pull way off the mike. Combine that with some
judicious fader riding and you can usually get okay results when people
do this.

Another trick I have seen folks use is to ride the monitor mixes up
and down... when the singer pulls back, shut his monitors almost down.
When he gets forward, pull them way up. It can actually help the guy
understand what he sounds like up front, where these differences are
exaggerated.

>When people do
>it well, it's very effective, but often times it's too much too often.
>When I ride the vocal during the mix, the sound of the voice changing is
>really hard to compensate for and the level changes had been going on
>would be a lot easier to deal with. Of course, it looks nice and
>dramatic, but that doesn't show up in the recording.

RE-20. The variable-D gadget is an utter lifesaver for these guys.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Tim S Kemp]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> This is an audio group, not a vocalist group. Either one is fine.
> The job of the SR operator is to make it possible for the vocalist to
> perform well and be heard. If the vocalist wants compression, the SR
> guy should provide it. If he doesn't, the SR guy shouldn't.
> Whatever allows the vocalist to do his job is best.

Without the audio, the vocalist would never be heard over the drums, guitars
and keys.

In my experience the best compression for live vocals unless using it for
effect is as little as possible, but a little is better than none, which is
better than too much.

Much of the time it's more useful to compress the musicians and BVs in order
to ensure they don't swamp the lead vox.
--
"Get a paper bag"

[broooooce]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >,
> Federico > wrote:
>>> If anyone ever does this to you, shouting "turn off the ****ing autotune"
>>> into the mike may be helpful.
>> I am on your side.
>> but....
>> Why is it not the same thing about compression?
>
> It IS the same thing about compression. If the PA guy is using compression,
> he NEEDS to let the performer know about it because if the performer does
> not know, he cannot work with it.
> --scott
>

LOL

[broooooce]

wrote:
> I completely understand the concept of pitch correction in recorded
> music. have even studied a bit of the math.
>
> I don't understand how pitch correction could be done in a live vocal
> performance.... unless the paradigm is that only certain pitches
> (notes) are pre-programed to be allowed in the vocal for each
> particular song?
>
> Or... was that vocal track actually "cleaned up" later, in between the
> time the performance occured, and the time it got played on my CD
> player at home?!?
>
> Which boxes can do pitch-correction on live vocals?
>
> Is there any school which is good at teaching the techniques of this
> specialty?
>
RTFM
http://www.antarestech.com/products/avp.shtml
http://www.tc-helicon.com/VoicePro

Its a tool, it can be used in subtle ways that aren't obvious.
Hardly anyone bothers live, if you are going to try that you might as
well lipsynch to HD
The Cher track that n00bs think is Autotune is a vocoder done for effect.

[Geoff]

wrote:

> Is there any school which is good at teaching the techniques of this
> specialty?

No, but there are plenty of schools that teach people how to sing.

geoff

[Richard Crowley]

"Federico"wrote ...
>> If anyone ever does this to you, shouting "turn off the ****ing autotune"
>> into the mike may be helpful.
>> --scott
>
> I am on your side.
> but....
> Why is it not the same thing about compression?

Because consiously or not, we are all accustomed to hearing
things (including our own sounds) in environments where the
sound levels (and timings) are modified in various ways.

OTOH, nobody can tollerate their own pitch being changed and
fed back to them (unless they have preconditioned themselves
for it, which would be bizzare). Singers for sure, and most likely
instrumentalists also. Ask any of them. Or try it for yourself.
It takes less than 1 second for me to become disoriented.

[Romeo Rondeau]

Richard Crowley wrote:
> "Federico"wrote ...
>>> If anyone ever does this to you, shouting "turn off the ****ing autotune"
>>> into the mike may be helpful.
>>> --scott
>> I am on your side.
>> but....
>> Why is it not the same thing about compression?
>
> Because consiously or not, we are all accustomed to hearing
> things (including our own sounds) in environments where the
> sound levels (and timings) are modified in various ways.
>
> OTOH, nobody can tollerate their own pitch being changed and
> fed back to them (unless they have preconditioned themselves
> for it, which would be bizzare). Singers for sure, and most likely
> instrumentalists also. Ask any of them. Or try it for yourself.
> It takes less than 1 second for me to become disoriented.

