Double tracking

D

DaveRook

New member
Hi

I've read a few posts over the past few years which suggests that, in some people's opinion, double tracking is not needed. Microphones, recording equipment, the performers equipment is of such high quality (coupled with technological advances) that double tracking only muddies the sound.

Double tracking means playing the instrument twice and recording it both times with the same or a different set up; however, the melody is identical (using 2 microphones and panning is not double tracking IMO).

Now, I appreciate this is a very open topic but I am interested in opinions of those who have tried both! Meaning, has anyone tried to record a song/album where they didn't double track (guitar/voice etc) and has also had experience in double tracking. What do you think of the quality of the sound when the instrument (instruments) are solo'd (it sounds wrong to have multiple instruments solo'd) and also when 'in the mix' (eg just listening to the guitars and also listening to the guitars with the bass/drums/voice etc)?
 
Last edited:
Both ways are valid and have their place.

Watch Classic Albums - Nirvana - Nevermind.
They pretty much double tracked the album.
 
I do both and prefer neither. Sometimes I feel like double tracking, sometimes I don't. I'm fine either way. I find that more often than not, for me, it's not needed, but whatever. Sometimes double tracking sounds good. It only "muddies the sound" when you do it poorly.
 
And by "double tracking" I'm talking about the layering of two similar takes on top of eachother. I don't consider something like two guitar tracks panned apart as double tracking.
 
Greg_L said:
And by "double tracking" I'm talking about the layering of two similar takes on top of eachother. I don't consider something like two guitar tracks panned apart as double tracking.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree and will update my question so it's clear.
 
DaveRook said:
And do you have an example of a similar genre band which didn't double track.
Click to expand...

I think the thing with layered double tracking is that most times you're not supposed to be able to tell that it's even been done. So when it's done properly, you have no idea. And then there's times when double tracked parts will be panned away from eachother, but then it sounds like two distinct tracks and it's not really the stacked double tracking effect that is most commonly associated with the term.

For me personally, the only major component of a mix that I typically ever double track is vocals. Sometimes I'll double track a guitar lead for effect. If you can nail a guitar lead twice and stack em, that can sound really cool. But most other stuff just gets tracked once.
 
Most of the time I'll double track vocals. For a high harmony part that might be a little on the thin side to begin with, I might do 4 tracks of it.

To my ear, nothing artificial recreates true multitracking. So if you want "that" sound, and don't want a substitute that comes close, you need to multitrack.

I've always considered doubling a guitar part and panning them wide to be multitracking. But I agree that there are differences between that process and layering one track on top of another (and panning them to the same spot). Just variations of one another. I like them both.
 
Greg_L said:
I think the thing with layered double tracking is that most times you're not supposed to be able to tell that it's even been done. So when it's done properly, you have no idea.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why I put Nirvana as an example.

Other than that soaring phasey effect, and the fact that Butch Vig says so, you've no real way to know it was double tracked.

Take 'In Bloom'.
Two guitar parts, each double tracked.
Vocals double tracked.
Harmonies double tracked.

And then bands wonder why their record doesn't sound that big?


There are far less tight performers out there. Bowie comes to mind.
I love his music, but double tracking vocals ain't his thing.
Either that or he just wasn't fussy about it.

I haven't paid attention, but I can't imagine a band like the Chilis do much doubling.
 
I'll double track and wide pan some guitars for symmetry and balance. That's about the only time I'll double track. I tried double-tracking my vocals, but I kind of suck at it and it never sounded good.
 
Chili said:
I'll double track and wide pan some guitars for symmetry and balance. That's about the only time I'll double track. I tried double-tracking my vocals, but I kind of suck at it and it never sounded good.
Click to expand...

Thinking about it, I never have a double tracked main part, but I always double track harmonies.

If I do break the mould and double the main part, I'll actually triple it and use two for backing, one as the main sound.
 
Steenamaroo said:
Thinking about it, I never have a double tracked main part, but I always double track harmonies.

If I do break the mould and double the main part, I'll actually triple it and use two for backing, one as the main sound.
Click to expand...

Oops, forgot about the harmonies. Hmm, I'll record up to four harmony parts, but they usually are not repeats, each part has different notes, so that doesn't count as double-tracking. Right?
 
