Talk:Auto-Tune/Archive 1

Archive 1

Verifiability and sources

Please don't add a performer to this article unless you can provide a reliable source proving that the performer uses Auto-Tune. FreplySpang (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

hellogoodbye

Removed the following:

"The somewhat robotic vocal effect can also be found in the song "Bonnie Taylor Shakedown... 2K4", from the Californian power-pop four, Hellogoodbye's self titled EP. It can also be noticably heard on the tracks "All Of Your Love", "Here (In Your Arms)", "All Time Lows", "I Saw It On Your Keyboard" and "Touchdown Turnaround" from their debut album "Zombies! Aliens! Vampires! Dinosaurs!"."

It's a long section about a comparatively obscure band. The other more well known songs mentioned (far more briefly) in the paragraph are sufficiently illustrative of the effect, IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.167.229 (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Split

I suggest there should be a separate article for the "auto-tune effect", a.k.a "the cher effect". A more general name for it independent of song, or program used to create it would be the "electronic voice effect" (a phrase used in the article) or the "tonal mangling effect". Such an article could then list all the recordings that use the effect. This article is not a good place for that list, because this article is about the Auto-Tune program, not the effect. Egriffin (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Further investigation reveals the article Cher effect redirects here. I suggest it should be a separate article. I'm adding the Split-apart template to the article. I don't know what Wikipedia's policy is on writing articles about something without an official name. Egriffin 15:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No replies, so I did it anyway. See my efforts at the article Cher effect. Egriffin (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Autotune4.jpg

Image:Autotune4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow

This is just sad. If I couldn't sing I wouldn't want a machine to do it for me. I can't believe they market this to actual musicians! It's insulting. If people didn't use it, those with true talent would rise.

SwedishConqueror 00:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

You could say the same thing about reverb (or any other effect, really) and this thing is marketed to studios, not musicians. It's just another tool. Studios don't just record top-name acts, a lot of amateurs come in as well. Maybe a tiny bit of correction on that one blown note will make the demo sound just a little better, perhaps giving a young artist enough pride and satisfaction to continue practicing and working with their vocal coach. Eli lilly 16:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No its so people who cant sing but look pleasant can get famous!123.255.55.52 17:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, No, if you had ever used autotune you would know you actually DO have to be able to sing, atleast at a basic level, to make it sound good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.59.47 (talk) 04:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I saw the earlier discussion, which appeared to be a merge proposal with pitch correction vs. Auto-Tune. I believe that the Auto-Tune article has sufficient information regarding the use of the technology in ways other than the original intent. A section describing the popularity of this technique following Cher's "Believe" would be adequate to replace a full article. Especially when the full article includes unreferenced lists of songs. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 15:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Merge - I see little to demonstrate considerable notability for this as a distinct form. The term does not appear to have truly "caught on" in any meaningful way. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Merge. Standalone article of insufficient notability, and all useful information can be preserved. Bongomatic 23:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Merge or not. Everything useful in the Cher article is already in the Auto-tune article. Make Cher effect a redirect. — MusicMaker5376 20:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. There are 3,840,000 results for the Cher effect on Google, which I think it's enough to prove it's notability. Alecsdaniel (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No evidence

People are just adding names of people who they 'assume' use Auto-Tune. There is no evidence whatsoever.yo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.51.82 (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Word, Auto-Tune gives you pitch correction alone, not that robotic type voice that most of the mentioned artists use. There's a video on youtube of a guy using an actual rack mount vocoder (I think it was called a helicon or something like that), and it sounds much more like the effect that T-pain and other artists use. Auto-tune is just a cheap way of achieving a somewhat similar effect. Here's the video with the real thing being used: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpu6C70WROM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.59.47 (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It is indicated that Auto-Tune was available by Antares as early as 1997. Why is there no mention of Mac OS 8.6 or 9.2? Mac OS X was not made available until late in 1999, and even then the audio engine was not working properly as all programs by digidesign, e-magic (now owned by Apple), and steinberg did not support OS X until the fall of 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.3.41 (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Linux?

Why is Auto Tune marked as running under linux? The website makes no mention of this and I can't find anything enlightening on the web. -- Chaosite (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Akon, Ron Browz

Somebody keeps putting Akon and Ron Browz into the article, but the reference right there doesn't mention them. Snoop Dogg is mentioned, but has been removed by whoever wants Akon in. I think a reference is required for each artist in the article, including Eiffel 65. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Glee

The excessive, obvious usage of Autotune on the Glee TV series is currently a very hot topic on the net and in the media. It needs to be mentioned in this article. It is already quoted and referenced in the Glee Wikipedia article and as such deserves to be entered here, as the most current and publically debated example of bad Autotune usage. Hardylane (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Joal Ryan of E! Online's "uberblog" is not a reliable source. If I get a spark to do it, I will go over to the Glee page and delete Mr. Ryan over there, too. As much as you think something needs to be mentioned, we must wait for a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course you must do what you must, no matter how blinkered. Hardylane (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Points for blinkered, one of my favorite obscure verbs. ;^)

Binksternet (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed a poor decision

I just removed an edit to the article that was made with little planning: "also autotune has just flat out made the music industry gayer."