It can be a good tool for singers to practice on their pitch, feed them
the box plus their vocal. When they hear the Ozzy Osbourne sound,
they're off pitch :-)

[[email protected]]

On Mar 28, 12:49 pm, Chris Whealy > wrote:
>> Then what room is there for the years spent learning vocal control and
> dynamics? This seems to perpetuate the music industries insatiable
> appetite for new "talent". The electronics are now making it easier and
> easier for people with little or no talent to become "singers". If
> someone can genuinely sing, lets hear'em without all this gadgetry
> noodling around with their voice. On the other hand, if they can't
> sing, then they should get a job doing something they can do. I.E. not
> singing.> I have heard other people who are just as adamant the other direction, claiming that good mic technique is a moving microphone combined with vocal control to regulate volume.


There is no correlation between how great a singer is and how little
compression one needs when micing them.

[Romeo Rondeau]

wrote:
> On Mar 28, 12:49 pm, Chris Whealy > wrote:
>>> Then what room is there for the years spent learning vocal control and
>> dynamics? This seems to perpetuate the music industries insatiable
>> appetite for new "talent". The electronics are now making it easier and
>> easier for people with little or no talent to become "singers". If
>> someone can genuinely sing, lets hear'em without all this gadgetry
>> noodling around with their voice. On the other hand, if they can't
>> sing, then they should get a job doing something they can do. I.E. not
>> singing.> I have heard other people who are just as adamant the other direction, claiming that good mic technique is a moving microphone combined with vocal control to regulate volume.
>
>
> There is no correlation between how great a singer is and how little
> compression one needs when micing them.
>

I find the opposite to be true, usually really talented singers are very
dynamic. My problem with the "back off the mic" thing is that it's often
overused or used improperly. I'd rather just use a small amount of
compression with a fairly high threshold and a medium ratio, set kind of
like a really soft kneed limiter. Stage noise will keep anyone from
using a lot of compression anyway (at least I hope it will)

[Les Cargill]

Mike wrote:

> On 2007-03-28, Chris Whealy > wrote:
>
>>Federico wrote:
>>
>>>Why is it not the same thing about compression?
>>>Autotune adjust your tune while a compressor adjust your dynamic.
>>>Autotune is terrible if the user does not know how to use it. Just as compressors.
>>>A well set autotune is almost inaudible. The times you hear it is because it's not well set.
>>>
>>
>>A badly setup compressor will destroy a singer's dynamic range. The
>>whole point of singers learning mic technique to be able to
>>self-regulate their volume in the way they want - not just when some
>>dumb piece of equipment says they've exceeded a threshold.
>
>
> I have a friend who is a well-respected musician and recording engineer,
> who is incredibly pro-compression. In his opinion, good mic technique
> consists of staying up on the microphone and letting the compressor do
> the work.
>
> I have heard other people who are just as adamant the other direction,
> claiming that good mic technique is a moving microphone combined with
> vocal control to regulate volume.
>
> I am just a hack, but personally I prefer the latter. Is there any
> consensus in this group, one way or another?
>

The more I use compressors, the more I realize I shouldn't use
compressors that much. Abuse can be way cool, though.

--
Les Cargill

[michael gaster]

"Federico" > wrote in message
...
>> If anyone ever does this to you, shouting "turn off the ****ing autotune"
>> into the mike may be helpful.
>> --scott
>
> I am on your side.
> but....
> Why is it not the same thing about compression?
> Autotune adjust your tune while a compressor adjust your dynamic.
> Autotune is terrible if the user does not know how to use it. Just as
> compressors.
> A well set autotune is almost inaudible. The times you hear it is because
> it's not well set.
>
> Of course you cannot use autotune without telling the artist!
> F.

err a compressor is faster to adjust than a singer who gets too close to a
mic too fast too loud...

however I know for a fact 90% of so called "Engineers" do not 1. choose a
good mic for the singer 2. dont use a compressor set at anything other than
4:1@ -10 with 75% of these same so called "engineers" 1. using crappy
compressors and 2. thinking that the lights mean its sounds better.

