doubling up the kick?

  • Thread starter Thread starter skiz
  • Start date Start date
I probably should settle down, it's 2am here and I'm on the internet reading about the pros and cons of duplicating waveforms...

Someone GET ME A DOCTOR!
or a cowbell.
 
RAMI said:
You just admitted it doesn't work. You're starting to foolishly contradict yourself. And once again, and I'll type slowly this time.....You're "accomplishing" the exact same thing as you would by having one track at the same volume as the 2 combined. But you already said you know that.
Click to expand...

Ok I'm going to assume that it is my fault for communicating poorly but I will say that I don't see any need for you to be so condescending and disrespectful. Has this not been a civil conversation thusfar?:(

You keep skipping the eq part the whole key is that you eq each of the tracks differently. You then adjust the volume of the tracks accordingly. Just simply doubling up the tracks doesn't work, we agree there and I'm not sure that anybody in this entire thread has claimed otherwise.

You can get some cool results if you double the kick track and mess with different eq and compression settings on each track. Is that really so stupid?
Cut me some slack guy.:)
 
Yonce N Mild said:
Ok I'm going to assume that it is my fault for communicating poorly but I will say that I don't see any need for you to be so condescending and disrespectful. Has this not been a civil conversation thusfar?:(

You keep skipping the eq part the whole key is that you eq each of the tracks differently. You then adjust the volume of the tracks accordingly. Just simply doubling up the tracks doesn't work, we agree there and I'm not sure that anybody in this entire thread has claimed otherwise.

You can get some cool results if you double the kick track and mess with different eq and compression settings on each track. Is that really so stupid?
Cut me some slack guy.:)
Click to expand...

I think you're still missing the point. There is no point in doubling the tracks of the same source and then EQing each one or compressing each one differently. You will achieve the same results by EQing and compressing just the one track. You add absolutely nothing by adding a second track that's the same wave and then EQing each track differently.

BTW, EQ is bad for the most part. Every professional studio I have gone to would never try this, period. It's pointless. It's just bad to resort to resort to using EQ if you don't have to! EQ is for correction, not enhancement.

The only way you would achieve something that would work would be to mic the kick in two different spots, say with a main mic and then another in a different position or purpose (i.e. a sub woofer mic, or speaker mic somewhere else on the drum) and then blend the parts and get the best from both. To use the same mic and copy the track and EQ it differently does nothing. Understand? It does nothing!

Only blending two entirely different sources would achieve what you are talking about. It would involve some time delay and capturing different frequencies and different areas of the drum and timbres. Only then would you be able to combine them into something useful because they would not be the same waveform. They have to hear different parts of the drum.

To be blunt, without being disrespectful, copying and pasting the same track and treating it differently is just stupid and a colossal waist of time and energy because you are trying a round-about way to get something that can easily be done with a single track.

There's just no point. Otherwise it would be a general practice...and it isn't!

I am finding that my absolute best recordings happen when I use the right mic for the job and it sounds like it should. I have many, many tracks that sound way better than anything I have done before, simply because I don't EQ anything! Not a drop! Get it right before you mix and you won't have to do much during the mixdown.
 
Last edited:
Yonce N Mild said:
Ok I'm going to assume that it is my fault for communicating poorly but I will say that I don't see any need for you to be so condescending and disrespectful. Has this not been a civil conversation thusfar?:(

You keep skipping the eq part the whole key is that you eq each of the tracks differently. You then adjust the volume of the tracks accordingly. Just simply doubling up the tracks doesn't work, we agree there and I'm not sure that anybody in this entire thread has claimed otherwise.

You can get some cool results if you double the kick track and mess with different eq and compression settings on each track. Is that really so stupid?
Cut me some slack guy.:)
Click to expand...

I wasn't being condesending. Just a little sarcastic.

Dude, you spent 100 posts trying to convince people of something you didn't even believe. You told me you didn't trust the results of a test YOU TOLD ME TO MAKE, even though you yourself obviously never tested it or you would have known that the results would have been exactly the same results I got. You admitted everyone else was right....and then you KEEP ARGUING... it's just a little weird.:rolleyes:

You keep saying I'm leaving out the EQ...And I KEEP telling you IT TURNS OUT TO BE THE SAME THING AS IF YOU DID ALL THIS EQ'ing TO ONE TRACK, Then, you disagree, then agree, then disagree again......sheesh. If the message hasn't sunk in now, it never will.

