Why does Doubling sound so much better than cloning/copying?

[badassmak]

Basketful of Puppies?

I recently dusted off my tape-copy of Anthrax's "Spreading the Disease" (I'll bet they wouldn't be allowed to release THAT in 2003 with SARS going strong! ) and it re-dawned to me that for some reason they managed to get that really compact hi-gain sound to tape, with clarity and all.

Usually, when metalbands use sick amounts of gain for the guitars, it becomes muddy. But not with Anthrax. Also, "Aftershock" is one hell of a song. Just like "Armed and Dangerous".

Anthrax was a great band, and they're still around, but why in gods name did they have to replace the singer after P.O.T. From thereon out I lost interest in their sound.

 

[Shailat]

I did just that.... and I stand corrected. Perhaps what I was doing in my mixes was sliding the cloned track earlier in time, rather that later. I just know that as I moved it, it pulled the apparent panning of the track towards itself.

It will spread the image as long as the delay time isn't to
long. To long and it will cause a seperation berween the two.

Just remember the basic principal - If the delay is panned aside, you will spread the image to the width. If the delay is placed at the same position then you will create depth. There is more - like the delayed signal placed behind the source will also in some cases tend to create an illusion of bing higher.

THe science of audio sure is a long learning curve.

It's an art my dear Watson...an art

 

[beaverbiscuit]

A little bit of slop really helps with doubling. I knew a singer once who was too precise to double. Her second take was so close to the first that she sounded like unison, some occasional phasing. They finally got another girl to sing the doubling track.

Daf (who also knows a guy who composes for Barney...)

Hey dafduc, not to be a doubting Thomas or anything, but I don't quite get this. I mean, it sound logical as can be, but I remember reading an interview with Max Norman regarding how they recorded Randy Rhoads for the first two Ozzy albums. Max said that Rhoads would double and then triple the lead parts perfectly (or at least virtually so), and they then would pan one left, one right, and one down the middle. Definitely not sloppy, but it still sounds big. But maybe I'm confused on the issue, eh? Or is it possible that the triple leads have really, really minute variations which are just enough to make a difference? What do you think?

And just so I can be included in the group hug, I'll state right here and now that this message is not intended to incite violence, stir up lust, or cause checks to bounce. It's just an innocent question, y'all.

 

[beaverbiscuit]

As for doubling parts

I've heard that one reason that Queensryche's sound was so great is that one guitarist would play the base chord and the other would play not simply an octave up but rather an inversion of the chord. Seems that would fill out the sound in a unique way. Anyone else heard that or (better yet) tried that?

 

[shawn gibson]

Thanks for reminding me I used to play power-chord+octave on one guitar, then triad with d-g-b strings using 3rds or 7ths or whatever sounded right. Gotta try that again!

Shawn

 

[beaverbiscuit]

I recently dusted off my tape-copy of Anthrax's "Spreading the Disease" (I'll bet they wouldn't be allowed to release THAT in 2003 with SARS going strong! ) and it re-dawned to me that for some reason they managed to get that really compact hi-gain sound to tape, with clarity and all.

Usually, when metalbands use sick amounts of gain for the guitars, it becomes muddy. But not with Anthrax. Also, "Aftershock" is one hell of a song. Just like "Armed and Dangerous".

Speedy, once again you rock, sir! "Aftershock" is probably my favorite tune on that album, with "Medusa" being a close second. And it is very clear, I agree. Great rhythm sound from Mr. Ian, nice and punchy. Gonna have to break out my CD copy of it later today — woo hoo!

 

[beaverbiscuit]

Thanks for reminding me I used to play power-chord+octave on one guitar, then triad with d-g-b strings using 3rds or 7ths or whatever sounded right. Gotta try that again!

Shawn

De nada, dude! I'm gonna have to give it a whirl myself.

Here's another doubling trick that most of y'all may already know: if you don't have a 12-string but want that sound, record the part and then double it an octave higher and then blend the two tracks. It's not an exact sound, since the tuning on the 12-string isn't root-to-octave on each pair, but it's supposed to be a nice approximation. Of course you could just use a multi-effects preset or something , but this seems cooler to me.