--
Michael Gaster
Gaster Engineering

[Romeo Rondeau]

> however I know for a fact 90% of so called "Engineers" do not 1. choose a
> good mic for the singer 2. dont use a compressor set at anything other than
> 4:1@ -10 with 75% of these same so called "engineers" 1. using crappy
> compressors and 2. thinking that the lights mean its sounds better.

Well, most of us who call themselves "engineers" in this business
actually aren't, so that would be nearly all of us as "so called
engineers" (I'm sure I will hear from a few guys that are actually
"engineers" beofre this thread is over, however) That being said, what
you are stating as fact is that most people don't know how to use their
gear. I have to disagree. Most of the guys that I know personally are
fairly adept at using compression and picking mics for that matter. Of
course, I must be wrong... because you know this for a fact :-)

[Earl Grey]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>
>> "Federico"wrote ...
>>
>>>> If anyone ever does this to you, shouting "turn off the ****ing
>>>> autotune"
>>>> into the mike may be helpful.
>>>> --scott
>>>
>>> I am on your side.
>>> but....
>>> Why is it not the same thing about compression?
>>
>>
>> Because consiously or not, we are all accustomed to hearing
>> things (including our own sounds) in environments where the
>> sound levels (and timings) are modified in various ways.
>>
>> OTOH, nobody can tollerate their own pitch being changed and
>> fed back to them (unless they have preconditioned themselves
>> for it, which would be bizzare). Singers for sure, and most likely
>> instrumentalists also. Ask any of them. Or try it for yourself.
>> It takes less than 1 second for me to become disoriented.
>
>
> It can be a good tool for singers to practice on their pitch, feed them
> the box plus their vocal. When they hear the Ozzy Osbourne sound,
> they're off pitch :-)

What a great way to get fired

[Romeo Rondeau]

Earl Grey wrote:
> Romeo Rondeau wrote:
>> Richard Crowley wrote:
>>
>>> "Federico"wrote ...
>>>
>>>>> If anyone ever does this to you, shouting "turn off the ****ing
>>>>> autotune"
>>>>> into the mike may be helpful.
>>>>> --scott
>>>>
>>>> I am on your side.
>>>> but....
>>>> Why is it not the same thing about compression?
>>>
>>>
>>> Because consiously or not, we are all accustomed to hearing
>>> things (including our own sounds) in environments where the
>>> sound levels (and timings) are modified in various ways.
>>>
>>> OTOH, nobody can tollerate their own pitch being changed and
>>> fed back to them (unless they have preconditioned themselves
>>> for it, which would be bizzare). Singers for sure, and most likely
>>> instrumentalists also. Ask any of them. Or try it for yourself.
>>> It takes less than 1 second for me to become disoriented.
>>
>>
>> It can be a good tool for singers to practice on their pitch, feed
>> them the box plus their vocal. When they hear the Ozzy Osbourne sound,
>> they're off pitch :-)
>
> What a great way to get fired

How would you get fired for this?

[Phildo]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote:
>>
>>I don't understand how pitch correction could be done in a live vocal
>>performance.... unless the paradigm is that only certain pitches
>>(notes) are pre-programed to be allowed in the vocal for each
>>particular song?
>
> Right. The system basically looks at each note, and shifts it to the
> nearest half-step.
>
> The end result is horrible. Very unpleasant and robotic.

All depends how it is set. The autotune can be a very useful tool if used
sparingly. If you have a singer who is not on form that night then it can
just help them along a little bit. Of course if you use it full on then you
get the Cher effect known and hated by us all but set it to work in a more
subtle manner and the audience probably wouldn't even notice it is there.

Phildo

[Earl Grey]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

>
> How would you get fired for this?

For making the monitors sound like ****.