About 6 people have been trying to tell you the same thing for 3 pages now. I think I'm entitled to a little sarcasm. :D
 
Last edited:
OK let me explain. I browse here a lot but I don't post much because I'm pretty much a newb and really don't have much input.
So I see this post about doubling up the kick and I think to myself "I've done that before maybe I can help"
I didn't know what equipment he was using or what type of music he was trying to produce.
So instead of you guys telling me he's micing an acoustic kit to do metal he should be able to get the results he wants with out any tricks,(which I agree with) you start flaming me. (I guess you need to be clairvoyant to post here)
Sweet. You guys put words in my mouth and made assumptions about what I was suggesting. Somehow I now am recommending that there is no point using live drums in a home studio and that you should always double track the kick?

I guess it's my fault for mentioning techno and samples to a bunch of drummers it's like freaking garlic to vampires everything I said after that is automatically heresy.

When using the double tracking method you can get much more extreme results than if you just eq or compress one track. I know you guy will refuse to believe this but I know it to be true because I have done it myself and heard the results. I would also like to mention the fact that I am not retarded and I can tell the difference between louder and better. How much of a simpleton would I have to be to double a track hear it double in volume see my master level slamming into the red and think to myself wow that sounds better? Gee it never occurred to me that I could just turn up the kick drum or turn down the other tracks.... jeepers this mixing stuff is tough!

I have used double tracked kicks on my asr-x just to get the volume out of the thing I wanted but that's a completely different animal.

This is not a technique I would use to get a natural sounding kick drum, but not everybody is after a natural sounding kick. Not everyone is recording blues and classic rock. Doubling the kick is a pretty extreme measure that you would only use for an extreme effect or if the source material you were working with isn't anything close to what you want. I can only think of a couple of times I've ever done it. Obviously you want to get as close to the sound you are looking for in the tracking phase but it isn't always possible.


Where we agree: Just doubling the kick track only doubles the volume.
Doubling the kick track and eqing the tracks separately is SIMILAR in theory to eq on one track.

Where we disagree: You can get different results from doubling the kick track and eqing each track separately than you can from eq on a single track.

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree as long as you guys can refrain from inferring that I am an idiot.
 
I personally don't think you're an idiot, you're just over arguing. Your amending your point with every post. Keep going and you'll eventually agree with us. :D
 
Yonce N Mild said:

Where we disagree: You can get different results from doubling the kick track and eqing each track separately than you can from eq on a single track.
Click to expand...


No you can't. I guess we need another 12 people to try to explain that to you. It will have absolutely NO DIFFERENCE. It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. iT'S A fact. Fuck are you stubborn. Or deliberately acting stupid.

2 IDENTICAL RACKS FROM THE SAME SOURCE EQ'D DIFFERENTLY WILL HAVE THE EXACT SAME EFFECT AS ONE TRACK EQ'D.

Period.

Fuck get over it already.......You're wrong.


Jesus.
 
plus, it's not actually a doubling in perceived loudness. It's exactly 3db. 6 db is a doubling in volume.
 
Doubling is an effective technique...I don't know why more people aren't taking about the effects of the EQ on the perceived loudness and punch. On second thought, I will not say that this is a fact to prevent getting attacked.
 
I have on occasion cloned a track

If I have a part of a performance where everything was good except I had not given enough "meat" to one of the tracks, I have cloned that track and placed it on the opposite side on the mix and altered the EQ on these clones. The result is a much stronger and fuller presence and it certainly seems much louder. I haven't done it with the kick or snare because I'm usually such a fanatic about getting these just right that I haven't had the need, but I have done it with vocals, melodic instruments and once when I had a devoted mic on the hats.
Hell, if it works, do it.
 
donkeystyle said:
plus, it's not actually a doubling in perceived loudness. It's exactly 3db. 6 db is a doubling in volume.
Click to expand...

Interesting....what host are you using?

In Cubase, if you double a track, the volume goes up 6 db. I just did a little test to make sure I haven't been imagining things for the last...6 years or so.

I made a perfect sine wave in SoundForge, brought it into Cubase, normalized it, and watched the master meter. 0db constantly, of course. Then I dropped the tracks level to -6, and the master is -6db constantly - of course. Then I duplicated the track - back to 0 db constantly on the master meter. So in Cubase, duplicating a track definitely brings an increase of 6 db. I've always known this...but you have said otherwise several times in this thread, so I started questioning myself.

It only makes sense that doubling the track would double the volume - which is why I find it interesting that your host apparently doesn't work that way, while mine definitely does. I think working in your host would be confusing and difficult, lol.
 
