Maximizing double tracking vocals

[Robert D]

So no different treatment or positioning of the doubled track? Not even a different preamp or mic or anything?
-Jeff

It's rare that I actually want a doubled vocal to reveal itself, so I never use 2 different mics, or preamps, and very little panning. Anything that provides an auditory clue that the fat vocal is actually two vocals is usually something I want to avoid. There's plenty of effect in the constantly varying deltas of the pitch / timing / timber / and formants of the two takes, even when the second take is absolutely nailed.

Just a close-to-identical additional take is the whole trick to it? Don't you get a lot mud by having close to the same 2 tracks always fighting over the same frequencies?
-Jeff

If you are recording mud, you'll get thicker, gooier mud. Otherwise, no, the frequencies aren't competing, they're complimenting much the same way as unison strings on instruments compliment each other.

 

[Zed10R]

point 1 - double tracking vocals is LAME

point 2 - not sure where all this panning stuff comes from, I used to just drop the volume of the doubled track so that it was barely audible.

Point 1 - double tracking vocals is lame if you can't do it well. If you can...it rocks.

point 2 - if you double track well enough, you can slightly pan the tracks at equal volume and they will sound like one big fat crystal clear take with lots of detail.

 

[ofajen]

point 1 - double tracking vocals is LAME

I'm not much into double tracking the same vocal, but, as an example, I remember a part of a song Roger Waters sang on the second side of The Final Cut, where he sang the same part in two entirely different ways: one low and basically spoken, the other much higher in a comic sounding falsetto voice, but at a lower level and sounding far off. I thought the emotional effect was brilliant.

Cheers,

Otto