[Phildo]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Edwin Hurwitz > wrote:
>>I think both can be appropriate. What I find hard to deal with
>>(especially as someone who does a lot of location recording) is someone
>>who thinks they have good mic technique which consists of going way off
>>mic when the vocal gets a little louder than the normal. The problem I
>>have with this is that the tonality of the vocal completely changes and
>>most of the time, the artist is vastly overcompensating.
>
> We give these folks an RE-20 or an RE-16, which reduces the amount of
> tonal change when they pull way off the mike.

I have never seen an RE20 used as a lead vocal mic at a gig. I would
certainly never use one.

Phildo

[Bob Howes]

"Mike" > wrote in message
...
> On 2007-03-28, Chris Whealy > wrote:
>
> I have a friend who is a well-respected musician and recording engineer,
> who is incredibly pro-compression. In his opinion, good mic technique
> consists of staying up on the microphone and letting the compressor do
> the work.
>
> I have heard other people who are just as adamant the other direction,
> claiming that good mic technique is a moving microphone combined with
> vocal control to regulate volume.
>
> I am just a hack, but personally I prefer the latter. Is there any
> consensus in this group, one way or another?
>

I much prefer working with performers who have good mic technique and good
control of their dynamic range.

That said, there are circumstances when compression is appropriate (in a
live situation) even for the good'uns. A dynamic range that might be just
right in a quiet environment may need a little help in the real world where
the vocalist is competing with a whole mixture of other sounds, possibly
ranging from an over-enthusiastic drummer to the LX guy filling the room
with noisy moving heads. The trick with compression is to not kill the
dynamics...just make sure the quiet passages are still audible and the loud
ones don't go over the top.

Bob

[Federico]

> I have never seen an RE20 used as a lead vocal mic at a gig. I would
> certainly never use one.

Or a Shure SM7....
Maybe because you won't see the singer then...
F.

[Scott Dorsey]

Phildo > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>> Edwin Hurwitz > wrote:
>>>I think both can be appropriate. What I find hard to deal with
>>>(especially as someone who does a lot of location recording) is someone
>>>who thinks they have good mic technique which consists of going way off
>>>mic when the vocal gets a little louder than the normal. The problem I
>>>have with this is that the tonality of the vocal completely changes and
>>>most of the time, the artist is vastly overcompensating.
>>
>> We give these folks an RE-20 or an RE-16, which reduces the amount of
>> tonal change when they pull way off the mike.
>
>I have never seen an RE20 used as a lead vocal mic at a gig. I would
>certainly never use one.

Right, it's big and ugly. That's what the RE-16 is for.

Or, if you're really old (or Johnny Rivers), the EV 664.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Romeo Rondeau]

Earl Grey wrote:
> Romeo Rondeau wrote:
>
>>
>> How would you get fired for this?
>
> For making the monitors sound like ****.

I wouldn't do it on a stage, you goof :-)

[noisepolice]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

> Earl Grey wrote:
> > Romeo Rondeau wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> How would you get fired for this?
> >
> > For making the monitors sound like ****.
>
> I wouldn't do it on a stage, you goof :-)

This thread is appearing in alt audio pro live-sound, as well as rec
audio pro. It looks like some contributors are unaware of the cross
posting.

n.p.

[Earl Grey]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:
> Earl Grey wrote:
>> Romeo Rondeau wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> How would you get fired for this?
>>
>> For making the monitors sound like ****.
>
> I wouldn't do it on a stage, you goof :-)

What part of live performance don't you understand ?

[Romeo Rondeau]

Earl Grey wrote:
> Romeo Rondeau wrote:
>> Earl Grey wrote:
>>> Romeo Rondeau wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> How would you get fired for this?
>>>
>>> For making the monitors sound like ****.
>>
>> I wouldn't do it on a stage, you goof :-)
>
> What part of live performance don't you understand ?