(BTW, I got the 12-string idea from The Recording Guitarist: A Guide for Home and Studio by Jon Chappell. Great book with lots of similarly useful stuff. Cheers .)

 

[Alanfc]

Here's another doubling trick that most of y'all may already know: if you don't have a 12-string but want that sound, record the part and then double it an octave higher and then blend the two tracks.

Now THAT I'm going to try ASAP.... It sounds perfect for this one pickle I'm in, where my Verse2 backing sounds too quiet like unnaturally quiet. It follows Chorus1 where there's alot of big hoo-ha, and relatively, it doesn't comapare. It sounds weird. I think this 12-string idea will work on this case- hopefully it can expand out the perceived volume of the guitar without adding too much real volume (and more mud than I aready have).
Although this is a loud/heavy song so I won't literally be tring to reproduce the 12-string sound in all its beauty...
Thank you mr.biscuit

 

[beaverbiscuit]

You're welcome, Alanfc. Like I said, that Jon Chappell book has a few good tricks in it.

I wonder how it would sound to play in open E, double it an octave higher, and then triple it using a capo. . . could be pretty cool!

 

[Alanfc]

I wonder how it would sound to play in open E, double it an octave higher, and then triple it using a capo. . . could be pretty cool!

Duuude you're killing me! That sounds magnifico.. I'm going to have to go print this whole thread out at work. I think I've been so wrapped up in PC recording tech and song arrangements that I've forgotten all the different ways I can tool around with my #1 pursuit (the guitar).
Thanks again

 

[dafduc]

Hey dafduc, not to be a doubting Thomas or anything, but I don't quite get this. I mean, it sound logical as can be, but I remember reading an interview with Max Norman regarding how they recorded Randy Rhoads for the first two Ozzy albums. Max said that Rhoads would double and then triple the lead parts perfectly (or at least virtually so), and they then would pan one left, one right, and one down the middle. Definitely not sloppy, but it still sounds big. But maybe I'm confused on the issue, eh? Or is it possible that the triple leads have really, really minute variations which are just enough to make a difference? What do you think?

Right - it would sound big, but it wouldn't sound doubled. THIS producer was going for a "doubled" sound, like Madonna (only, hopefully, not as shitty).

Daf

 

[beaverbiscuit]

Right - it would sound big, but it wouldn't sound doubled. THIS producer was going for a "doubled" sound, like Madonna (only, hopefully, not as shitty).

Daf

ROFL! Oh man, that is funny and informative all at once. Thanks!

 

[beaverbiscuit]

Duuude you're killing me! That sounds magnifico.. I'm going to have to go print this whole thread out at work. I think I've been so wrapped up in PC recording tech and song arrangements that I've forgotten all the different ways I can tool around with my #1 pursuit (the guitar).
Thanks again

Same here. I'm no Yngwie, but I'm starting to realize that I need to explore my own back yard before I go hoppin' 'round the world exploring (keys, for instance). If I ever get a tube amp that is responsive to subtle stuff, it will open up a whole new world for me — or at least I hope so!

 

[flapo1]

Regrding doubling for a "12 string" effect, once I read that you can play one with std. tuning and othr with "Nashville" tuning, which as I understood is std. but the lower 3 strings are changed for lighter ones and tuned the same but 1 octave higher. That way is a closer sound to a 12 string.

 

[beaverbiscuit]

Regrding doubling for a "12 string" effect, once I read that you can play one with std. tuning and othr with "Nashville" tuning, which as I understood is std. but the lower 3 strings are changed for lighter ones and tuned the same but 1 octave higher. That way is a closer sound to a 12 string.

Yeah, Chappell mentions Nashville tuning, but I didn't quite understand it since I've never used it. But it sounds like you're right about it sounding more like a 12 string. Thanks for the info.

 

[acorec]

I don't want this to sound the wrong way but the idea of doubling is awesome and it's pretty old. Listen to the early stuff by Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, they had two guitar players for something other than looks. Double unison guitar parts sound great and clonation is just a technique that in MY studio is used very little. Mostly to replicate something later in the song (copy, paste to obtain repeat).

Carlos

Early stuff? You must have grown up in the 80s. Black Sabbath (1970-on) doubled all of his guitars. They were panned hard left/right.