If I DO double track, I almost never keep them panned exactly in the same spot. Even if it's a lead vocal where I want both the main vocal and the doubled vocal to sound like it's coming from the center, I'll pan the doubled track just slightly to the left or right. Maybe 5-10%. I guess I do this out of habit now, but the original reason why i ever did that was I guess to AVOID that phasey sound when two separate takes of the same notes are panned in same spot. So I assume Butch doubling, then panning to the same spot must have certainly been on purpose because he WANTED that sound. I guess, I COULD do that for effect, but never have. I just want it to support the main vocal and make it thicker, not add a weird phasey effect.
 
Last edited:
DaveRook said:
Hi

I've read a few posts over the past few years which suggests that, in some people's opinion, double tracking is not needed.

..........

...has anyone tried to record a song/album where they didn't double track (guitar/voice etc) and has also had experience in double tracking. What do you think of the quality of the sound when the instrument (instruments) are solo'd (it sounds wrong to have multiple instruments solo'd) and also when 'in the mix' (eg just listening to the guitars and also listening to the guitars with the bass/drums/voice etc)?
Click to expand...


It really is about the style of music and the production you are going for...there's no absolute right/wrong about it.
I think sometimes too much double tracking of everything can actually work against the desire for a "big" sound....though it depends on many things within the production/arrangement.

IMO....nothing sounds "bigger" than having fewer tracks, each doing a single thing. Like say...when you have just a piano and vocal to occupy the entire soundstage....they usually sound HUGE. When you have 50 tracks trying to occupy the same soundstage, it's not as easy IMO to make any one track sound huge without really pushing it out/away from the rest. Of course, with many tracks, you get a different kind of big sound, so again, it's how you use the doubling/layering in the mix.
 
I double track distorted guitars to get a bigger sound. But, most of the time I prefer single tracked electrics. I feel like you get more of the rigs character single tracking...just my experience.

I double track vocals when 1) I want a more airy sound, or 2) to make one the wet reverb and provide space.

As for albums double tracked, Butch Vig is the man...check out anything on siamese dream they are all like 45 tracked. Great single tracked examples, hmm, I guess I don't really listen for that.
 
I never stack guitar tracks, i just record it twice and pan it.

If you do layer distorted guitar tracks, it tends to work better and sound bigger when you start with less distortion. If you start with a big fuzzy sound and stack it, it will be a mess.
 
I almost always double track back vocals, so a 3-part harmony is always 6 tracks for me. I'll pna them wide or narrow, depending on the song.

I often, but not always, double track lead vocals for a chorus, and sometimes on certain parts of a verse.

I've doubled guitar solos once or twice in my life. It sounds great when it's tight, but it's more of an "effect" than something that needs to be done.
 
I like to experiment with double tracking. Backing and harmony vocals nearly always get double, triple or quad tracked. Over the last year or so, I've done alot of double tracking of guitars to be panned apart. I also do a cheatie variation where I'll send the guitar to two different amps or amp and pedal or amp and DI or DI and pedal or whatever combination and play the part once but because the settings and sounds are deliberately so markedly different, it sounds like two really tight players or a really well double tracked guitar {and for added complication, sometimes I'll repeat it so the double track is actually double tracked !}. I do that sometimes with bass {mic, line out and DI} then blend them onto one track. Double tracking the bass has generally proved to be a shitbag so I don't do it. Once in a blue moon, I might double track the notes an octave up or with the bass on a real fuzzy setting, just for brief effect in parts. All the way through a song and it just sounds like the moon under water.
If I want a fruity, phasey piano sound, I'll double track the piano part but play each sequence at different parts of the piano. Sometimes also, I'll double track the organ at two wildly different settings and combine them as one but that can sometimes sound too thick and syrup~y. So rarely will I double track horns or woodwind that I can't recall the last time I did. Sometimes though, recorders or violins sound great double tracked. Also, if I whistle a part, I might double track that for a recorder effect. That can sound kind of neat.
In the last month or so, I've had a go at 8 tracking guitars and bouncing them down to one track. I did it initially just to see what it would sound like. It certainly makes for a bigger, more space encompassing sound. The results are sort of worth it but I have to say, I hate the process ! It's labourious, it really gives me headache but it does get tighter by the third one. I don't think I'll be doing too much of that though.
An observation I've made over the years is that for lead vocals, double tracking just does not suit some voices and I concluded a while back that mine was one of those voices. Whereas I have friends who double track really well and sound good double tracked, especially when each track is recorded at a different speed. When put back to normal and blended with one well lower than the other, the result is pretty good. Subtle, not in your face.
But to touch on the original question, double tracking is by no means necessary. It's just one of many recording processes that can work well {or not at all}.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top