Double tracked vocals?

[Ephi82]

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.

Boy I'm getting old! The technique of having two mics on stage for each singer, physically taped together was done to feed two sound systems. One for front of house, and the second for stage monitors. The boards in those days did not allow for monitor sends!

Nothing sounds better than a good singer truly double tracking a vocal! That's why the pre ADT Beatles vocals are so kick ass, and why they returned to that technique for their final masterwork, Abbey Road. Listen to "Because", three vocalists, triple tracked.......Try it at home.....the lush beefy vocal sound you get is worth the effort and practice. By the way, the practice will also help you become a better singer. Rock on!

 

[Ephi82]

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.

The solution is practice, practice and practice. Try double tracking a vocal in a song that you sing the best, and know exactly how to sing it, and relax when tracking. I will bet that you wont find any robots in the sound. (and yes, you might want one track slightly behind the other in the mix and in the exact same panned space. If you pan them opposite each other, you will get another effect, but probably not the one intended) Have fun.

 

[shoggoth80]

Also, PJB, I notice that if the other vocal tracks sit too high in the mix, you will get a strong chorus effect...which can sound a little robotic to my ears. Maybe that is part of the equation on your end?

 

[buzzard bass]

I've tried double tracking mesen on a 4 track cassette recorder. Amazing the difference you get even with those meager techniques. It's like, wow, this sounds like a real record.

 

[Mike Freze]

Hi! Just read all the interesting responses. Great. Nobody has seemed to address another technique I thought of but maybe it isn't a good choice.

Instead of double tracking a vocal or using two mics on a take, why can't someone just record one vocal track with one mic and then merely DUPLICATE that recorded track (an exact recorded copy) to a new blank track in your recording program? That way, you will have two exact replicas of the right take you want. Then, use the duplicate track to pan differently, or change the volume of, or add an effect to, etc. without changing the original track. Can this work as well?

Mike Freze

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Instead of double tracking a vocal or using two mics on a take, why can't someone just record one vocal track with one mic and then merely DUPLICATE that recorded track (an exact recorded copy) to a new blank track in your recording program? That way, you will have two exact replicas of the right take you want. Then, use the duplicate track to pan differently, or change the volume of, or add an effect to, etc. without changing the original track. Can this work as well?

Mike Freze

Yeah it can work, but it really doesn't do anything that can't be done faster and easier with a single track. Duplicating a track and stacking the copies is exactly the same as just raising the volume on the original track. And panning them differently is exactly the same as panning a single track to the point in between the two panned copies (e.g. a mono track down the center is really the same track played evenly to the left and right channel, and duplicate tracks panned, say, center and 90° right is exactly the same as a single track panned 45° right.)

G.

 

[shoggoth80]

"why can't someone just record one vocal track with one mic and then merely DUPLICATE that recorded track (an exact recorded copy) to a new blank track in your recording program? That way, you will have two exact replicas of the right take you want."

-Because when double tracking I am assuming that it is the nuance you're chasing, which helps beef up the vocals. I tried copy paste, and doesn't sound as cool. Though duplicating to add effects to might be an idea to play with.

 

[Mike Freze]

Thanks a lot, guys. All great information. Maybe I will try playing around with track duplication to add effects on maybe one of the tracks (like you said) to see if it adds any interesting things. If one added effects on the duplicated track, left the original clean, but also changed volume levels on each track, it might add for some interesting sounds. Maybe not, but I'll try.

Mike

 

[grimtraveller]

Thanks a lot, guys. All great information. Maybe I will try playing around with track duplication to add effects on maybe one of the tracks (like you said) to see if it adds any interesting things. If one added effects on the duplicated track, left the original clean, but also changed volume levels on each track, it might add for some interesting sounds. Maybe not, but I'll try.

I've sort of tried variations of this, like recording the vocal with 2 mics, one dry, one with reverb. Sometimes it turns out nicely, other times not so.