Splitting/Panning/Delaying tracks...are there uses for it?

[aaronmcoleman]

Nah, people can do what they want. I don't really care. If they want to ruin their mix that's cool.

But, maybe there's something to it. You guys are all better than me.

 

[miroslav]

....and how is this different than applying a digital delay to your signal and panning that?

Just asking, even though I already know the answer.

This isn't a technique any more than applying reverb to a drum kik is a "technique".

I already said that awhile ago...you can use a delay box or duplicate/split a track in your DAW.
Also, reverb on a kit or guitar or whatever...is not the same as a delay on a single element, and then panned apart to some degree.

And as far as it not being any more a technique...well, playing/recording multiple tracks then is also not anything much of a technique either.


Yes...we are talking about delays and panning and how to apply it to individual tracks to make them sound different.

 

[RAMI]

This so-called worthless "technique" is not totally useless, though. But it's only useful about .00000000001% of the time. What a waste of band-width.

Yes...we are talking about delays and panning

So, then talk about using a delay and stop calling the waste of time with un-necessarry extra steps a technique.

 

[miroslav]

Nah, people can do what they want. I don't really care. If they want to ruin their mix that's cool.

But, maybe there's something to it. You guys are all better than me.

Naaaa....it's not about "better" or any rules...it's about doing what you like, and if it sounds good...it doesn't matter what technique got used.

I'm not trying to persuade you to use split/panned/delayed tracks as any SOP...just saying that it can work, at least I've not seen any real negative results...unless of course you overdo it to extremes, or like you say, when newbs try to make "stereo" out of mono tracks!

If I have a chance...I will pull up a song or two where I've used a few split/panned/delayed tracks and try and put together a comparison...some pieces of the song with a before/after kind of thing of a few different elements that had that done to them. Something that will demonstrate how things can sound with or without.
I honestly don't thing there will necessarily be an obviously bad/wrong example in either direction...just different flavors of a mix.
Everyone will have their preference...which is totally cool.

 

[miroslav]

It's not "just" a panned delay, RAMI...it's how you set the tracks (often multiple/different tracks) within the context of the song, the rhythm, the BPM...and that IS somewhat of a technique or process.

Anyway...your disagreement is noted.
We'll move on...this thread is open, you can take part or not, so don't let its existance trouble you.

 

[miroslav]

You know...the more I think about this, it may be a good idea to have a bunch of basic examples of how things sound or work in a mix when double-tracked (played twice)...and then some examples of splitting/panning delay...and maybe some examples of a combination of double-tracking with panning delay.

This will take some time to put together and this weekend may not be a good opportunity for me as I'm still playing catch-up with some other studio work...but I will try to get to it soon.

This way we can all stay cool and use those examples for future threads when these topics come up. Heck...if I don't do too half-assed a job maybe even put up a sticky (as much as I hate them)...or added the examples to some existing sticky.

I think having audio examples will help minimize the long heated discussions and also give folks a chance to consider a variety of options to try out for themselves.

If anyone else wants to dive into this with their own examples...go for it. The more the better.

 

[grimtraveller]

I much prefer, if it's guitar, to double or quad track or even to play the guitar part on electrified mandolin, just for variation. But on a couple of occasions, I so liked the scratch guitar part so I thought I'd see if I could do anything with the copy/doubling method. I think I did a delay/chorus on one and a flanger on the other with just enough effect to be heard but not smother {I've learned restraint after a decade of analog effects excess ! }. With bass, drums and backing vocals so far, it's made for an interesting sound, but subtly so.
I just love all the different ways of achieving things in the recording sphere, even when they take ages. And both analog and digital are great fun.

 

[miroslav]

You know as wellas I do that everything you're talking about can be done with a delay.

But if you want to walk away with this "you don't get it" crap, you're not fooling anyone. YOU don't get it.

Ahhhhh....right...that IS in the title of the thread...splitting/panning....and delay.

That said...just saying it's "delay" isn't really the whole picture or as basic as that.
How much, where it's panned, what the timing is and how you combine that with other tracks that don't have any or with other tracks that also have the same process, just panned differently...makes it a bit more than just "delay".

I think saying there is a process/approach that can make it work well within the context of a given song VS just someone applying delay and having it not be much more than that...is a technique. Heck...how someone positions a mic is a "technique"...though one can say you are just moving it around.

Like I said in my last post...I think examples will be the best way to go, since obviously just talking about it isn't the same as hearing the different variations.

 

[fat_fleet]

I think some folks just have a negative attitude to it 100% of the time, and while I agree that it does get overused by newbs for a lot of wrong reasons....that doesn't necessarily make a bad/wrong technique 100% of the time...
...so not need to simply avoid using it or even discussing it with heated attitudes.

