stereo doubling that doesn't suck

  • Thread starter Thread starter blamblamblam
  • Start date Start date
What might be interesting would be an app that allowed control of variation of the delay and/or pitch on the alt path (or paths), but do it in an intelligent manor where the shifting wasn't noticed as 'error. Perhaps in the spaces for example.
Is there 'non-static doubling out there? 'Chorus doesn't count as it brings its 'modulating pitch effect.
 
Is there 'non-static doubling out there?
Click to expand...
Modulation is what makes doubling "non-static". A short delay with deep/slow modulation = flanging. A longer delay with shallow modulation = doubling. Add some feedback for chorusing.

Real doubling in multiple takes is the most natural sounding. Real doubling can do things that digital delays simply can't do, allow the doubling voice to vary around the original voice, both before and after. This is a natural effect and the singer doesn't even have to think about it.
 
Given the option of double tracking or copying a single track and processing it with delays and pitch shifters I'll double track every time.
 
"Absolutely - it's called a phaser......"

"Modulation is what makes doubling "non-static". A short delay with deep/slow modulation = flanging. A longer delay with shallow modulation = doubling. Add some feedback for chorusing." ...

Yes as ya'll stated.. we already have that effect.

'Chorus doesn't count as it brings its 'modulating pitch effect.'

Now, back to the idea; Small shifts in delay (+ and - ), even smaller pitch manipulations, done intelligently to avoid the 'chorusy modulated effect.
;)
 
mixsit said:
Now, back to the idea; Small shifts in delay (+ and - ), even smaller pitch manipulations, done intelligently to avoid the 'chorusy modulated effect.
;)
Click to expand...


Not gonna happen. You can do the classic eventide effect, and in small doses will not be too noticeable. If overdone (especially to the levels on the H&O track), it becomes very fake and modulated sounding. If you try and hard pan the original, and the delayed track, the modulation will be quite obvious. The "eventide" effect, keeps the main track as the bulk of the sound, and produces two additional tracks that are tucked underneath.

What I really don't get is, why are so many people against double tracking? Simple. Sounds fantastic.
 
....or play it in your car and it actually comes out of the speakers of the car behind you. :eek:
 
Or try singing along and it will come out your ass. ;)

The whole idea of doubling the vocals and panning them is kind of an out-of-the-ass idea to begin with, IMHO. Just sing 'em and move on.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Or try singing along and it will come out your ass. ;)

The whole idea of doubling the vocals and panning them is kind of an out-of-the-ass idea to begin with, IMHO. Just sing 'em and move on.

G.
Click to expand...
"Well... It's just Ano--ther, Silly love song'. An' what's wrong with that.
I need to know... Cause here it comes, Againnnnnn.. "


:p;)
 
As some of the later posts on this thread have suggested, two nearly identical performances are a great way of doubling tracks (especially vocals).

It does require a singer or player be able to churn out identical performances (which a good player/singer should be able to do), but the end result is far better, IMO, than duplicating tracks and detuning or otherwise tweaking them to produce differences.

Plus, it really helps singers think about the details of their performance. Ain't nuthin' wrong with that.
 
Hmmm...

"real" double tracking esp. w/voice... wouldnt that be something that the artist on the road would be incapable of re-performing live when on tour?

seems like it would sound "awesome" and "polished" on the CD... then the live performance of their "breakout" tune would be rather lackluster live?

when younger, seeing an act live for the first time, when the live version sounded more like a great PA system with a lesser version of the same song, and usually "ran thru faster" tempowise for the band, I always hated that. My one buddy explained thats the hallmark of a "studio band".

I guess you could play a recording of the singer, and he sings along and you mix it live? but that sounds demanding to me... I guess a year straight practice would pull it off, though...

Hm... if this is all perhaps true, it would eplain a LOT where the "magic" was when real money and engineering was put behind a band that was really great, just never engineered well befoire, I guess.
 
SEDstar said:
"real" double tracking esp. w/voice... wouldnt that be something that the artist on the road would be incapable of re-performing live when on tour?

seems like it would sound "awesome" and "polished" on the CD... then the live performance of their "breakout" tune would be rather lackluster live?
Click to expand...

I think a typical reason why vocals are double-tracked is to make them sound "fuller" and "bigger" on the recording. If that's the case, then I think a halfway decent singer can still pull off a convincing live performance that is faithful to the recording because the energy and pure dB's of a live show more than make up for the missing double tracking. Not only that, but the sound reflections in a music venue might serve to "polish up" the performance a bit in comparison to a close-mic'd singer in a studio.

A different way of looking at it is double tracking is used to compensate for the power lost when a live performance moves into a studio.

Of course, double tracking might be used for other creative "effects" in the studio, so for those cases, I suppose some kind of vocal effects unit would be needed to mimic the studio recording in a live situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top