Double tracked vocals?

[shoggoth80]

Hey all... I know this is often done to fatten up the vocals on recordings.
How is it accomplished? Is it a two microphone affair with the phase reversed, tracked at the same time? Is it just two vocal tracks layered, after being recorded as two different takes? Is it both?

It's something that I wouldn't mind experimenting with, but would like to know more about.

 

[Steenamaroo]

Generally speaking, double tracking refers to recording something, physically recording it again, then playing the two back together.


you can record the same performance with two mics, but not usually for the same reasons as you would double track something.


i'd double track vocals if i want to give them a bit more impact/balls,,,,but i'd use two mics on something if i want a stereo image or perception of depth (ie, close mic, and room mic)



Also, it can be beneficial to use two mics on one source, if they're gonna capture different elements of the sound,
examples would be snare top and bottom, acoustic guitar bridge and body, or two different speakers from the same guitar amp
Hope that helps.

 

[FURY101]

whatever u like i guess .....record your vocal track and copy it ,apply your effect as needed or wut i would do is ........record multiple vocal tracks apply effect where needed

 

[rechtien]

Separate takes that are layered - is generally what this refers to. You can double mic a single take, but that's generally just to blend the mic/preamp artifacts. It still just sounds like one take. Taking two separate takes and layering them can thicken up and add character up the vocal part. You can try to sing it the exact same, do a harmony, whatever sounds best.

 

[Audio Mastering]

whatever u like i guess .....record your vocal track and copy it ,apply your effect as needed or wot i would do is ........record multiple vocal tracks apply effect where needed

You get way way way better results recording 2 takes. Copying the first take will not fatten up your vocals, as recording 2 different takes will
Cj

 

[shoggoth80]

Thanks for the input on that guys.
I have seen some live shows of really big acts (in their day) where I have seen two mics present. One was I think the Doors: Live at Hollywood Bowl. Maybe that was one live mic, and one mic recording the vox? I think there was an album release of that show.

Layering two takes might be a really cool thing to try. I have albums where the artist did multiple layers. Sometimes this is done to a chaotic effect, and slightly off kilter (on purpose). Though the times that I have heard it when it adds more musical and less cacophonous qualities, it sounds excellent.

 

[FURY101]

You get way way way better results recording 2 takes. Copying the first take will not fatten up your vocals, as recording 2 different takes will
Cj

i agree that's wut i do....do as many as u like.

 

[Armistice]

It's done with multiple takes and it's a lot harder than you may think unless you're a particularly good singer.

I've tried it on my voice, which is average, without success... too much pitch and/or timing variation and it gets really ugly.

Better singers will have less problems, of course.

Good luck.

 

[grimtraveller]

It's done with multiple takes and it's a lot harder than you may think unless you're a particularly good singer.

You get way way way better results recording 2 takes. Copying the first take will not fatten up your vocals, as recording 2 different takes will

You can double mic a single take, but that's generally just to blend the mic/preamp artifacts. It still just sounds like one take. Taking two separate takes and layering them can thicken up and add character up the vocal part.

There used to be a thing called ADT that was invented around 1966 at EMI Abbey Road by a guy called Ken Townsend. ADT stands for artificial double tracking. Basically, after the novelty of double tracking had worn off, bands looked for less labourious ways of altering their vocals. What ADT did was to separate a vocal take by a couple of miliseconds so you'd get that vocal thickening. If you listen to the vocals of John Lennon or George Harrison on any Beatle album after 'Revolver' you'll get loads of ADT.
On DAWs, if you double the vocal but move one a couple of miliseconds apart you'll get an interesting kind of ADT, the only problem being that it can sometimes sound really robotic.
One thing I've sometimes done is to record one vocal a semitone slower and the other a semitone faster than the regular speed, then put the two together. But one of the takes will only be at half the volume of the other.
Interesting.......

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I have seen some live shows of really big acts (in their day) where I have seen two mics present. One was I think the Doors: Live at Hollywood Bowl. Maybe that was one live mic, and one mic recording the vox? I think there was an album release of that show.

I can't speak specifically to the Doors show, I don't know what the specific plan was there. But you're right, double miking the live vocals was something you'd see a bit back in the 60s. I remember seeing a Sam and Dave set up with dual mics for each, simply taped together one on top of the other, for example.

Sometimes I think that was done like Steenaroo said, in order to blend the sound of two different-sound mics and/or preamps. Sometimes it was an even simpler reason than that; doubling the signal allowed them to stack the tracks and get a bit more additive volume in a live setup when competing against live amplified instruments without having to crank a perhaps noisy 60s PA channel or mixer with lots of stage bleed. When you consider that neither Jim Morrison nor Sam and Dave were exactly headbanging screamers, that might not have been such a bad idea.

But when it comes to actually fattening up a vocal's sound, double-tracking or chorusing or parallel compression are probably the ways to go.

G.

 

[benherron.rrr]

I wouldn't mind experimenting

Take your own advice, experiment! Its amazing what you can get out of fuckin about. I would try every thing you have mentioned and see if it yeilds something you like, If it does. . . Great! use it. If not you may find your self in a situation in the future when it will work and you already know how to do it.