I hope this won't continue to be an issue with this article. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ke$ha

it would be best to include the master of auto-tuned songs, ke$ha. who knows what her actual singing voice is like, maybe like william hung. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.243.202 (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've heard her actual singing voice on SNL. OUCH! In "Your Love is My Drug," she eventually accepted a (temporary) defeat and used a vocorder hooked up to a keyboard to hit her notes. --The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Songs

Is there a list of songs that obviously use this effect? Danceswithzerglings (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Verification for the listed artists using Auto-Tune

As a couple of people have already said (years ago) on here, there should be a reliable source proving the listed artist really does use Auto-Tune. I'll erase the artists myself if this is not fixed soon... Yooreetsa (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I support this plan--unsourced information, especially about living people, should be excised. As a side note, though, please put new threads on talk pages at the bottom of the page. I've moved this down to comply with that standard pattern. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

2Pac first?

I thought 2Pac's California Love (1995) was the first major artist to use this in a song. Not Cher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamF75 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The article says Auto-tune was released in 1997. This song was using something else. BollyJeff || talk 03:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

2Pac used a talkbox I think. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Spelling

You guys have to look out for typos, I just fixed a spelling mistake saying Kanye West was known for his "raping". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.170.132 (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Roy Vedas's 'Fragments of Life' preceded Cher's 'Believe'

Cher's 'Believe' is mentioned as the first major hit to prominently feature the auto-tune effect, but I believe Roy Vedas's 'Fragments of Life', which also was quite a popular hit, preceded Cher's 'Believe' by several months (several sources on the web point to that).

Even if it didn't come first (which I think it did), 'Fragments of life' (which can be heard here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6YhNcEbOHE) should at least be mentioned as it is a very prominent example of using auto-tune, and well remembered for popularizing the effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.94.133.215 (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

To add or modify the info, we need reliable sources to verify that 1) it was earlier and/or 2) that it was notable. Do those sources you mentioned meet WP:RS? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

auto tune the news

i was just checking out the "auto tune the news" thing being done by some guy in Brooklyn. one of the videos has over a million hits on youtube and Time magazine has done a write up of it. Might be worth mentioning here. Basically he is using auto tune to create R&B type songs from popular news segments. I think i read somewhere the BarelyPolitical picked him up to do something for them in the same style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.131.22 (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything holding you back from adding that bit. Time magazine is a good source. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if this belonged in the article, I don't think a critique of it's humor value does, right? Mtleslie (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Section added and cited. synthfiend (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Auto-Tune

Cher???

How about Eifeel 65? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68ugkg9RePc

Same year 1999, and they are not as mainstream as her. But, if you can find a reference then add it, but no original research. BollyJeff || talk 13:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually the first song to use auto tune was computer love by zapp and roger in 1985. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.82.187.246 (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Full Technical Description

Would anyone mind if I added a full technical description of how Autotune works? It's rather a splendid algorithm. eddie@tinyted.net. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.15.155 (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure but it has to have a citation/source. BollyJeff || talk 15:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Somebody removed my edit based on personal experience as to things it does and doesn't work well with because I didn't have a "reliable source cited". I've been doing Live sound and recording and play multiple instruments and have been since 1974, I didn't bother with a source for something that was self-evident, so be sure not to add useful information to a page that's only anecdotal empirical evidence related to hands on first hand experience since the advent of pitch-correction rack gear coming into existence. The WikiMasters will delete you. I reckon it's not worth wasting your time on people that if you type "the sky is blue from the perspective of the earths surface under most conditions" you'll get an email saying "you didn't cite a reliable source" with no email address to reply to. People *can* speculate on who did and didn't use auto-tune and write about anti-auto-tune t-shirts pop stars wear, but if you point out it's not perfect and can at times correct in the wrong direction, depending how out of key a person is and mentioning that if you play outside of 12 Tone Equal Temper, it's basically useless, your edit will be deleted by somebody that probably never touched a mixing board in their life.

"Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." The fact that *Anybody* with musical instruments, something running auto-tune, and *EARS* can verify the fact the algorithm isn't perfect and has limited uses. It can be used as an effect, it works well to pitch corrects some things and not other things. Imagine slide guitar with auto-tune on it. Not a very useful thing, is it? What it does well, it does well. If you try an use the rack gear and plug-ins with a 64 Tone Just Intonation Guitar, it will be useless. FACT. I suppose this will be deleted to because I typed something that anybody with ears can hear. I suppose I would also need a citation for "water is wet". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.207.42.206 (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, your claim is incorrect--I can't determine that the algorithm is incorrect and has limited uses, because, unlike yourself, I'm not a trained expert. Wikipedia's rules for sourcing basically require that something that is not common knowledge requires sourcing, and that statement requires, at a minimum extensive musical experience. I'm sorry if you don't like the way Wikipedia works, but it's the only way we have to try to make the information accurate--otherwise, what if someone else came on and claimed to have more experience than you and said you were wrong? That's the whole point--that the reader can verify any non-obvious claim with a citation. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Show me the liner notes you are on as a recording engineer and THIS is an accepted bit of writing, I know nothing much about it except some people I did FOH sound for engaged in such stage antics. Professional opinion, unless I write a book on it is illegal on wikipedia, THIS is cool? "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locking_%28dance%29" You want pros to contribute to your page, you can't whizz in their faces and tell them it's raining. I'd rather do a 64 tone JI gig than write a book and have it published to have something to cite where I was pointing out the obvious to people that have used the system. Understood?

