Pseudo (but easy) ADT theory, anyone tried this?

[7upPartridge]

Ok, first of all, sorry for posting before I've even tried this, but I've had a lot of coffee and this idea just hit me like a ton of bricks. I will try this weekend and let you know how it turns out but I wonder if anyone has tried this & how it worked for you?

The key to ADT, "true" ADT as I understand it, is getting the signal ahead of itself, so you can then delay it back to, basically, on top of the original signal and make very subtle variations (or let the inaccuracies of the motor make them for you)

This takes all kinds of repro heads & extra machines and I'm poor, and don't have the space. But I NEED that sound, right?

My plan is: Throw my tape on backwards, record a tape echo to an empty track. Flip the tape back over. Now I have an 'echo' that preceeds the original signal. If I then patch the same tape echo onto the pre-delayed track (and maybe alter the speed), I've got something pretty close to ADT. Right? Anyone done it?

 

[pdmillar]

Yes, that can be done and it works pretty well. (As far as I know, no tape machines had separate sync head outputs except some Studers, like the one Abbey Road used.) The delayed copy cannot cancel out the dry signal completely, since there is always some phase and frequency response shift from being copied twice, but it doesn't matter in practice.

I made a video a while ago detailing this very technique, using a 488 and a Pioneer quarter track R2R: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO7IEqWqSiI

It takes some time to set it up this way but it sounds so much better than an electronic flanger.

If you have a multitrack with 3 heads, you can also turn the tape over and bounce the dry signal track to a free track, taking it off the repro head instead of the rec/sync head. This has the same effect as bouncing it through a delay equal to the transit time between the record/repro heads (the copy track is pre-delayed ~100-200 msec). I have done this using an MS-16.

 

[miroslav]

Probably the easiest/cheapest way to get the sound of the Abbey Road ADT (Artificial Double Tracking) and have all the same options that they had at Abbey Road Studios where it was invented....is to just get the Waves ADT plug.
You can do much more than just flanging effects with it.
I have it....it works....and it sounds great...and it wasn't expensive, especially if you catch it when it's on sale.

 

[Beck]

If I then patch the same tape echo onto the pre-delayed track (and maybe alter the speed), I've got something pretty close to ADT. Right? Anyone done it?

Not exactly. Frankly you're making it too complicated. After Abbey Road ADT (most commonly called Automatic Double Tracking) was all about analog delay (not tape based). It's the sound of the 70's/80's. Double tracking vocals whether manually or ADT revolutionized pop vocals. Once people started doubling vocals, single track vocals sounded dead and one dimensional by comparison. It's still better to manually double track. ADT has limitations. Namely the delay in the two signals is the same milliseconds apart. Not nearly as effective as the vocalist singing along with himself. Some things to keep in mind.

1) ADT is is simple delay used to thicken vocals.
2) The inability of a vocalist to sing exactly the same way each time and the resulting variations in the two vocal tracks is what makes double tracking so pleasing to the ear.
3) The vid with Ken Townsend, while interesting, is a cheap plug for a plug. It's a Waves commercial and he talks about other effects besides ADT. You don't need or want phasing, flanging, etc for basic double tracking like you would have if doing it manually.
4) This is an analog forum. Fuck the plug-ins and have fun experimenting with your analog machines.

Something as simple as the 3-head Tascam 22-2 using vari-speed will come very close if not nail the Lennon vocal character of ADT. It's not that difficult.

 

[miroslav]

The whole point of the ADT is that you don't need to actually double track and sing it twice...plus, it's a different sound.
That classic sound came from the ADT system...and not from singing it twice.

The Waves plug nails it, and the whole ADT process is much more than a simple delay.
Here's a more detailed video showing the whole process and all options in the Waves ADT.
They will all probably be on sale after Thanksgiving...so it would be much cheaper/easier than a second deck.




Also....nothing wrong with mixing plugs with analog recording if the end result is what you wanted.

I think even you use a DAW, don't you, Beck...?

 

[7upPartridge]

Worked pretty well!

So I did get around to trying this over the weekend. It worked pretty well, but I learned a couple of things...

