Melodyne, Cakewalk and new 32 bit gear...

[RexRed]

I am thinking of purchasing this audio interface.

Zoom UAC-232 USB 2.0 Audio Interface

https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/UAC232--zoom-uac-232-usb-3.0-audio-interface

It says it is the first 32-bit audio interface even though a lot of them lie about it being able to actually "record" in 32 bit.

I hate every audio interface I have ever owned. I love my RME Fireface UCX 2 but I hate the audio quality even though I like it much better than all of the brands I have owned previously. It gives me the ins and outs I need in a modular way.

Everyone says that the only difference with 32-bit recording is headroom. 

It is hard to believe that recording something with tons more bits would not produce a better-quality recording as well.

Or let's say, a "more stable" recording.

Question 1. Will Melodyne work with 32-bit files?

2. Will my effects work with them?

3. Will my VST instruments work with this interface?

I can record my voice and it sounds perfectly realistic but the moment you move some syllables in Melodyne the tone gets all wonky and formant does not come close to fixing it.

With more bits you would think you would get a more stable representation of the sound and be able to modulate it without the syllables disintegrating. 

Any thoughts?

I have gone up to 96 khz and this did not fix the wonky syllables in Melodyne problem any better than 44 khz. Going up in khz there was zero improvement in syllable stability. 

My thought is throwing a billion more bits at the problem would fix it.

I would like to hear how this sounds and so I get bigger files and not being able to distort my input that is definitely a plus as well.

The advertisement for this states that not only do you get better headroom but also better "quality".

Quality is the thing...

And about Cakewalk, would these 32 files bog down Cakewalk playback? I have 18 Intel extreme cores, will a 32-bit song limit me to like 4 tracks with only a few effects or something?

Would things like vocal rider still work?

Thanks in advance for any input on this.

I would like to try this, maybe if it does not work well I can return it.

Edited July 22, 2023 by RexRed

[Byron Dickens]

You're going to get mad at me, but what you really need is some vocal training....

[RexRed]

1 minute ago, Byron Dickens said:

You're going to get mad at me, but what you really need is some vocal training....

I wish it was a singing issue.

[Byron Dickens]

Well, what are you doing with Melodyne and where are these "wonky syllables" coming from?

[RexRed]

Just now, Byron Dickens said:

Well, what are you doing with Melodyne and where are these "wonky syllables" coming from?

Every professional singer in the industry uses Melodyne or they sing the same line over and over 50 times like they did in the 50s and 60s till they get it right.

The wonky syllables are the nature of how pitch correction works, it only works on certain syllables and does not work on others. 

[RexRed]

I just ordered this interface. I need to find out how well this works.

I will let you know what I find out. 

 

[RexRed]

 

[RexRed]

I just emailed Celemony with a few questions. 

I have a question for people here, can Cakewalk record with 24 bit variable bitrates?

The problem I have is at the beginning of notes. I don't know if this is a latency issue or not, but it seems the beginning of notes are (I don't know how else to describe it) paper thin, meaning, it gets recorded okay but if you try and edit the pitch, the tone disintegrates. It is as if not enough bits were used to listen to these crucial moments of the recording. 

This reminds me of video editing where a noisy part of a scene will occur, like an explosion or a foggy scene and it will require A LOT more bits to reproduce or copy that section of the scene.

Well, this is the way music is as well. Vocal recordings do not respond well to a one size fits all strategy.

Certain parts of the music need more bits.

In practice, Cakewalk should throw more bits at the transients of a signal.

I have a certain singing style where I throw my voice at the beginning of notes.

It creates a weird pitch acceleration at the forefront of a syllable.

This pitch part needs more resolution and something, I don't know if it is Melodyne or Cakewalk, but it is treating everything uniformly and not paying special mind that these parts of the sound require a much higher resolution so they are more manipulatable and refined compared to other parts of the sound that are not as complex a wave quality.   

I have been struggling with this issue for many years and gone through dozens of audio interfaces looking for one that would reproduce my sound more robustly. 

This is just another attempt to figure out what I might be able to do to get more bits into Melodyne.

Is this part of the ARA 2 standard to treat all sound uniformly when converting it?

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by RexRed

[Byron Dickens]

11 hours ago, RexRed said:

Every professional singer in the industry uses Melodyne or they sing the same line over and over 50 times like they did in the 50s and 60s till they get it right.

Complete Bovine Excrement.

They must have forgotten  to tell Frank Sinatra, Robert Plant, Tony Bennett, Paul Rogers, Elvis Presley, Ella Fitzgerald, Michael Jackson, David Bowie, Aretha Franklin.... The list goes on.

Hell, even Madonna scored a couple of one-takes.

Ozzy Osbourne, who is definitely no Ronnie James Dio, recorded the entire Black Sabbath album in one take start to finish live on the floor along with his band mates.

In the '50s and '60s -even all the way into the '90s and early 2000s, if it took you 50 takes you'd get kicked out of the studio. As it should be. Because that's not even amateur; its just plain incompetent.

 

Back on point: I hope your new interface works out for you, but if you're not happy with your RME, I don't see what will.