The viewer of the page can verify with THEIR OWN EARS. I don't need citations to tell me water is wet. I could make a youtube of me playing pedal steel guitar with agressive auto-tune and it would sound really WRONG to anybody's ears, but then you would say "You probably just made that up in pro-tools."

I refuse to battle people that choose to remain ignorant and abusive to people that were trying to contribute something USEFUL besides that some celebs wear t-shirts saying they don't use auto-tune. Friend of mine, hearsay and yet true, was a hired sideman for Reba McEntire tours late 90s and early 00s. Deceased from pneumonia in 2002 on tour with an upcoming Nashville band. He got kicked off the last tour he did with her for pointing out that A: she couldn't sing in pitch on her early tunes anymore and B: Auto-Tune couldn't always fix it. I'd have to have a pretty creative mind to make that up arguing with some random person on the internet that allows some citationless things and disallows others. I have a Jensen-Healey Mk I. I used to own a Triumph TR-6. I once edited the Mk. I page, as to where they sourced some parts from and people reverted my edits with citations needed when I have the car parked in the drive.

I don't see how you can be super anal about this and allow rap/urban dance pages and celebrity pages where you say "citation needed" BUT you don't remove the content.

Such behavior disinclines people from adding to wikis.

Your behavior, your conscience, I'm not writing a book on things to prove something that you can hear with your own ears.

I did Front of House and Monitor engineering for Leon Russell. We didn't auto-tune anything, as his band are aces. How is touring with Leon Russell ever going to be common knowledge? He runs a large band but it isn't big enough to encompass everybody that reads wikipedia.

I'm sorry that your "encyclopedia model" is wrong. Call up the people that designed and market(ed) various forms of Auto-Tune and ask them. They'll say what I said. I use some Roland gear for a side project that's primarily an experimental outlet for me when I have free time. I asked them, related to what I was going to try to do (before investing thousands of dollars in gear) if their rack gear would work with what I intended to do. They were honest and said "don't know, nobody ever tried that that we know of" and when we spoke back and forth and I found some of what I wanted worked and some didn't they didn't write to me "citation needed", they made a note of it and there may be a future change in their MIDI gear related to some problems I noted, especially with controller latency. Of course, I should have recorded my phone calls speaking with Roland techs so I could send you an MP3 of the actual phone calls or I'm just making it up, right?

Go about your business, I'll go about mine. I was trying to help people by pointing out that there are NO MAGIC ANSWERS in recording or live sound and Auto-Tune can be used for good or ill. Back to no perfect answers same as there's no perfect speaker or amplifier or instrument.

No offense intended, I just think the policy of cutting out valid opinions while allowing long pages to be made that are hearsay about pop stars and movie people is a bit silly.

Best of luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.207.42.206 (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

SOURCE IS MANUFACTURER'S OWN WORDS. IT CORRECTS to 12 TONE TET, it isn't even designed to handle other forms of intonation. If you play various forms of music that aren't western 12TET or variable tuning instruments like steel guitar, it will hop your notes right to the closest seemingly appropriate 12 Tone Equal Temper notes.

FROM THE MANUFACTURERS THEMSELVES: Go to www.antarestech.com and look at their OWN MANUALS,Is that citation enough? Maybe they lie about their own products about the things people have learned in PRACTICE so as to make them not trustworthy to their customers? Maybe start with http://guitar.auto-tune.com/ and note that all the pitch correction they talk about is to 12 Tone Equal Temper. Their alternate tunings they support, for example, in the world of guitars allow you to change to other 12TET tunings, they don't speak 31EDO. They have a limited market and their product does well at what it was designed to do and robot noises and such that people have managed to get out of it. Not a cure all. CITATION PROVIDED. (Of course you'd have to understand guitar tuning methods and intonation systems to understand that, so feel free to search wikipedia for things related to such things...I'm off to play my 16EDO guitar...but I provided a citation that shows what the tools provide and in many circumstances they aren't appropriate to use.)

I'm done here and I hope some of you learned something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.207.42.206 (talk) 12:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your unsourced addition. Verifiability is one of our core principles. Without it, we end up with piles of unsourced material. Some of it is true, some of it is blatantly false, some is fact, some it opinion. Lots of editors want to add that this, that or the other thing is the greatest thing since sliced bread or flat-out sucks. Wikipedia is meant to deal in verifiable information, not opinions, whether "valid" or not. Assertions that something does or does not work well in a particular situation are often opinions presented as facts. Without a source, there is no reasonable way to sort out the two.

In your comment above, you've cited some sources. If they support what you added, feel free to restore the content with the cite.

If you wish to contact the person who made a particular edit, looking at the page's history gives you a link to each editor's talk page. Additionally, the note I left on your IP's talk page gives a brief explanation (with links for more depth) and another link to my talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

We can start with "As for using the Auto-Tune for Guitar product, this is designed for 12 tone Equal Tempered.