Namely, you need to fluctuate the tape speed while laying down the 'reverse' echo (using a 388, so the varispeed should work for this). Otherwise the end result was that the 'double' sat perfectly atop the original and did nothing (none-the-less, an impressive display of the solid timing on both machines being used...)

Bottom line though, this is a very effective method of getting tape delay in the 10-20 milisecond range (shorter than the gap between heads will ever get you), and I'm going to try again tonight with some speed manipulation to get a bit of that phasey, out of sync doubling sound. Pretty happy with the results overall! I'll post something if it turns out well.

Thanks for the replies...and yeah, the plugin might be great but I hit a breaking point with computers a while back and decided I don't want them anywhere near my recordings.

 

[miroslav]

The varispeed will help....but I'm curious how you're going to do that without actually hearing the combined effect...?
Also....if you varispeed while the original is on the deck, then both tracks are getting the same varispeed....right?
I think you really need a second deck to make it work....which is why I posted the ADT videos....it's clear how they are doing it (real or in the plug design).

...and yeah, the plugin might be great but I hit a breaking point with computers a while back and decided I don't want them anywhere near my recordings.

Nothing wrong with keeping it in the analog domain, but do you ever make CDs and upload files for distro, or just keep things on tape for yourself?

So...what was your "breaking point"...?
I know others who have a complete disdain for digital audio....though often it's nothing actually realting to the audio, it's more about the user interfacing with the computer environment.
I too like my knobs and my reels....so I get it, but I've learned to appreciate the digital side too, as it opens things up quite a bit.

 

[miroslav]

Oh....I had a question...

So if you're putting the tape on backwards, then flipping it....then you're getting a reverse vocal double track with the "echo" apporach.
While that may sound cool in it's own right....how's that an actual double track?
IOW....one is singing the words phrases normal and "forward" but isn't the echo/reverse track singing them "backward"....???

I did something similar in the past, though not with vocals. It was for instrument parts.
I flipped the tape in reverse, but I also then played the note sequences in reverse.
Then when I flipped the tape, the notes matched up with the other tracks, but each one had a reverse effect on it.
It can't really be done with vocals, since you're not just singing notes, you're singing words...so they end up being backwards with that "devil" effect.

 

[7upPartridge]

So if you're putting the tape on backwards, then flipping it....then you're getting a reverse vocal double track with the "echo" apporach.
While that may sound cool in it's own right....how's that an actual double track?
IOW....one is singing the words phrases normal and "forward" but isn't the echo/reverse track singing them "backward"....???

The varispeed will help....but I'm curious how you're going to do that without actually hearing the combined effect...?
Also....if you varispeed while the original is on the deck, then both tracks are getting the same varispeed....right?

Since the echo is being recorded while the tape is playing in reverse, during this part of the process, both the original vocal and the echo are backwards and sound like demonic incantations. When you flip the tape back over, both are now forwards, with the 'echo' preceeding the original.

As for the varispeed, imagine recording a 20 milisecond echo with the tape running at half speed. When you go back to full speed the recorded echo will now be 10 miliseconds. If you vary the playback speed while recording a constant echo time, the recorded echo time will vary upon constant playback. I don't have a good way to alter the pitch on the echo machine, so I suppose this 'time shifting' creates something more akin to phasing or flanging, but I think if done tastefully it will be an interesting approximation of ADT. Or maybe it will just sound like flanging, alas.

Above all, this seems like a good way to get an echo that is way tighter than tape slap would be due to the distance between tape heads, and I'm happy enough with that!

 

[miroslav]

Since the echo is being recorded while the tape is playing in reverse, during this part of the process, both the original vocal and the echo are backwards and sound like demonic incantations. When you flip the tape back over, both are now forwards, with the 'echo' preceeding the original.

OK...got it.

When you said you had a "reverse echo"...I misunderstood that it remained in reverse.

As for the varispeed, imagine recording a 20 milisecond echo with the tape running at half speed. When you go back to full speed the recorded echo will now be 10 miliseconds.

