Auto tune

Feature request: Auto Tune.

That is all.

Is this a joke? I sincerely hope so! If Neural DSP was to ever incorporate something like this then I would probably sell my QC & boycott the company entirely. I’m not saying this to upset you (I sincerely apologise if this post ends up doing that); however, there’s no mechanism on here to down-vote an idea & I feel it necessary to log my disgust at such a potential feature just incase it was ever considered. I’d find the incorporation of an auto-tune type feature utterly offensive & I’d imagine that there’s many musicians out there who may well agree with me on that.

I’m guessing you’re not in the recording industry.


That’s irrelevant; no recording engineer worth their salt would want the players applying/baking in auto-tune on the front-end themselves during a recording session regardless of whatever their particular individual stance is on the use of auto tune in general. There is simply no healthy place for this type of technology in a device such as the QC.

lol… first: The QC is declared primary as a guitar modeler and effect device. So by definition there is no use case for auto-tune. And second: “auto-tune” is not a feature but a brand and product of Antares. The feature behind it is “pitch correction”, and there are already feature requests in relation to this kind of stuff (TC like vocal harmonizing). And third… just learn to sing in tune :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

I’d totally be into this. I’ve wanted auto tune as an effect as opposed to a tool for a long time.


my god you sound like such a boomer


I’m all for people sharing their ideas - but man, this is starting to look like a typical TGP flame-war. I was hoping things would stay civil around here.

1 Like

While I understand the negative response to this proposal as I also share a bit of contempt for the way it has enabled some awful singers; that is not the only use for Autotune. It does introduce a bit of a Milly-Vanilly vibe when used for a dancer who should have spent their career off the microphone.

It can be a legitimate tool though in the studio for special effects, as well as straightening out an errant note or two in an otherwise pristine passage. Some might miss the organic feel of that off-key note in their recordings, but others, not so much, and doing another take is not always an available or best option.

I think feature requests for vocal processing effects for the QC are legitimate. There are some musicians here who may use the QC for both vocals and guitar, and that is even part of the marketing. I do think vocal effect requests should generally take a backseat to those for guitar as guitar modeling is the primary purpose for the QC, but there is no reason that eventually we can’t have both. There may be other effects/features that most here would prefer to see before Autotune but that’s no reason for the OP not to place it in the queue. Not to rain on their parade, but I would be surprised if it ever makes it in.

My primary concern with seeing Autotune added is not the sonic Holy War it engenders. My concern would be that, at least right now, when there are so many other core features needed, that it might divert considerable development resources. Autotune is readily available as a plugin for those who wish to employ it in the studio and as I already stated, I am not a fan of it for live usage other than as an effect (rather than a coverup for lack of talent or sloppiness).

But…, you just never know when your band might need to cover Cher’s “Believe”, a cut off Radiohead’s “Amnesiac” album, or any of a number of tunes by T-Pain. :grin:

The feature request posted here was for the incorporation of an auto tune like feature into a guitar modeller - it was this request specifically that I commented on (nothing more). To start throwing insults at me or to wax lyrical about the legitimacy of auto tune in general speaks to either a lack of knowledge/experience in regard to the recording process or an intentional effort to spark a heated debate about an entirely different subject altogether (the latter of which; respectfully, I have no interest whatsoever in entertaining).

I humbly ask that people maintain a certain level of respect & decorum when posting on here - there’s no need to start insulting people simply because you either don’t like or don’t understand their points of view.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. You did not simply comment on this request but asked if it was a “joke”, that you would “boycott” NDSP and showed your “disgust” at this feature request.
I mean, come on. If you don’t like this request, don’t vote for it. If you don’t wanna use this feature if it were to come, don’t use it. You don’t have to like it, but simply tolerating it would not hurt either, right?


