Re: Why pitch-corrected vocals sound so mechanical

On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 22:14:10 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2025-04-11 3:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 11, 2025 at 3:38:33 AM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:
 

On 2025-04-11 4:13 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDJF4lR3_eg

>
Just as pitch-correction alters the pitch of notes to make them
"perfect", quantization alters the placement of notes to make them
rhythmically "perfect".

 
Rhythmically perfect is not desirable. It makes the music sound computerized,
like Commander Data is playing it.
 

Exactly. Beato illustrates that in the cited videos.
>

Humans are not perfect so music that is perfect sounds inhuman. That's why my
music software has a feature called "Human Playback", which purposely
introduces minor inaccuracies in both rhythm and pitch, making it sound a lot
less digital and cold.
>

Good on the developers for adding that ability. I wonder if the bits
which are "de-quantized" are chosen at random or if some other method is
employed?

They appear to be chosen at random but it's not enough to duplicate
humans. It just makes the sound less mechanical until you look at it
with sound analysis as you can see in some of the other analysis
videos that the Wings of Pegasus singer did. He showed how the vocals
are still being forced to fit a perfect note with just a little
variation added in which isn't what a human vocal sounds like.

  For instance, if the drummer's high hat hits are
a little bit off the beat, quantization can shift them to be exactly on
the beat. This too makes the playing sound mechanical. I've heard
several musicians bemoan the (over)use of quantization just as "Fil"
bemoans the use of pitch-correction in this video.
>
This video is a brief explanation of quantization without much of the
philosophizing about whether it is good or bad. I'm sure there are other
videos that examine the issue more thoroughly.
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68LtY2aATl0 [7 minutes]
>
Note: He makes several uses of the term "DAW" (spelled out as individual
letters) without explaining it. DAW stands for Digital Audio
Workstation, essentially the software you use to do the recording,
pitch-correction, quantization etc.
>
For what it's worth, I've often heard analysts note that bands like The
Beatles, the Doors, and Led Zeppelin definitely speed up and slow down
perceptably in some of their well-known recordings, even though they had
fine drummers. If quantization had existed and been used when those
recordings were made, we might well have found those songs somehow less
impressive....
>
This short by Rick Beato gives an example of a quantized Led Zeppelin
groove versus the original:
>
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/a7dTRgc0Mn4
>
The short is an excerpt from this longer video:
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT4fFolyZYU [10 minutes]
>
When Beato says that the original tempo is 170 BPM, he means 170 beats
per minute.