Treble tracking?

[Guest]

I'm aware of the benefits of double tracking a sung vocal, but is there anything to be gained from 3 or 4 or more takes. Not harmonies and not the same vocal take, diff take, same singer each time.

In a similar vein, anything to be gained by double (or more) tracking an electric guitar, lead or rhythm, same part, same player no harmonies.

[Sam Inglis]

Well, in my view the benefits of double-tracking are often overstated, but with that in mind, there's nothing to stop you tracking something up as many times as you like.

One advantage to having more than two takes is that you can pan them LCR with the centre-panned take slightly louder, so you get the impression of width but with a solid centre.

[Guest]

Hey Sam wot i'm getting at is, my little weedy voice.

As you know, the vowels, consonants, general feel, timing etc won't be exactly the same, so doubling up not only thickens up my voice but also adds all manner of unexpected traits, and a diff, perhaps more interesting character to the overall vocal.

So i was wondering if trebling, quadrupling etc would add anything more, or would it be just more of the same, so after doubling up, there wouldn't really be any further benefit?

With the guitar I'm not so sure, never done it before, but i think some of the above benefits might also translate to the geetar. It's not that the guitar's weedy, and there's no vowels etc, but again, the timing and feel will def add something, pos even harmonic string resonation might bring in some unusual/decent sounding stuff.

Plus, the stereo field, isn't my main concern here, it's the quality of the sound, does it improve or become more interesting, more movement whatever, even from a mono source.

And generally do some vocals sound better when doubled up, maybe cos the take is pretty much near as damn it the same each time, (that's me) or doesn't that matter?

You're gonna tell me you can thicken up a weedy vox without doubling up aren't you?

[Jack Ruston]

No rules - It's VERY common. Sometimes, especially in pop stuff, vocals are tracked up a lot. You might end up with the main, a pair of doubles (or more), harmonies, doubles on the harmonies, triples, quadruples. Whatever is needed. And there's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't do the same with guitars, that's also really common. BUT be aware of what this will and won't do. It will achieve width and consistency, density, and it will smooth over some problems provided you're not repeating the same mistakes every time. What it won't do though is make a weak vocal into a great vocal. When you sing a song, you're asking the listener to buy into the communication between themselves and the singer - the voice, the lyric, the delivery...they comprise a link to the listener - an intimacy. If you have a wonderfully delivered vocal, sung close, a capella, it's as intimate a communication as you can achieve. When you add instruments you can enhance it, but you also make it slightly less intimate. When you add doubles to that vocal you suddenly drastically reduce the intimacy. It becomes a 'production' rather than a personal communication. The more you layer, the less personal it is. SO only do this if it serves your song - if your material is really heartfelt, fragile and personal writing, don't layer it up. It's better to let it be weak...maybe the vulnerability of that will even help. But if it's commercial pop, catchy, upbeat, then layer it there and back again.

J

[Guest]

No rules - It's VERY common. Sometimes, especially in pop stuff, vocals are tracked up a lot. You might end up with the main, a pair of doubles (or more), harmonies, doubles on the harmonies, triples, quadruples. Whatever is needed. And there's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't do the same with guitars, that's also really common. BUT be aware of what this will and won't do. It will achieve width and consistency, density, and it will smooth over some problems provided you're not repeating the same mistakes every time. What it won't do though is make a weak vocal into a great vocal. When you sing a song, you're asking the listener to buy into the communication between themselves and the singer - the voice, the lyric, the delivery...they comprise a link to the listener - an intimacy. If you have a wonderfully delivered vocal, sung close, a capella, it's as intimate a communication as you can achieve. When you add instruments you can enhance it, but you also make it slightly less intimate. When you add doubles to that vocal you suddenly drastically reduce the intimacy. It becomes a 'production' rather than a personal communication. The more you layer, the less personal it is. SO only do this if it serves your song - if your material is really heartfelt, fragile and personal writing, don't layer it up. It's better to let it be weak...maybe the vulnerability of that will even help. But if it's commercial pop, catchy, upbeat, then layer it there and back again. J

Hey J, thanks for that man, really really helpful and insightful, def gonna double up and then some, very interesting wot you say about intimate vox, think i kinda knew/felt that but you brought it home anyway.

'tis catchy upbeast (er, Freudian slip) poppy nonsense, so def gonna give it some welly thanks to you, indebted Sir.

Hey J, I'm prob gonna post a thread/link where i've doubled up drum/hat loops, ( club mix) could you keep an eye, er, ear out, y'know is it ok to double up on hats? Fat & thin whatever, the fatter one coming in gives it a lift. I ain't a novice, but i don't 'ear detail like i used to. Thanks again mate, wicked stuff bruv.

[Jack Ruston]

No problem! Re the hats doubling - anything goes. TBH it's not my genre. I wouldn't do in a rock production but when you're programming you could do all kinds of stuff. Totally your call I'd say.

J

[James Perrett]

As you know, the vowels, consonants, general feel, timing etc won't be exactly the same, so doubling up not only thickens up my voice but also adds all manner of unexpected traits, and a diff, perhaps more interesting character to the overall vocal.

One trick is to change the way you pronounce things on the extra tracks by removing some of the problem consonants - the vowel sounds are often the most important on multi-tracked vocals.

Another trick is to use small pitch shifts to emulate multitracked vocals - Eventide's micro pitch shift algorithms in the H3000 and later boxes were often used for this but I've obtained similar results with Reaper's built-in pitch shifting.

[Martin Walker]

Another trick is to use small pitch shifts to emulate multitracked vocals - Eventide's micro pitch shift algorithms in the H3000 and later boxes were often used for this but I've obtained similar results with Reaper's built-in pitch shifting.

