doubling up the kick?

[Fooling Pirates]

How can your ears fool you?

Oy vei!

Don't claim that other people don't experiment just because you let your ears fool you.

If it sounds better, how are my ears fooling me???

If you manipulate a track via EQ and/ or effects, it is no longer the same track.

It now becomes an aural enhancer to the original that is conveniently in perfect timing with the original. (Ever hear of "Triggering"?)

Rami, I agree that duplicating tracks in the analog world is not as necessary, but for some reason, duplicate tracking in the digital realm, works wonders.

I don't claim to know how or why, but it works! It is also far beyond simply increasing volume, unless all you do is simply duplicate tracks. The duplicates must be altered. Otherwise, I agree, there is no point.


If you still don't see my point, then I suppose you don't believe in the natural warming effect of analog circuitry or magnetic tape either, since these are natural phenomenons that can't be explained by logic alone.

 

[donkeystyle]

I don't claim to know how or why, but it works! It is also far beyond simply increasing volume, unless all you do is simply duplicate tracks. The duplicates must be altered. Otherwise, I agree, there is no point.


If you still don't see my point, then I suppose you don't believe in the natural warming effect of analog circuitry or magnetic tape either, since these are natural phenomenons that can't be explained by logic alone.

The alterations also need to be more than just EQ otherwise you're just using eq on the same track twice. If you really want to eq the track twice, you can just put 2 instances of eq on the track. The only way it makes it even remotely different is when you start combining extreme eq and compression and other effects.

The "natural warming of analog circuitry and magnetic tape" has been explained logically. It's high end roll off, distortion, and frequency response of the machines. It's basically their inadequacies and inaccuracies that lead to that warm sound that we've all come to desire.

 

[Fooling Pirates]

The alterations also need to be more than just EQ otherwise you're just using eq on the same track twice. If you really want to eq the track twice, you can just put 2 instances of eq on the track. The only way it makes it even remotely different is when you start combining extreme eq and compression and other effects.

Nope! This is a simple comparison that proves my point.

http://www.thestuffinder.ws/page8.html

The first 16 beats are a combination of the original kick track, plus a duplicate with one eq setting, plus another duplicate with a second eq setting.
All faders were left at 0db.

The next 16 kicks are only the original one track with 2 identical instances of eq. Again, the fader was left at 0db.

No major manipulations here. Just a straight forward even comparison of techniques that ARE, my friend, very remotely different.

listen here: http://www.thestuffinder.ws/page8.html

The "natural warming of analog circuitry and magnetic tape" has been explained logically. It's high end roll off, distortion, and frequency response of the machines. It's basically their inadequacies and inaccuracies that lead to that warm sound that we've all come to desire.

Yes, just as logical as the fact that in the digital realm, duplicate tracks give your DAW more bites to work with creating room for a more well rounded sound, not just redundant volume doubling. It has now been explained logically to you.

 

[donkeystyle]

Nope! This is a simple comparison that proves my point.

http://www.thestuffinder.ws/page8.html

The first 16 beats are a combination of the original kick track, plus a duplicate with one eq setting, plus another duplicate with a second eq setting.
All faders were left at 0db.

The next 16 kicks are only the original one track with 2 identical instances of eq. Again, the fader was left at 0db.

No major manipulations here. Just a straight forward even comparison of techniques that ARE, my friend, very remotely different.

I understand that you're being a stubborn, know it all noob and no matter how wrong you are you will never get it, but just in case any other beginners see this and are are a even a little bit swayed by you I'm going to try to explain what is wrong with your comparison and why you think the sound is changing.

The eq points on the second set of single track hits would have to be identical to the eq's on the 2 kick tracks and the single track would have to be given a 6dBfs boost. You would also have to cut the amount of eq added or subtracted on the single kick track because when you combine the 2 kicks eq'd at different points you're adding back to the frequencies that you cut with your initial eq.