Incorrect. I honestly thought it might be a joke given the way in which it was posted (one word request with a single sentence in the post which comes across like a mic drop). If it wasn’t intended as a joke though then I wanted to log my feelings on the matter (something which I’m totally entitled to) & I remained respectful in how I articulated them. After a disrespectful, single sentence retort in which the poster made no effort to explain the reasons why he might find such a feature useful I chose not to respond in kind but instead further explain why I see no use for such a feature in a guitar modeller (it simply would not be used in a recording environment irrespective of any individual’s opinions on auto tune in general).

You are of course entitled to disagree with my position & at any point the original poster; or anyone else for that matter, could choose to engage in a healthy discussion regarding any perceived benefits. I’m totally open that & remain fully understanding of differing opinions; however, I am likewise entitled to express my own thoughts on the matter.

If anyone has misunderstood my intentions for whatever reason then I hope these last few posts have cleared that up; however, I shall not be engaging any further on this thread as I don’t believe it would be productive.

We need a little Autotune (pitch correction) applied to this forum topic. :grin:.

Don’t want to add fuel to the fire. I have respect for opinions both pro and con on this one. I think my post reflected that. Knowing how much controversy it has generated in the past, this sort of debate was almost inevitable. There is precedent for it. The most audible thing Autotune generates is strong opinions. No offense was assumed, taken, or offered. Just trying to present a different point of view and my own thoughts on the subject.

There will be the occasional feature request for vocal effects that might not traditionally be associated with a guitar modeler or even a guitar. Makes sense, some users are running vocals through the QC. I like having effects directed towards processing vocals on tap, if not necessarily this one. I don’t generally use my QC for bass either, but I don’t mind having a few bass effects when/if I do. As long as it doesn’t divert too much development focus from the guitar (I know, bass is a guitar). I get it though, this particular request is a big ask and, in addition, anathema to some.

Any “heat” generated in this debate, is not coming from my direction. I think it is Autotune that is getting flamed. :grin: It is an interesting request/topic.

1 Like

I know that I said I was going to bow out of the thread; however, you’ve made a productive & respectful post here (thanks for that) so I feel it would be disrespectful not to respond in this instance.

Forgive me for not acknowledging your points beforehand; I’ll be honest, I was under the impression that the topic originator was requesting auto tune for use on guitar whilst playing live (Antares did release Auto Tune for guitar a while back & there were even guitars released to market that featured it built into them). I hadn’t considered that he might have wanted it for use as an extreme vocal effect ala Cher or T-Pain as these are styles of music which don’t feature guitar & we’re talking specifically about a guitar modeller here (I would have totally made that assumption if we were talking about a TC Helicon product or the like though).

To confirm, I do acknowledge the possibility of using the QC for vocals (although I’d wager that this will only ever amount to a secondary feature given the nature & cost of the product) & I have no issue with someone choosing to use Auto Tune as a stylistic vocal effect; however, I am most certainly offended by the advent of auto-tuned guitar intended to compensate for a player’s poor intonation & it was this that I was trying to get across (hopefully without offending the original poster whom chose not to clarify his request).

Much respect buddy; I totally see your productive contribution to the topic. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

Hopefully avoiding another ideological war, just wanted to throw some 2 cents:
Auto tune can be used for artistic purposes as well. Sufjan Stevens, which is a wonderful singer, uses auto tune in a certain part in Impossible Soul in a truly beautiful and moving way.
I can also see how quantization of notes can be used in an artistic way in bends or vibrato use in guitar.

Just saying, regardless of how you feel about autotune to fix performance of mediocre singers, it can be a legit tool.

1 Like

I would say that the Multivoicer can be used for Autotune. Just activate the quantization.

1 Like

That’s the dumbest comment I have ever heard.
I’m not saying this to upset you (I sincerely apologise if this post ends up doing that), but that’s my honest opinion about it.

Welcome to the community Overjam. :upside_down_face:

Thank you Raven!

I can hardly believe the obnoxious comments in this thread, with people against Autotune. The QC is so much more than a pedalboard. It is a computer on the floor. We need to expand our brains, and see this as something far unlike the past. I think Auto Tune (or some version of it), would be incredible. If you are against auto tune, then DON’T USE IT. But please, don’t restrict the possibility for others!