Yeah...I get that....but, if the source track is also on that same tape, if you then varispeed while recording that second echo track....doesn't the varispeed affect both equally, and at the same time....?
So regardless of reversed or not...they are both staying is sync with each other, are they not? So how does the varispeed only affect the "reversed echo" track...?

It would make sense with two machines...original track on one and the "echo" track on the other. Now when you varispeed one deck, there will be differences between them.
Not seeing how you are getting speed differences if they are both on the same machine....regadless of the echo delay, which would remain constant.

Are you doing it differently than what I'm understanding above...?

 

[7upPartridge]

but, if the source track is also on that same tape, if you then varispeed while recording that second echo track....doesn't the varispeed affect both equally, and at the same time....?

Haha, well you definitely had me second guessing, so I just tried it to be sure. Basically I'm varispeeding the playback/record deck while recording the echo, so while the varispeed is low, I'm recording let's say 10ms of delay, but on the next word, if I turn up the varispeed pitch, suddenly I'm putting more like 15ms of delay because the delay time is constant, but the tape speed it's being recorded to is changing, causing different lengths of tape to pass the record head while it's capturing a constant echo time. Does that make sense? I think I'm really bad at explaining this!

It also produces some other groovy weird things like if you vary the speed really quickly & extremely, the echo machine actually picks up that pitch bend & sends it back to the recording machine so you get some pitch variation too.

It really sounds closer to flanging, but it's not terribly unlike the sound of the vocal on "Good Morning, Good Morning". I'll take it!

 

[miroslav]

Haha, well you definitely had me second guessing, so I just tried it to be sure. Basically I'm varispeeding the playback/record deck while recording the echo, so while the varispeed is low, I'm recording let's say 10ms of delay, but on the next word, if I turn up the varispeed pitch, suddenly I'm putting more like 15ms of delay because the delay time is constant, but the tape speed it's being recorded to is changing, causing different lengths of tape to pass the record head while it's capturing a constant echo time. Does that make sense? I think I'm really bad at explaining this!

Yeah, I get that....BUT....the source for your echo track is on the same machine...right?
So...when you speed the machine up/down the source is also getting sped up/down, same time as the echo track you are recording and by the same amount.
I can't see how it can be anything different when using one deck.

The whole point of the ADT setup is to varispeed a second machine (the echo track) without also varispeeding the source.
Your setup varispeeds both equally at the same time.

 

[Beck]

The whole point of the ADT is that you don't need to actually double track and sing it twice...plus, it's a different sound.

Yes, that was the reason

That classic sound came from the ADT system...and not from singing it twice.

No, not exactly. ADT was an attempt to emulate the "Classic sound" of manual double tracking. The invention of ADT did not make it an overnight sensation. That is, it was not universally adopted just because it was available. Well into the early 90's when I was still recording professionally as my job people were still manually double tracking. It's a different sound when done manually. To clarify, Townsend's ADT technique was rather limited and short-lived outside of a few major studios. ADT using analog (non tape) delay became the norm. But neither Townsend's ADT nor subsequent methods using electronic delay circuitry sounded like manual double tracking, so laying down two or more vocal tracks was still common long after ADT came on the scene. It was an option, but I wouldn't say it caught fire as a trend. I still manually double track. I prefer the outcome.

In the Waves video they're talking about more than double tracking... different effects that came from experimenting. However straight ADT is basically a delay-based effect whether using tape, analog circuitry or hardware digital processing. It's fundamentally a thickening effect using short delay. Manual double tracking is also about short millisecond delays that naturally occurs when trying to sing along with oneself. Townsend and others in that day had to do it the way they did because speeding up the second tape deck was the way to shorten the delay between the fixed tape heads.

As for plugs, the answer for every question here could be, "Hey there's a plug that can do that!" But then we wouldn't have an analog forum, would we? We would soon lose the analog techniques that people come here for in the first place.

And yes I do have a hybrid analog/digital studio... the best of both worlds, but some things like double tracking in this case I prefer analog and I really don't believe the hype from Waves that they "Nail" so much as they claim to. It's a commercial. They're selling something.

 

[7upPartridge]

The whole point of the ADT setup is to varispeed a second machine (the echo track) without also varispeeding the source.

