Which is much better to record the vocal track twice or to copy it twice for mixing?

Definitely record twice. Copying does nothing except make it louder, which is why you have faders. There is the copy, paste and nudge and pan, but that never sounds good. Especially on vocals.

The trick with recording two takes is to mix the second take lower than the first otherwise you get a doubling effect. Also, timing has to be good to match the first take. It should be almost imperceptable, just loud enough to support, thicken and enhance the first track.
 
I don't disagree with Chili. The separate double track nearly always sounds better, especially if you mix one track lower than the other. But once in a while, if you're looking for an odd, phasey, almost robotic effect, but without sounding like an archetypal robot, then not so much doubling as recording simultaneously via two mikes onto two separate tracks can be one way to go. It's not something you do every day, but it can have an interesting result.
 
I usually go for 8 identical copies...4 panned to the left, 4 panned to the right...with the original dead center.
 
"COPY/PASTE" never sounds good. I find my vocals sound best when I
"SELECT ALL/DELETE". :eek:
 
Last edited:
recording twice will definitely give a better sound unless your vocalist cannot perform the same way twice. If this is the case go with copying the track. :(

G
 
grimtraveller said:
I don't disagree with Chili. The separate double track nearly always sounds better, especially if you mix one track lower than the other.
Click to expand...

According to physics, if you take the same signal and duplicate it, it will still sound like the same signal, just louder. I think Chili is right on this.

ecktronic said:
recording twice will definitely give a better sound unless your vocalist cannot perform the same way twice. If this is the case go with copying the track. :(

G
Click to expand...

If your vocalist is not able to record the same thing twice within a reasonable spectrum of accuracy, then I would just use one vocal track. Copy and paste will do nothing more than make it louder. You could get the same effect by just raising the gain.
 
Copy/paste DOES NOT work.
This is the same signal. it will phase. It will shift stereo image. And it will still sound like one performance.
Record twice.
 
phriq said:
According to physics, if you take the same signal and duplicate it, it will still sound like the same signal, just louder. I think Chili is right on this.
Click to expand...
I wasn't disagreeing with Chili. The separate double track is what he's talking about.
 
semsem612 said:
Which is much better to record the vocal track twice or to copy it twice for mixing?
Click to expand...

Ya know, you start a lot of threads asking questions and getting very good answers in all of them. The least you could do is come back and say thanks for the advice that you are getting.
 
Chili said:
Ya know, you start a lot of threads asking questions and getting very good answers in all of them. The least you could do is come back and say thanks for the advice that you are getting.
Click to expand...

Gonna have to +1 on this. Give and take is what forums are all about.
 
chavernac said:
Copy/paste DOES NOT work.
This is the same signal. it will phase. It will shift stereo image.
Click to expand...

Only if you don't copy and paste correctly, still it is a waste of time.

The only exception is if you want to treat the 2 tracks differently, i.e. heavy compression on 1 and not the other, (parallel compression), but then again you can do this using a bus.

Alan.
 
If you copy your vocal track, (only copy) it will only sound louder, but...

I think what the other guys mean here, if you copy your vocal track, and shift it a few miliseconds to the left or right (in time, not panorama) it will sound like a second vocal track has been recorded due the slight time changes between the vocals (mainly in the pronunciation area) and so it sounds like two vocal tracks, when you only have one.

But: dont shift your second track to much, or the differences will sound like a deley instead of a second vocal track.
 
RobinEsschendal said:
If you copy your vocal track, (only copy) it will only sound louder, but...

I think what the other guys mean here, if you copy your vocal track, and shift it a few miliseconds to the left or right (in time, not panorama) it will sound like a second vocal track has been recorded due the slight time changes between the vocals (mainly in the pronunciation area) and so it sounds like two vocal tracks, when you only have one.

But: dont shift your second track to much, or the differences will sound like a deley instead of a second vocal track.
Click to expand...
As has already been mentioned in this thread a few times, it will not sound like 2 vocal tracks. It will just sound like crap.
 
Chili said:
Ya know, you start a lot of threads asking questions and getting very good answers in all of them. The least you could do is come back and say thanks for the advice that you are getting.
Click to expand...
it's more fun for me when he doesn't 'cause soon the really interesting answers will start popping up!

:D
 
Lt. Bob said:
it's more fun for me when he doesn't 'cause soon the really interesting answers will start popping up!

:D
Click to expand...

You record the same vocalist 16 times, then quadruple each track so you have 64 different vocal tracks. Then you pull 63 of them down to inaudible (or mute them). Then you edit the remaining track to fit the mix. Then you delete it and use only the other 63 tracks.....It only seems logical this way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top