Forums | Search | Archives

All Forums  Cool Edit  Remove Music, Keep Vocal (Here's an idea)

Author	Topic
Hellfire Posts: 1	Posted - Sun Jun 29, 2003 12:58 pm  Just like the Noise remover, it can be done with the vocal cut! The noise remover has an option to keep the noise it reduces. That way you can use the noise instead of the real song. Excactly the same can be done with the Vocal remover. Syntrillium can make an option on the vocal remover that keeps the cutted vocal, instead of the music. Then insert the cutted vocals inside cool edit again, and then VOILA, you got the vocals instead of the music. Ps: That option is not on Cool edit yet, but perhaps it comes now that i have come forward with this idea. Easy Hah ? :)
Graeme Member Location: Spain Posts: 4663	Posted - Sun Jun 29, 2003 1:26 pm  Silly season is with us guys - let's just let him stew! _________________ Graeme Don't forget to join the new CEP forum at audiomastersforum
Lendrik Location: United Kingdom Posts: 17	Posted - Sun Jun 29, 2003 1:57 pm  My idea was more clever (and detailed) - see my earlier post with a similar title. Sod all these people who say it can't be done, one day we'll show them all! Man has walked the Moon, split the atom, and man will learn to extract vocals from a recording. Remember my word! Amen!
William Rose Location: USA Posts: 467	Posted - Sun Jun 29, 2003 2:05 pm  I can never tell if these guys are being serious or not. If he is, (hellfire) I must say his post had kind of a naive, bubbleheaded, exchange-student quality to it. Kind of cute in a simple child-like way.
William Rose Location: USA Posts: 467	Posted - Sun Jun 29, 2003 2:11 pm  Lendrik wrote: My idea was more clever (and detailed) - see my earlier post with a similar title. Sod all these people who say it can't be done, one day we'll show them all! Man has walked the Moon, split the atom, and man will learn to extract vocals from a recording. Remember my word! Amen! Instead of just remembering your words, you should try to get people to mark them. Eehhhhh? Eehhh?
Lendrik Location: United Kingdom Posts: 17	Posted - Sun Jun 29, 2003 2:16 pm  Hey, it's his first post, so welcome to the forums Hellfire. I like your cow! I see you already joyned the army of vocal/instrument cutters. The past form of "cut" is spelt "cut", though. Not "cutted"
Lendrik Location: United Kingdom Posts: 17	Posted - Sun Jun 29, 2003 2:19 pm  Quote: Instead of just remembering your words, you should try to get people to mark them. Eehhhhh? Eehhh? You're right, sorry I'm not English (although why should I be sorry about that?) Wait, I know who you are, William Shakespeare!
SteveG Location: United Kingdom Posts: 6695	Posted - Sun Jun 29, 2003 2:22 pm  Lendrik wrote: My idea was more clever (and detailed) - see my earlier post with a similar title. No it wasn't - it was just as silly. Let's explore it a bit. You wanted to isolate the 'centre channel'. What exactly do you think comprises this is in a stereo recording? And how do you arrive at it? _________________
William Rose Location: USA Posts: 467	Posted - Sun Jun 29, 2003 2:46 pm  Lendrik wrote: Hey, it's his first post, so welcome to the forums Hellfire. I like your cow! I see you already joyned the army of vocal/instrument cutters. The past form of "cut" is spelt "cut", though. Not "cutted" The paste form of "cut" is spilled "cat"! Or is it "cate" ? "cated" ? "caught" ? Just teasing. I'm leaving now.
Graeme Member Location: Spain Posts: 4663	Posted - Sun Jun 29, 2003 2:57 pm  Leave him to stew - a first time poster with a 'previous post'. I smell a troll about. _________________ Graeme Don't forget to join the new CEP forum at audiomastersforum
bonnder Posts: 215	Posted - Sun Jun 29, 2003 4:07 pm  Is he: - someone who knows, and knows that he knows? - someone who knows, and doesn't know that he knows? - someone who doesn't know, and knows that he doesn't know? - someone who doesn't know, and doesn't know that he doesn't know?
