Doubling vocals.

[Chewie]

I've been recording my vocals and doubling them but I don't like how the almost same signals sound together. I suppose I could just add reverb to one or something but I was wondering what people do to get the backgroud vocal to sound more like a background harmony instead of an exact duplicate.

[ryanlikestorock]

Sing different notes. Or, sing in (what I call) a slightly different modulation of voice. Try to sing from a different part of your body. If the main vocal is more of a throat type voice, make the second one more of a gut-type voice. If they're both coming from the same place, they'll probably chorus.

[Clit Torres]

Originally Posted by Chewie

I was wondering what people do to get the backgroud vocal to sound more like a background harmony instead of an exact duplicate.

Sounds like you answered your own question here, just add some harmony/s to the vocal line.

[Atterion]

Nice name....I'm a big fan

[Chewie]

That's why I didn't want to use the word harmony.
I want to add harmonies but that aside I mean I heard a little about when people use doubling they alter they way on of the tracks sound. I was looking for ideas along these lines.

[punkin]

I hear what you're saying. You're wanting that whole room full of people singin sound then push it to the background. I've tried this using a single singer and just didn't get what I was looking for. Using the same voice over and over, it simply didn't get me what I was looking for. Now get two or three different people and things fatten up quickly.

I found a compromise using one person's voice, take multiple takes, use a little EQ and a hint of delay on each track so that they don't sound like mirror images. One of the previous posters also suggested slightly different singing techniques as well. I'm not a singer but anything to make the next track sound different than the previous one will help.

luck to ya.

[lpdeluxe]

I have recorded backup vocals from, say, three singers, and recorded 2 separate takes, then EQd one track to make it sound different from the other. It's amazing how big the "choir" can sound when you do this...and you can be a little loose with the exact EQ because, unless you get it really ugly sounding, it will tend to blend in with the first track.

[Atterion]

All good suggestions: Slight start delay between the tracks, EQ settings, vocal technique, and so on. Also chorus and reverb are key things to work with.

Try EQing say 3 different background "Copies". EQ 2 parts fairly close (to each other, but inbetween the 3rd part and the lead vocal), and pan them left and right (doesn't have to be hard panned, but sweep them around to find the right balance, which will be easier towards the end of what I am getting at), and EQ the 3rd to contrast the main vocal and leave it panned close to center, and apply to it a med rate/depth chorus. Also apply chorus to the 2 other parts, but slower (I generally find the further from center you go, the slower you want your choruses. It makes the sound wobbly otherwise, and may create unnescessary phase problems in the mix). As far as delaying the parts you can do that, by shifting samples or a delay plugin. I actually prefer to sing the individual parts and sing the delay, but you can also use a good reverb to add delay. The background parts usually require a longer reverb time then the lead, especially if you are trying to create the illusion of ensemble. A really dry vocal will deemphasize the difference with the background if those parts are fairly saturated (Really this part is a matter of judgement to what vibe you want).
This whole technique works best if you have many different vocal takes to work with.
One other thing to try, is to apply a surround panner to each part, in combination with different panning laws. Even if it is just a stereo part, using this method often will make it easier to get parts to fit because the volume of the sample will be adjusted as it moves through the stereo (Surround) fields, and you can virtually place your singers, with minimal level adjustments (However if using surround panners in stereo, you need to invert the panning motions. Any forward pans backwards, and any backwards pans forward, due the fact that you are trying to feed a signal to speakers that aren't there. So basically if your looking at a surround panner on screen, the bottom would represent the back row of your choir, but left is still left, and right is still right. Unless you have independently adjustable panning laws, but most programs don't).

[Atterion]

Oops, one more thing.
I usually do 5-10 or so BG vocals and group some in the middle and some near-to-centre, and some mid-way from centre. I EQ each channel seperately but buss the channels into new channels based on relative position (i.e. 50%L + %50R one channel, %20L + %20R on another, etc.) then apply the choruses and reverbs to the bussed channels. Then buss all those channels to 1 master buss. It makes adjusting your levels so much faster (Just like doing a Drumset!!!)

[Atterion]

Oops, one more thing.
I usually do 5-10 or so BG vocals and group some in the middle and some near-to-centre, and some mid-way from centre. I EQ each channel seperately but buss the channels into new channels based on relative position (i.e. 50%L + %50R one channel, %20L + %20R on another, etc.) then apply the choruses and reverbs to the bussed channels. Then buss all those channels to 1 master buss. It makes adjusting your levels so much faster (Just like doing a Drumset!!!)

