Vocal recording: How many tracks is standard?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RockNSoul
  • Start date Start date
R

RockNSoul

New member
So I'm starting to record vocals and don't know much about it.

I'm wondering how many tracks is best to use for vocals?

Should I just copy the same take a few times? or should I do separate takes and if so how many is a standard?

Also I like to use a good amount of effects while recording....should I also record a clean take?

Thank you for any help!
-Chase
 
One track per take. As a beginner, there's no benefit in cloning tracks but that is the basis of some advanced techniques.

The standard is to do as many takes as necessary until you have a good performance. If there's still not a good take after a dozen takes, the singer needs to go away and practice some more.

Different singers need different amounts of takes. Some nail it in the first one or two takes, others need to warm up. I like to do a few takes trying to get a quality take and then I do a few completely wacky over the top takes and then ease back on the wackiness. Somewhere in there I get enough good takes to cobble something together. Watch out for when the singer has peaked - no point doing any more takes that day, better to rest the singer's voice and come back another day.

As for effects - some reverb/echo in the headphones but in general don't record the effect but if you do because it's something special, record it to separate tracks from the vocal.
 
Thanks for the help. It would be nice if you could explain a few of those advanced techniques you mentioned.....I like to experiment as much as I can and am always wanting to learn new things.

As far as effects: you said I should add them to a track separate from the vocal.....Do you mean add them to the vocal track after the vocals are recorded? I don't think I understand what you mean.

Thank you,
-Chase
 
I think what iqi is suggesting is that if you're going to record effects, record the dry vocal to track 1 and the effect return to track 2. You don't want to print the effects onto your main vocal recording, as you'll then be stuck with that particular effect when it comes time to mix.

If you want to experiment and have plenty of open tracks, one popular trick is to create two clones of the original track and run them through a pitch shifter. Shift one track up a third or half step and the other down in the same increment. Then mix the dry original with just enough of the shifted tracks to fatten things up. It's basically just a manual chorus. Run a search on the forum... someone did a nice write up of different ways to play with this a while back.

I also like to create the occasional "telephone" voice for breakdown sections. It's eq - just boost the hell out of 1kHz and set a tight Q. Then pan the track over to one side. Mix this with other dry tracks... here's an example
 
Awesome! Thanks for all the help. So no-one uses two tracks as a standard, to fatten it up like most do for guitar?

-Chase
 
No, I don't think there's a "standard". You'll just need to find what works for you. Some of the songs I record have one track. The example I posted above had something like six or seven. Different strokes...
 
It all depends as mentioned above. And don't forgetting backing vox and harmonies. And get a few good takes and use different bits from different takes (I think that's what cobbled is referring to above) i.e. take 1 verse one is good but verse 2 is bad, so cut in verse 2 from a different take etc.
 
KineticSound said:
I think what iqi is suggesting is that if you're going to record effects, record the dry vocal to track 1 and the effect return to track 2. You don't want to print the effects onto your main vocal recording, as you'll then be stuck with that particular effect when it comes time to mix.
Click to expand...
Exactly! :)
 
RockNSoul said:
Thanks for the help. It would be nice if you could explain a few of those advanced techniques you mentioned.....I like to experiment as much as I can and am always wanting to learn new things.
Click to expand...

Here's a few ideas...

Parallel compression. Clone the track, put the clone through a really aggressive compressor and EQ it to make it strong and present. Then mix the clean track as usual but bring up the squashed track until you can hear the vocal sounding stronger and more confident. You'll be surprised how little of the squashed track needed - too much and you'll hear the compression and the effect is lost. Very handy for vocals that occasionally get lost in the mix because it sets the minimum loudness for the vocal.

Parallel EQ. Sometimes its handy to clone the track and use EQ to boost the presence (or more exactly to CUT everything EXCEPT the presence frequencies). Use automation or fader rides when you want that instrument to be more obvious. For example vocals plus rhythm guitar - when the voice is there you want the guitar to be less present but in the gaps you want it to step forward. This is a nice alternative to turning the guitar up and down in the mix.

Parallel expansion. Clone the track and expand the clone so that all the dynamics are exaggerated. It will sound nasty and lumpy on its own but bring this up underneath the clean track and it will enhance the texture. If the original lacks texture, fake it using parallel compression but with a slow attack to make it spikey.

