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

What kills me with most of these kinds of questions is that the answer is RIGHT THERE in front of the person. :D

Try it out and find out for yourself! :facepalm:

It's like people are either afraid to experiment....or they are afraid they will NOT be able to tell for themselves which is better, or more importantly, which THEY like better...so they want someone else to tell them, to hedge their bets. :rolleyes:
 
Lt. Bob said:
it doesn't matter
Click to expand...
I thought someone would say "it depends on the taps".


As a slight diversion, what about ADT {Artifial double tracking} ? As a vocal effect on some of those Beatle songs from '66~'68, I think it sounds pretty neat. They used it alot because they got tired of double tracking. It's essentially the copy/paste with the second track separated by a couple of miliseconds. Some reverb units still have it or something very much like it {though I don't really like it on the one I have}. There's an interesting bit of blurb on it here.
 
I've used both doubled vocal takes and duplicated tracks w/delay. The few times I used duplicated vocal tracks was mostly for backup vocals, where I only had one track and wanted to "fill" things out a tad. It works OK set with a rhythmic delay, thoguh it's not as nice as having two different takes, but for some things, I actually like doubled/delay approach.
 
Well, recording twice gives two, and copying it twice gives three.

More is better right? :p

The only time I use digital copying of vocals is for backing vocals if I want a really smooth sound and a wide stereo image.
Even then, I just use a stereo chorus plug.
 
It really depends on WHY you want to double the vocal. If you just want to increase the volume or "fullness", proper EQ and little compression will solve that.

A lot of the time if you want to add a type of effect and want to keep the dry track over top you can copy the region, paste it onto a new track, and then add a delay/reverb/effect to it. This is supposedly how EVH got his guitar sound, he copied the guitar part and put a reverb on the copied track and then they were panned opposite each other. Copying CAN give more fullness to the sound, but you need something that can help separate and differentiate the copied from the original.

We actually discussed copying the a vocal track and putting a hi-fi and low-fi filter on them for a cool vocal setting in my recording class this evening.

When it comes down to it though, the name of the game is experimentation, and what's going to fit the particular song.
 
:yawn:Let's all see how many different ways we can post the same thing with different wording :yawn:
 
phriq said:
Copy and paste will do nothing more than make it louder. You could get the same effect by just raising the gain.
Click to expand...

I was meaning copy and paste the vocal, then nudge one vocal forward a little and hard pan L and R. :D

G
 
phriq said:
Won't that just create some phase issues or create an artificial delay.
Click to expand...


Actually...it doesn't create phase issues, because of the delay that is being added. Of course, you need to nudge one track far enough so that there is a distinct L/R delay...how much depends on the song and BPM.
I usually do the math using BPM, and then find delays in milliseconds for 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 and 1/32 notes, and pick the one that works best for the song.

I think if you only nudge by a very tiny amount, a few samples, that you could cause phase issues.
 
miroslav said:
Actually...it doesn't create phase issues, because of the delay that is being added. Of course, you need to nudge one track far enough so that there is a distinct L/R delay...how much depends on the song and BPM.
I usually do the math using BPM, and then find delays in milliseconds for 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 and 1/32 notes, and pick the one that works best for the song.
Click to expand...

And then when you hear how bad it still sounds you can scrap it and double track it with a separate take like you should have to begin with.
 
miroslav said:
Actually...it doesn't create phase issues, because of the delay that is being added.
Click to expand...

Why not just use an effect called.....Delay?

miroslav said:
I think if you only nudge by a very tiny amount, a few samples, that you could cause phase issues.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I was reffering to :D

Greg_L said:
And then when you hear how bad it still sounds you can scrap it and double track it with a separate take like you should have to begin with.
Click to expand...

And we get back to the start....Again......for like the 15th time

:facepalm:
 
For pure delay...there's really no difference using a delay effect/plugin VS duplicating/sliding one track.
It's IMO actually cleaner with the copy/delay method, as there is no need to add plugs/processing, it's just a straight playback of another track.
Now...if you wanted some kind of repeating delay with feedback, etc...then using an effect/plug is probably easier.

AFA as how it sounds....it sounds like a track with a single delay. There's no good or bad about it....it's all up to what you want for the mix. I've agreed that if what you really want is double tracked vocals....then double track the vocals.
That said, there are times when a perfect copy with delay might actually sound just right for the mix...because, you get the exact/perfect L/R delay bounce.

I've used the copy/delay approach on other things two, not just vocals...but same thing with instruments as with vocals, if you prefer to double track, then double track. Sometimes I prefer to double track, sometimes I copy/delay.
It's just production choices...there's no right/wrong about it. Try it both ways, listen to what yo have...pick one or the other. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top