Please let me know if you have any further questions,

Henrik

Antares Audio Technologies"

(email exchange earlier today, he also listed the various tunings the latest full meal deal, non-guitar/everything else version NOW do, many intonations it will handle that they didn't initially in earlier models. The rest you can find in the Antares manuals. I'm not going to paste their manual here as it would be breach of copyright. They do the things designed for well, the things Antares stuff wasn't designed for it doesn't. I reckon an email from Antares doesn't count to you as a verifiable source so I'm not going to bother with the main page, I will just leave it here.)12.207.42.206 (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I'll show you one of the places it has problems detailed in the manual regarding contemporary EDO tunings it can handle. The tunings below are available as alternate EDO tunings currently. Feel free to know that some of my fun projects are in 11 tone, 16 tone, 32 tone, and 64 tone and note why in many cases their product would be useless to me as it would be trying to correct pitch to scales it knows, not the ones I'm playing: "• 19 Tone: This scale has greater purity of minor thirds and major thirds (and conversely, minor and major sixths) than twelve-tone equal temperament. A disadvantage is that perfect fifths are narrower than those found in twelve- tone equal temperament.

• 24 Tone: Also know as the quarter tone scale, this scale is used for variety but has no advantage in terms of ratios that better approximate pure intervals.

• 31 Tone: In addition to intervals that better approximate pure intervals, this scale also contains good approximations to Indonesian pelog and slendro scales.

• 53 Tone: Related mathematically to the cycleof fifths, the 53-tone scale has very pure major and minor thirds, and fifths and fourths. "

SOURCE-ANTARES Technical Support personnel.12.207.42.206 (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have seen thousands of DVD players. They are all completely worthless to me when I am making a sandwich. Should we include in DVD player "DVD players are worthless for making sandwiches"? Well, that depends, is it WP:VERIFIABLE: does the fact that DVD players cannot be used to make sandwiches appear in independent reliable sources? If it does, then yes we should probably include it. I cannot find independent reliable sources discussing DVD players and making sandwiches. The information is not verifiable and does not belong in the article.

I am sorry that Auto-Tune is not useful for your fun projects. That sucks. Is this fact discussed in independent reliable sources? - SummerPhD (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

See, this is where you come across like a nazi moron. It's in their product manuals, that I can't publish as it would violate copyright as far as fair use and I gave you a hearsay email conversation excerpt FROM THE MANUFACTURER OF THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION. So then we're back to you'd say "citation needed" if I said "water is wet." If you can't trust the support staff and manuals of the people that MAKE THE PRODUCT that I said does some things well and some things not so well, I don't believe I can help you. Side note, in case you missed is, THE MANUFACTURER OF THE PRODUCT AGREES WITH ME AND SAID IT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO ALL APPLICATIONS. It does a lot of tunings. It does not do all of them and just like your DVD players and sandwiches, sometimes things come out broken.

Try to help, bother to contact people I tangentially know at the MANUFACTURER of the product and you still whine. Do your friends like that part of your personality? Auto-Tune is a tool that SOMETIMES properly corrects tunings and SOMETIMES can be used to create effects that have at times become common in pop music. There are flaws in the algorithm and it's pretty centered on standard 12 Tone Chomatic/7 Tone scales as far as the design, as that's most of western music of the centuries since the advent of the Piano.

So I point out, with backup from Antares, that it's not a swiss army knife for correcting tuning problems and you talk about Video Equipment not being useful to make a sandwich? BTW, some of my mothballed SONY gear that's likely older than you puts off enough heat, you could about make a grilled cheese on it. Now you say "citation needed" because the fact I own antique SONY video gear is "just an opinion.

I suppose that Antares saying what their product is useful for and what to try to avoid in the tunings systems it does more or less handle properly is JUST AN OPINION of the manufacturer. 12.207.42.206 (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If the only sources discussing the supposed limitations are the product manual and emails, we have nothing to add. Yeah, the emails are no help at all, as they are not verifiable. Sure, the manual says lots about the product, it's not something we would typically include, as we generally look for coverage in independent reliable sources. Why? Look at it this way, suppose you wanted to slam or cheer a product. By cherry-picking the manuals, marketing materials, etc. you can make any product look good or bad. If, however, a product has major limitations on the one hand or ground-breaking features on the other, there should be coverage out there somewhere. If there isn't, we really don't have anything to go on. Sorry. (Incidentally, citing a source does not violate copyright, copying text verbatim would.) - SummerPhD (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone provide short samples?

Can anyone provide short samples of license-free music with and without the effect? The possibility to compare it first hand would obviously enrich the article very much. Nemissimo (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Article feedback

Supposedly there was some article feedback regarding this article. Where would that be? Hyacinth (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Here: Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Auto-Tune#389135 BollyJeff | talk 01:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Hyacinth (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the quotation, Wikipedia is not censored. Hyacinth (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Fuck, okay, fuck. BollyJeff | talk 02:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It must be hard for you to have "that word" still in the article when you are so committed to not using it. Hyacinth (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I was just checking whether or not Wikipedia would censored my comment. I guess you are right. However, I have not seen that kind of language too often in other encyclopedias. I also do not believe that the word's inclusion is fully justified under the guideline "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available" listed in Wikipedia:Offensive material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollyjeff (talk • contribs) 12:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In that case I would agree. Hyacinth (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Audio sample

