Question concerning doubling lead vocal

powerpop

New member
Although this being my first post, I've been reading these forums for years and have gained and appreciated the knowledge here. I have just an observation and a question about doubling a lead vocal. I know the subject has been beat to death to some degree perhaps, but anyway...

I like throw back recordings of the 60's and 70's where the lead vocal was almost always double tracked (or so it seems - most of the time). It was the analog world then, and I used to have a Tascam 2 track reel to reel and later a Tascam 488 cassette 4 track recorder. In both of those machines I used the "sound on sound" feature to double track a lead vocal. In doing so, the sound ended up very thick and more importantly "consistently thick".

By using sound on sound, I did the initial take, then switched to overdub the same part right on top of the same track without changing anything, EQ or volume. Of course you lost editing features for either individual take but it just seemed like the tone and sound of the two vocals was thick and consistent using sound on sound.

Well, now I have had my DAW for a while and although I can use a "sound on sound" feature with a DAW, I wouldn't mind separate takes on separate tracks to be able to edit individually as needed.

However, something seems missing to me when the vocals are on separate tracks to be used as a single double track in the DAW realm. It seems normal and thick in some spots and not so much in others, in other words...not particularly consistent in volume...even when gain and volume are set identical with each other on both tracks (understanding that it needs to have been sung "consistently" both times as well). It sounded so much better in my analog days of using sound on sound.

I hope this made sense....I may be nuts, does anyone else experience this? Do you overcome this by routing the tracks to a buss with perhaps a compressor on it to smash the vocals together for volume consistency and thickness consistency? (For which I've tried, but it still doesn't seem as good as the sound on sound analog days). Is it an analog thing compared to digital?

I would really appreciate your insight on this from any of you that do a lot of vocal doubles. Thanks!
 
I can't imagine the inconsistency problems showing up worse with individual tracks -nor digital as a cause.
" It seems normal and thick in some spots and not so much in others, in other words...not particularly consistent in volume.."
This would be differences in the performances. However now at least you the option to tweak either one of both. 'Tape doesn't 'moosh stuff together all that much.

'Sound on sound. Man that takes me back to my (my dad's :>) first Sony :guitar:
 
Couple of ways you can do this. If you have your reel to reel, you can send just the vocal part to tape, record it, then play it back and record back into the DAW, line up tape recorded channel and that will give you the ADT effect. Since the reel to reel will have some drift, it will be just enough to fatten the sound. I have been experimenting with this for last couple of months. You can record to the tape hotter to give it drive or just record under the red for more of a smooth sound.

Another way is with an ADT plug in, Waves has one, but there are others. I have used both and the reel to reel approach seems cooler, but can't say it is better.
 
My .50¢ version..

For my vocal [using Reaper] I will duplicate the track, right-click one of the track items, open Item Properties, then select Position/time and either add or subtract 1 or 2 milliseconds. Of course this lacks some of the depth of an additional overdubbed vocal, but the delay is smooth and consistent. Also, the two are separate tracks and they can be mixed using one as a wet/dry control. Can also add a volume envelope to automate that part.
 
I wonder if this might be a compression and gain staging thing?

When recording SoS, you would be aware of the total gain of the combined tracks so that each track is coherently gain-staged by itself AND when combined.
When recording to tape, you get tape compression.
 
My .50¢ version..

For my vocal [using Reaper] I will duplicate the track, right-click one of the track items, open Item Properties, then select Position/time and either add or subtract 1 or 2 milliseconds. Of course this lacks some of the depth of an additional overdubbed vocal, but the delay is smooth and consistent. Also, the two are separate tracks and they can be mixed using one as a wet/dry control. Can also add a volume envelope to automate that part.

Duplicating the track is never the same as recording a new track. It's quicker and easier, but you can get some nasty comb filtering effects depending on the amount you delay the second track by.
 
Duplicating the track is never the same as recording a new track. It's quicker and easier, but you can get some nasty comb filtering effects depending on the amount you delay the second track by.

I've run across that. I recently tried this on one vocal where a 1ms offset sounded terrible, and any more just made it worse.
 
Thanks to all of you responding to me with your thoughts. Honestly though, I probably am indeed imagining what I think I'm hearing in the differences. And like Mixsit said, I'm sure the differences in performances are certainly a problem.

I have read about the technique of duplicating the track with nudges and adjustments and although very cool and I had fun trying it, to me there is nothing like the sound of a good old fashion double tracking even though time consuming. But then again I'm old and tend to live in the past, especially with music and home recording. lol.

VomitSteveHat's comment is intriguing to me. I hadn't thought about that mainly due to my limited knowledge in gain staging. I have noticed that when I use sound on sound in my DAW, it pretty much nails the "sound" I was accustomed to getting. And perhaps I should just do it that way and try to perform as best as I can with it. I would miss the individual editing, but then again, they lived without it pre-DAW I suppose.

And to DM60, I do still have the reel to reel and love your idea. Love to experiment. I remember reading about that technique in articles but never fully understood what they were talking about, but your explanation makes it understandable.

