is duplicating a track a good way to make the sound fuller?

joe q

New member
i've been recording and mixing on cubase 5 with a sound engineer who always duplicates the same track, and uses this as a way of giving the audio a fuller 'beefier' sound. has anyone else ever seen this done? does it work?
 
If you simply duplicate a track, playing both at once makes no difference at all other than being slightly louder.

However, there are various things you can do that will alter the sound...for example, delay one track very slightly to add some phase differences (often used to simulate a stereo recording) or maybe add an effect to one track and not the other then play with panning
 
If all you're doing is adding an effect, there's no reason to duplicate the track, just use a 'send' to an FX track. I suspect he's delaying the track just a little (pushing it back a few milliseconds). Not a fan of that, typically.
 
As has been said, simply duplicating a track only makes it a little louder.

You would have to change the other track in some way to make them sound different from each other.
 
What [MENTION=39487]mjbphotos[/MENTION] said. Just use a send if you want to create a parallel/copy of a track with different FX. Simply duplicating with no difference, save PAN, perhaps, does nothing.

And, sometimes your duplicate track+FX can make things sound thinner if you manage to get some phase cancellation.

Re-tracking/recording, playing/singing the "same" thing, though, is a technique some folks use. Since the new track can't be precisely identical, it gives you all those things naturally, i.e., that futzing with delays, chorus, etc. on a duplicate track are trying to do. Of course, it requires a bit more performer talent (IMO), so might not be an option in all cases.
 
How bout expanding on The Ways of Fuller'
-more lows 'warmth
-spread. widen via delay (and or moving/modulating delay
-thickening -similar to above but 'mono tucked in with or behind the source
-double tracking (usually tucked in behind as above, but not necessarily

Others? Shirley there must be others!
 
How bout expanding on The Ways of Fuller'
-more lows 'warmth
-spread. widen via delay (and or moving/modulating delay
-thickening -similar to above but 'mono tucked in with or behind the source
-double tracking (usually tucked in behind as above, but not necessarily

Others? Shirley there must be others!

mixsit - so you're saying there can be good reason to duplicate a track. what is 'the ways of fuller'? i have seen cases of him using a pair of duplicates as stereo, with another duplicate in mono. this is meant to compensate for the lack of warmth in digital recordings. not entirely convinced myself.
 
I think 'Duplicate track' needs to be defined here. Creating an exact copy of an audio track would be done by simply copying an existing track. That will give nothing but more gain to the original at the master out of your DAW.

'Doubling' would be recording a second track actually playing/singing the same part twice.

There are tricks that can be done with duplicating/manipulating and applying different effects to them, but it is much better in most cases to play or sing a part twice. The reason is that manipulating the same recorded track can cause phase issues. Depending on the track, than can be purposely cool, or just a ruse that will end up hurting the mix later.

Not having any clue as to what type of track/instrument you are referencing and not knowing the genre, I can't really give any insight whatsoever. It just depends...

Sorry for the vague response, but the question is even more vague..
 
Yeah...some clarification on the "duplicate" thing...is he copying/pasting a duplicate...or recording the same track twice?

Big difference between them...with the latter being more effective at making things fuller....though you can just copy/paste, BUT you need to then do something to one of the tracks.
Just copying/pasting and nothing more...does nothing more than increasing the overall level, because the tracks are summing identically.
Panning alone will not do anything to create "stereo" of a duplicate copy/paste track...nor will it create "warmth"...so that guy is selling some snake oil. :D
 
this is meant to compensate for the lack of warmth in digital recordings.
If you see this phrase, generally the person saying it is full of shit, and everything they say is suspect.

Think about it, if one digital track lacks warmth, how will duplicates of the same, non-warm, track make it warmer?
 
...
Think about it, if one digital track lacks warmth, how will duplicates of the same, non-warm, track make it warmer?
Good catch!

mixsit - so you're saying there can be good reason to duplicate a track. what is 'the ways of fuller'? i have seen cases of him using a pair of duplicates as stereo, with another duplicate in mono. this is meant to compensate for the lack of warmth in digital recordings. not entirely convinced myself.

'Ways' -meaning methods- (and 'definitions..) of 'fuller'.
So to back track (again as it's been stated several times :>) the 'duplicated track is of no direct method to 'fuller. Unless the second ..or third, or.. are different, it's just louder.

Having said that ...I guess I'm old school, I don't (almost never) 'duplicate to provide these parallel paths ('voices what have you. Sorry, there's a holdover' from Lexicon speak' here where they call each delay path a 'voice.

If I want a spread' or 'tucked in double or other of the effected/shifted effects etc. for second or third 'voices (or instrument), I'd use an aux send to an FX bus with the various delay/mod/panning available for each under one FX.
Then note once you've set up an FX aux >bus to main mix, you're also free to try (adding an aux send and experiment) sending other things to the FX well.
 
Back
Top