I added a sample of auto-tune from the song "We R Who We R" by Kesha. The example is function-able, but I think the best example would be the introduction tot he song "Take It Off". --Thevampireashlee (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally... I am very hesitant about fair use justification without the copyright holders' consent, especially because of the SOPA/PIPA scare. My opinion is that it would be best if someone created a short before/after clip for Pitch correction and then put it in this article too. I've been thinking about doing that myself. However, maybe my worry about the fair use is unwarranted. Maybe somebody else who knows more about it can comment on the subject. Radiodef (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This also raises the question again about colloquial usage of "Auto-Tune" to refer to all pitch correction. The engineers for "Believe" eventually admitted that Auto-Tune was in fact used, but do we really know that it's Antares' product on the Kesha record? Radiodef (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a hatnote should be added to the article pointing toward Pitch correction? As far as the Kesha song goes, it has been documented (by more than just the source used in the article). The sing has become somewhat infamous for heavily auto-tuned vocals. So much that's its actually become intentional for her to over-modify them. MTV confirmed that We R Who We R uses Auto-Tune. [1] I trust that they know what they're talking about. That, and they're generally considered a reliable source around here. Whether or not it's true, it can be proven with these sources. But, I agree that using a custom made clip would be best. That way, we can display auto-tuned and not-auto-tuned vocals side-by-side. Aside from that, it was taken from the article feedback repository that a clip from popular music be used. It seemed harmless to me. I added extra fair use rationale for the song clip of "Believe", just in case. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

What I mean is that the general public uses the term "Auto-Tune" to refer to any pitch correction, regardless of the actual product that's being used. In the case of "Believe", the engineers themselves confirmed that they used the Antares product, but the Kesha record could use Celemony's Melodyne or Waves Tune for all we know, and a comment by an MTV reporter is not really a reliable source because journalists always refer to the pitch corrected sound as "Auto-Tune". This page is about Antares and their products, not pitch correction in general, which has a page.

It's like how people sometimes refer to any facial tissue as Kleenex. If somebody says they've purchased a box of Kleenex, we can't really be sure they are talking about the Kleenex brand unless they say so. So what I'm saying is that, no, it can't really be proven for the purpose of this article. Radiodef (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I've edited the caption to reflect this concern. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the clip should be removed from the article yet, since it's a valid example of what Auto-Tune sounds like on a record. I just don't think it's a valid example of Auto-Tune on a record. Radiodef (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Date Released

The infobox used to say that it was released in 1997. This is also what the cited (primary) source says. However, in revision 513011886, the infobox was changed by 31.170.166.17 to say that the rackmount version was released in 1997 and the software plugin was released in 2002. Apparently (judging by the edit history comment), 31.170.166.17 feels there is an inaccuracy with the cited source. However, the cited source makes no mention of 2002 and the anon editor did not bother to update the citations to tell us where he/she is getting 2002 from. I do have vague recollections of using the software plugin before 2002, so my gut feeling is that it's incorrect. But I don't know if 1997 is correct either; the anon editor's concerns with the primary source could be legit, for all I know. I think it would be best if somebody could find a good secondary source for the release date. --Miken2005 (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Melodyne

Why is there no mention of Melodyne? Meloyne has been used heavily in the industry not just for auto-tune but also for tone-accurate pitch shifting (without causing chipmonks or the like) and it was my understanding that it played a prominent role in the industry for years. Jon (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Melodyne would be a valid "See Also" or be briefly mentioned, but Auto-Tune is the name of one particular program. Making this article about all pitch correction software would be like including SONAR, Cubase, Logic as part of the Pro Tools article. Melodyne and Celemony are deserving of their own article, especially since Melodyne utilizes unique technologies unlike those that Auto-Tune utilizes. synthfiend (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the 1st poster..as I understand it some kind of electronic pitch correction has been used since at least the early 1960`s..during the teen idol period some of the singers were notoriously untalented..not like today..Fabion comes to mind...while that may not be directly related to the computer program Autotune it is completely relevant in my mind..maybe there should be a separate article related to it but a line or two here regarding the role of electronic pitch correction is appropriate in my opinion--Doug 00:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonepilgrim007 (talk • contribs)

POV

It seems pretty clear that the second paragraph violates the NPOV policy. I removed "Many feel that this approach devalues real musical talent. Some liken it to computer spell-checking. Others know rightfully that it is an absolute evil, causing almost all a capella CDs for modern groups to sound inhuman and much worse. No musician with any hint of talent should have to use it as it is much like using a metronome on stage. It brings the world no see-able good.".
Most of this article ought to be nuked, actually, as it's about 'pitch correction' as opposed to Antares's 'Auto-Tune' which is what I assume it was supposed to be about in the first place.
Jimduchek 06:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Amen! This freaking article drives me insane, most if not all of the listed artists use a VOCODER to produce the effect that has been erroneously attributed to Antares' Auto-Tune. There is no discussion about envelope-followers or any real technical aspects of what the algorithm is doing, just the further perpetuation of the myth that the "Cher effect" was done with Auto-Tune. Eli lilly 23:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Most artists use vocoders, and if you've ever actually used auto-tune, which I'm most certain you all have, you'd know that it gets a distinctly different sound. This page needs to be rewritten using more than just a small number of examples to claim that Auto-Tune can be used in place of vocoders, especially in techno or electro production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.145.224 (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It`s a matter of opinion...there are those of us in music who feel it is an abomination that reflects the current sorry state of art as a reflection of culture..it makes truly talentless vocalist sound like they have something to contribute which they don`t..I doubt if Bob Dylan uses it for obvious reasons..the only positive contribution it has to make in the long run would be in children`s educational toys --Doug (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutral article?