Double tracked vocals. . . 2 different takes of the same vocal line. You can do alot with this method in the mix, to beef it up. to use it as an obvious effect, or. . . so Im told if you have a slightly out of tune vocal combining 2 takes can have the effect of correcting the vocal.

OR, you can do the complicated chorus technique, there you take 2 copies of the original vocal pitch shift one up by around 5 cents and the other down by 5 cents (try different values, for each track) and blend those 2 tracks carefully with the original. This technique can yeild really good results. There is a thread explaining it in full, but I cant remember where it was

 

[shoggoth80]

Thanks for the encouragement, and the extra info. I'll have to play around with the programs once my interface comes in. I think MF got swamped with blitz day orders, so I am trying to be patient with them. I like to dig up information before attempting to do most things...better to have an idea before and, and tweak things a bit, than no idea and not get things workable.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

I've also heard it's easier to get vocals to "mesh" together if you do three takes rather than two - pan the main one center, and the other two slightly back left and right. I guess the idea is the inevitable slight little hesitations between takes don't stick out as much that way.

Then again, I can't sing to save my life, so I haven't really tried this.

 

[benherron.rrr]

I've also heard it's easier to get vocals to "mesh" together if you do three takes rather than two - pan the main one center, and the other two slightly back left and right. I guess the idea is the inevitable slight little hesitations between takes don't stick out as much that way.

Then again, I can't sing to save my life, so I haven't really tried this.

Did you know, If you combine 1000000 takes together you will get the perfect take

There are no rules to recording/mixing. The production process is, if not slightly more in some cases as creative as the writing/proforming. treat it as such

 

[pjb5015]

I have a related question that I think would be better here than creating a new topic. Why is that when the Beatles, the Who, or any other 60s band would double track their vocals, it never resulted in that chorusy/robotic sound. Even on Dark Side of the Moon, double tracked vocals still sounded natural, just a little thicker. I'm referring to non-ADT recordings...listen to the track "A Hard Day's Night" or "I Should Have Known Better" by the Beatles and you will see what I mean. When I try to double track it sounds like I'm a robot and I abandon it. When they do it, it just gives a little more life to the vocals.

 

[benherron.rrr]

I have a related question that I think would be better here than creating a new topic. Why is that when the Beatles, the Who, or any other 60s band would double track their vocals, it never resulted in that chorusy/robotic sound. Even on Dark Side of the Moon, double tracked vocals still sounded natural, just a little thicker. I'm referring to non-ADT recordings...listen to the track "A Hard Day's Night" or "I Should Have Known Better" by the Beatles and you will see what I mean. When I try to double track it sounds like I'm a robot and I abandon it. When they do it, it just gives a little more life to the vocals.

Its all really how you mix it. It goes as simple as how loud the double take is relative to the original, as well as how simalarly they are tracked, to how you effect the tracks. for example: if you have a double tracked vocal, when mixing it. if the levels are rather equal you will have he effect of two sets of vocals going on. If it is a little quieter it beefs up the mix yet becomes un noticable. A good tip is to take the original vocal, and then mix in the double untill you can hear it make a difference and then take the level slightly below that. It gives the illusion that it is one vocal with out it taking 2 different entities

 

[DrewPeterson7]

There are no rules to recording/mixing. The production process is, if not slightly more in some cases as creative as the writing/proforming. treat it as such

There are no rules, maybe, but there are rationales and reasons for the ways things work, and keeping them in mind while mixing can make your job a lot easier.

For example, knowing about the existence of proximity effect doesn't mean that there's a "rule" that you want to keep more than 2" away from a mic while singing into it, but it DOES mean that you can predict how the response will change as you move closer or farther away, and use that predictability to artistic effect in your mix. Or, more to the point, knowing that it's impossible to perfectly double a vocal, it's worth thinking about how it's much harder for your ear to tell when something is ever-so-slightly off when it's trying to compare against two ever-so-slightly off tracks than it is when you're just comparing against one.

Again, no rules, just reasons.

 

[matttheaxe]

I double track every vocal every time. Sometimes I pan one off and always reduce the volume of the second one a bit. If you are tight, it works like a dream. If you are REALLY tight, nobody knows. Listen to anything Ozzy sings. Its all double tracked.
I can appreciate the double, triple and quadruple vocals that are a bit out of time. A la Perry Farrell of Janes Addiction. I don't know how, but he manages to take tracks all out of time with non rhyming lyrics and make musical art with it.

 

[PDP]

double miking the live vocals was something you'd see a bit back in the 60s. I remember seeing a Sam and Dave set up with dual mics for each, simply taped together one on top of the other, for example.

I actually heard this was done to pick up the voice coming from the nose, because singing right on top of a mic only picks up the mouth.

Sounds good but I have no idea if its true, and you never see it done anymore.

 

[shoggoth80]

Well, my interface came in today. So I naturally had to try it out, and mess around a bit. I have found that the best all around sound comes from my Ev Co9. It spanks even my condenser going in raw, or at least sounds that way to me. I tried a triple track. I panned the two other takes left and right, and cut the sound down. Added a little compression to the master track. They aren't very well in time, as I don't have anything in terms of backing, so it was just done on the fly to see what it roughly sounds like. Overall, I like the effect. Might be something to experiment more fully with as opportunity allows. So far, I'm a fan.