[RexRed]

18 minutes ago, Byron Dickens said:

Complete Bovine Excrement.

They must have forgotten  to tell Frank Sinatra, Robert Plant, Tony Bennett, Paul Rogers, Elvis Presley, Ella Fitzgerald, Michael Jackson, David Bowie, Aretha Franklin.... The list goes on.

Hell, even Madonna scored a couple of one-takes.

Ozzy Osbourne, who is definitely no Ronnie James Dio, recorded the entire Black Sabbath album in one take start to finish live on the floor along with his band mates.

In the '50s and '60s -even all the way into the '90s and early 2000s, if it took you 50 takes you'd get kicked out of the studio. As it should be. Because that's not even amateur; its just plain incompetent.

 

Back on point: I hope your new interface works out for you, but if you're not happy with your RME, I don't see what will.

No, you don't see... and that is the whole point. 

If you want hurl insults go find a troll site.

Patsy Cline also scored some one one takes and your point is? She didn't score those takes on every song. And that was when they rewound the tape and said, "Try that line again Patsy". And she resung it and resung it until she got it right.

Your problem with Melodyne is very uninformed.

I can pick the bad tuning out of all of those old singers recordings you have riddled off. They were not all perfect but good enough to pass.

And, while you were snoozing, even Madonna's old songs were autotuned and rereleased.

This is not about philosophical justification for Melodyne it is about getting good and robust recording performance out of an audio interface.

Please stick to the topic and keep your chip on your shoulder vulgarity to yourself.

Edited July 22, 2023 by RexRed

[RexRed]

I have been contacted back from Celemony.

Anyone interested in what they had to say?

 

[Byron Dickens]

50 minutes ago, RexRed said:

This is not about philosophical justification for Melodyne it is about getting good and robust recording performance out of an audio interface.

It is possible to get a good and robust performance out of a 4 track cassette Portastudio. Just ask Bruce Springsteen.

https://tascam.com/us/support/news/481

Proof right there that talent makes great recordings, not gear.

50 minutes ago, RexRed said:

Your problem with Melodyne is very uninformed.

I can pick the bad tuning out of all of those old singers recordings you have riddled off. They were not all perfect but good enough to pass.

My problem is using crutches to try covering up for a lack of practice. Tools like Melodyne are just the ticket for salvaging an otherwise great performance where one or two notes are out of place by nudging them back towards where they belong but using them as a substitute for skill is shameful.

As far as "Every professional singer in the industry us[ing] Melodyne," that is not only just not true, but the ones who do only fix the few notes that are out of tune instead of laying it on thick like a soul-sucking blanket over everything.

That "not perfect" of yours is called "human."

People complain all the time about how new music just can't stand up to the old classics. And this is a large part of why: the relentless pursuit of the unobtainable which goes by the name of "perfection" and which sucks all the life out of a performance. Except that by the time the engineer gets finished making everything "perfect" it is no longer a performance but a manufactured product. Boring. Disposable.

I shake my head in wonder. 20 years ago we used to spend countless hours in the studio editing robotic, sequenced MIDI tracks trying to make them sound human. Now we've turned the world on it's head and we spend countless hours in the studio editing and quantizing human-performed tracks to make them sound like they were produced by machines.

If you think that pointing all these facts out is "hurling insults" then that says more about you than about me.

So when your brand new wonder interface doesn't fix your problem, just remember that I told you so.

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by Byron Dickens

[Johnbee58]

Hey, @Byron Dickens.  Don't you ever have anything nice to say to people?  Practically everything you say to people you're putting them down somehow.  You're very disrespectful.  If you can't say anything pleasant please don't say anything at all! 

And I'm sure I'm not the only one here who feels that way!

 

 

[Byron Dickens]

Yeah. Snowflakes don't like me very much because I have a bad habit of telling the unvarnished truth.

[Johnbee58]

1 minute ago, Byron Dickens said:

Yeah. Snowflakes don't like me very much because I have a bad habit of telling the unvarnished truth.

No.  You're just a rude idiot!

[Teegarden]

1 hour ago, Byron Dickens said:

As far as "Every professional singer in the industry us[ing] Melodyne," that is not only just not true

Fully agree. I've played with some singers who manage record four voices on top of each other each in one take and most people who hear it think it has been done by many takes and endless manipulation of the tracks, they are that pitch and time perfect. And those are not even full professionals...

1 hour ago, Byron Dickens said:

That "not perfect" of yours is called "human."

People complain all the time about how new music just can't stand up to the old classics. And this is a large part of why: the relentless pursuit of the unobtainable which goes by the name of "perfection" and which sucks all the life out of a performance. Except that by the time the engineer gets finished making everything "perfect" it is no longer a performance but a manufactured product. Boring. Disposable.

This is the exact reason why I prefer recordings from last century. There are soul hits from the sixties that are at certainly not pitch perfect (vocals, horn sections, guitars,..), but they have SOUL. I love to listen to them.

Same thing for timing and mixing: they were not perfect in the near past. It is exactly the little inaccuracies that make those recordings come alive and give them warmth to my ears (and the lack of dynamics due to exhausting exaggerated compression that today's recordings suffer from). 

Was by accident listening to some live recorded classical orchestra on my studio monitors yesterday (if I listen to classical music it's usually not in studio setting) kept listening while realising how much depth it had, how pleasant it sounded, and after a few hours still no ear fatigue (also realised how difficult it is to reach that  sound with classical libraries...). High, mid, low, great dynamics, great timing, great pitch, it was all there without all retakes and the effects hustle that we use in the studio.

Having said that, there's nothing wrong with using tools in order to get the sound and perfection you want to get (and not everyone is gifted enough to play like a pro, so might need to help from the FX section). In the end it's a matter of taste.

And keeping the conversation civil won't hurt anyone?

Edited July 22, 2023 by Teegarden

[RexRed]

1 hour ago, Byron Dickens said:

It is possible to get a good and robust performance out of a 4 track cassette Portastudio. Just ask Bruce Springsteen.

https://tascam.com/us/support/news/481

Proof right there that talent makes great recordings, not gear.

My problem is using crutches to try covering up for a lack of practice. Tools like Melodyne are just the ticket for salvaging an otherwise great performance where one or two notes are out of place by nudging them back towards where they belong but using them as a substitute for skill is shameful.

As far as "Every professional singer in the industry us[ing] Melodyne," that is not only just not true, but the ones who do only fix the few notes that are out of tune instead of laying it on thick like a soul-sucking blanket over everything.

That "not perfect" of yours is called "human."

People complain all the time about how new music just can't stand up to the old classics. And this is a large part of why: the relentless pursuit of the unobtainable which goes by the name of "perfection" and which sucks all the life out of a performance. Except that by the time the engineer gets finished making everything "perfect" it is no longer a performance but a manufactured product. Boring. Disposable.

I shake my head in wonder. 20 years ago we used to spend countless hours in the studio editing robotic, sequenced MIDI tracks trying to make them sound human. Now we've turned the world on it's head and we spend countless hours in the studio editing and quantizing human-performed tracks to make them sound like they were produced by machines.

If you think that pointing all these facts out is "hurling insults" then that says more about you than about me.

So when your brand new wonder interface doesn't fix your problem, just remember that I told you so.

 

What you say is true but it is also insulting.

Everyone uses crutches.

Did you build your guitar from scratch or did you buy one made from someone else?

Did you make every sample in your song of did you buy some from others

Did you build your micro chip in your computer yourself?

You can't claim purist whenever it suits you while ignoring the elephant in the room.

There are reasons for repairing a take with Melodyne rather than re-singing it. Because the take flows better and is more human that bits and bits of takes that were punched in. Did you even consider that?

This is a discussion about gear and how to get a robust signal.

You can apply Melodyne as a blanket and then uncover/undo the bits you need to as well.

Your concerns are noted but if in the end a good song is created then your concerns are rather moot.

Did you cut down the tree and collect the graphite for that pencil you wrote your lyrics with?

Then you sir are the one with the crutch.  ...and a bit of hypocrisy. ?

[RexRed]

15 minutes ago, Byron Dickens said:

Yeah. Snowflakes don't like me very much because I have a bad habit of telling the unvarnished truth.

Your truth is rather deluded. 

The truth as you see it from your own personal but apparently limited perspective.

The old recordings were pieced together like a jigsaw puzzle from spliced segments of endless takes taped together by engineers who were paid handsomely to make the singer sound perfect. If you like that then fine, go for it.

Just don't expect us to swallow your bias as it if is "truth". ...and sincerity will get you a bad cup of coffee.

The old performers would have sometimes ten engineers in the studio making their music while today we do it alone.

There is something about music that is not quite so schizophrenicly produced.   

Edited July 22, 2023 by RexRed

[Byron Dickens]

4 minutes ago, RexRed said:

The old recordings were pieced together like a jigsaw puzzle from spliced segments of endless takes....

Bullshit.

[RexRed]

6 minutes ago, Byron Dickens said:

Bullshit.

That response perfectly matches your knowledge of this subject.

Excerpt

Variable tape speed

By the 1940s, studio engineers could produce primitive pitch correction by tweaking a reel-to-reel magnetic tape recorders varispeed. This process became more popular in recording studios during the 1950s and 1960s. By slowing down or speeding up a part of a recording and splicing with the tape containing the majority of the song, engineers could alter pitch. Another method of varispeed pitch correction was to slow a tape machine down, re-record a new part at a lower pitch, and then bring the recording back up to its original speed.

One of the most famous examples of varispeed pitch correction is the recording of The Beatles 1967 single “Strawberry Fields Forever.” The song as we know it is not one single take, but two takes (7 and 26) spliced together by producer George Martin and his innovative engineer Geoff Emerick. The Beatles had recorded these two takes at slightly different tempos and pitches. By speeding up the slower of the two tracks, Emerick was able to match the tempo and pitch.

https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/a-brief-history-of-pitch-correction-in-music.html

It would be nice to have a producer or two and and few "innovative engineers" helping me make my music.

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by RexRed