For instance, when you combine 2 identical tracks you get a 6dBfs boost or a 3dbspl boost across all frequencies. So if in one track you subtract 6 db at 100hz and in the other track you leave 100hz alone and do a 6dB boost at 12khz then you combine the 2. Remember now, that in one of the tracks each one of these subtracted/boosted frequencies is still flat. I Believe you end up with a 3dB cut at 100hz and a 3dB boost at 12khz. I don't know the math well enough to say that it's exactly 3dB, but it's got to be at most within +/-1dB of 3dB. Typhoidhippo seems to have a pretty good grasp on math and may be able to figure it out exactly.

Anytime you raise the volume(SPL) of a signal, you're going to hear more low end and low mids because the frequency response of your ears changes with SPL. I honestly think that this is what you're hearing.

 

[Fooling Pirates]

I understand that you're being a stubborn, know it all noob and no matter how wrong you are you will never get it, but just in case any other beginners see this and are are a even a little bit swayed by you I'm going to try to explain what is wrong with your comparison and why you think the sound is changing.

The eq points on the second set of single track hits would have to be identical to the eq's on the 2 kick tracks and the single track would have to be given a 6dBfs boost. You would also have to cut the amount of eq added or subtracted on the single kick track because when you combine the 2 kicks eq'd at different points you're adding back to the frequencies that you cut with your initial eq.

My only point is that a single track does not react the same as multiples.
The eq points WERE Identical! The levels were left untouched.

A simple side by side comparison to show that duplication is NOT merely the same as boosting a single track.

The funny thing is, that the single track is louder than the 3 duplicates.

Call me crazy, but if I have to boost this, and cut that etc... in order to make the two examples sound the same, then how is duplication the same as pushing up a fader?

P.S. Do I think the sound is changing, or did it change? Did all 32 beats sound identical to you?
And as far as being wrong, this ain't McDonald's, there is more than one way to cook a burger.
Once you start believing the naysayers that tell you "you're wrong", and "you can't do that", then you are no more than a follower. Baaahhh, goes the sheep.

 

[RAMI]

What about sports? Y'all follow sports???

 

[Rimshot]

Well......

We could always argue about religion and politics..........................

 

[PhilGood]

RAMI, you're going to tell me that 1 kick drum is the same as 2? C'mon and think about it for a second. It doesn't even make sense.

2 of the same drum is still just one drum. It's the same drum, not two. It one wave that is EXACLTY the same, with no differences at all!

Are you sure you can even do math?

Example:

PhilGood + PhilGood = PhilGood

RAMI + RAMI = RAMI

PhilGood + RAMI = PhilGood & RAMI


See the difference?

Now, let's EQ differently:

pHILgOOD + PhilGood = PHILGOOD

rami + RAMI = RAMI

philGOOD + PHILgood = PHILGOOD

Rami + rAMI = RAMI



do I need to go on?

 

[Steve Henningsgard]

Haha I can't believe this discussion has gone on for SIX F***ING pages already! I stopped reading after the 2nd page, but I can just imagine the sheer volume of action-packed cold hard facts I may be missing out on

P.S. Two tracks of same WAV = twice as loud. Just about anything you could do to make the 1st and 2nd track sound different, can be done on the one track by itself, including compressing different frequency chunks of the audio spectrum individually (multiband compressor anyone?).

HOWEVER

It is not uncommon to use one track for the low-end of the kick, and one for the high-end, when using samples. Maybe you like the click from Sample A, and the thud from Sample B. Just throw a high-pass on A, and a low-pass on B, and you're in business!

 

[Fooling Pirates]

2 of the same drum is still just one drum. It's the same drum, not two. It one wave that is EXACLTY the same, with no differences at all!

If this is true, why do guitar and bass speaker cabinets come with 2, 4, 6 or even 8 speakers instead of just one?

After all, it is just one guitar/bass. It's the same guitar/bass, not 2 or 4 or 6 or 8. It is one signal that is EXACTLY the same, with no differences at all!