You're quite right, but my echo doesn't have varispeed, my source machine does...so it's what I'm stuck with. It's more of a time-based fluctuation than pitch based, although like I mentioned some pitch artifacts come through too. I'm quite pleased with the outcome. Do you have a machine with varispeed and an echo unit? Try it man!

 

[miroslav]

ADT was an attempt to emulate the "Classic sound" of manual double tracking.

I'm refering specifically to ADT...NOT manual double tracking.
ADT made it's way into much of the BEatles music...and that's where it gained popularity and became a signature sound for them.
That's what the "classic" refers to in my comment.

As for plugs, the answer for every question here could be, "Hey there's a plug that can do that!" But then we wouldn't have an analog forum, would we? We would soon lose the analog techniques that people come here for in the first place.

And yes I do have a hybrid analog/digital studio... the best of both worlds, but some things like double tracking in this case I prefer analog and I really don't believe the hype from Waves that they "Nail" so much as they claim to. It's a commercial. They're selling something.

The OP doesn't have a second deck....so doing the ADT the all-analog way isn't quite possble.
AFA the Waves ADT plug...it absolutley nails the original ADT sound, and offers even more options by way of the digital plug.
That's not a "claim" based on the Waves commercial...that's me sayng so becuase I have it, I've tried it.
It's actually way cool....and because it's a digital emulation, it adds more options that the original ADT couldn't do. So...you can do basic "double tracking"....and then a whole lot of other things with it.
That said...the OP also doesn't use a computer...so for him it's a moot point, but I'm sure other folks might enjoy it...analog and digital lovers.

 

[Beck]

I'm refering specifically to ADT...NOT manual double tracking.
ADT made it's way into much of the BEatles music...and that's where it gained popularity and became a signature sound for them.
That's what the "classic" refers to in my comment.

Ah, ok I got ya. I should have caught that's what you meant. Yes ADT was so much of the Beatles sound... and you hear it continuing with Lennon's later solo stuff and Paul McCartney and the Wings era. Very evident

The OP doesn't have a second deck....so doing the ADT the all-analog way isn't quite possible.

Well knowing me you know my answer to that dilemma. Get a second analog deck!!!

AFA the Waves ADT plug...it absolutely nails the original ADT sound, and offers even more options by way of the digital plug.
That's not a "claim" based on the Waves commercial...that's me saying so because I have it, I've tried it.
It's actually way cool....and because it's a digital emulation, it adds more options that the original ADT couldn't do. So...you can do basic "double tracking"....and then a whole lot of other things with it.

I'll take your word for it then, but since I don't use plugs at all that's all I can do... take your word for it and let you have the fun with that stuff. This is just an area we have a fundamental difference in approach. In my experience the more we dick around with the sound in the digital realm the more it deteriorates, so although I use both analog and digital, I use digital strictly to transfer analog tracks to my DAW. I still use outboard analog and digital processing and mixdown to 1/4 half-track. My DAW just gives me more tracks. I treat it like a tape recorder. What goes in is what comes out. We all have out own ways. Whatever works.

 

[miroslav]

I'll take your word for it then, but since I don't use plugs at all that's all I can do... take your word for it and let you have the fun with that stuff. This is just an area we have a fundamental difference in approach. In my experience the more we dick around with the sound in the digital realm the more it deteriorates, so although I use both analog and digital, I use digital strictly to transfer analog tracks to my DAW. I still use outboard analog and digital processing and mixdown to 1/4 half-track. My DAW just gives me more tracks. I treat it like a tape recorder. What goes in is what comes out. We all have out own ways. Whatever works.

I use to feel that way too about 5-10 years ago....but with the upgraded versions of my DAW, and the newer/better crop of plugs that have come out over the last few years....I started trying them out, first a couple, then a couple more, and I found that the plugs sounded really good and they also provided another level of fx/processing, so that now I could selectively pick which type of FX/processing I wanted to use and when --- either at the digital stage or the analog mixdown stage or both.
Plugn Alliance has some pro-level plugs from Brainworx, SPL, etc...and Waves has some really nice new stuff out, like the Abbey Road collection and a few other select plugs.