Anyone wish to kick it off with suggestions or questions?

Yeah, I used it recently for 20 tracks of handclaps that had to go on for over a minute. Worked great.

I shifted each track over a "random" amount of handclaps so that the claps that stacked would be "unique" sounding and even humanized a few of em. Then bounced them to a stereo track. But yeah, mostly it was copy/paste/shift that allowed me to do it in less than an hour and not beat my hands to a pulp.

 

[Armistice]

Miro, I've never tried it, and I double track and use delay on single tracks all the time... but I'll experiment and see what I find. Logically, it ain't speaking to me though...

Peace..

 

[Mo Facta]

I don't know if it's been mentioned yet (I really couldn't bring myself to read the whole thread), but there is a problem with using the haas effect to create pseudo-stereo - and I said this in the other thread - in that the side that is not delayed will always draw your ear to it. It never really sounds cohesive enough to be a convincing stereo effect to me. The image is still skewed. So, for things like guitar where it's supposed to be emulating a doubled track with an even push, it just falls short because my head keeps wanting to turn.

This all has to do with the ear/brain positional cues and the evolution of our localization programming. So, how does your brain know which one is the undelayed one, you may ask? Well, the brain is very clever and can pick up the minute delay (anything over 1ms) that you are using to create the pseudo-stereo effect and thus it leans toward the one it receives first - the undelayed version. This is my main gripe with the technique.

As far as Miroslav's POV goes, I agree with him to an extent. It's certainly a technique of sorts. It works off of the principles of science. It can be used creatively on virtually any instrument or sound to utilize the side fields of the stereo image and function as a special effect, usually in contrast to a solid mid phantom image. It's used all over the place, especially in the eighties. Yeah, we laugh at it now because it's as easy now as duplicate, pan, and delay, but back in the days of analog we used to have to patch a mono delay unit in, set the feedback to 0% and return it to the console. That was hard[ish] work. I wonder if we would scoff at it as much if we still had to do it that way.

I'm also with Greg_L on the issue, somewhat. I think it's a bad technique for emulating doubled guitars and would ask, why not just do the damn double? It'll only take a few minutes and it sounds a million times better. Vocals? Yeah, I like it on rap vocals but I usually use it on the doubled voice in conjunction with the lead because it won't conflict that way. And even then I'll use a dedicated mono to stereo plugin. The Terry West Channel plugin is good, or even just the Cubase VST is good enough because you can specify a delay. Check out Terry West's stuff. He's got some cool plugins that I use often for these kind of things.

Anyhoo. As always, it's the not the technique, but when and how you execute it.

My 2c (ZAR)

Cheers

 

[miroslav]

I don't know if it's been mentioned yet (I really couldn't bring myself to read the whole thread), but there is a problem with using the haas effect to create pseudo-stereo.....

..............


I think it's a bad technique for emulating doubled guitars and would ask, why not just do the damn double?

I get what you are saying...but...

1.) This approach has nothing to do with trying to create pseudo stereo. God knows, I've argued that same point with newbs a hundred times, that two mono tracks don't make stereo.
2.) And again...it's not an attempt to *emulate* double-tracked guitars out of laziness or any other reason. I generally record a bunch of the same tracks all the time, and then listen/pick the ones I like...so it's not that much of an effort to double-track.

The thing I was/am trying to discuss is how one can use the split/copied delayed track to create all kinds of imaging flavors by panning and by also setting the delay so that both work with the rhythm/BPM of the song.
Yes, if you pan them hard/wide L/R the primary track always pulls a little, and the delayed follows it...but that IS the point.
If you pan them very slightly, you get other kinds of flavors....and while I agree that you can do all that with a double-tracked pair...I also note that sometimes it's specifically the *identical quality* of a split/copied track that is the point, as it's a perfect mirror, which adds to effect. Yes, other times you want the small imperfections of playing twice.

I'm not suggesting or condoning the use of this to replace double-tracking...NOT AT ALL...yet it's something you can use in combination with other tracks that are double-tracked or recorded in stereo. It opens up all kinds of layering/contrast possibilities.
Mind you...if you are doing a basic/typical 3-chord rock tune - drums, bass, guitars...then there may not be any realistic way that you will use this, but with more involved productions and instrumentation, it opens up the possibilities of things one can do to take the mix a little beyond the obvious. If you look toward electronic/trance/dance/head music, this is nothing new, and I was just looking to discuss production techniques where it can be applied to other styles too.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a short example I've mentioned a couple of times in the past:
Record a nice Rock organ track with some rich vibrato.
Now take that and split/copy it in the DAW.
If you look at the organ track....the vibrato creates an up/down wave that is easy to see.
Take your copied track and slide (delay) it so that the UP portions of it's vibrato wave fall perfectly in the DOWN portion of the original track.
Pan them hard L-R...don't add any other kind of delay FX or reverb (though sometimes a pinch of reverb to both adds an airy feeling).
Now listen to the cool L-R "pulse" you get, with the organ filling out the stereo image wonderfully even at low levels, but without overpowering the mix.
Sure...you could record the organ twice...but you will NEVER be able to get that perfect L-R pulse since there is no way for you to play the organ track so the the vibrato fits perfectly in that UP/DOWN combination.
Of course...playing twice is yet another flavor that could sound good on its own merit...just like the guitars thing and everything else...this is just another possibility.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I will put up a few audio samples at some point of various double-tracked and split/delayed combinations so people can hear them and compare. I think there are many ways one can work tracks, though sure, if all you want is a specific sound/vibe ALL the time, then you would obviously record every song with the same SOP...which is also OK, and there have been many bands/artists that simply stuck to a single production style and it worked for them.


Peace...love...& understanding....
(Hmmm, that could be some nice lyrics... )

 

[dreib]

Ive duped tracks a ton, nudged it , delayed it, panned it, and the result was always lame. I concluded that doubling was easier and sounded better in the long run.

Keep in mind I know maybe half of what most of you guys know...maybe less.

The arguments ive read are stupid and a waste of time, not everyone takes the same path even if they all have the same destination.

 

[grimtraveller]

Snowballs don't even survive in the desert at night......

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that if some feel that a particular technique is stupid/wrong/a waste of time, that feeling is actually valid for them. And by the same token, if others feel that technique or method or whatever has it's uses, it's valid for them.
If I was a no0B, the opposition to the method/technique would intrigue me such that I'd try it out just to see what happened. By the same token, if someone said "I've tried this many times and I like it", that would intrigue me such that I'd try it just to see what would happen.
I actually give newcomers to {and the more experienced in} recording a bit of credit for their own thinking because even if they might slavishly follow something initially {whether pro or anti}, I recognize that recording is progressive and multifaceted, a bit like life itself. We progress, we throwback, we change.
I'd say take the pro and anti perspectives and develop them. Both sets of experiences have their place. Within this thread, even.

 

[miroslav]

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that if some feel that a particular technique is stupid/wrong/a waste of time, that feeling is actually valid for them. And by the same token, if others feel that technique or method or whatever has it's uses, it's valid for them.
If I was a no0B, the opposition to the method/technique would intrigue me such that I'd try it out just to see what happened. By the same token, if someone said "I've tried this many times and I like it", that would intrigue me such that I'd try it just to see what would happen.
I actually give newcomers to {and the more experienced in} recording a bit of credit for their own thinking because even if they might slavishly follow something initially {whether pro or anti}, I recognize that recording is progressive and multifaceted, a bit like life itself. We progress, we throwback, we change.
I'd say take the pro and anti perspectives and develop them. Both sets of experiences have their place. Within this thread, even.

BINGO.

The worst IMHO anyone can do is NOT try something for themselves, and instead simply do what they are told.

We've all argued against using "formulas" and "cookie-cutters"...though yes, there are times when something does work well so much so that it becomes a bit of a staple, but at the same time, it may only apply to whatever style that particular person is doing, so for them it becomes their SOP on everything....which is cool.
If all you do is Metal, and you want that same kind of "staple" sound that 90% of the Metalheads use....then yeah, find the settings and there you go.
Of course...if you explore all the variety of styles out there...Country, Pop, R&B, Rock, Metal, Punk, etc...etc...you quickly realize that there ARE many productions techniques that work perfectly for one style but would never fit another.
One style has very dry drums, another uses plenty of reverb. One goes for twangy clean guitars, another overdriven to the point of oatmeal.

So...that is what this thread was supposed to be about, and hopefully still can be. The times when split/pan/delay can be used and how it's used in a given style/production. We could also have this same kind of discussion about all kinds of other production techniques...reverb, stereo miking multiple tracks, layering VS single tracking...etc...etc....etc.
If anyone doesn't use a given technique...there's no need to dismiss it and slam it out of hand.
Not everyone here does just one style of music that they happen to like and not much else...though there's nothing wrong with that if that's your bag. The folks that regularly get into a variety of styles, for them, the variety of production techniques is worth considering...and certainly discussing without negativity....IMHO.