[HN Gopher] Vocaloid 6
___________________________________________________________________
Vocaloid 6
Author : brudgers
Score : 124 points
Date : 2022-11-10 15:46 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.vocaloid.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.vocaloid.com)
| regular wrote:
| mastazi wrote:
| Youtuber "Doctor Mix" recently used it for a rendition of
| Bohemian Rhapsody, it was interesting watching how he put it to
| use. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAkgxhK91kk
| kirbyfan64sos wrote:
| Given how many problems V5 incurred, I wonder how V6 compares,
| but also how its reception is going to be...
| khanan wrote:
| But... but... Melodyne..
| CharlesW wrote:
| Melodyne is (really great) pitch correction/vocal editing
| software, while Vocaloid is a vocal synth.
| inputError wrote:
| pantulis wrote:
| Cannot help but remember the lyrics of "Video Killed the Radio
| Star" They took the credit for your second
| symphony / Rewritten by machine and new technology
| deng wrote:
| As much as I want to dislike this, after hearing some examples, I
| must admit that it has made quite some progress since the
| laughable first versions. Of course it falls apart quickly if you
| hear it solo, but I can absolutely see this used widely for
| placeholder vocals or background/contract music. And of course in
| Japan - can please someone explain to me why Japanese electronic
| musicians seem to be obsessed with artificial singing, although
| it usually sounds like Mickey Mouse through autotune?
| lidavidm wrote:
| It's kind of an acquired taste - it works better for some kinds
| of music than others. But I admit I can't stand the English
| voice because that sounds more obviously wrong to me.
|
| I'm not sure you can paint the Japanese music industry like
| that? It's more like, this gives indie songwriters an easily
| accessible tool.
| deng wrote:
| > I'm not sure you can paint the Japanese music industry like
| that?
|
| I didn't mean to. I was just wondering why Vocaloid is so
| popular specifically in Japan.
| kyazawa wrote:
| I think J-Pop in general tends to create interest through
| composition (fast and complex chord changes, syncopated
| melodies with lots of movement) compared to Western pop,
| which tends to create interest through vocal performance.
| The characteristics of J-Pop mesh really well with Vocaloid
| where the voice itself is not that interesting to listen to
| but you have more composition possibilities for fast tempos
| or wide pitch ranges that wouldn't be possible with a human
| singer.
| lidavidm wrote:
| Ah ok, sorry. No clue there, other than the software also
| being developed there.
| saynay wrote:
| As far as I can tell, because it allows one-man production
| teams. A single person can do everything, without needing to
| find a vocalist. It allows them to try more stuff quicker and
| easier, and anything that happened to get popular ends up
| covered by vocalists anyways (and the producer gets to sell
| those rights).
| lidavidm wrote:
| And a popular enough producer can 'go pro' (n-buna ->
| Yorushika, or Hachi -> Kenshi Yonezu).
| dotnet00 wrote:
| There are also other versions of similar tech like Cevio
| (https://cevio.jp) which can handle both singing and speech. It
| can sound a lot more realistic and has the 'gimmick' of making
| voicebanks for various popular people in Japan. Often the
| differences in the software generated result compared to the
| person's voice are down to their tuning preferences rather than
| technical limitations (on a side note, Cevio uses RNNs while
| IIRC the original Vocaloids used to concatenate voice clippings
| and smooth out the transitions using some fourier space tricks,
| I'm not aware of how modern Vocaloid works but it wouldn't be
| too surprising if they too use deep learning).
|
| It initially became a thing in Japan because Japanese has fewer
| phonemes than most mainstream languages, so it was easier to
| make. Then it gained popularity for the cute characters and the
| freedom it gave to people who would go on to be music
| composers. Many popular Japanese composers got their start
| making and uploading Vocaloid songs on Youtube/NicoNico. On top
| of that, they have had a series of well designed rhythm games
| on several platforms for decades now which were pretty popular.
| These days they have a fairly popular mobile gacha/gambling
| game too.
|
| Nostalgia is probably also a big driving force since many
| people grew up with either the music or the games.
|
| These days it's still pretty popular within the anime fanbase
| outside Japan. Pre-Covid there used to be a vocaloid concert
| series every year which would alternate between Europe and US
| tours. The reason it hasn't gone too much more mainstream is
| likely that English and related languages have thousands of
| phonemes, so making a good voicebank is significantly harder.
| wodenokoto wrote:
| I believe it is the democratization of music. Hatsune Miku
| songs are written and produced by fans. You don't need to be
| able to sing, or record instruments. Everyone can join.
|
| From Wikipedia:
|
| > In August 2010, over 22,000 original songs had been written
| under the name Hatsune Miku. Later reports confirmed that she
| had 100,000 songs in 2011 to her name.
| deng wrote:
| Well yes, but from what I can tell, it's a very Japanese
| phenomenon. This hasn't really caught on in other countries,
| as far as I know.
| redwall_hp wrote:
| I can walk into Walmart, FYE or Hot Topic and walk out with
| Hatsune Miku merchandise. You can't even say that for many
| popular anime franchises (only stuff like Naruto or
| Dragonball that's been popular for decades). I've even been
| to small fan run projection concerts.
|
| Vocaloid music _has_ a huge following in the US. It 's just
| a subculture thing and not part of the mainstream
| sphere...which is a good thing.
| numpad0 wrote:
| It's Nico Nico Douga/nicovideo.jp. There is a unique
| community and reward mechanism that values technical
| achievements far more than it does for presentation, and
| that I think is forcing creators to go way past in skills
| than what YouTube and many other social media demands. That
| culture comes as an extension to Japanese anonymous
| BBS(2ch/futaba), and I find content from those communities
| to bear abnormally better quality compared to those from
| the Internet outside.
| lidavidm wrote:
| China has Luo Tianyi, Miku and co have had concerts in the
| US, and Miku was slated to perform at Coachella:
| https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/hatsune-
| miku-c...
|
| (Admittedly, those are not unlikely all offshoots of the
| anime/manga/etc. fandom though.)
| midislack wrote:
| Is there any Vocaloid music that isn't cheesy pop music? I know
| of some by Hosono, that's about it.
| nbzso wrote:
| La la la. What a mess. First all the music industry will collapse
| under A.I. lords, and then maybe people will start to search
| human made music.