Are there really that little pro-arguments? I cant imagine that, because there are so many people/artists using it, thats why the strong negativity of this article amazes me. --81.59.26.53 (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This is because many more people view Autotune (and related vocal processing software) as musically cheating in the modern day. However, they also often forget that a lot of naturally excellent vocalists still use Autotune in their record production. Examples: Cher, Rascal Flatts, Demi Lovato, Taio Cruz, etc. --The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

People said the same thing about drum machines (now superceded by loops), i.e. not fair to real drummers, and it's true that perfect tempo has a robotic feel. But today, unsteady tempo and off-key singing jolts the listener as being amateurish-sounding. and performers don't want to stand out as someone who sings off-key when everyone else sounds perfect. In the "old days", there were song-writers, and then there were singers who sung other people's songs. Today, most artists record their own material, and not every songwriter is a great singer; off-key notes ruin the effectiveness of the song delivery. Pop music will always use gimmicks to pump out the most "polished" product at the lowest cost.77Mike77 (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this right?

"It is used to disguise off-key inaccuracies and mistakes, and has allowed many major label pop singers to record perfectly tuned vocal tracks without the need for perfect pitch."

What does "perfect pitch" have to do with this? "Perfect pitch" means the ability to sing a given note (say C, or whatever) at will; this seems to be just talking about the ability to sing in tune over an accompaniment? I haven't changed it because I'm not 100% sure. 86.134.9.34 (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC).

You're right... "perfect" pitch has nothing to do with it. Being able to sing on-key does—the normal amount of pitch ability in a singer. Concert industry secret: a handful of singers who have great pitch ability in the recording studio, people who can sing exceptionally well, have required an Auto-Tune device when they are on stage dancing and performing. It's really hard to dance and sing at the same time. The other industry secret is that concerts that have a lot of dancing often use the star vocalist's mic only a little bit; a pre-recorded vocal is sent through the concert sound system instead of their real-time voice, that is, until the dancing stops at which time the sound engineer fades down the trax and brings up the live voice. Binksternet (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually perfect pitch is the ability to hear the correct pitch not to sing it..there is a difference which is pretty much the point.--Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

No, most of the above comments are incorrect. "Perfect pitch" is the ability to sing or play in tune on an instrument with flexible pitch (such as voice, violin, trombone, etc.). This involves being able to hear and recognize the correct pitch, but nobody says that someone has perfect pitch if they are playing or singing out of tune. The important point is that perfect pitch is relative to an arbitrary tonal centre. For example, a guitar might be in tune with itself, but have middle C at 261 Hz instead of 256 Hz. A person with perfect pitch could sing along perfectly in tune with this guitar. "Absolute pitch" is the ability to play or sing a note by name, e. g. middle C, without first hearing any reference tone. A person would have to be reared in an environment where only standard pitches are heard, but it is a genuine phenomenon. People with absolute pitch find it unpleasant to listen to music that is not standard classical pitches, even if the music is perfectly in tune with itself. This person would have trouble singing along with a guitar tuned around C = 261 Hz.77Mike77 (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Perfect pitch. Radiodef (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Weren't the most infamous heavy users reputed to be Jpop and Kpop???

...or are we specifically sticking to only the highest-charting western examples here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.124.12 (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not about high-charting or westernness. (I invented a new word! I'm Shakespeare!) It's about verifiability: we need reliable sources specifically saying they use/used Auto-Tune. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Corruption

User: SummerPhD, do you work for Cher ? Why do you keep removing all references to previous artists who pioneered the effect way before Cher ? Tupac's California Love is mentioned below by someone else. Also, you keep removing [[Daft Punk]'s Around the World. Don't waste our time, if there's something you don't like, do some research and improve the article, rather than constantly removing knowledge that's being contributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Universe (talk • contribs) 07:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Do I work for Cher? You seem to believe that Cher has a personal interest in who Wikipedia believes popularized the "Cher effect"? I like your theory.

If you would like to add other artists who have used Auto-Tune, feel free to do so. You will need to cite reliable sources though. No, I will not do research to find sources for material you want to add, that's your job. "Knowledge" on Wikipedia should not be a random collection of facts, misheard/misinterpreted/misremembered pseudo-facts and outright lies. However, that is exactly what unsourced additions are.

If you add completely unsourced arguments to an article, as you did here, they will likely be removed.

If you would like to remove reliably sourced info, as you did here, you will need to explain why the material shouldn't be here.

If you would like to add material in such a way that it appears to be sourced when it isn't, as you did here, you can expect to be reverted.

If you have sourced material relevant to the article and are having trouble adding it, ask for help. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Imogen Heap and Beardyman

I feel there should be a section mentioning that some artists use Autotune (or similar) for the pitch adjustment in order to sing in harmony with themselves. Both Imogen Heap and Beardyman make use of this effect (most notably Hide and Seek by Imogen Heap). 'I Get By' by Suman Biswas is another example of an (ironic) use of this effect. 213.205.194.74 (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Phase Vocoder

AutoTune does not use a phase vocoder (where did you get that info from and what are your sources - there is no citation). It relies on an algorithm developed by Keith Lent in the 1990s. Tahome (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC).

There are a lot of different algorithms called "phase vocoder," and all of them are a generalization of what Auto-Tune does, excepting the pitch detection input. The work of Keith Lent (described here) was merely a PSOLA technique which forms the "windows" of the short-time frequency domain processing involved. Phase vocoders, prior to 2000, were large pieces of equipment and their history goes back to secret Bell Labs research in the 1950s when investigators were determining how closely voices could be mimicked by machines. The term "phase vocoder" first appeared in J. L. Flanagan, R. M. Golden, "Phase Vocoder," Bell System Technical Journal, November 1966, 1493-1509. 99.27.203.250 (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Tahome is right. The AutoTune patent describes time-domain pitch measurement, and the Lent algorithm is normally implemented in the time domain. Similar results could be achieved with a Phase Vocoder in the frequency domain but that is beside the point. The 1950s machines were just "Vocoders", not "Phase Vocoders" which specifically measure changes in phase to determine frequencies. Vocoders can also produce "robot voice" effects but sound more electronic and less like the origina voice than AutoTune. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.203.41 (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

These comments are correct. Autotune uses a cycle-based resampling of the input waveform, as described by the patent. I added "".

Citation: http://www.google.com/patents/US5973252 Plenty of mentions of "auto-correlation", no mentions of "phase" or "vocoder".

"Phase Vocoder" was removed from the article for a while, but for some reason it's back now?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.222.77 (talk) 08:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Add 2009 Grammys to Satire/Parody section

At the 2009 Grammys, Jimmy Fallon came out with a headset and started singing an Auto-Tuned, acapella theme "Everybody ready to party" to amp up the crowd. Once they were into it and clapping their hands, Fallon performed a pratfall, yelling "Ow! Ow! My back! I just hurt myself" and so on, with the Auto-Tune effect still giving him the robot voice. He ended the skit by throwing to the nominees for the category he was presenting, while still under Auto-Tune. Even when beginning to read the winner, he was still Auto-Tuned until he ripped out his headset.

The clip can be found on YouTube. This seems like quite a relevant event to add to the satire section. I'm not an active Wiki editor so I leave it to someone else to determine whether it would be appropriate and add a reliably-sourced reference to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yjmfan (talk • contribs) 18:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Auto-Tune. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://remixmag.com/mag/remix_robopop/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). true Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Useless Quote

"It’s neither a fight with technology nor love of it; it’s more like glossy coexistence, a strange new dance of give-and-take," writes Jayce Clayton. "The plug-in creates a different relation of voice to machine than ever before. Rather than novelty or some warped mimetic response to computers, Auto-Tune is a contemporary strategy for intimacy with the digital. As such, it becomes quite humanizing. Auto-Tune operates as a duet between the electronics and the personal. A reconciliation with technology."

I see no use for this quote. This guy just waxes poetic about Auto-Tune, while not actually saying how it "operates as a duet between the electronics and the personal." There's no actual information delivered via this quote, except that Clayton thinks Auto-Tune is a good idea. Anyone agree? Should it be removed? --ShorinBJ (talk) 06:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Auto-Tune. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.antarestech.com/files/news.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101024022258/http://articles.cnn.com:80/2009-09-15/tech/auto.tune.news.iphone_1_auto-tune-videos-katie-couric?_s=PM:TECH to http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-15/tech/auto.tune.news.iphone_1_auto-tune-videos-katie-couric?_s=PM:TECH

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Kid Rock

So if I am to believe all information on wikipedia, Kid Rock's song Only God Knows Why was released on the album Devil Without a Cause on August 18, 1998. This song features heavy use of the "Auto Tune Effect". This song predates Cher's Believe by 2 months as it was released on October 19, 1998. The Believe article also says that the song was recording in August of 1998 so that means Cher was recording the song in the same month that Kid Rock's song was released. For these reasons I would definitely consider Kid Rock's song to be considered the first commercial use of Auto Tune (or at least the "Auto Tune Effect" of robotic sounding pitch correction). This does beg the question: are there any earlier uses of the Auto Tune Effect in commercial music that flew under the radar? What about commercial uses of Auto Tune as pitch correction with a more natural retune speed, not meant to be picked up by the ear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1c0:4501:c959:8429:4c82:1de3:e970 (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

There's a lot missing from this article

All the content in the article seems to be about use of extreme Auto-Tune as a sound effect, not its intended use to improve vocal quality (I can't really tell because these two uses are not distinguished). The article doesn't explain how Auto-Tune works, when and how it was invented, what need does it satisfy (how big a problem is off-key vocals in professional music, anyway?), and how widely it is used. I'd really be interested in this stuff. Anybody want to step up? --Chetvorno^TALK 17:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Believe - Cher.ogg

File:Believe - Cher.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done ~Kvng (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

T-Pain??!

T-Pain's not listed on here. What's up with that? He's the Auto-Tune King! Seriously, most of his songs are used with this thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Souice (talk • contribs) 16:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That's very doubtful, you are probably confusing Auto Tune with a vocoder. This entire article does. Eli lilly 15:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I just heard T-Pain saying on the radio that it is AutoTune he is using. He popularized its use and he said that Kanye West met with him to find out how to use AutoTune better, and Kanye started using it on a lot of his new songs, etc. Personally, I'm getting tired of AutoTune being used on all these songs. A is putting the smack down (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I see this has been resolved and sufficiently cited now. synthfiend (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

T-Pain uses heavy auto-tune, compare it to live. LackedSeeker121 (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Implementation-specific details

LackedSeeker121 added the following implementation-specific details at the beginning of the article. I have moved them here as we probably want citations and the information should be better integrated if it is to be included. ~Kvng (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Versions

The versions are the following (in order of release)

Auto-Tune 1 (1997)

Auto-Tune 2

Auto-Tune 3

Auto-Tune 4

Auto-Tune V5

Auto-Tune 5

Auto-Tune 6

Auto-Tune EVO

Auto-Tune 7

Auto-Tune Live

Auto-Tune EFX3

Auto-Tune 8 (December 2017)

Auto-Tune RealTime (January 2018)

Auto-Tune Pro (February 2018)

Key controls

Retune speed: Controls how fast Auto-Tune corrects your pitch in msecs. (0-400) To achieve Cher effect, set to 0.

Natural Vibrato: Adds fake natural-sounding vibrato.

Input type: Match your singers range by setting to Soprano, Alto/Tenor, Low Male, or in case of instruments, Instrument and Low Bass.

Key/Scale: Sets the key and scale of the song. WARNING: If you set this wrong, Auto-Tune might correct to the wrong notes.

Scale Detune: Can alter pitch standard A440 (A₄) to higher or lower fine-tune values.

Correction mode: Auto means the typical interface to correct to note sung, graphical to correct pitch and time based on your settings.

Transpose: Makes your singing higher or lower by 12 semitones.

Throat Length: Makes your voice deep or smurfy from 20 (smurfy) to 180 (demon)

Mentioning of MTV Unplugged

I do not understand what the paragraph on MTV Unplugged under ‘Impacts’ is trying to say. The series was launched in 1989, nearly a decade before Auto-Tune was even created, so it isn’t as if the show was set up specifically to combat the rise in popularity of the software. Can someone please explain this addition to me? TheSturgenator (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph is referenced and does make a valid point, the connection to auto-tune is weak. If someone were to add another sentence describing disdain for auto-tune, it might start to work. ~Kvng (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Cher?

Regarding Cher's Song Believe - I believe this used a Vocoder, and not Autotune. If someone can verify this with a source, then her name and song should be removed from the article —This unsigned comment was added by 172.209.119.176 (talk • contribs) .

What's the difference? —Keenan Pepper 00:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No. It was Auto-Tune (you can also read it its manual... if you set it to full strenght you get the infamous Cher's effect). What really puzzles me is the fact that "Freak Like Me" is quoted here - it has NO trace of Auto-Tune in it, why was it added here? MoLo 10:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No, AutoTune wasn't used to achieve the effect in Cher's "Believe." The engineers who worked on it describe their process here: [[2]]. That said, AutoTune can be used to achieve similar effects, and the current language in the article doesn't exactly imply that AutoTune was used on that track, although it's probably furthering a popular misconception, so maybe it ought to be changed. 158.223.26.22 16:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is insane. It doesn't really describe what autotune does, only comparing it to an effect found in a bunch of tracks that all seem to have actually been effected via vocoder, when the two don't really work or sound the same. I intend to remove those references and to try to rework the article citing verifiable references only. Eli lilly 02:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree - talks about voice and pitch , but what is actual result? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.191.14 (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

But it has a nice photo, however, doesn't it? Re: Cher, while those effects may not have been achieved via Auto-Tune, most of those who have subsequently used the effect have used Auto-Tune, set, as the article describes, to rather extreme parameters. Other than perhaps garage bands, no commercially meaningful (even in the Indie sense) band has ever used Vocoder to achieve the "Cher" effect. Other effects, even similar ones, surely, but not exactly that one. And plenty of bands have used that same effect. This comes from my brother-in-law, who is a drummer and producer, and whose knowledge of the music industry is impressive.

At least CMX, one of Finland's most popular bands, has used a vocoder to replicate the "Cher effect" on the second track of Aion, their 2003 album. The source for this is the band's own Q&A page [3]. (Ironically, the band falsely claims in their answer that Cher used Auto-tune in the making of "Believe".) Kaivosukeltaja 09:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There's now a note added to the article that 158.223.26.22 linked to. It claims that Auto-tune was in fact used to create the effect in Cher's "Believe.", and that the producers deliberately spread misinformation in order to keep the technique they used a secret. - makomk 14:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It is truly Auto-Tune, I have seen a video with the editing process plus I saw that the “vocoder” was a trade secret. LackedSeeker121 (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

MSG

Autotune is the MSG of music, everything tastes the same with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.202.34 (talk) 05:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)