MusicConductor Location: USA Posts: 1524	Posted - Sun Jun 29, 2003 9:09 pm  or is he: - someone who is deceived into thinking he knows and wishes to evangelize all of what he believes he knows even though those he would wish to evangelize actually do understand and are rather astutely aware of the fact that there are some things that are known to be impossible, and are likely to remain that way, and so would much prefer to be in the position of evangelizing the evangelist of the true nature of things, while nevertheless the net sum of converts for either side of the equation remains zero, and sooner or later the entire process, like all of history, is destined to repeat itself. The world is spinning AGGGH! I'm falling o f f
bonnder Posts: 215	Posted - Sun Jun 29, 2003 10:30 pm  MC, I'm impressed with that sentence. It works best when read in one breath. (Oops ... that's evangelizing, isn't it.)
Lendrik Location: United Kingdom Posts: 17	Posted - Mon Jun 30, 2003 3:22 pm  SteveG wrote: No it wasn't - it was just as silly. Let's explore it a bit. You wanted to isolate the 'centre channel'. What exactly do you think comprises this is in a stereo recording? And how do you arrive at it? In a few words, the "centre channel" is exactly what gets cut when you do a vocal cut to a recording. The "centre channel" consists of waveform that is equal on both left and right channel, making it appear as if it comes from a virtual centre speaker. By inverting either left or right channel and mixing them together, the centre channel is eliminated. This process is called "vocal cut" because vocals are usually recorded in the "centre" of the stereo image field. There, I hope that helps. Never thought that talking about "centre channel" would be considered silly. Any more questions?
Graeme Member Location: Spain Posts: 4663	Posted - Mon Jun 30, 2003 4:20 pm  Lendrik wrote: Never thought that talking about "centre channel" would be considered silly. The whole idea is silly - but you fail to see it for what it is. _________________ Graeme Don't forget to join the new CEP forum at audiomastersforum
Lendrik Location: United Kingdom Posts: 17	Posted - Mon Jun 30, 2003 4:42 pm  Graeme wrote: Lendrik wrote: Never thought that talking about "centre channel" would be considered silly. The whole idea is silly - but you fail to see it for what it is. Well, if you've got a better word to describe the sound that is located in the middle of the acoustic stereo field, then let us hear it. For me, and for millions of other people, "centre channel" (or "center channel" in USA) is the most familiar term. Using it may be silly, but it's still functionable.
AMSG Location: Sweden Posts: 594	Posted - Mon Jun 30, 2003 4:47 pm  All these people wondering about how to remove the vocals while others (including me) are doing an effort to make them sound good and fit in the mix as good as possible, hehe:D Oh, and I've read the term 'ghost channel' once. Anyone else?