I think at some point everyone needs to get past notions about digital that they've clung to for the last 10 years or more. I'm not saying everyone will fall in love automatically with the digital options out there....but I do think some of the old-shool guys are just looking at things through outdated eyes...IOW, things have changed, and they are changing/improving every day.
Not saying anyone needs to abandon their tape decks or other analog gear (heck, I have no plans to do that)...just saying that unless you try some of the new stuff, you can't keep saying it sucks and that it ruins the audio.

 

[Beck]

I think at some point everyone needs to get past notions about digital that they've clung to for the last 10 years or more. I'm not saying everyone will fall in love automatically with the digital options out there....but I do think some of the old-shool guys are just looking at things through outdated eyes...IOW, things have changed, and they are changing/improving every day.
Not saying anyone needs to abandon their tape decks or other analog gear (heck, I have no plans to do that)...just saying that unless you try some of the new stuff, you can't keep saying it sucks and that it ruins the audio.

Oh no... you want to go there with me. Not that topic. I'm happy you're happy with the way things are working out for you, but digital is MUCH WORSE now than ever before.

Digital has not become better than 10 years ago. What has happened is people have become acclimated to the sound that now so permeates our listening experience fewer people know anything else. If anything technology is cheaper and more toy-like than at anytime in my recording career. It's not getting better. Rather our ears are getting accustomed to the sound.

The mistake is to assume I don't use certain tools because I've never tried them. I'm always curious, experimenting, trying new things. I'm an inventor... my studio is a laboratory. I'm not an "Old-school" old guy. I simply know what works for me. Processing where the entire file is manipulated digitally is still the greatest evil in my book and does the greatest harm. And I hear it everywhere I turn.

We don't have the rousing digital vs analog debates on these forums that we used to for two basic reasons:

1) Digital has gone from bad to worse since I've been on this forum. The decline in music we predicted did in fact occur and with a vengeance... even worse than I imagined! So digital has lost in the purely audio debate.

2) Digital has won in the marketing debate. It is what it is. It dominates the music scene world wide... but not because it's better. It's become pointless to push back against the dominance of digital.

Ironically, enough time has passed that most people only know digital and they're the ones who need to try something new... new to to them anyway. They're the ones who are "Old School." The vast majority know nothing about analog, so they're the ones that can't say they've experienced both and made an informed decision.

You're an exception. You know both analog and digital just like I do. But we have come to different conclusions and we choose to do things a bit differently. So we will just have to agree to disagree... and that's ok. I'm fine with that.

 

[miroslav]

What *people do* with their digital gear is one thing. I won't disagree with you that there are a lot of cases of digital audio abuse...etc.
However, I'm not seeing how digital *technology* as a whole (not it's use/abuse) has gotten worse than it was 10 years ago...?
You say that a lot, but honestly, you never say how/why you think it's gotten worse in clear terms or examples.

Sure, there are a lot of cheaper interfaces and tools these days, all kinds of "freeware" plugs....OK, fine....BUT...there are also really good digital interfaces and tools, and ways of using those tools....and that's my point. I've seen a significant improvement in digital technology... capablility, hardware and software...that I feel there is now no audio quality loss in what I'm doing with my audio when going from analog to digital and back to analog.

That's not just me being a digital lover/analog hater....not by any stretch. I still insist on tracking to tape, and I do hear a "difference", and I like that sound. What I'm saying is that I've started to utilize the newer crop of plugs in my digital work, and they sound real good and they do not make the audio sound worse or whatever it is you are claiming.
I have no idea what you are using exactly on the digital side...but when I try a new plug, and then I say it sounds really good, it's kinda lame that you say it's all just based on commercial hype or some such thing...if you haven't actually used the same software tools yourself.

I still see on this forum guys who have shunned using computers or any digital tools (their choice) who continuously cling to some negative ideas about digital that they develeped years ago. You can love analog, but sometimes it's worthwhile checking out what's new/current on the digital side too.
I say that because I honeslty belive that there's a "best of both worlds" option for everyone, which will help, not hinder their work, but when folks maintain old perspectives, it comes off sometimes as close-minded (and I've done it in the past too).

