CFox
Banned
You couldnt detect the exaggeration from my opening line ?
He needs it more than ever !
You couldnt detect the exaggeration from my opening line ?
He needs it more than ever !
CFox
Banned
compare an Oxford EQ to this free plugin. You will hear a difference....Go ahead and give it a go if you can. It's free! Everything sounds better when it's free
I would argue that the overpriced plugin sounds better to the person who paid for it.
CrowsofFritz
Flamingo!
I would argue that the overpriced plugin sounds better to the person who paid for it.
Okay. I haven't bought an Oxford EQ. But I was able to do a comparison with the MOTU Masterworks EQ. Big difference.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Yeah...I'm kinda surprised too at how many folks gave "doubling" as their primary suggestion. Sure, doubling-up can add a certain kind of sound, depending how you blend in the second track...but doubled vocals doesn't work on everything, and too often it just sounds like a....doubled vocal....which IMO, can at times distract from the pure sound of a single voice.
Doubling certainly can be a great "masking" tool if the vocals are not quite good enough to stand on a single voice...and for some songs, using it as a "shadow" effect can create a cool flavor, but certainly not something you want to do song after song.
Let's rephrase the OP's question to:
"How do you get a sweet vocal sound ...without doubling?"
AFA layering on a bunch of plugs...sometimes it works, often it makes it worse.
I can't recall the engineer's name at the moment...but there's a quote something like this:
"Any processing of an audio signal, always makes it more fragile"
Which I think the point was that it's more about the source...not the tons of processing you do during mixing.
O
Olijanovi
New member
I agree
R
RAMI
Guest
I bet more vocal tracks are doubled than anyone knows. So many bands I can think of have doubled vocals that don't sound doubled because it's done well and they're not both the same volume. They have to be blended just right.
Having said that, I'm not saying doubling is the solution to the problem in this case. But doubled vocals are done very often, whether you "hear" it or not.
Having said that, I'm not saying doubling is the solution to the problem in this case. But doubled vocals are done very often, whether you "hear" it or not.
M
moresound
Loud Sun Studios
Doubling the vocal tracks worked so good for Lennon and Harrison that after they did it the first time it was all they did for their vocal tracks for years!
R
RAMI
Guest
Listen to the heavy part of "Stairway to Heaven":
"And as we wind on down the road", etc..........
It's not "chorusing" or used as an effect, but you don't have to "listen very hard" to hear that it's doubled, and it sounds awesome.
"And as we wind on down the road", etc..........
It's not "chorusing" or used as an effect, but you don't have to "listen very hard" to hear that it's doubled, and it sounds awesome.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I'm sure it's used in a lot of productions.
(Not that you are saying it)...I just don't see it as the only or main path for sweetening a vocal and making it sound huge/awesome, which seemed to be implied by so many folks saying the OP should double his vocals.
There's also been many singers who didn't double their vocals and yet still sounded huge.
IMO, it's gotta be a per song/production decision and not just an automatic....like how some guys always feel the need to compress everything...etc...there should not be a "formula" for any all/productions.
R
RAMI
Guest
Doubling is like a toupee. You don't notice the good ones.
Guitargodgt
New member
Finally got around to looking at this thread. I have to say I almost never double vocals with the exception of harmonies.
Different strokes or whatever but that sound has never worked for me personally.
I don't bother with a lot of eq either (if any honestly).
Different strokes or whatever but that sound has never worked for me personally.
I don't bother with a lot of eq either (if any honestly).
witzendoz
Senior Member
I hate double tracked vocal as much as I hate vocals with auto tune effect.
I often get singers asking to double track the vocal because they think the vocals are too weak. I try to talk them out of it. If they insist we usually waste some studio time while they realise that they have to sing the song a second time perfectly, in time and phrased the same as the first take.
When I mix vocals that are a little weak it with inconsistent levels I will usually set up Parallel compression, e.g., one channel straight with no compression, another channel with the same take on it with quite a lot of compression. I mix the 2 channels (the same vocal take) so that the quiet parts have no compression and the 2 channels are about the same volume, in the loud parts the compressed channel holds back in volume but the uncompressed channel is free and becomes louder, this sounds much nicer than slamming the vocal track to keep it in the mix. Also depending on what I want, I usually feed the effects send from the compressed channel so that any reverb or delay you might have does not take off in the loud parts.
However all this is a waste if the recording is no good in the first place, good room, good mic, good pre, good singer.
Now back to double tracking, one thing I sometimes do is to double track the backing vocals sometimes double track the chorus if the song needs a push, however this has nothing to do with a good vocal sound this is producing.
Alan.
I often get singers asking to double track the vocal because they think the vocals are too weak. I try to talk them out of it. If they insist we usually waste some studio time while they realise that they have to sing the song a second time perfectly, in time and phrased the same as the first take.
When I mix vocals that are a little weak it with inconsistent levels I will usually set up Parallel compression, e.g., one channel straight with no compression, another channel with the same take on it with quite a lot of compression. I mix the 2 channels (the same vocal take) so that the quiet parts have no compression and the 2 channels are about the same volume, in the loud parts the compressed channel holds back in volume but the uncompressed channel is free and becomes louder, this sounds much nicer than slamming the vocal track to keep it in the mix. Also depending on what I want, I usually feed the effects send from the compressed channel so that any reverb or delay you might have does not take off in the loud parts.
However all this is a waste if the recording is no good in the first place, good room, good mic, good pre, good singer.
Now back to double tracking, one thing I sometimes do is to double track the backing vocals sometimes double track the chorus if the song needs a push, however this has nothing to do with a good vocal sound this is producing.
Alan.
DogmaticVox
Meh...
Doubling is like a toupee. You don't notice the good ones.
Well said! The sentiment that doubling is for weak voices or pop songs or is very noticeable is total bs. Done right it adds a lot to a mix and isn't really detectable unless they want it to be.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
C'mon now.....we've all seen good toupees and bad ones, but let's face it, we all know when it's a toupee.
C
chuckduffy
Well-known member
DSOM - look it up. That is all.
CFox
Banned
Examples ?
CFox
Banned
C
chuckduffy
Well-known member
thats both popular music and a singer with a less than spectacular voice.
Spit up my coffee - you made my day. I can't argue that an album that spent over 14 years in the top 100 was popular, but I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as pop music, or call the the material light. Less than spectacular voice is just plain mean, but I get your point. FWIW I am not some blind floyd loving maniac, but you asked for examples
witzendoz
Senior Member
OK, one of the 1st singers to double track was John Lennon. In the 1960's on the Beatles recordings John double tracked the vocal to fatten them up a bit. He was a master at it and you could not even hear it as double tracked, the phasing and pitching was identical. A sing of a great singer and musician.
The reason John Lennon double tracked was that there was very little in the way of effects units in the 1960's, no digital delays or reverb units (apart from the plate reverb down in the basement). At some point in the later recording process the techs at Abbey Rd put together a delay unit, with a short delay they found that they could get the double track effect. John Lennon was wrapped, "Thank goodness I no longer have to sing everything twice" he said (or something like that).
With modern gear there is no need to double track vocals unless you are actually after the effect of a double tracked vocals. There are plenty of devices invented and available to get a great vocal sound, thanks in no small way to the Beatles Recording requirements and the Abbey Rd Techs. Todays engineers are spoilt for choice.
Alan.
The reason John Lennon double tracked was that there was very little in the way of effects units in the 1960's, no digital delays or reverb units (apart from the plate reverb down in the basement). At some point in the later recording process the techs at Abbey Rd put together a delay unit, with a short delay they found that they could get the double track effect. John Lennon was wrapped, "Thank goodness I no longer have to sing everything twice" he said (or something like that).
With modern gear there is no need to double track vocals unless you are actually after the effect of a double tracked vocals. There are plenty of devices invented and available to get a great vocal sound, thanks in no small way to the Beatles Recording requirements and the Abbey Rd Techs. Todays engineers are spoilt for choice.
Alan.
mjbphotos
Moderator
I double track on some tunes, where I thnk it could help my weak vocals, but it all depends on the song. Finished (I think) mixing a fairly heavy song where my vocals did sound TOO weak, Had tried doubling, that didn't help. Then I put the 'Ozzifier' (Stillwell, I think) on it in Reaper, made all the difference.
But, on another much more mellow song I'm working on now, doubling does not work, and I thought the lead vocal was too bright, I EQ'd, added a tube preamp plug in, then de-essed and compressed, in that order and was overall pleased with the effect. Would putting those 4 plug ins in a different order be better?
But, on another much more mellow song I'm working on now, doubling does not work, and I thought the lead vocal was too bright, I EQ'd, added a tube preamp plug in, then de-essed and compressed, in that order and was overall pleased with the effect. Would putting those 4 plug ins in a different order be better?