|
| All the stats about the rise of the old music are supporting my
| claim:) Young people, invest in your talents, with analogue
| processes in mind.
|
| This will be a huge market.
| teolandon wrote:
| Vocaloid has been a thing for almost 20 years now. People still
| sing. Digital art has been a thing for longer, people still
| paint.
|
| People do art because it's fun. Nothing will stop people from
| getting together in a band and jamming, because it's fun.
| numpad0 wrote:
| And it's not just that _some people still_ engage in those
| activities, but a lot of people are starting their carriers
| _by direct influence from_ those tools.
|
| And, this is subjective, but a lot of those tool-enabled
| artists seems to do _better_ even in absence of such
| automagic enablers than non-enabled. Good AIs sharpen humans
| into unassuming Olympians, bad AIs just fall out of the
| Internet attention span.
| YurgenJurgensen wrote:
| Yeah, if you're not rich enough to be able to hire a full choir
| and orchestra, you don't deserve to write songs for more than
| one person.
| squarefoot wrote:
| > First all the music industry will collapse under A.I. lords
|
| The purpose seems as usual to get rid of as many human
| musicians/singers they can so that everything can be made by a
| single person (or AI in a few years), therefore saving money.
| In a different context, the transition from multi elements
| bands to one man bands with keyboard, then finally karaoke, in
| many cases is motivated by costs as well.
| astrange wrote:
| The point is that it enables musicians who would never have
| found a vocalist before this. Vocaloid has been around a
| decade and hasn't eliminated any jobs, unless maybe someone
| hurt their throat trying to sing Disappearance of Hatsune
| Miku.
|
| There's hardly any evidence automation ever destroys jobs; it
| seems to actually create them. It's very silly people just
| keep claiming this.
| hooverd wrote:
| It takes talent to make Vocaloid tracks sound like more than
| another riff on World is Mine.
| nulld3v wrote:
| I always thought the main appeal of Vocaloid was it's signature
| robotic sound.
|
| If you want to synthesize more realistic sounding voices there
| are better options.
| redwall_hp wrote:
| And it's an instrument like any other. It doesn't magically
| write lyrics and a melody for you, it doesn't mix, and it
| certainly doesn't sound great without a good ear for the
| different parameters and EQing. It takes a lot of skill to
| make music with vocaloid.
| mjr00 wrote:
| Vocaloid has the name brand from being old, and Hatsune Miku, but
| at this point Synthesizer V has completely blown it out of the
| water. SOLARIA[0] in particular came out in January and, to my
| ears, sounds significantly better than any of the demo tracks for
| V6. There's also been a number of AI voicebanks for SynthV like
| Natalie that came out in the past few months which have sounded
| way better than the V6 demo tracks.
|
| Vocaloid was the only real competitor in vocal synths for so long
| they completely stopped innovating. Very IE6-esque.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uf2a2so86uw
| hooverd wrote:
| I do wonder if Vocaloid is like Xerox now. People will hear a
| SynthV produced song and think "wow, cool Vocaloid".
| nine_k wrote:
| It's refreshing that the demo in the video is done not on a Mac
| but on a Windows machine.
| yoro46 wrote:
| 6?! Last time I checked anything Vocaloid it was barely on 3 and
| most people were still using v2 vocaloids. I'm getting old :(
| moth-fuzz wrote:
| The new V6 vocaloids even with the AI expressiveness still sound
| very much like vocaloids. There's a specific timbre to the way
| they pronounce certain vowels or do odd formant shifts that
| always comes through that I'm unsure of if it's intentional or
| not - on one hand it's very signature, on the other hand it
| doesn't sound quite as 'realistic'.
|
| As far as the iconic characters go, they're moving to an entirely
| different engine (Piapro NT) anyways, so I wonder how future
| works created using them will sound.
| hooverd wrote:
| Huh, even really good tuning has that quality. [1]
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcxIuAWX7Ws
| mjr00 wrote:
| Agreed. I wonder how much of it is intentional; one of the
| common complaints I see from Synth V users is that none of the
| voice banks, except maybe Eleanor Forte, have that synthetic,
| "vocaloid-y" sound. Maybe they know they can't compete on
| realism, so they're leaning into the signature sound?
| hooverd wrote:
| Solaria sounds like a well tuned Vocaloid.
| joe-collins wrote:
| Solaria can be very good. There's a song, Dawn by Circus-P,
| that I've used on a few occasions to startle people with
| its apparent authenticity. It exhibits an unnatural range,
| but there are only a couple of moments (unfortunately, near
| the start) where the pronunciation sounds clearly
| artificial if you know what you're listening for.
| redwall_hp wrote:
| Gumi is definitely an iconic character, and the new Gumi
| release is probably as big as the Vocaloid 6 news itself. (Not
| only are there a lot of "vocaloid classics" that were made with
| Gumi, but some of the biggest hits in the past few years, such
| as KING by Kanaria or Getcha by Giga and Kira, have used Gumi.)
|
| I kind of suspect Piapro NT is going to end up being a bust,
| with a pivot back to Yamaha's platform. We're a few years in
| and they've still only released Miku, none of the other Crypton
| Future Media characters, and a lot of people are sticking to
| the Vocaloid 4 release because they're not fans of how NT
| sounds. Now V6 is out and the technological gulf is widening.
| megiddo wrote:
| Check out Synthesizer V with Eleanor Forte.
|
| Synth V is extremely fast and the output is shockingly good
| with some tweaking - good enough to be indistinguishable for
| many people.
| Hamuko wrote:
| The Vocaloid sound is basically part of the brand now. I can't
| imagine them ever changing it, and if they did, the existing
| producers would most likely shun it in favour of the sound that
| they've gotten used to.
| filoleg wrote:
| Agreed. I think a proper solution for them to this would just
| be to create a separate spin-off product that is focused on
| realistic voice synthesis, while continuing the development
| of the typical-vocaloid-sounding product line as they
| currently are.
|
| The audience wanting more vocaloid-like sound and the one
| wanting more realistic sound aren't really the same, and the
| overlap between them, I suspect, is not large. So it makes
| way more sense to capture the latter group by creating that
| more-realistic-voice spin-off product line, as opposed to
| being forced to choose between the realistic and vocaloid-
| like target demographics.