Anyway, I'll keep chugging at it. Thanks again for the help and ideas! Gonna toy with all of them.
 
And to DM60, I do still have the reel to reel and love your idea. Love to experiment. I remember reading about that technique in articles but never fully understood what they were talking about, but your explanation makes it understandable.

Anyway, I'll keep chugging at it. Thanks again for the help and ideas! Gonna toy with all of them.

Back when they first started this, Abbey Roads, it was a lot harder as they had to route the vocals out, through recorder, then back in on another track or maybe even on the same track. Either way, for us, a lot easier. Plus it gave me a reason to pull out my old reel to reel from storage and use it.

I purchased it in 1979, it was in storage since 90/91 (couldn't throw it away), so I am glad it is back out and in use. She is too ;)
 
A real double vocal is singing it twice and using both takes, a very 60's sound. Copying a track is not doubling vocals. I hate double tracked vocals as a rule, it is usually a low confident singer trying to cover bad vocals, so you end up with 2 bad vocals :facepalm:.

Having said all that, I did a really interesting double track vocal, recorded the vocals twice, then compressed the daylights out of one of them and put all the effects on the compressed track. Kept the other track clean. Then mixed them both in the centre. Was really nice. Oh by the way a good singer with good timing, you could not pick it was recorded twice, just sounded interesting. The double track was not originally intended, I just recored 3 takes of vocals in case we had to do any edits.

Alan.
 
I hate double tracked vocals as a rule, it is usually a low confident singer trying to cover bad vocals, so you end up with 2 bad vocals :facepalm:.
... Oh by the way a good singer with good timing, you could not pick it was recorded twice,
That's really the trick with doubled vocals. You need to nail both takes.

Recording bgvox for a middling singer has really helped me with that. No matter what he does, I have to match his timing and inflection perfectly for it to sound good.
 
I understand that there are many who don't like double tracking vocals. Especially this day and time. And I am definitely one of those recordists with indeed a very weak voice that tries to cover it up by doubling. It does help me I think (I need all the help I can get), but I'm just a hobbyist. It's also like everything else with music, individual tastes.

However, I take comfort in the fact that superstars have done it with rather good voices to begin with..... Elton John, John Lennon, Paul McCartney, Bee Gees, etc. It is older music indeed, but all those guys are in my favorite era of music and an era in which I try to emulate musically and vocally when I record at home. It may not be the cool thing to do now-a-days but it's just a hobby for me.

Additionally, I take comfort in the fact that very many of the superstars like those guys didn't double track very well at all. Listening to their songs, as well as finding isolated tracks on youtube of Elton John in the 70's and Beatles in the 60's, they are pretty good proof that they didn't spend a lot of time on it, probably one take. They are all over the place. But in the mix, it sounds great to me.

I remember reading George Martin's book "All You Need Is Ears" and he stated that the Bee Gees however, were so good at double tracking that all it primarily did was raise the volume of the tracks because they were so good at identically singing the original track, it was that close. That's pretty amazing.
 
I'm nodding my head as I read that last post. I believe any way you can mangle a track is fair game :D
 
I wonder if this might be a compression and gain staging thing?

This could be the case, based on the inconsistency you've described. Unless, of course, you have terrible mic technique while yer tracking. ;)

Are you compressing the vocals on the way in, i.e., through an outboard compressor? If not, that could be your issue right there and can easily be solved by inserting a compressor on the vocal tracks to make them more consistent in terms of volume and attack. Note I said "insert" and not "send."

Also, your technique while tracking the second vocal can make a big difference and will definitely affect the final result. If you want a "tight" doubled sound like a phaser or "thickening" effect, be sure to listen to the first vocal when tracking the second one, and pan them a bit left and right, respectively, so your ear and brain can distinguish between the two.

If you want a looser feel, keep the first vocal in but don't worry about the mix position relative to the vocal yer tracking.

If you want a crazy loose, Perry Farrell (Jane's Addiction) sound, just sing two entirely separate leads without listening to the first and place them together. But, you hafta compress all of the vocals in these examples for a consistent effect in terms of the volumes of the tracks. Then play with their levels relative to each other to get the sound yer hearing in yer head.

Hope that helps!
 
It never hurts to check for phase issues between the two tracks. Flip polarity on one to see if it sounds better in the mix. Tools like Waves In-Phase, Auto-Align or something similar can be a good investment too.
 
Sounds like a phase issue like Matt said. Too technical, but basically seperate audio sources cancelling each other out. I have experienced with guitar also. So for doubling vocals I never record the second track exactly the same. And by that I mean, distance from the mic, eq, maybe change mics if you can, etc..
 
Doubling / Thickening

Interesting... I don't much talk about using different mics with different distances between source & mics.

I'm also not seeing anything on detuning 2-5 cents and automation.

My TC-Helicon uses detune among other things to fatten vocals.


afterthought: Is see a lot of talk about parallel mixing (mixing in the dry track), and in some places I seen blogs written like so-and-so discovered some new technique.

This is not new at all, but the difference between 'sending' effects vs. 'inserting' effects.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top