It's not my DAW. I was referring to dB(spl) whereas your meters are in a different form of dB. I believe dBv is a common unit on meters. There is another unit that is common, but I can't think of it right now.

essentially when you see that 6db boost on your screen or the meters on your mixer, you're seeing a doubling in power, not SPL. You need 10 times the power to get a 6db boost in SPL. A doubling in power only gives you 3dB.

Try your same experiment again, but instead of looking at your meters in the box use a dB meter. You can get one from radio shack for pretty cheap.

I went to school for recording for a while and learned this there. I had never tested it before because it made sense when I read it, but I went ahead and tested it just in case my book and my teacher were wrong. They weren't.

I guess I may have been confusing when I said apparent loudness rather than dBspl. I did that because I didn't think that most of the average home recording guys would even know that there were different units of dB and thought that apparent loudness would be more clear. I guess not.

If I wasn't clear enough, you can learn all this and more in Nika Aldrich's book. It's called Digital Audio Explained for the audio engineer. He is able to explain it in a much more concise manner than I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel has good info, but it's not as easy to understand as Nika's book is.

also, just for future reference........ A sine wave can only be perfect in theory.

TyphoidHippo said:
Interesting....what host are you using?

In Cubase, if you double a track, the volume goes up 6 db. I just did a little test to make sure I haven't been imagining things for the last...6 years or so.

I made a perfect sine wave in SoundForge, brought it into Cubase, normalized it, and watched the master meter. 0db constantly, of course. Then I dropped the tracks level to -6, and the master is -6db constantly - of course. Then I duplicated the track - back to 0 db constantly on the master meter. So in Cubase, duplicating a track definitely brings an increase of 6 db. I've always known this...but you have said otherwise several times in this thread, so I started questioning myself.

It only makes sense that doubling the track would double the volume - which is why I find it interesting that your host apparently doesn't work that way, while mine definitely does. I think working in your host would be confusing and difficult, lol.
Click to expand...
 
One thing I heard many "loud" bands do, is they send the kick (and maybe the snare too) to a submaster, and compress the hell out of it. Really compressing and limiting it to insane levels.
Then mixing it with your "clean" drum tracks.
It gives you a shitload of punch if done properly.
Hope I was helpful :)
 
Vagodeoz said:
One thing I heard many "loud" bands do, is they send the kick (and maybe the snare too) to a submaster, and compress the hell out of it. Really compressing and limiting it to insane levels.
Then mixing it with your "clean" drum tracks.
It gives you a shitload of punch if done properly.
Hope I was helpful :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was mentioned about 12 times in this thread....But you were helpful. :)
 
i doubled my kick once, then jesus came down and beat me with a stick.

the low pass/ hi pass + hi boost thing he thinks is less stupid though.
 
donkeystyle said:
It's not my DAW. I was referring to dB(spl) whereas your meters are in a different form of dB. I believe dBv is a common unit on meters. There is another unit that is common, but I can't think of it right now.

essentially when you see that 6db boost on your screen or the meters on your mixer, you're seeing a doubling in power, not SPL. You need 10 times the power to get a 6db boost in SPL. A doubling in power only gives you 3dB.

Try your same experiment again, but instead of looking at your meters in the box use a dB meter. You can get one from radio shack for pretty cheap.

I went to school for recording for a while and learned this there. I had never tested it before because it made sense when I read it, but I went ahead and tested it just in case my book and my teacher were wrong. They weren't.

I guess I may have been confusing when I said apparent loudness rather than dBspl. I did that because I didn't think that most of the average home recording guys would even know that there were different units of dB and thought that apparent loudness would be more clear. I guess not.

If I wasn't clear enough, you can learn all this and more in Nika Aldrich's book. It's called Digital Audio Explained for the audio engineer. He is able to explain it in a much more concise manner than I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel has good info, but it's not as easy to understand as Nika's book is.

also, just for future reference........ A sine wave can only be perfect in theory.
Click to expand...

Well, I'll be damned! I just skimmed over the wiki, and saw the part where it said:

If 0 dBm is the power level corresponding to a power of one milliwatt, then 1 dBm is one decibel greater (about 1.259 mW).

So I pulled up a calculator and 1.259^3 (3db) does indeed equal 2 (2 milliwatts). So doubling the power will give you an increase of 3 db.

I understand now the confusion - You were talking about db on the spl scale where 0 is the threshold of human hearing, and I was thinking of db on the meters where 0 is electric unity.

And what do you mean about the sine wave? How would you describe the process of having SoundForge synthesize/render what SoundForge calls a "Perfect Sine" waveform, if not as a perfect sine wave?

This seems silly: "I rendered a digitally perfect, but only really theoretically perfect, sine wave in SoundForge." :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top