|
| We already know the size of vocaloid-sound target audience,
| but I bet the audience for realistic-sound synthesis is going
| to be magnitudes larger (mostly because of versatility of
| where that tech could be useful, while with vocaloid it is
| mostly constrained to music production and vocaloid-related
| visual arts accompanied by a typical vocaloid voice).
| a_t48 wrote:
| There's nothing stopping them from making new "characters"
| that sound more realistic.
| ArtWomb wrote:
| Hacking on GPU Wavelets at the moment for time series.
| Multiresolution autocorrelation seems like it should be near
| instantaneous. And then, that opens up not just pitch correction,
| but "shifting peaks" ;)
|
| Efficient Pitch Detection Techniques for Interactive Music
|
| https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~pdelac/PitchDetection/icmc01-pit...
|
| New Phase-Vocoder Techniques For Pitch-Shifting, Harmonizing and
| other Exotic Effects
|
| https://www.ee.columbia.edu/~dpwe/papers/LaroD99-pvoc.pdf
| bobsmith432 wrote:
| The unintentional marketing effect of the Vocaloid characters
| (Hatsune Miku, Kagamine Rin/Len) is phenomenal. I want to buy and
| use Vocaloid itself just because those characters are cute
| krapp wrote:
| It's very intentional.
| bobsmith432 wrote:
| 50/50, I'm sure they would've liked the characters to catch
| on with people, but they grew way more than I'm sure Yamaha
| ever thought they would internationally even. Weebs
| everywhere love Miku and don't even know she's from audio
| software by Yamaha
| slongfield wrote:
| Her sleeves are literally a Yamaha DX7, which makes it
| obvious to synth nerds everywhere, but... not sure how much
| of the weeb population are also synth nerds.
| redwall_hp wrote:
| Minor correction: Miku, Luka, Rin/Len, Kaito and Meiko are
| not Yamaha products. Crypton Future Media is the company
| behind them, as they're third party voice banks for
| Yamaha's Vocaloid platform. (+/- the newer NT version of
| Miku, which uses its own thing.) Yamaha only recently
| started shipping their own voices at all, and none of them
| have the same fan cachet.
| smegsicle wrote:
| like their targeted advertising collaboration with dominos,
| known to be the favored pizza of audio professionals
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPuI4l0jK7s
| astrange wrote:
| Being true to who you are makes all your dreams possible.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_XMIGjJoS8
| krapp wrote:
| Related (and of interest to HN) - the effort to save the
| Hatsune Miku Dominos app[0], the quest to track down
| Scott Oelkers, President of Dominos Pizza Japan (featured
| in the ad)[1] and interview [2].
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=341IsnWdaT4
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCaZt6Dy2_A
|
| [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLUCZux2Sbs
| [deleted]
| redwall_hp wrote:
| Crypton actually licenses their characters under the
| noncommercial Creative Commons license, since they recognize
| that their whole business (and the desirability for companies
| to want to license them) stems from fans creating a whole world
| of music and visual art surrounding them.
|
| It's a great example of a company seizing an opportunity and
| not stepping on the fan communities that built them said
| opportunity.
| kyazawa wrote:
| I went from Vocaloid hater to fan in the span of this year. There
| are Japanese Vocaloid producers who are pushing the boundaries of
| pop music in a way that wouldn't be possible with a real singer.
| I've never come across anything like this music in the West.
| Definitely an acquired taste.
|
| My Vocaloid song recommendation: Ungray Days by the producer
| Tsumiki. Tsumiki creates a sharp, aggressive sound that is
| disagreeable at first but really addictive.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvF3Mwj5d4E
| fullstop wrote:
| It gives me Splatoon vibes.
| Semaphor wrote:
| > disagreeable at first but really addictive.
|
| Nope, certainly stays disagreeable to me. I wonder what makes
| people enjoy weird stuff in so many different ways. I might not
| like this, but I enjoy white noise artist Merzbow [0] or
| breakcore from Drumcorps [1]
|
| [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=przphi3RjeE
|
| [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXEzn43VITM
| jancsika wrote:
| It's a random-walk of blues riffs over a stock diatonic chord
| progression with a slow (and predictable) harmonic rhythm.
|
| The only conceivable surprise is a crude chromatic key change
| to the minor version of the raised mediant.
|
| You'd think the precision of those dynamic envelopes and
| timbral games would push the artist to venture out and explore
| that mediant relationship to create quicker and more jarring
| harmonic progressions and modulations. But no-- it turns out to
| be less inventive than the mediant chains emanating from, say,
| Joni Mitchell and her acoustic guitar over fifty years ago:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q2jiRUVLgI
|
| (I find some of the lyrics apt, too.)
|
| Compared to the cookie-cutter harmony and melody of the music
| you linked, even Mitchell's augmented triad in the melody at
| the end of the chorus sounds like the musical equivalent of
| solving fast homomorphic encryption.
|
| It's the the audio tech that is on display in the music you
| linked, so every other musical consideration shifts to the
| background to illuminate that tech. I get that. But holy shit
| _why_ does that baseline have to be stuck in the fucking 1650s?
| While I love the "electrified Vivaldi" hack that is heavy
| metal from the late 70s/early 80s (Master of Puppets et al), I
| question whether we really need more than one musical genre
| based on that parlor trick.
|
| It would be like every stand up comedian ending their set with
| increasingly theatrical pyrotechnic pull-my-finger jokes. I
| could laugh my ass off at the absurdity for a year, maybe two.
| But _forever_?
| tuesgloomsday wrote:
| It's possible you're stuck on the first slope of the dunning
| kruger graph.
|
| My (possibly wrong) impression of your comment is that you
| seem to have made the mistake of associating complexity with
| quality in music which is extremely common in those who've
| just started looking into music theory.
|
| Most music needs only the smallest dash of novelty to achieve
| the perfect mix of the new and familiar to its target
| audience. If you start attempting to evaluate popular music
| on what about it is inventive or new, you're likely to find
| yourself unable to appreciate most of what people are
| enjoying and cut yourself off from loving a broad spectrum of
| musical expression.
|
| You might also find yourself unable to express why you enjoy
| the music you do like in a way that doesn't come across as if
| you're arguing an objective scientific point----an approach
| which might undercut your argument by making you
| unintentionally come across as someone who has just learned a
| lot of fancy theory jargon and is eager for an excuse to
| wield it.