I've been consistently amazed at how good the built-in Reaper plug-ins are! Last year I found myself looking for a very subtle use of an Autotune-style plug-in to correct a little dodgy pitching in a vocal track, and as I'd been caught out before buying products that I later found I already had, I Googled 'Reaper autotune'.

Sure enough that led me to ReaTune which had been installed with Reaper from day one, and which worked perfectly for the job.

Martin

[alexis]

Soundtoys Microshift. Amazing thickening of vocals, from subtle to very obvious. I can't recommend enough to download the trial.

[Jack Ruston]

I've been consistently amazed at how good the built-in Reaper plug-ins are! Last year I found myself looking for a very subtle use of an Autotune-style plug-in to correct a little dodgy pitching in a vocal track, and as I'd been caught out before buying products that I later found I already had, I Googled 'Reaper autotune'.

Sure enough that led me to ReaTune which had been installed with Reaper from day one, and which worked perfectly for the job.

Martin

I've struggled a bit with ReaTune, but it's so easy and quick to tune at item level right in the track itself with the modifier key (whichever one it is)...I've found it extremely fast and rather better in many cases in that it encourages you to nudge whole sections rather than 'even out the curve' which is often a bit of a mistake.

J

[Guest]

Yeah I'm aware what the various boxes/plugins can bring to the table, but i don't want any mechanical sounding stuff, i and you all know from experience that when you double up the same vocal line, you then have to radically edit it one so they sound diff from each other and it never sounds as natural or interesting as actually singing two diff lines, so why bother, unless of course it's not pos to have several diff takes done.

I don't generally plan ahead i just do whatever i feel, but with this guitar/vox based stuff i wanna try something diff, more dynamic natural sounding, sort of, i dunno, jus' gonna give it a go, listen to me ears, you all know how it works.

[Mixedup]

Revoice Pro is brilliant for this. Yes, it can do decent fake doubles, but its brilliance lies in how unobtrusively it tightens the timing of real doubles.

[Guest]

Revoice Pro is brilliant for this. Yes, it can do decent fake doubles, but its brilliance lies in how unobtrusively it tightens the timing of real doubles.

I thought that slightly iffy timing was one of the main factors that contribute to the kind of sound I'm after?

Also, I like the strummed, (open chords only, no bars) sound of my Tele unplugged, if i double or treble up on the same amped guitar part, would adding the unplugged version on top contribute anything worthwile to the overall sound, or is that overkill, &/or won't it add owt anyway.

Can hardly believe that one doubles up the bleedin' doubles, and pos then some.

And, if i could play synth parts tight enough so my usual, pretty much on the beat, quantising would not be ness, could one apply the same technique with the synths in the same mix.

Basically, could a whole song be constructed/mixed like this, and wot would be the outcome/favourable bits, I presume more density. Or, in this scenario would it be desirable to limit say, bass, BD etc whatever, the usual centred stuff, to just a single take.

Er, and is it ok to to treat lead licks the same as the rhythym guitar in the same mix, or would a, single take lead, still cut through on its own? or would it suffer from the rhythms density and therefore need the same, or some of the same treatment.

The cheque is the post chaps, 'tis the only exercise i get these days, y'know, running up bills, & bouncing cheques.

[James Perrett]

Can hardly believe that one doubles up the bleedin' doubles, and pos then some.

Phil Spector did pretty well with that technique.

[Guest]

Can hardly believe that one doubles up the bleedin' doubles, and pos then some.

Phil Spector did pretty well with that technique.

'twas a mere, thin as a brick, Wall Of Sound, now I know wot's oakely dokely I'm gonna go for a massive slab of concrete like this -

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/ha ... 60986.html

[Mixedup]

Revoice Pro is brilliant for this. Yes, it can do decent fake doubles, but its brilliance lies in how unobtrusively it tightens the timing of real doubles.

I thought that slightly iffy timing was one of the main factors that contribute to the kind of sound I'm after?

Sure. But if it's too 'iffy' that's not good. Revoice Pro doesn't have to make things bang on: it gives you control over quite how tight or iffy the alignment is - your choice. Very useful for stacked Bvox.

[awjoe]

Soundtoys Microshift. Amazing thickening of vocals, from subtle to very obvious. I can't recommend enough to download the trial.

Insert or send?

[Martin Walker]

Soundtoys Microshift. Amazing thickening of vocals, from subtle to very obvious. I can't recommend enough to download the trial.

Insert or send?

I personally go for insert with Microshift, but have just tried it as a send and it sounds similar if not identical (apart from my send being in mono, so Microshift's stereo effects disappear), so no sample-related delays seem to clobber things, at least on Reaper.

Martin

[awjoe]

Gee, maybe I'm being too heavy-handed with it, but I'm finding the vocals I'm working with more present without it. With it, it's like nice cosmetics on a pretty face. Without it, pretty face. Less enchantment. More girl. If you get my drift. Maybe it depends on the mix.

[alexis]

Gee, maybe I'm being too heavy-handed with it, but I'm finding the vocals I'm working with more present without it. With it, it's like nice cosmetics on a pretty face. Without it, pretty face. Less enchantment. More girl. If you get my drift. Maybe it depends on the mix.

Yeah, just like it depends on the girl!

When I started using it, I thought I had it turned pretty low, then compared it to bypass, and realized it was still too smeary sounding. So now when I use it I barely have it turned on, it is truly one of those "turn it up just enough so you notice it's missing when you bypass it" kind of things, for me.

Three thumbs up for RevoicePro as well. I mainly use it for tightening harmonies, not so much tightening doubles that were actually sung as doubles.

I haven't had much luck in getting good sounding doubles that are generated by RevoicePro, however. It is always quite wobbly sounding. I haven't gone as far as turning down the wobble controls and making a preset out of it though, so I don't really have a right to complain really. Is anyone using RVP to generate nice doubles from a single sung line?