SteveG Location: United Kingdom Posts: 6695	Posted - Mon Jun 30, 2003 5:40 pm  Go read the 'My idea of isolating vocals (centre channel)' - where the process is explained, and this myth about the 'centre channel' is exposed for what it is. I'm still amazed by the level of wilful ignorance about this whole business - and why so many people want to do it! _________________
Graeme Member Location: Spain Posts: 4663	Posted - Mon Jun 30, 2003 6:20 pm  Lendrik wrote: For me, and for millions of other people, "centre channel" (or "center channel" in USA) is the most familiar term. I quite understand the marginal spelling differences between UK and American spellings, so there was no need to highlight them. You're American, I'm English, just read the sense of the words and don't worry about how either of us spell them. Lendrik wrote: Using it may be silly, but it's still functionable. It's not the use of the term I have a problem with - it's the whole concept of 'vocal/instrument' removal which baffles me. Once again, I say, if you really understand the underlying principles. then you should also understand why it is not possible. Considering how much exposure this subject has had, I'm amazed that the message still hasn't got through to some people. _________________ Graeme Don't forget to join the new CEP forum at audiomastersforum
ozpeter Location: Australia Posts: 3200	Posted - Mon Jun 30, 2003 6:30 pm  I must say that if I reallythought that I had an idea, even in principle, that had eluded countless thousands of people all over the world who are searching for this 'holy grail', and which would doubtless be worth huge sums of money, the last thing I would do would be to post it on a public forum like this! I'd be off to likely software houses, or approaching companies like Syntrillium confidentially, to ensure I got my share of the rich pickings. I'd suggest to those promoting these schemes that if they have such faith in them, they'd do well belatedly to try to obtain their due financial reward, and allow forum members to discuss more worthwhile matters. And do feel welcome to come back and laugh in our faces in the unlikely event that you end up seriously rich! - Ozpeter
VoodooRadio Location: USA Posts: 3971	Posted - Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:35 am  Like will be so much more simpler... when the bell rings! _________________ I said Good Day! Voodoo
Lendrik Location: United Kingdom Posts: 17	Posted - Tue Jul 01, 2003 3:21 pm  ozpeter wrote: I must say that if I reallythought that I had an idea, even in principle, that had eluded countless thousands of people all over the world who are searching for this 'holy grail', and which would doubtless be worth huge sums of money, the last thing I would do would be to post it on a public forum like this! I'd be off to likely software houses, or approaching companies like Syntrillium confidentially, to ensure I got my share of the rich pickings. I'd suggest to those promoting these schemes that if they have such faith in them, they'd do well belatedly to try to obtain their due financial reward, and allow forum members to discuss more worthwhile matters. And do feel welcome to come back and laugh in our faces in the unlikely event that you end up seriously rich! - Ozpeter If I did approach Syntrillium or any other company with this matter, more likely they would reject the idea as an impossible one (just like you people do) and then develop it by themselves in secret and claim it as their own. This has been done in the past to other people with their ideas and they didn't have anything to prove otherwise. What I may be more successfull at is starting my own religious movement of "vocal and instrument cutters". Or, another possibility is that it will end up as a freeware. Anyways, thanks for reading, I'd better shut up about the whole thing. What I really need right now is someone with programming experience to cooperate with me on this matter and see if it's possible to achieve. My email is
SteveG Location: United Kingdom Posts: 6695	Posted - Tue Jul 01, 2003 3:43 pm  Lendrik wrote: If I did approach Syntrillium or any other company with this matter, more likely they would reject the idea as an impossible one (just like you people do) and then develop it by themselves in secret and claim it as their own. This has been done in the past to other people with their ideas and they didn't have anything to prove otherwise. What I may be more successfull at is starting my own religious movement of "vocal and instrument cutters". Or, another possibility is that it will end up as a freeware. Anyways, thanks for reading, I'd better shut up about the whole thing. What I really need right now is someone with programming experience to cooperate with me on this matter and see if it's possible to achieve. Yeah, you and Ron the Physicist can start a cult - it sounds right up your street, because it involves believing in something that you do not know to be true (read that carefully). And that is the basis of all religions. If you can make it happen, then the world will, unfortunately, beat a path to your door. It is, IMHO a complete waste of time, which is the main reason why I'm not even prepared to discuss in depth why it won't work. There are actually some very good reasons why even the physicist's more reasonable attempt won't work either, but since I object in principle to the prospect, and nobody's paying me to research it, I'm not saying what they are, although I did provide the beginnings of a clue... And shouldn't that have been 'Vocal and Instrument Cutter Nutters'? _________________
post78 Location: USA Posts: 2887	Posted - Tue Jul 01, 2003 3:57 pm  Quote: What I really need right now is someone with programming experience to cooperate with me on this matter and see if it's possible to achieve. But you've already been told that it's not. What I don't understand is what exactly you want a programmer to do. It seems that you don't even know, so how will you tell them? I can see it now: "I want you to put an option to keep only what is being taken away." "Okay, explain to me how things work." "I don't know, just do it." Sure, it's possible to place a button on a program that says "keep only center information", but what exactly will it do? If you don't know, than there are two things you can't do: 1. Claim that it's possible. 2. Explain it to a programmer. Good luck... _________________ Answer = 1. Probably.