| knaekhoved wrote:
| The rapper/producer Deko has been doing some very interesting
| stuff with adding vocaloid synth characters to rap/hyperpop
| music. He has two vocaloid "characters", Lil Yammeii and Lil
| Hard Drive. Most vocaloid rap I listen to is terrible but this
| stuff is super well produced. He'll even do things like add
| breathing noises to the vocaloid tracks, which improves the
| sound a lot. https://youtu.be/usRDtHjYKzU
|
| He also has some funny parodical bits he does, like rapping
| about having a lot of money/jewels/etc and then the vocaloid
| characters rap about having a lot of RAM.
| empressplay wrote:
| This is a geeky song I did in English using Vocaloid singers:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2k8EOBL75o
|
| Not great, not terrible.
| Philip-J-Fry wrote:
| I don't feel much from that one. But I will drop some of my
| favorites here in case anyone wants to discover them.
|
| CHO-DARI- - Hatsune Miku
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU1HjAPvHG8
|
| Mum / Xiong Zhi Zhu feat. flower
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjAcngUNiZ8
|
| Hana to Nare / Yunosuke feat. KAFU
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqKbuEDvaf8
|
| IA - Conqueror https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3E5fb39xcs
| ztgasdf wrote:
| Adding to this, I highly recommend works from nulut[0] and
| niki[1].
|
| [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sEptl-psU0
|
| [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgHbvHpT5ww
| nineteen999 wrote:
| I've gone from being Vocaloid indifferent to a Vocaloid hater.
| Being the father of a 12 year girl who is obsessed with
| imaginary Japanese Vocaloid artists, I'm totally over the sound
| of it, although I agree the histrionics produced by these
| things can be fairly amazing to hear from time to time.
|
| What I did find more interesting was the AI "sung" version of
| Joelene that was doing the rounds a few days ago, based on the
| voice of Holly Herndon:
| https://youtu.be/kPAEMUzDxuo
|
| Interested to see where that goes, although I've got to admit,
| I'm a purist, and any type of digital vocalist is going to make
| me go "meh" sooner or later when compared to even a half decent
| human singer.
| oidar wrote:
| Ungray Days slightly reminds me of oneohtrix point never.
| fjallstrom wrote:
| Yeah like this one
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UztCDH2xuQ
| oidar wrote:
| This is such an excellent album.
| bambax wrote:
| I'm not sure I understand what Vocaloid does? Does it generate
| vocal parts "from scratch" / just from lyrics? Or is it more
| like a vocoder?
|
| The track you reference sounds like chipmunks sped up 2x; it's
| not unpleasant to listen to, and fun, but I feel it could be
| made just like that (record at 80bpm, high pass filter, maybe
| transpose 1 octave, and speed up to 180), no "AI" involved.
| recursive wrote:
| The chipmunk effect isn't even necessarily part of it. Most
| vocaloid music is in a more "normal" range.
|
| It's a synthesizer. It's an alternative to human singers. I
| can imagine someone seeing a digital piano for the first
| time. "I'm not sure what it even does. I could just use an
| acoustic piano. It sounds the same."
| bambax wrote:
| Yeah fair enough. I have no problem with Vocaloid -- but I
| do have a problem with the over the top marketing copy
| (sorry if that was unclear).
| Arnavion wrote:
| It generates audio from phonetic lyrics.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| Hmm interesting. I'm not familiar with this scene. I'm not sure
| how I feel about it. I feel like it feels kind of hollow. Like
| there's a lot of energy in it, but the vocaloid part just feels
| so emotionless. Maybe that's a cultural barrier though. Jpop
| and Kpop make me feel similarly and they're actually singing.
|
| On the western side in a similar vein you've got hyper pop
| coming up from 100 gecs and laura les and what not. This kind
| of sound, hypertuned and almost as incomrehensible, sounds
| better to me. You do still get a vein of emotion. I love this
| sound.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=879ysA4h9r4
| vallanceroad wrote:
| > I'm not sure how I feel about it. I feel like it feels kind
| of hollow. Like there's a lot of energy in it, but the
| vocaloid part just feels so emotionless.
|
| In Japan, the term is "denpa" (Dian Bo songu). Denpa music is
| intentionally strange as it is catchy, and hypnotic as it is
| awkward. There are many producers creating high-BPM
| electronic vocaloid music that is chaotic for effect. It is a
| bit more twee than the western sounds, as you mentioned, but
| it can be quite enjoyable if you're in the right mood.
|
| More on denpa music: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denpa_song
|
| Nanahira playlist, an example of a vocaloid character:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHIyvhJadXM
|
| Explaining Vocaloid in 3 minutes:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GODXMGAMpVc
|
| Also, I think you'd enjoy the Song Exploder podcast. If you
| haven't heard it already, check out the episode where 100
| gecs break down how Money Machine was created:
|
| https://songexploder.net/100-gecs
| boomskats wrote:
| Ya ya ya. I am lorde. Ya ya ya. (I think they missed a trick not
| using Randy Marsh[0] for their marketing)
|
| All jokes aside, I will throw serious money at the first
| streaming service that implements an 'autotuned' tag, and lets me
| filter anything tagged with it out of my stream. Like, $100 a
| month. Maybe more.
|
| [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkMJ5GSC37g
| mjr00 wrote:
| > I will throw serious money at the first streaming service
| that implements an 'autotuned' tag, and lets me filter anything
| tagged with it out of my stream.
|
| Well, I hope you don't like listening to any music made after
| ~2010, then. Melodyne is completely standard for any modern
| vocal processing, in all genres of music.
| boomskats wrote:
| > in all genres of music
|
| I get where you're coming from. I remember Celemony
| announcing their polyphonic tuning engine a little over a
| decade ago, and remember buying it as soon as it came out and
| re-tuning a load of Imogen Heap tunes and loving it, in
| something like Reaper v2. I know how prevalent Melodyne is, I
| know the commercial and production related justifications for
| its use. But I also know for a fact that this is not the case
| 'in all genres of music'.
|
| Sometimes, I want to listen exclusively to music with real
| vocals. I love the first CHVRCHES album, it's one of my
| favourite albums of the last decade. As it happens, it took
| me ages, a couple of years, to figure out that the reason I
| liked it as much as I did was the lack of autotune. I
| (ironically) figured this out when they released their second
| album which _did_ utilise autotune. I never made it all the
| way through listening to that second album.