[Atterion]

Sorry about the double post

[tallman]

Roll off the treble for background parts. Roll off the bass for foreground parts.

[Chewie]

Good stuff Atterion. I'll try it out but I wasn't really talking about an enamble effect. I just find the vocal to weak. I want it to sound like one person but fuller.

[glynb]

The point of doubling up on the same vocal part is to make it stronger sounding or get that 'chorus' effect without resorting to using an 'Effect'. By recording the same vocal part in two different takes and playing them back at the same level it usualy thickens the sound and sounds...well...really good!

If you're saying it doesn't sound good in your case then don't do it.

Some vocalists either sing more or less the same and too close to the first take, which sdoesn't prodiuce the desired effect, or they cannot sing closely enough to the first take which makes the whole thing sound sloppy with constanants on the end of lines ending at different times and so on.
I think the trick is to repeat the first performance with very slight variation, which produces the pleasant sounding chorus effect, too much variation and it doesn't work just sounds messy.

Obviously this is just generalisation, and it depends on the genre you're working in, different approaches can work, for example in rap or punk music and so on.

I guess if someone has an unusual voice or range the technique might not be suitable?

[Atterion]

Oh, I get it.
I was a little overboard there I guess.
Oh I never really double track my lead vocals, unless 1 track is getting Special FX treatments.
I usually track mono to stereo incorporating mild compression, and occassionally an effect.

[Dani Pace]

One of the neatest tricks I have found is to sing the "harmony" line on the 3rd or 4th above the original vocal line. This takes a little practice so don't panic if it sounds like crap at first but if you can get the hang of it it will add new dimensions to your songs and work wonders for back up vocals on other peoples songs too. Happy harmonizing.

[Soundbyte]

Try recording your double and tripled tracks at different speeds. Slowing the recording speed by 5% or so will give the track a slightly higher and tighter sound when played back at normal speed. Speeding it up while recording will yield a deeper quality when played at normal speed.

[Chewie]

I'm not to used to using compresiion on my vocals. Truth is I'm not sure how to use it. All I know is that a compressor keeps the volume at consistant amount. (I hope even that is right.)
How do you all employ compresson when doing vocals. (And some advice on compression in general would be nice.)

Of special interest to me is if I compress a track which has clipping even though the volume is reduced the clipping would still be there, right?

[chadsxe]

As stated in pervious post a great trick to add some fullness to a vocal track is using the whisper trick. Sing the lead like you would normal then whisper the second track. Well its more of a low volume talk from your throat. Mix and enjoy

[Farview]

Set the ratio at 4/1, attack and release at medium settings, and set the threshold so at the loudest you are no more than 6 Db into the reduction meter. This should get you started. These are not 'magic' settings (some people may think it's way too much) but it might thicken your vocal up a bit.

[BentRabbit]

Originally Posted by Chewie

Good stuff Atterion. I'll try it out but I wasn't really talking about an enamble effect. I just find the vocal to weak. I want it to sound like one person but fuller.

I've had to employ different 'doubling' techniques for various songs all from the same singer... One song had a perfect EQ on her voice for the main track, and on a second track (not the same take as the primary) I rolled off some of the high-end and added a hint of L-R delay... I panned that track slightly left and kept the levels below the main vox... WOW... I impressed the hell out of myself and wondered why I didn't try this technique on all the other songs before...
Well... even tho it worked great on that one song, trying the same trick on some of the others just out and out blew....
Different songs... different vocal techniques... different mixes...

Just try different things and let your ears guide you...

[hookiefree]

I get great results by making 2 duplicates of the vocal track, pitch shift one about -3 cents, pan about 30-60 to the left or right. pitch shift the next one about +3 cents, pan about 30-60 the opposite way. Keep both dups way lower than the main vox and nudge one forward and one back a taste to prevent phasing.

[Chewie]

Originally Posted by BentRabbit

I rolled off some of the high-end and added a hint of L-R delay... I panned that track slightly left and kept the levels below the main vox...
Just try different things and let your ears guide you...

I hope I don't sound like an idiot but does vox mean main vocal or something? And does L-R Delay mean stereo delay? I just wanna make sure.

[foreverdown]

vox is short or vocal/vocals. not necessarily the main one. you could say background vox or main vox... etc.

[BentRabbit]

Hi Chewie...


Yes, 'vox' is just a generic term for 'vocals' and my reference to L-R delay meant a delay that panned from left to right...

Sorry for any confusion... I'm pretty sure my headstone will read 'world's laziest typist' or something along those lines...