Are you sure you can even do math?

Better than you! It's addition, not multiplication. 1+1=2, not 1.

Example:

PhilGood + PhilGood = PhilGood

RAMI + RAMI = RAMI

PhilGood + RAMI = PhilGood & RAMI

PhilGood + PhilGood = PhilGood(S) (plural, meaning two PhilGoods)

RAMI + RAMI = RAMI(S) Two Ramis

PhilGood + RAMI = PhilGood & RAMI (hey, you got one right!)

See the difference?

I hear it too!

Now, let's EQ differently:

pHILgOOD + PhilGood = PHILGOOD

rami + RAMI = RAMI

philGOOD + PHILgood = PHILGOOD

Rami + rAMI = RAMI

pHILgOOD + PhilGood = pHILgOODPhilGood

rami + RAMI = ramiRAMI

philGOOD + PHILgood = philGOODPHILgood

Rami + rAMI = RamirAMI

A little more math for ya:

Philgood + Philgood minus his legs = something entirely different than one or two healthy Philgoods.

Philgood + Philgood on steroids = something entirely different than one or two average philgoods.

Philgood + Philgood minus his legs + Philgood on steroids = an entirely more complex dynamic than Philgood on his own.

do I need to go on?

Please don't!

I don't really care if anyone agrees with me or not.

I am just tired of people saying duplication is wrong, as if playing a C bar chord on the 8th fret, instead of a classic 5 string open C chord, or a 5 string bar chord on the 3rd fret is wrong. If it works for you, and you achieve the sound you are looking for, GO WITH IT!

 

[Steve Henningsgard]

If this is true, why do guitar and bass speaker cabinets come with 2, 4, 6 or even 8 speakers instead of just one?

After all, it is just one guitar/bass. It's the same guitar/bass, not 2 or 4 or 6 or 8. It is one signal that is EXACTLY the same, with no differences at all!

This is not a very good analogy for your position my friend. Guitar/bass cabs have multiple speakers because two 'identical' speakers will be able to move more air, thus being louder. You could get the same effect with a larger-wattage speaker, or simply a larger speaker, but the frequency response would change thus affecting your sound (a 4" driver will sound quite a bit different from a 18" driver, obviously.)

On a marginally related note, different speakers within the same cabinet will sound slightly different from each other, as no two speakers are exactly alike.

There's no way you'll be able to come up with a very good analog metaphor for your digital argument.


Back on topic, in a perfect digital world, two tracks with the same data will sound the same as one track of said data, when volumes are equal. However, being mostly unfamiliar with how DAW's sum their tracks, there could in fact be slight (VERY slight) differences in the two examples.

Nobody is (or should be) arguing with you that the way you're choosing to record/mix is wrong. They're arguing that adding 1+1=2, in a digital sense: meaning, two tracks of the same data will sum to a much louder version of the same data. This is impossible to argue against, assuming perfect summation within the program. If you are confused enough to believe this, go ahead and copy a track of whatever sort you wish, and reverse the phase of one of the tracks. Now solo both tracks and play them back, and tell me if you can hear anything from your speakers.

I'll save you the time: You can't. If the copied track were any different from the original, it would make some sort of sound when inverse-phased with the original. Similarly, assuming the tracks are perfect copies of one another, when in-phase, they will produce exactly the same sound, simply at a louder volume.

To test your theory that they for unknown reasons sound 'different' than simply turning the original track up, go ahead and make a copy of the track, and bounce it down to a wav file. Now bounce down the single track. Open up a new project, and import both wav files. Now adjust the volume of the doubled track to make it even with the single track (apparently, this should be at exactly-6db according to previous posts). Now solo the single track and bounce to a new wav. Now solo the doubled, volume-lowered track to a new wav. Open a new project again, and import both of the tracks. Tell me if you can still hear a difference between the two. Get your friends in who are unaware of which is which, and blind-test them. Let us know if they can hear a difference!

This will be the only way you can prove your point.

 

[PhilGood]

If this is true, why do guitar and bass speaker cabinets come with 2, 4, 6 or even 8 speakers instead of just one?

After all, it is just one guitar/bass. It's the same guitar/bass, not 2 or 4 or 6 or 8. It is one signal that is EXACTLY the same, with no differences at all!

Holy shit! So you think each speaker is it's own amp with it's own EQ for different effect?

Better than you! It's addition, not multiplication. 1+1=2, not 1.

Well, in this case 1+1=1 because the same sound twice is the same sound. It's not two different drums at different pitches ending up with different waveforms! It the same exact signal, only twice!

PhilGood + PhilGood = PhilGood(S) (plural, meaning two PhilGoods)

Nope! WRONG!!..You see, there is only ONE of me. There CAN ONLY BE one of me. Same as making a copy of a track and line it up. It plays the same as one track. If I sing a line, copy the track and match them up, they are not doubled because the waves match up the same. Now if I sang the same line differently and matched those up, THAT would be doubling,

RAMI + RAMI = RAMI(S) Two Ramis

BZZZZT!!! Wrong again! Only ONE RAMI.

PhilGood + RAMI = PhilGood & RAMI (hey, you got one right!)

Well, you got 2 out if three wrong. That's a failing grade anywhere you go.

I hear it too!

You can't hear type idiot. It doesn't make sound.

pHILgOOD + PhilGood = pHILgOODPhilGood

rami + RAMI = ramiRAMI

philGOOD + PHILgood = philGOODPHILgood

Rami + rAMI = RamirAMI

Wow! You truly do not get the concept! I'm very sorry that my simple little illustration was far too complicated for you to understand.

Imagine the words are the waveforms and matched up side by side. Each letter represents a different frequency and a lower case letter means a soft volume and CAPITALS ARE LOUD!! If you raise the levels differently on different frequency ares on the respective track you ARE STILL EQING ONE TRACK!! NOT SPLICING IT like you just did in the above example!!

What were you thinking?

A little more math for ya:

Philgood + Philgood minus his legs = something entirely different than one or two healthy Philgoods.

Philgood + Philgood on steroids = something entirely different than one or two average philgoods.

Philgood + Philgood minus his legs + Philgood on steroids = an entirely more complex dynamic than Philgood on his own.

At least you understand Non Sequiters.

Please don't!

I don't really care if anyone agrees with me or not.

I am just tired of people saying duplication is wrong, as if playing a C bar chord on the 8th fret, instead of a classic 5 string open C chord, or a 5 string bar chord on the 3rd fret is wrong. If it works for you, and you achieve the sound you are looking for, GO WITH IT!

Arrrgh! If you double the track, EXACTLY, but with an ENTIRELY different drum, with different heads, different woods, different beaters and different tuning...THEN you would come up with amazing sound!

But two tracks of the same kick is that same as ONE TRACK...BUT LOUDER!


To different guitars with different strings and different mics playing the same thing can sound amazing! The exact same guitar track copied on to two tracks and then panned left and right is still MONO!


I think we can stop the search for the thickest, densest person alive now!

We have a winner.

 

[Fooling Pirates]

Holy shit! So you think each speaker is it's own amp with it's own EQ for different effect?

I was being EXTREMELY SARCASTIC! My point was that more speakers allow for more. (PERIOD)

Of course you didn't catch on to this 'cause you think I'm an Idiot.

I think we can stop the search for the thickest, densest person alive now!

We have a winner.

Yeah, I must be an IDIOT.

Please humor me and check this out: http://thestuffinder.ws/page9.html

 

[Fooling Pirates]

This is not a very good analogy for your position my friend. Guitar/bass cabs have multiple speakers because two 'identical' speakers will be able to move more air, thus being louder.

Duh!
I was being sarcastic and trying to get the point across that you can't do as much with one as you can do with more...
My whole point in this thread is to relay my experiences with mixing.
Simply doubling the identical track to increase volume, was NEVER my point.

To test your theory that they for unknown reasons sound 'different' than simply turning the original track up, go ahead and make a copy of the track, and bounce it down to a wav file.

By the way, I did post an audio sample that I thought proved my point.

Not to show the difference between doubling vs. a single track regarding volume, but to show that EQing multiple versions of the same waveform, creates a different sound then EQing a single version of the same waveform.

Identical EQ settings were used, and all faders were left at 0db.
The first 16 kiks are three identical waveforms: 1 untouched, 1 with EQ #1,
1 with EQ #2. Nothing else.
The next 16 kiks are the original waveform alone, with EQ #1 & EQ #2 applied to the single track. All volume and EQ settings are EXACTLY the same.

Amazingly, all 32 kiks do not sound the same, even though People have been trying to convince me that one track is "identical" to a group of duplicates.
Supposedly, duplicate tracks only increase volume unnecessarily, yet the 3 tracks together, are not as loud as the single track.

http://thestuffinder.ws/page8.html

Regardless of your opinions on duplicating tracks, you can't say that 1=1 and 1+1=1. It's simply NOT Identical.

This will be the only way you can prove your point.

I thought this did prove my point.

http://thestuffinder.ws/page8.html

Also, please humor me and check this out:

http://thestuffinder.ws/page9.html

 

[RAMI]

Holy shit! So you think each speaker is it's own amp with it's own EQ for different effect?





Well, in this case 1+1=1 because the same sound twice is the same sound. It's not two different drums at different pitches ending up with different waveforms! It the same exact signal, only twice!





Nope! WRONG!!..You see, there is only ONE of me. There CAN ONLY BE one of me. Same as making a copy of a track and line it up. It plays the same as one track. If I sing a line, copy the track and match them up, they are not doubled because the waves match up the same. Now if I sang the same line differently and matched those up, THAT would be doubling,

BZZZZT!!! Wrong again! Only ONE RAMI.




Well, you got 2 out if three wrong. That's a failing grade anywhere you go.






You can't hear type idiot. It doesn't make sound.




Wow! You truly do not get the concept! I'm very sorry that my simple little illustration was far too complicated for you to understand.

Imagine the words are the waveforms and matched up side by side. Each letter represents a different frequency and a lower case letter means a soft volume and CAPITALS ARE LOUD!! If you raise the levels differently on different frequency ares on the respective track you ARE STILL EQING ONE TRACK!! NOT SPLICING IT like you just did in the above example!!

What were you thinking?



At least you understand Non Sequiters.






Arrrgh! If you double the track, EXACTLY, but with an ENTIRELY different drum, with different heads, different woods, different beaters and different tuning...THEN you would come up with amazing sound!

But two tracks of the same kick is that same as ONE TRACK...BUT LOUDER!


To different guitars with different strings and different mics playing the same thing can sound amazing! The exact same guitar track copied on to two tracks and then panned left and right is still MONO!


I think we can stop the search for the thickest, densest person alive now!

We have a winner.

At this point, I'd give up. He doesn't WANT TO agree or understand. He's got himself too deep into the argument to admit that he's 100% wrong.

That's why he's now back-tracking with his "I was being sarcastic".

He also doesn't understand enough about audio to know how much you have to cut on a doubled track to make it equal to the cut you'd make on a single track with volume compensation. His "experiment" was doomed from the beginning because of his lack of understanding.....and stubborness.

 

[Fooling Pirates]

No! I don't agree with ignorance...

At this point, I'd give up. He doesn't WANT TO agree or understand. He's got himself too deep into the argument to admit that he's 100% wrong.

That's why he's now back-tracking with his "I was being sarcastic".

He also doesn't understand enough about audio to know how much you have to cut on a doubled track to make it equal to the cut you'd make on a single track with volume compensation. His "experiment" was doomed from the beginning because of his lack of understanding.....and stubborness.

Dear Rami,

I never backtracked. I was being sarcastic from the get go. Sorry if it was over your head.

I also understand a lot about audio. I understand that, if things are
"identical", I shouldn't have to cut, or change anything in order to achieve the same results.

By the way, Did you even listen to the supposed "doomed" experiment? Do you even have quality (or any) speakers attached to your computer?

I can only assume you actually have a computer, because you use it to spew your ignorance all over this forum.

I found out that Rami doesn't even record via computer. He uses a Tascam "POS" digital workstation. 2488? Whatever...
(In case this too, is over some of your heads, POS stands for, Piece Of Sh*t)

RAMI, Where the F*** did you get the idea that you know anything about recording via computers and modern software?

Do you even know the capabilities Pro Tools and a Mac are capable of?

Do you know how tracks, waveforms and plug-ins respond in this type of environment?

Do you know that because you simply disagree with methods that are unfamiliar to you, or beyond your grasp of experience, that they are not necessarily 100% wrong?

I am only a Newbie to this forum. I am not a Newbie to music creation, and production.

I am 42 years old and have been playing/writing music almost all my life.
You, as well as others, might think my stuff sucks, but I enjoy creating, as well as listening to it, and that is all that truly matters.

I play guitar, bass, and drums, and have played all live in various projects.

I currently play bass in two bands, and have professional gear.
(A Fender P, Ampeg SVT 350 and currently a 2x15 cab, although I have played through every cab configuration possible)

I have taken recording technology classes in college (Analog, back in the 80's) and was introduced to Pro Tools (version 4.1) and digital recording back in 1998.

I have also worked in the live sound production industry, including manning the board of the Blues Stage at the 2000 San Jose Jazz Festival.

If after 25+ years of hands on experience with a plethora of equipment and recording devices, you still think I "don't understand enough about audio"... then who is being stubborn?

 

[TyphoidHippo]

Hey, Fooling Pirates.

I did another little experiment to kind of illustrate the point that everyone else is making to you.

Check this out:

http://eteximports.com/results2/sound.wav

You can see that the first few beats will be from the track called "Drums 3 Control", the next few beats are from the combination of the tracks called "Drums 2A -6" and "Drums 2b -6", and the next few are from the track called "Drums 1 0".

Here's a shot of the EQ for all those tracks:

You can see that "Drums 3 Control" has no EQ applied to it. This is just what the sample sounds like with no EQ (hence the "control" name).

You can see that "Drums 2A -6" also has no EQ applied, and that it is mixed with "Drums 2B -6", which has a 24 db boost applied at 3236 hz.

Finally you can see that "Drums 1 0" has the same boost applied, but at 18.5 db boost, instead of 24 like on "Drums 2B -6". They sound pretty much the same, though, right?

All I'm trying to show here is that the same results that have been attained from EQing two samples and blending them, can be acheived from EQing just one sample.

I think I show that - don't you?



P.S. I'm not sure of the exact math, or why 18.5 DB is needed to get the same effect as the 24 DB boost on one of the blended tracks. I honestly thought I would need exactly one half of the boost to get the same effect, but such was not the case...

Maybe somebody who knows a bit more about the math behind these things can clear up why 18.5 DB was needed instead of the 12 that makes sense in my head.

 

[Rimshot]

"Are you suggesting that coconuts migrate?"

 

[boingoman]

I found out that Rami doesn't even record via computer. He uses a Tascam "POS" digital workstation. 2488? Whatever...
(In case this too, is over some of your heads, POS stands for, Piece Of Sh*t)



Do you even know the capabilities Pro Tools and a Mac are capable of?

Do you know how tracks, waveforms and plug-ins respond in this type of environment?

Dude, any other part of this thread aside, this is some really dumb shit to say.

 

[Steve Henningsgard]

Dude, any other part of this thread aside, this is some really dumb shit to say.

Yeah... this thread should probably be closed, locked, and shredded, so as to prevent the "tard" from spreading to other better threads