post78 Location: USA Posts: 2887	Posted - Tue Jul 01, 2003 4:05 pm  Quote: If I did approach Syntrillium or any other company with this matter, more likely they would reject the idea as an impossible one (just like you people do) and then develop it by themselves in secret and claim it as their own. What idea? You didn't come up with anything! This is like somebody saying "I think that cars can fly", then trying to get royalties from the company that invents the technology for a flying car. Besides, as already mentioned, you're not the first to come up with it. In fact, if you search the forums I think you'll find it mentioned multiple times. Let me guess, you did invent a flying car, didn't you? _________________ Answer = 1. Probably.
Graeme Member Location: Spain Posts: 4663	Posted - Tue Jul 01, 2003 6:03 pm  Lendrik wrote: If I did approach Syntrillium or any other company with this matter, more likely they would reject the idea as an impossible one (just like you people do) and then develop it by themselves in secret and claim it as their own. They'd reject the idea as impossible because they know it for what it is - impossible. You can be sure, if they could do it, they would already have done so. There are thousands of software companies, stuffed to the rafters with clever coders and other experts, with strings of letters after their names. You can bet your bottom dollar all these guys (who are smarter than you, me and half a dozen other forum members all put together) will have looked at this subject, since there is an undoubted market for it and their respective marketing departments will have been beating them over their collective heads for a solution that can be turned into a product with huge sales potential. But there is nothing that does the job on the market, because they are clever enough to understand the basic physics and realise that it simply can't be done. Why is it taking you so long for the penny to drop for you? Look in the archives - it's a subject which has been done to death and explained many, many times in the past. _________________ Graeme Don't forget to join the new CEP forum at audiomastersforum
alofoz Location: Australia Posts: 434	Posted - Tue Jul 01, 2003 9:06 pm  Of course it can be done.'Vocal removal - the good news' _________________ Cheers, Alan
MusicConductor Location: USA Posts: 1524	Posted - Wed Jul 02, 2003 11:06 pm  SteveG wrote: Yeah, you and Ron the Physicist can start a cult - it sounds right up your street, because it involves believing in something that you do not know to be true (read that carefully). And that is the basis of all religions. Since Steve said it, and completely OT, and with much due respect, I disagree with that last statement. One exception makes a generalization invalid, and I believe there is just one such exception. However, discussing religion is completely inappropriate here, and so any further discussion must be done via e-mail--I won't take it up on this forum, so don't bother posting a response. And Steve's viewpoint about vocal removal is something that I completely agree with. See: so much so, I keep hitting that italics button.
SteveG Location: United Kingdom Posts: 6695	Posted - Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:13 pm  Don't get upset - this isn't really a 'religious beliefs' reply... SteveG wrote: Yeah, you and Ron the Physicist can start a cult - it sounds right up your street, because it involves believing in something that you do not know to be true (read that carefully). And that is the basis of all religions. Please don't get me wrong - this was not a swipe at anybody's religious beliefs at all - I just didn't explain it very well. You have to read my use of the word 'religion' and the word 'cult' together, and also bear in mind that this is an extension of one of the dictionary definitions of the word - and in most dictionaries, it is carefully removed from the true 'religious' definition. I think that there is far more substance in true religious belief than there ever could be in the belief that you could isolate vocals effectively from another similar frequency and level signal on the same track - hence the reference to a 'cult' belief. And no, you are right - we shouldn't persue it any further here, _________________
MusicConductor Location: USA Posts: 1524	Posted - Thu Jul 03, 2003 10:37 pm  Actually, the comparison makes a good point. Then again, when doens't Steve make a good point? Anyway, thanks for the clarification.
	Topic

Page: