How to double track vox properly

[Lt. Bob]

I'm doing a stereo recording two times and panning them apart at the same volume. That said, I usually only do that when I don't feel like using the LDC for whatever reason...so should I probably just solely use the LDC, double track, don't pan, and then play one track at a lower volume?

there's really never a reason to record a voice in stereo first off ...... you get nothing from doing that except an identical track. It's not stereo if you record a single source no matter how you pan it so even with the 57's you should still record a voice mono.

And the only comment about panning a double tracked vox in this thread says that they DON'T like doubled vox if they're not panned.

 

[Lt. Bob]

I don't know why !
I'm from the old days of that thing called a tape recorder where you could slow it down or speed it up and the pitch changed in real time so you recorded at the pitch it was at. So you ended up with different real time pitches of whatever you double tracked.
It was fun, it sounded fantasic, it made you comfortable in terms of notes that were hard to reach {if singing} by slowing, it forced you to up your game in reaching higher notes by speeding up. It also enabled notes to be played on something like, say, an alto sax, that an alto sax couldn't actually play.
I don't knock pitch shifting and I think it has it's place for definite but varispeeding is my preferred method and at the end of the day, it was only a suggestion, not a manifesto.

a semi tone is a half step ......that's a LOT!

 

[Lt. Bob]

It also enabled notes to be played on something like, say, an alto sax, that an alto sax couldn't actually play.
.

nah man ..... first off ...... you have to change speed by exactly half steps for the alto to be able to play in tune. Secondly at the very most you're adding a half step to it's range. On the top end I can already play an extra octave that's technically not on the saxs' range.
About the only time I could see that being useful would be if you wanted an extra half step on the bottom to allow the sax to go down to its' A (C concert for an alto or B concert for a tenor). That's a conceivable situation but would only be something that would come up very occassionally. And for that you'd have to speed up the recorder. With altisimmo notes I can go so high I can't imagine a use for anything higher.

I don't remember many tape decks that could change speed more than 1/2 step if that.

Your other points about it being slower and lower so easier to sing have merit but the sax thing ....... pretty much a 'never gonna use it that way' thing.

 

[haymedic]

this is my opinion:

keep in mind that it takes a long time to do something like this. it would be nice if you could just 'sing it twice' but that doesn't work. a lot of automation, proper panning, equalizing, effecting and balancing is needed to get that 80's ozzy sound you're lookin for. (even if it requires singing one word at a time -- and not even singing the 'word' as much as the note and syllable)

the 'doubles' also have to have the right inflections and (if needed) be almost bland and emotionless at times.

also, keep in mind that when this is done in the 'real studios', wonderful engineers, gear and rooms keep everything in check and get a really high quality of sound. for us DIYers, it's hard not to compound the poor qualities of our limitations, so those poor qualities have to be eliminated. (slowly and painfully) there is a ton of work that goes into the vocals on those types of things and you have to be patient with it and try different things until you know what you're going for and how to get it.

anyways... there is a real art to putting that all together properly and good luck with taking it on!

--and once you're done putting in 300 hours into the vocal, play it for someone (who doesn't know about recording audio)... remember that most 'listeners' are listening primarily to the main vocal so if they don't notice anything then you've done your job properly!

s

 

[RAMI]

this is my opinion:

keep in mind that it takes a long time to do something like this. it would be nice if you could just 'sing it twice' but that doesn't work. a lot of automation, proper panning, equalizing, effecting and balancing is needed to get that 80's ozzy sound you're lookin for. (even if it requires singing one word at a time -- and not even singing the 'word' as much as the note and syllable)

the 'doubles' also have to have the right inflections and (if needed) be almost bland and emotionless at times.

also, keep in mind that when this is done in the 'real studios', wonderful engineers, gear and rooms keep everything in check and get a really high quality of sound. for us DIYers, it's hard not to compound the poor qualities of our limitations, so those poor qualities have to be eliminated. (slowly and painfully) there is a ton of work that goes into the vocals on those types of things and you have to be patient with it and try different things until you know what you're going for and how to get it.

anyways... there is a real art to putting that all together properly and good luck with taking it on!

--and once you're done putting in 300 hours into the vocal, play it for someone (who doesn't know about recording audio)... remember that most 'listeners' are listening primarily to the main vocal so if they don't notice anything then you've done your job properly!

s

No offense man, because I realize you said this is only your opinion to start your post. But it's ridiculous to say that it takes THAT much time to get a doubled vocal right by singing it twice. That's sort of like saying nobody is able to play to a metronome just because you can't.

I double track my vocals all the time, even complete verses sometimes. If you are able to do it, because you actually practiced doing it, it's not that hard at all, and doesn't take up any more time than getting the takes right. It's a standard technique and it's done all the time. There's no voodoo in it, and it's the only way, in my opinion, to properly double vocals.

 

[Lt. Bob]

it would be nice if you could just 'sing it twice' but that doesn't work.

hmmmm ....... lots of people do this all the time.
The Beatles did it all the time.

Probably half the home recordists here do it as a standard part of recording.
It works fine.

 

[miroslav]

No offense man, because I realize you said this is only your opinion to start your post. But it's ridiculous to say that it takes THAT much time to get a doubled vocal right by singing it twice. That's sort of like saying nobody is able to play to a metronome just because you can't.

I double track my vocals all the time, even complete verses sometimes. If you are able to do it, because you actually practiced doing it, it's not that hard at all, and doesn't take up any more time than getting the takes right. It's a standard technique and it's done all the time. There's no voodoo in it, and it's the only way, in my opinion, to properly double vocals.

I agree.

Practice and LISTEN to your phrasing and your voice...how you sing certain words and the timing you use on sections of words....then practice it a few times until you got it down, and after that just record 3-5 takes and pick two that sound and line up the closest. You'll find that as long as you are not changing your style of singing (volume, tone) and your phrasing (timming)...most of the takes will lock up quite good...and just pick the best two.
Worst case...in your DAW you might cut/move a word or two on a track if need be to bring it into sync with the other track, but it's really not that hard if you listen to what you are singing and how you are singing.

AFA how you want the two tracks to blend in the mix...that's a separate consideration. You can use panning, level and maybe some processing to get your desired sound, but if you did the tracking well, it's not going to be hard to get a decent doubled vocal sound during the mix.

 

[haymedic]

No offense man, because I realize you said this is only your opinion to start your post. But it's ridiculous to say that it takes THAT much time to get a doubled vocal right by singing it twice. That's sort of like saying nobody is able to play to a metronome just because you can't.

I double track my vocals all the time, even complete verses sometimes. If you are able to do it, because you actually practiced doing it, it's not that hard at all, and doesn't take up any more time than getting the takes right. It's a standard technique and it's done all the time. There's no voodoo in it, and it's the only way, in my opinion, to properly double vocals.

fair enough.

s

 

[mjbphotos]

I will sometimes sing an additional take in a 'hushed' tone, adding it very low (and compressed) into the mix, reinforces the sound without changing it.

 

[aaronmcoleman]

I think John Lennon did this all the time. They'd put tons of revery on one and just bring it up a little. Basically a wet/dry and doubled effect in one.

 

[grimtraveller]

About the only time I could see that being useful would be if you wanted an extra half step on the bottom to allow the sax to go down to its' A (C concert for an alto or B concert for a tenor). That's a conceivable situation but would only be something that would come up very occassionally. And for that you'd have to speed up the recorder.
Your other points about it being slower and lower so easier to sing have merit but the sax thing ....... pretty much a 'never gonna use it that way' thing.

I actually encountered that scenario last year. My friend was doing an alto sax session for me and the riff that I wanted her to play contained a couple of notes she couldn't reach because she said she couldn't go that low. By speeding up {I can't remember if it was a tone or a semitone} she was able to play the part.
You're right, it's not something {certainly not on the sax anyway} that comes up much. But like, say, with a 5 string bass, by speeding up by a tone and playing the open B, by the time you go back to normal speed, you get a low A which you wouldn't ordinarilly get on bass {unless you detuned}.

I don't remember many tape decks that could change speed more than 1/2 step if that.

That's interesting. From when I got my first portastudio {a Fostex X-15}, I found they went up and down a tone and a half each way. Same with my Tascam 488. On the Tascam, I've actually painted each semitone point on the pitchwheel. On my Akai it goes down two and a half tones and up a tone. It's a bit easier to work with as it's measured in cents. I used to assume all recorders went down three steps until I was researching which DAW to get a few years ago and found only 3 that had varispeed at all !

 

[Armistice]

If you are able to do it, because you actually practiced doing it, it's not that hard at all, and doesn't take up any more time than getting the takes right. It's a standard technique and it's done all the time.

^^^^
This... you actually have to know how you sing and be able to repeat the timing and inflections reasonably well. I'm doing some vocals at the moment and it's not proving all the difficult, and, trust me, I ain't a great singer.

I think people who actually record their own stuff a lot develop this skill, along with a lot of others. People who are being recorded, often aren't so good at it initially. Like everything else, it's a skill. It can be learned....

 

[gecko zzed]

Double-tracking is one of the most basic recording techniques, and one of the easiest to do. Record a vocal, go back to the beginning, record another vocal, mix and pan to taste.

However, there is a knack in making it effective. Double-tracking sounds best when the takes are nearly identical. Some singers do this naturally; they will always sing the same song the same way, and their double-tracked phrasing will line up very well.

Other singers have difficulty remembering their phrasing from one take to the next. If the phrasing doesn't match, it will sound like two singers with the same voice, and is likely to sound messy. Singers like this may need to rehearse bits to get the phrasing right before recording.

 

[guitarguy101]

Other singers have difficulty remembering their phrasing from one take to the next. If the phrasing doesn't match, it will sound like two singers with the same voice, and is likely to sound messy. Singers like this may need to rehearse bits to get the phrasing right before recording.

This is my problem more than anything else