| mjr00 wrote:
| I guarantee that the music you're listening to that has
| "real vocals" has used Melodyne, you just don't notice it.
| Even if the artist themselves thinks they didn't use it, if
| they worked with a professional mixing/mastering engineer,
| they likely did vocal correction without the singer's
| knowledge.
|
| You may as well say "I don't listen to music that uses EQ"
| or "I don't listen to music that uses compressors."
| boomskats wrote:
| > You may as well say "I don't listen to music that uses
| EQ" or "I don't listen to music that uses compressors."
|
| Not the same as either of those things. You might as well
| be arguing that I'm claiming that volume knobs shouldn't
| exist.
|
| Pick an equivalent like photography. In the photography
| world, EQ is like a fill light. A compressor you could
| compare to a polarising filter. Autotune (or drum quant)
| though, is like photoshopping. Removing all of the skin
| blemishes and imperfections at best, and at worst and
| more often than not, it's fake disproportionate waist and
| ass booty enhancement.
| bobsmith432 wrote:
| Autotune also in my opinion sets unrealistic goals for people
| getting into singing
| adzm wrote:
| On the other hand, auto tune is great for people to get into
| making songs without having the greatest voice.
| klodolph wrote:
| Fact is, people _say_ this, but when artists actually release
| music that uses no autotuning, it tends to be less popular.
| Hardcore fans will say "release your next album without
| autotuning" but when the album actually comes out, those
| hardcore fans aren't supporting it.
|
| It's very difficult to tell if autotuning is used, if it is
| used well.
| boomskats wrote:
| That's an interesting defence of autotune, but I don't think
| it's relevant to my comment, which clearly talks about my own
| personal preference.
|
| I don't want to listen to artists who use autotune. I _do_
| want to listen to artists who don't. I know that there
| definitely is a set of artists who explicitly don't use it,
| who are more concerned with accurately expressing their
| creative intent and musical virtuosity than they are with
| gaining popularity and mass appeal. What I am saying is that
| I would like to be able to consciously choose to only listen
| to and support those musicians, and I will gladly pay a
| disproportionate amount for it. Anecdotally, I know for a
| fact that I am not the only one who feels this way.
|
| Also btw -
|
| > when artists actually release music that uses no
| autotuning, it tends to be less popular
|
| Normally when you make a statement like this on HN I'd expect
| to see a citation or reference to where that statement came
| from.
| tshaddox wrote:
| > I know that there definitely is a set of artists who
| explicitly don't use it, who are more concerned with
| accurately expressing their creative intent and musical
| virtuosity than they are with gaining popularity and mass
| appeal.
|
| Any examples? Are they all fairly small artists, or are
| there some big names who explicitly don't use it?
| coldtea wrote:
| Is Bob Dylan a big name? Tom Waits? Coldplay? And if
| those are "old", one can still find tons of modern
| (20-something) musicians which don't use it, but still
| have a sizable following.
|
| Not sure what you have in mind, but people don't need to
| listen to the top-20 or BS R&B.
|
| Even if you want to listen to electronic music, there's a
| big universe of artists who have nothing to do with the
| "autotune" sound and modern commercial productions.
| mjr00 wrote:
| > Is Bob Dylan a big name? Tom Waits? Coldplay?
|
| Tom Waits and Coldplay (or specifically, their mixing
| engineers) have gone on the record saying they use
| Melodyne in their marketing brochures.
|
| Again, it is literally impossible for a human to know if
| pitch correction was used on a song. But if it's a song
| that was released after 2010 and mixed by an engineer,
| they used pitch correction, guaranteed.
|
| [0] https://musicmarketing.ca/DNET/rack/brochure_melodyne
| _3.pdf
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Tom Waits and Coldplay (or specifically, their mixing
| engineers) have gone on the record saying they use
| Melodyne in their marketing brochures._
|
| Not exactly. A guy who worked with them said it. They
| also have worked with dozens of others which would be
| where they used it. Also Waits recorded for 25+ years
| before Autotune (much less Melodyne) was even a thing.
| com2kid wrote:
| > They also have worked with dozens of others which would
| be where they used it. Also Waits recorded for 25+ years
| before Autotune (much less Melodyne) was even a thing.
|
| And instead recorded the same piece several dozen times
| and for the final recording spliced together what sounded
| best.
|
| This is like complaining that you don't want authors
| using spell check, they should have to retype the entire
| paragraph every time they make a mistake!
|
| The end result is the same, the only difference is the
| path to get there.
|
| There may be some fair complaints about usage at live
| shows, but for recordings, the end result is going to be
| the same if melodyne is used or if the artist is recorded
| again and again until everything is "perfect".
| alexb_ wrote:
| >I know that there definitely is a set of artists who
| explicitly don't use it, who are more concerned with
| accurately expressing their creative intent and musical
| virtuosity than they are with gaining popularity and mass
| appeal
|
| I think you are forgetting that the autotune _IS_ their
| creative intent. T-Pain is probably the most famous heavy
| autotune user of all time, despite having an amazing voice
| without it. It 's an intentional effect - like how electric
| guitars aren't "worse" because you aren't hearing the raw
| sound of the string.
| Orcastrap wrote:
| imagine thinking you can actually notice light autotune
| (let alone melodyne!) use in a recording
| boomskats wrote:
| Who thinks that? I certainly don't and never said I did.
| Nevertheless there is no 'light autotune' filter on any
| of the major streaming services either.
|
| There's a pretty interesting test[0] on themusiclab.org,
| that will test how good your microtonal perception is.
| See how you score - it might align with how well you're
| able to perceive autotune. Here's my score [1]. This was
| from my first attempt a few months ago, but I've done it
| a couple more times since and my score is pretty
| consistent - whether I like it or not.
|
| [0] https://www.themusiclab.org/quizzes/td [1]
| https://imgur.com/a/5R3K43Z
| boomskats wrote:
| You also just _completely_ missed my point.
|
| I want to be able to choose to consciously support
| artists who don't use autotune. I want to be recommended
| and discover new artists, who consciously don't use
| autotune. I want to be able to choose to listen to real
| vocals as a genre. I want that choice.
| moth-fuzz wrote:
| "I want to be able to choose to consciously support
| artists who don't use EQ. I want to be recommended and
| discover new artists, who consciously don't use EQ. I
| want to be able to choose to listen to real vocals as a
| genre. I want that choice."
|
| Note that many recording artists do not actually _make_
| that choice; it happens further up the chain. Regardless,
| whether or not a singer or producer uses a particular
| effect on their voice does not distinguish between the
| vocals being 'real' or not. If you simply don't _like_
| the way it sounds, on the level of artistic taste, well,
| you can make that judgement for yourself, but, to claim
| it 's more profound than that is just pure pretense.
|
| Also, why are we talking about autotuned vocals on a
| thread about a speech synthesizer? Claims of 'real
| vocals' are already out the window at that point.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Note that many recording artists do not actually make
| that choice; it happens further up the chain._
|
| If they don't make such choices for themselves, they're
| not much of an artist, more like mass-produced
| manufactured candy pop/r&b/etc...
| eropple wrote:
| I'm very curious how autotuned/melodyned vocals are not
| "real vocals", but vocals that have had EQ applied to
| them, or have been compressed or flanged or post-process
| reverberated or delayed, are "real vocals".
|
| Perhaps there is also a standard mic for Vocal Realness.
| I assume it must be a SM58; it is, after all, well-known
| that having a low-pass switch on the microphone lowers
| the industry-calibrated Realness Score by at least 250
| mSpr(ingsteen). More if it's on.
|
| edit: A friend also pointed out to me the inherent
| Springsteen ceiling of computer-reproduced audio. And you
| know, he's right, I'm going to go find a chamber and hire
| some monks for the true realness that only an authentic
| Gregorian chant can provide. Denon sells them in twelve-
| packs, you know.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _I 'm very curious how autotuned/melodyned vocals are
| not "real vocals", but vocals that have had EQ applied to
| them, or have been compressed or flanged or post-process
| reverberated or delayed, are "real vocals"._
|
| It's not based on some technical argument or law of
| physics. People either get why, or they don't.
|
| If you want some kind of technical justification, those
| effects you mentioned just add some sparkle (flanger) or
| fixes the balance (often just to make a recording, which
| begins deader in a sound-treated studio, sound closer to
| real life environment (reverb) and dynamics
| (compression).
|
| Autotune, on the other hand, changes the pitch and
| vibrato, you know two of the main things a singer is
| supposed to produce. And if overdone as "effect", it also
| fucks the timbre.
|
| And let's be real, nobody says this about some singer
| using autotune to fix a flat note or two. It's the
| autotune-as-effect (whether T-pain levels or more subtle)
| that people complain about.
| eropple wrote:
| I think you may have missed what I'm getting at here. I
| very much "get" why people don't like it, and most of the
| music I listen to regularly goes light on
| autotune/melodyne. And I am not saying that one has to
| like those vocals at all. But the idea that they're not
| "real vocals" is an attempt at shitty gatekeeping that
| has no place in music. This wannabe arbiter does not get
| to decide what "real" is or what "art" is.
|
| It's gatekeeping bullshit.
| [deleted]
| coldtea wrote:
| I like gatekeeping. It means people see value and lack of
| value, as opposed to considering everything the same.
| eropple wrote:
| There is value in art done honestly, "bad" or not. And
| neither autotune nor melodyne have intrinsic
| characteristics that affect either honesty (unless you
| extend that to all forms of audio engineering that
| changes the voice) nor quality.
|
| Put frankly: your take is a small one. It's one that
| weakens the idea of art, and, no less importantly, is
| _cruel and sabotaging to people_. You should change your
| mind, but you 're kind of glorifying in that cruelty and
| that smallness throughout this thread (which is gross!)
| so I will not be holding my breath for it.
| FeepingCreature wrote:
| Let people like what they like. Let people want what they
| want.
| coldtea wrote:
| Doesn't have to have 'instrictic characteristics'. Just
| tendency and majority of real-life application being
| shitty is enough.
|
| Except if you thought that when complaining about
| autotune being bad, we were talking about some rare band
| that uses it as a creative tool, and not about the
| millions that use it as a clutch or for the 1000000th
| recreation of the same BS sound...
| mjr00 wrote:
| This comment section is about as well-informed as sound
| engineers on gearspace talking about why VSTs written in
| Javascript have more analogue warmth than ones written in
| C++. Some people commenting clearly have no idea how
| music is made.
| coldtea wrote:
| I've produced with DAWs for 30 years, and even put
| together a few effects of my own with Max and Reactor, so
| probably not me...
|
| Do you have anything in mind that sounds misinformed? Or
| just can't fathom that anybody who can tell what a
| granular delay or an LFO or an automation envelope is
| can't possibly dislike Autotune?
| astrange wrote:
| Even in the analog world, I've heard of things like
| adding reverb to a track by playing it in a bathroom and
| recording it again.
| boomskats wrote:
| This is a legit technique, has been for a loong time.
| You'd be surprised what they used to call it! [0]
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber
| boomskats wrote:
| It isn't gatekeeping bullshit. It's a matter of personal
| preference. Personally, I can't sing for shit. I also
| listen to a lot of artists that use autotune. I bought
| melodyne on the day of release when they brought their
| polyphonic editor back in 2009, and used it for years
| before that. It doesn't change the fact that autotuned
| vocals are the vocal equivalent of quantised drums.
| They're fine, but sometimes I want the option to filter
| it out from my recommended stream. Sometimes I like
| hearing microtonal mistakes. I like hearing a missed
| beat. I want that option. I don't want sterile
| perfection.
|
| > But the idea that they're not "real vocals" is an
| attempt at shitty gatekeeping that has no place in music.
|
| I'm not sure whether you see the irony in this statement.
| You're saying my opinion has no place 'in music'?
|
| > This wannabe arbiter does not get to decide what "real"
| is or what "art" is.
|
| I never claimed to be the arbiter of what art is. Art is
| subjective. It's a matter of personal preference. Like
| not wanting to listen to autotune.
|
| Lastly, you seem really angry. I'm really sorry if
| anything I've said has upset you.
| eropple wrote:
| _> You 're saying my opinion has no place 'in music'?_
|
| Man, this is basic Popper stuff. If you'd said "I don't
| like autotune", I'd have probably agreed with you. If
| you're saying that what others are doing aren't "real"
| _because_ you don 't like it, that's a whole different
| kettle of fish.
|
| _> I never claimed to be the arbiter of what art is._
|
| You picked the word "real". Words mean things, and "real"
| does not mean "to my preference". It is a an assertion of
| legitimacy, it is that assertion to which all of my
| comments in this thread are directed, and it's something
| that neither you nor I get to take away from somebody.
|
| _> Lastly, you seem really angry. I 'm really sorry if
| anything I've said has upset you._
|
| I wouldn't say that I'm angry, I've been on the internet
| a long time and random posts have to be really special to
| do that, but I do write sharply when I care about
| something. If one believes genuinely in the openness and
| democracy of art--and I do--I don't think there's a
| properly strident reaction to the implications you laid
| down that wouldn't be a little bit testy.
| Orcastrap wrote:
| my point is that you're depriving yourself of good art
| for an arbitrary moralism. just as ridiculous as saying
| "i'll never listen to a singer that uses compression bc
| the artists i listen to MUST have perfect dynamics (even
| though this has zero impact on the final product)"
|
| im making fun of you for being silly
| boomskats wrote:
| I never said I don't listen to it. I said I want the
| option of explicitly filtering it out sometimes. The two
| are entirely different.
| zasdffaa wrote:
| He says 'I' meaning he's choosing for himself for his own
| reason, he's not forcing it on others. You might at least
| respect that even if you, and I, don't share the
| reasoning.
| WhiskeyChicken wrote:
| Imagine thinking there aren't people with exceptional
| hearing that notice all sorts of things the average
| person doesn't.
| coldtea wrote:
| It's sort of like thinking statistical outliers are
| relevant to a general argument.
| Nadya wrote:
| Sorry but it falls into the realm of audiophilia to me -
| people who think they hear a difference in their audio
| because they're using $30,000 gold plated wires lifted
| 0.25mm off of any surface such as to not disturb the
| audio harmonics or whatever voodoo they've been sold to
| believe in.
|
| There are absolutely edits so subtle that without having
| seen or heard the original you'd have no way of knowing
| it was modified at all. Pitch correcting someone's voice
| up 1/1400th of a step is not going to be noticeable no
| matter how perfect one thinks their hearing is. These
| kinds of subtle changes are far more common than the
| drastic and noticeable edits or even smaller but still
| quite large edits where people with a trained eye/ear
| will notice but the average person wouldn't.
| varispeed wrote:
| It may not exactly be about artist. For instance person
| mixing the artist's song (putting together all the
| individual instrument and vocal tracks and ensuring it
| sounds good together) may use autotune without artist even
| knowing.
|
| Then you have problem of the budget. Studio time is quite
| expensive and after nth take hard decisions have to be
| made. Booking another session or fix the tuning with
| software?
|
| Also take into account that vocals that you hear in songs,
| that are not obviously autotuned may actually be composed
| of dozens of takes. That technique is called comping and
| the mixer (sometimes together with the artist) would choose
| the best take out of dozen often for each phrase or even
| single word. Sort of like natural autotune, when e.g. only
| phrases that sound in tune are picked.
| klodolph wrote:
| > I don't want to listen to artists who use autotune. I
| _do_ want to listen to artists who don't.
|
| If you can't tell the difference, why do you care? If you
| _can_ tell the difference, why do you need the label?
|
| Speaking as an amateur musician, I think these arguments
| reflect a lack of understanding of how music production
| works, and how that's connected to the artist's creative
| vision. I'll say that a big part of the blame lies with
| poorly used autotune. Just to pick an example, the entire
| first season of Glee is especially bad, to the point where
| I want to leave the room. Then there's various places where
| autotune has been overused on singers who don't actually
| need it to begin with (Buble comes to mind), or where
| autotune has been used to cover up some sloppy singing.
| (Buble is particularly illustrative--it is known that he
| uses autotune, but he has said that he doesn't... I suspect
| that Buble is simply unaware that autotune is being used. I
| suspect that many other singers are also unaware that they
| are being autotuned--but you can sometimes find clear
| evidence for it when you analyze their songs with a
| computer.)
|
| But autotune is also used, manually, by producers, to make
| small adjustments as needed to improve a take. It can mean
| that the singer does fewer takes to nail the song, because
| with your comping and autotune choices, you get what you
| need faster. The amount of comping and autotune that you do
| is a matter of style and situation--producers are free to
| do comping and autotune as they see fit, to capture what
| they think is the best version of each part.
|
| It means that you can say, "take 3 has the most beautiful
| phrasing and a lot of soul to it, it's just a little sharp"
| and then manually adjust the pitch by the amount you think
| is appropriate.
|
| > Normally when you make a statement like this on HN I'd
| expect to see a citation or reference to where that
| statement came from.
|
| I'm not sure why you have that expectation or think that it
| is at all reasonable. Like everyone else, I have a lifetime
| of experience. Not everything that I tell you was written
| down in the first place, and I can't reasonably be expected
| to remember the exact source for every piece of
| information, nor should I be expected to shut up just
| because I don't provide a source for something I say.
| boomskats wrote:
| > why do you need the label
|
| I don't want to get halfway through listening to a song
| to hit autotuned vox. I just don't, I'd like the option
| to filter on that. I would like a
| recommendation/discovery engine that eliminates that
| anxiety.
|
| > a lack of understanding of how music production works,
| and how that's connected to the artist's creative vision
|
| Quite the opposite. I understand music production
| extensively. I studied it, I have used it, half my social
| circle are studio engineers or conservatoire grads. I
| just want the option of filtering on artists whose
| creative vision _is_ the original vocal recording.
|
| > I suspect that Buble is simply unaware that autotune is
| being used
|
| The only reason that man has a career is because his
| geriatric target audience is too old to know what
| autotune is (hence his denial is plausible). I'm pretty
| sure his record sales depend almost entirely on the abuse
| of autotune for the hard of hearing. He isn't an example
| I'd have used in this argument.
|
| > But autotune is also used, manually, by producers, to
| make small adjustments as needed to improve a take. It
| can mean that the singer does fewer takes to nail the
| song, because with your comping and autotune choices, you
| get what you need faster
|
| I totally know and appreciate all of this. Recording
| without it is considerably more effort and money, it's
| often not economically viable. Nevertheless, I want to be
| able to sometimes filter on it.
