A Vote for Double Tracking

  • Thread starter Thread starter dachay2tnr
  • Start date Start date
dachay2tnr

dachay2tnr

One Hit Wonder
I have on several occasions in these forums seen a recommendation to double-track vocals and/or acoustic guitars and then do a left-right pan of the two tracks.

I have tried this approach in the past using a copy and paste technique, and the results were pretty much blah. However, people on this forum (and George Martin in All You Need Is Ears) say you actually have to bite the bullet and record the track twice. You can't just duplicate the track, as it doesn't have the same effect.

Well, I can't speak yet for vocals, but I tried this technique this past weekend with an acoustic 12 string, and my guitar has never sounded bigger or better. I am completely sold. I played the track once through and panned it 100% left, then played the entire track again and panned it 100% right. I put a touch of reverb on both tracks, in slightly differing amounts, and I just couldn't believe the richness and fullness compared to my previous recordings.

Apparently the issue has to do with the slight variations in the way the two tracks are played versus being exact copies of each other; but the results were quite amazing. I'm just sorry I didn't take this advice earlier.

Next up - vocals!! :)
 
I was pretty skeptical at first too. One thing I've read (but haven't really tried yet) is to make sure to change the tone on each track - not completely different, but just different enough to bring even more depth in. Maybe different pickups, different guitar, different cab, different room, etc..

I haven't had as much luck with vocals though... part of it is my personal preference (I'm not crazy about the Limp Bizkit double vocal sound, although it does sound big), but I'm sure part of it is also my lack of singing talent :)
 
Yeah, double-tracking can be cool on vocals. Aside from the Beatles, listen to "Soak up the Sun" on Sheryl Crow's new album.

Fab
 
Yeah, it works a charm. Copying and pasting is a waste of time because the effect is almost identical to having one track panned to the centre because both signals driving the left and right speaker and identical. It's the tiniest nuances in difference between the two takes that create true stereo.
 
For another cool effect on acoustic guitar try doing 2 different stereo tracks(4 tracks total) and then reverse the image of one of the stereo pairs so you have a more balanced frequency response.
 
What if I cut and paste a track, then move it a little bit to take it out of phase, say by 5ms, and then apply slightly different effects?
Will this work?
 
Computer doubling of a part is a waste of time. It is virtually identical to the original.

Playing the part twice WILL open your eyes though when you hear it.

Tex, I'm gonna try that technique on my next recording that you used. It sounds interesting.
 
webstop said:
What if I cut and paste a track, then move it a little bit to take it out of phase, say by 5ms, and then apply slightly different effects?
Will this work?
Click to expand...

Stop being lazy ;) It might 'work' but it is nowhere near as interesting sounding as true double tracking.

Sennheiser- When you gonna put some stuff on .mp3 so we can hear your tunes? If you need some help let me know.
 
Hi - I double track lead vocals all the time, but the approach is different from guitar. With guitar, panning hard left and right, equal in level, gives it a sort of super stereo image that's fat and exciting. On vocals though this will usually sound wrong. Try instead putting the lead vox track up at the level you want it at, and just slightly off center. Then bring the dubVox track in at a much lower level, almost undetectable, and panned just slightly opposite the lead vox. If there's any words that go out of time with the lead vox, fix it with your editor. The goal is to just fatten the vocal, without it being apparent that it's dubbled. Then in certain places, maybe a phrase, maybe just a single word, you might like to bring it up where it is apparent, but then duck it back under cover. When it's right you almost don't think it's working, till you mute the DubVox track, and suddenly the vocal sounds thin. At least, that's what works for me.
Regards, RD
 
That sounds like a good idea, Robert D. Maybe that's been my problem all along - both were up front and almost hard panned. This thread has me all pumped up to try it again :)
 
webstop said:
What if I cut and paste a track, then move it a little bit to take it out of phase, say by 5ms, and then apply slightly different effects?
Will this work?
Click to expand...

So your basically going to end up with a delay effect... Totally different than what is being discussed here..

It is essential to have 2 seperate performances, which is what gives the vocal that extra beef... Give it a try both ways, and you'll immediately see why people do it with 2 seperate performances..
 
So, heres a question for all the doublers out there.....

Do you listen to the original performance while doubling, or do you mute the first vocal when your tracking the second...


I usually have the first on really quiet, but I can still hear it enough to know when to stop etc...

Joe
 
The times I tried it, I muted the first track completely - but then maybe that's another reason it hasn't worked out so well for me.
 
When I was 15, I was playing with my 4-track and figured this technique out by accident. These days, I always double track my rhythm guitar and double-track certain parts of the vocals for emphasis (choruses or keywords, for example). What I've found to make a cool guitar sound is double-tracking the guitars (electric, that is), panning 100% left and right, then making a copy of that track, applying a few ms of delay, lowering the volume and panning it somewhere to the other side (I played around with both the opposite side and slightly towards center of the opposite side.. play around!). This gave me a HUGE guitar sound, I was actually surprised. Now when I listen to a mainstream rock CD I can hear that they seem to do this as well.

When I double-track the guitar, I usually do the left one first, then pan the monitor of the guitar microphone right and play it at normal volume through the phones. For vox, I just keep everything center as I'm recording. Generally, my 2nd or 3rd take is much better than my first, so I usually keep the 1st very low in the mix just to give it an extra "kick" or so.
I've also heard of people Auto-tuning their 1st track to help them with the pitch for the following tracks. I haven't tried this one myself (no Autotune) but I'm assuming its a good technique.
 
VOXVENDOR said:
So, heres a question for all the doublers out there.....

Do you listen to the original performance while doubling, or do you mute the first vocal when your tracking the second...


I usually have the first on really quiet, but I can still hear it enough to know when to stop etc...

Joe
Click to expand...

I tried doing it while listening to the orignal and I kept singing late because I was waiting for the part to start. I found if I do about 4 solo takes I will usually end up with enough parts that match well enough.

I like compressing the hell out of a quiter doubled part. Works well on drums and bass also. You get more meat without losing the air of the original track.
 
TexRoadkill said:

I like compressing the hell out of a quiter doubled part. Works well on drums and bass also. You get more meat without losing the air of the original track.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I find that too... It's especially good to help keep the quieter parts of the quiet vocal from "disappearing"..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top