With any parallel technique, it's important to keep the clean and effect tracks in phase by putting them through the same "length" of processing. Some software has latency compensation but other software doesn't. Neither do hardware multitrackers. In that case set up the same effect but adjusted so that it has no effect on the clean track e.g. threshold at it's highest and ratio at it's lowest and no make-up gain. Put the no-effect effect on the clean track and the parallel effect on the effect track and they'll stay in phase.
 
reading this it sounds like people are confusing 'double tracking' vocals and 'vocal takes'.

it is a common technique to 'double track' vocals, but you need to sing them twice as close a performance as you can. do not just copy and paste this just creates the same effect as turning the volume fader up. if you like to experiment just have ago, and why stop at double tracking why not try triple or quadruple etc

most people will recommend that you apply effects in the mixing stage, non destructive so you can take it off if you change your mind.
 
Yep, I hadn't interpreted the original question as being about double-tracking but going back and re-reading, I think you're right.
 
The number of lead vocal tracks used is inversely proportional to how well the lead vocalist can actually sing.

G.
 
haha hmmm

i know a lot of people who would dissagree with that. its a manual effect basically. its like saying people who use reverb are hiding their shakey voices.
 
RockNSoul said:
how many tracks is best to use for vocals?
Click to expand...

However many it takes.

RockNSoul said:
Should I just copy the same take a few times?
Click to expand...
ROFL@the memories this brings up about the "doubling the kick" thread - here's a post I made in that thread to illustrate why that doesn't work: https://homerecording.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=2869888&postcount=101 You can waste a lot of time laughing your ass off at the whole thread here: https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=258324

RockNSoul said:
or should I do separate takes and if so how many is a standard?
Click to expand...

LOTS of people swear by recording multiple takes of vocals, and I think that nearly all of those people grow out of that mindset after they gain more experience, and after the initial 'wow' factor from the sexy chorus effect it creates wears off. Don't get me wrong on this point, though... I very often stack up takes of certain vocals - but when I do that, I do so for a specific reason, to get a certain effect for a certain part of a song - not just because that's how I think a good vocal should be recorded - on the contrary, I think the best sounding lead vocals are damn near always one single take (or track that has been chopped together out of the best parts of many takes) recorded well on one microphone that suits the source. <--That is a long sentence :D

RockNSoul said:
Also I like to use a good amount of effects while recording....should I also record a clean take?
Click to expand...

You should record ONLY a clean take and save the effects for the mixing stage. The only time I think this should change is in the event that you become very, very experienced and actually start having more business than you have time for - in the case of overworked studio owners/producers/whatever I have found that they will often record vocals through their favorite compressors that they KNOW 100% they would be using during the mix, and so they use conservative amounts of said compression to simply save time in their overscheduled days. You don't sound like you are quite to that point yet... ;)

RockNSoul said:
Thank you for any help!
Click to expand...
I hope something I said helps... and if it does - then you're welcome! And if everything I said has been beaten to death already in the posts I skimmed over... oops? I did read this post:

SouthSIDE Glen said:
The number of lead vocal tracks used is inversely proportional to how well the lead vocalist can actually sing.
Click to expand...
and I agree with it 100%. Elly-D I think you may have kinda misunderstood what Southside Glen was saying - he means that the worse a singer is, the more tracks you end up subtly stacking to form the illusion that the singer is simply better than he is. At some point when working with terrible, hopeless singers, you just have to give up on doing things the right way, and resort to dirty tricks... They paid for a service and you gotta give it to them to the best of your abilities no matter how shitty (or completely ABSENT) their abilities may be, right? Enter the unplanned necessity of multiple takes being melodyned, overcompressed, and stacked (ideally unnoticably) because the singer just plain sucks and you're ready to get paid and go home. I've worked with singers that were so god-awful I wanted to claw my own eyes out shove them down their throats to make them shut the hell up, but if you're doing this stuff to pay your bills, you have to put on your best fake smile, and do WHATEVER it takes to get a great sounding recording with their name on it (because your name is also on it, and next month's bills being paid could depend on what somebody thinks of it, ya know?). Recording multiple tracks for a specific reason (like for the manual effects you speak of) is an entirely different animal that he wasn't referring to. Correct me if I'm wrong, please, Glen.
 
Last edited:
elly-d said:
haha hmmm

i know a lot of people who would dissagree with that. its a manual effect basically. its like saying people who use reverb are hiding their shakey voices.
Click to expand...
Well, I did say that kinda half tongue-in-cheek. But while a very broad statement that may not be accurate 100% of the time, there is more than just a grain of truth in there that I think needs to be represented in this thread.

You'll find plenty of reverb (or not) on a Nat King Cole recording, but you'd have to be a blithering idiot to double or chorus his voice. OTOH, only Jamie Lynn Spears would think that Britney Spears sans heavy tuning, detuning and multi-tracking could get through a whole song without getting the neighborhood dogs howling.

Even a voice that may not be technically all that great, but has a distinctive character is one that you are likely not to multi-track, whereas one that is maybe technically not awful, but pretty bland character-wise is more likely to get the artificial track layering from the engineers to add some interest. Yet the amount of reverb they get will usually be more decided by the nature of the production itself, not by the quality or character of the vocalist.

G.
 
Well I think the original poster is recording himself, so hes not recording a session.

Double tracking is a very good effect used well (ok it may be used by amateur producers to hide less than perfect performance), I would obviously not use it on Nat King Cole, or Bob Dylan for that matter. King Coles music would not call for it, and singers like Dylan have so much texture in there voice that it would be detremental. Just because it wouldnt work on everyone doesnt mean its not a valid technique. I think some of the older producers/recordists might still have a marred view of double tracking as an effect.
 
elly-d said:
Just because it wouldnt work on everyone doesnt mean its not a valid technique. I think some of the older producers/recordists might still have a marred view of double tracking as an effect.
Click to expand...
Nobody here said anything about it not being a valid technique. Every technique has it's place.

The OP was asking for a '"standard" value or answer when it come to multi-tracking lead vocals. I think everyone here has pretty much agreed so far that there is no "standard". It depends upon many variables. I was simply stating a rough "formula" that, while not exactly scientifically accurate, is a pretty good way of sorting it out.

You seem to agree right down the line; the more talented the vocalist or the more character the voice has, the more likely one is going to want to leave it pretty much alone. The flip side of that coin is that the less quality or character the vocal has, the more open one will be to throwing engineering tricks at it to spice it up.

And please leave that ageism crap at the door. Most of the kind of techniques we're talking about here were invented by - and still used by today - engineers old enough to be *MY* father. And I only picked Nat King Cole because I thought there'd be some classic name recognition there to get my point across, not because I'm flashing back to my child hood when "bread was a nickel and things were better". Hell, Nat was a bit before my time too, if you check the dates, and was long dead long before my tastes expanded to include him right next to King Crimson in my music collection. But I could have just as easily picked Joss Stone, Alan Jackson, Linda Perry, Diana Krall or any other of a hundred names from the 21st century that are listened to by people of all ages, even in Logan's Run.

G.
 
Last edited:
hey I wasn't calling you old.

I agree that voices with alot of character dont suit this technique. I don't really agree that its a talent thing, though obviously some people do use it to hide things. but I wouldnt. it does work better on 'plainer' voices, it doesnt work better on 'crapper' voices. (I know thats not what you said.)

and yes he was kinda asking for a general rule, and I think every one answerer that their isn't one. I was just standing up for the fact that its not only people who cant sing who use is and the guy should try it if its a technique he likes. the whole 'you should only need one track if you can sing properly' is daft, creativity is a great thing and if everyone does the same then it would be very boring.
 
elly-d said:
hey I wasn't calling you old.

I agree that voices with alot of character dont suit this technique. I don't really agree that its a talent thing, though obviously some people do use it to hide things. but I wouldnt. it does work better on 'plainer' voices, it doesnt work better on 'crapper' voices. (I know thats not what you said.)

and yes he was kinda asking for a general rule, and I think every one answerer that their isn't one. I was just standing up for the fact that its not only people who cant sing who use is and the guy should try it if its a technique he likes. the whole 'you should only need one track if you can sing properly' is daft, creativity is a great thing and if everyone does the same then it would be very boring.
Click to expand...
Apologies if I misunderstood you. But it seems to me, that no matter what the age or era, that a voice is nothing more than another instrument. It's just make of flesh and bone instead of wood and brass.

And that if that instrument has a truly great sound, one is not going to be likely to mess with it for the sake of creativity; it's the wrong tool for the job. You don't hear many Stradivarius violins run through compression or EQ or track doubling (orchestras with multiple violins aside). If you want a creative sound, you're probably going to start with an electric fiddle instead, because it's simply a waste of every metric I can think of to use a Strad for that purpose.

It's the same with vocals. OK, maybe I should have chosen a better word than "talent". A person can play even the cheapest electric fiddle with incredible talent if they have it. Same with one's voice. But it still remains, IMHO, that if there is a - for lack of a better term off the top of my head - a "special quality" to one's vocal sound, that one is more likely to want to run with that quality rather than to try and create something different from it.

G.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top