|
| > I'm not sure why you have that expectation or think
| that it is at all reasonable. Like everyone else, I have
| a lifetime of experience. Not everything that I tell you
| was written down in the first place
|
| When your argument is your opinion or something drawn
| from your personal experience, that's fine. However your
| words were: "Fact is, people say this, but when artists
| actually release music that uses no autotuning, it tends
| to be less popular". Stating a 'counterintuitive fact'
| the way you did suggests it was proven in a study or
| experiment of some kind. When putting arguments like that
| forward, most posters on HN tend to reference their
| sources. Otherwise your 'fact' is just an opinion.
| There's nothing wrong with that, but it is not a 'fact'.
| If you state something is a fact, I think an expectation
| that you can back it up with an external reference is
| entirely reasonable.
|
| > nor should I be expected to shut up just because I
| don't provide a source for something I say
|
| Not sure where I said that you were expected to shut up.
| If I implied it I apologise. However, I stand by my
| expectations of providing external references for things
| stated as fact.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Fact is, people say this, but when artists actually
| release music that uses no autotuning, it tends to be less
| popular._
|
| The kind of artists worth listening to wouldn't touch
| autotune with a 1000ft pole. They're less popular to begin
| with - but can still have tens of millions of fans globally
| (say, someone like Tom Waits).
| Tade0 wrote:
| Any recommendations? I get why singers do it, but I want to
| hear the imperfections.
| mjr00 wrote:
| > The kind of artists worth listening to wouldn't touch
| autotune with a 1000ft pole. They're less popular to begin
| with - but can still have tens of millions of fans globally
| (say, someone like Tom Waits).
|
| Whoops, bad news! Tom Waits' mixing engineer is explicitly
| mentioned in Melodyne's brochure.[0] Melodyne 3, too, so
| he's been using it for quite a while. You may want to
| shorten the length of that 1000ft pole.
|
| [0]
| https://musicmarketing.ca/DNET/rack/brochure_melodyne_3.pdf
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Whoops, bad news! Tom Waits ' mixing engineer is
| explicitly mentioned in Melodyne's brochure_
|
| Which is not Tom Waits. A guy worked with 200 clients,
| has done gigs with Waits, and puts the most famous client
| names as ("has worked with"), not necessarily the one
| they used Melodyne on (which he doesn't even claim).
| 613style wrote:
| I think you're underestimating how subtle and ubiquitous modern
| autotuning is. The video here is an extreme example of a very
| broad category of effects. In reality, almost every
| professional recording you hear uses autotune in the same way
| that almost every professional photograph you see uses color
| correction. Most people don't notice it most of the time
| (despite most people believing they always notice it).
|
| An alternative you've also heard extremely often is a singer
| recording the same line 100 times, then producers going through
| each word (or each syllable) to cherry-pick the sample where it
| was most on-pitch and blend them together.
|
| Neither one of these represents the singer's real ability
| (whatever that even means), but both can be unnoticeable by
| 99.99% of the population when applied skillfully.
| chmod775 wrote:
| > almost every professional recording you hear uses autotune
|
| That seems a bit too general. If we narrowed that down to a
| few popular music genres I would probably subscribe to it.
| Plenty of solo artists wouldn't be caught dead using autotune
| or melodyne or whatever (outside of using it for
| effect/intentional distortion). When being an exceptional
| singer is your entire brand, you don't want to show up with
| training wheels.
| witherk wrote:
| I'm sure there will always be music made with varying levels
| technology. Seems like it will always be the case that any
| technology past that made in one's childhood will be the cutoff
| for some people.
| ilikeitdark wrote:
| Seriously, that was complete torture watching that video. I
| thought for some stupid reason it might be interesting. Wrong.
| agentwiggles wrote:
| This is one of the funniest clips from the show I can think of,
| the subversion of expectation from his initial clip to a legit
| Lorde sounding song is so funny to me.
| [deleted]
| oolonthegreat wrote:
| now I know what simcard nano uses for their radiohead covers! I
| have always wondered where did those vocals come from.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApL1d_OQYk4
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| brap wrote:
| It took me like 5 minutes to understand what the product does.
| Why do so many landing pages NOT TELL YOU WHAT THE DAMN THING IS?
| Are we just expected to know?
|
| >VOCALOID6 is an AI-based technology created by Yamaha to fully
| support the musical expressiveness of creators from all
| perspectives, offering an even more natural singing voice than
| ever before together with unprecedented freedom to express your
| vocal ideas. This product lets you express your ideas on the spot
| in vocal form while producing music.
|
| What does this even mean? It reads like GPT-3 output.
| [deleted]
| Lammy wrote:
| It's software that sings for you. You may have seen the stable
| of characters marketed around the software, like Hatsune Miku
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSnKX7kAgIc
| brap wrote:
| Thanks, I did figure this out eventually, I'm just frustrated
| that it took me watching the video and scrolling through the
| landing page for a while until I got it.
|
| "Software that sings for you" is a great explanation, which
| should have been right there at the top of the landing page
| instead of that endless stream of buzzwords.
| user- wrote:
| Ever heard of Hatsune Miku? https://youtu.be/jhl5afLEKdo?t=65
|
| Its just voice synthesizing
| abetusk wrote:
| Can someone point to a good open source alternative for vocaloid?
|
| I know of Sinsy [0] but I couldn't get it working. eCantorix [1]
| is very old and rudimentary (it uses espeak underneath [2]).
|
| Searching just now I see OpenUtau [3] but I have no experience
| with it.
|
| Seems crazy there isn't a good FOSS solution for this.
|
| [0] http://www.sinsy.jp/
|
| [1] https://github.com/divVerent/ecantorix
|
| [2] https://espeak.sourceforge.net/
|
| [3] https://github.com/stakira/OpenUtau
| fullstop wrote:
| My daughter has both OpenUtau and Vocaloid 5. She tends to use
| OpenUtau more, although I don't know why.
| sporkl wrote:
| I haven't used it much but OpenUtau (under active development)
| has been nice. Cross-platform, automatically handles
| internationalization issues, and the phenomizer system is very
| nice. Works well with the free multilingual Kumi Hitsuboku
| voicebank[0].
|
| Also has integration with NNSVS (neural net based vocal
| synthesizer) and the entire UTAU ecosystem.
|
| I would say this is the good FOSS solution!
|
| [0]: https://cubialpha.wixsite.com/koomstar
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-10 23:00 UTC)