Appart from still tracking to tape....I'm now at a point where I can see a total ITB solution once my tape tracks are dumped to the DAW.
I'm not there yet actively, as I still mix OTB from the DAW...but I now see the possibility, and I'm working toward it for down the road. The only way for me to mantain an analog OTB mixing solution down the road, would require that I seriously upgrade my console, and add a bunch more rack gear. I haven't given up on doing that, but I've also embraced the DAW side and now with the new apps and plugs, it's only a matter computer processing power and potentitally it could surpass my current analog OTB mixdown rig in quality...so there's food for thought there, and also cost consideratoins. For what I want out of analog ultimately, I would need to drop serious cash on a serious analog console upgrade...though now I could pottentially get there with an ITB mixdown, at much less cost, and yet with the same audio quality. My other problem is I still love the analog gear and just using a console.... ...but man, my DAW and plugs rock now, and it's not easy to ignore that just so I can stay all analog. When it was more of a pure audio decision about going all ITB, it was different, but it's just not like that any more...the quality is there.

Sorry if that doesn't sit well with the analog purists here...but it's an honest conclusion I've come to....and it has left me a bit in the middle of things at the moment.

 

[Beck]

What *people do* with their digital gear is one thing. I won't disagree with you that there are a lot of cases of digital audio abuse...etc.
However, I'm not seeing how digital *technology* as a whole (not it's use/abuse) has gotten worse than it was 10 years ago...?
You say that a lot, but honestly, you never say how/why you think it's gotten worse in clear terms or examples.

It really comes down to the fundamental difference in how analog audio vs digital audio is handled in production. Well, in truth there is no digital audio. It only becomes audio after those 1's and 0's are converted. So with that we have two completely different approaches. Analog stays analog with the exception of digital effects applied to analog, but even that is a totally different operation when using outboard effects. I think digital is great for many effects... reverb, echo, etc. I'll take my hardware Lexicon digital effects processors over any real spring or plate reverb anytime. (By the way the Lexicon plugs can't hold a candle to the classic hardware). But in my world and in my studio those effects are added/blended with the original analog signal unmolested. The original analog signal passes through without being altered. The digital effects will be blended to taste. So you can see where I'm going here already. With analog we don't process the whole signal.

Now comes digital working ITB. It's an entirely different animal than what I described above. When using plugs you're crunching 1's and 0's affecting the entire file. And this is what I maintain has made digital decline over the years. I don't believe in plugs as a species. To my ear I haven't found one yet that has the quality of the classic hardware it's supposed to emulate... and I own a lot of that classic hardware for comparison. Frankly so many plugs are scams. Recordists have been hoodwinked. You simply can't emulate everything in a plug. You can come close. You can put a cool interface on it that looks like hardware knobs on your monitor. You can get old engineers who are now out of a job to endorse it for a fee. But still no cigar. Software doesn't have all the answers. It can't do everything it claims to do. It can make things worse. You can start out with analog tape, but if you end up heavily manipulating that original recording ITB with a shitload of plugs I say why even bother with tape.

The bottom line is I don't use plugs because I don't like the outcome. I don't like the sound of heavily digitally processed music.

So you and I both use tape and digital technology, but we differ in our approach. You lay down analog tracks and then do your production basically ITB. I lay down analog tracks, transfer those tracks, eight at a time to my DAW, then with analog deck and DAW in sync I produce like I always have... trough an analog console using analog EQ, and analog and digital effects, mixing down to an analog half-track. It works for me. I'm happy with it. And even when digital was overtaking analog as a recording medium this is still how it was done.

And you seem to have your way down pretty well and you're happy with that. So... we're both content and enjoy what we do.

As for the industry in general, I think it sucks. Music today is hard to listen to... hard on my ears. It's over processed, Autotuned to death, squashed to death, lacking dynamics and just plain a pain in the ear. So when I say digital is worse now than 10 years ago, that's what I'm talking about. If you want an example turn on the radio, listen to newer stuff in any genre on iTunes, youtube and CD. You don't have to look far to find poorly recorded and produced music because that is the norm today. You have to hunt for the good stuff.