What part of practice don't you understand? :-)

[Earl Grey]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:
> Earl Grey wrote:
>> Romeo Rondeau wrote:
>>> Earl Grey wrote:
>>>> Romeo Rondeau wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How would you get fired for this?
>>>>
>>>> For making the monitors sound like ****.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't do it on a stage, you goof :-)
>>
>> What part of live performance don't you understand ?
>
> What part of practice don't you understand? :-)

LOL
THe bit where its a live performance

[Romeo Rondeau]

Earl Grey wrote:
> Romeo Rondeau wrote:
>> Earl Grey wrote:
>>> Romeo Rondeau wrote:
>>>> Earl Grey wrote:
>>>>> Romeo Rondeau wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How would you get fired for this?
>>>>>
>>>>> For making the monitors sound like ****.
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't do it on a stage, you goof :-)
>>>
>>> What part of live performance don't you understand ?
>>
>> What part of practice don't you understand? :-)
>
> LOL
> THe bit where its a live performance

Don't you have some tea to drink or something?

[Gareth Magennis]

"Phildo" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>I don't understand how pitch correction could be done in a live vocal
>>>performance.... unless the paradigm is that only certain pitches
>>>(notes) are pre-programed to be allowed in the vocal for each
>>>particular song?
>>
>> Right. The system basically looks at each note, and shifts it to the
>> nearest half-step.
>>
>> The end result is horrible. Very unpleasant and robotic.
>
> All depends how it is set. The autotune can be a very useful tool if used
> sparingly. If you have a singer who is not on form that night then it can
> just help them along a little bit. Of course if you use it full on then
> you get the Cher effect known and hated by us all but set it to work in a
> more subtle manner and the audience probably wouldn't even notice it is
> there.
>
> Phildo
>

Agreed, it is possible to use Autotune sparingly - I've only done this at
home on my PC, but you can adjust the amount of correction, and the time it
takes the correction to kick in, so slides and natural sounding pitch
imperfections are left intact, and only longer off key notes are corrected
(but never 100% a la Cher etc), which works well and can be almost
unoticable.



Gareth.

[Tom Garneau]

A couple summers ago I had cred's for a multi-day dinosaur rock show.
It's was fun walking around backstage and FOH to see what different
rockers were using. I saw Meatloaf's front of house guy arrive with his
rack to hook into the system. Imagine my suprise when all he had was SIX
Antares Autotunes! SCARY!!

cheers,

tom


> wrote:

> I completely understand the concept of pitch correction in recorded
> music. have even studied a bit of the math.
>
> I don't understand how pitch correction could be done in a live vocal
> performance.... unless the paradigm is that only certain pitches
> (notes) are pre-programed to be allowed in the vocal for each
> particular song?
>
> Or... was that vocal track actually "cleaned up" later, in between the
> time the performance occured, and the time it got played on my CD
> player at home?!?
>
> Which boxes can do pitch-correction on live vocals?
>
> Is there any school which is good at teaching the techniques of this
> specialty?

[michael gaster]

"Romeo Rondeau" > wrote in message
et...
> Earl Grey wrote:
>> Romeo Rondeau wrote:
>>> Earl Grey wrote:
>>>> Romeo Rondeau wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How would you get fired for this?
>>>>
>>>> For making the monitors sound like ****.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't do it on a stage, you goof :-)
>>
>> What part of live performance don't you understand ?
>
> What part of practice don't you understand? :-)

what part of football players practice, performers rehearse... dont you
understand?? ...newb?

--
Michael Gaster
Gaster Engineering

[hank alrich]

michael gaster wrote:

> "Romeo Rondeau" wrote...
> > Earl Grey wrote:
> >> Romeo Rondeau wrote:
> >>> Earl Grey wrote:
> >>>> Romeo Rondeau wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How would you get fired for this?
> >>>>
> >>>> For making the monitors sound like ****.
> >>>
> >>> I wouldn't do it on a stage, you goof :-)
> >>
> >> What part of live performance don't you understand ?
> >
> > What part of practice don't you understand? :-)
>
> what part of football players practice, performers rehearse... dont you
> understand?? ...newb?

IMO, music gets practiced; shows get rehearsed.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam