Doubled Vocals

jgimbel · Post by **jgimbel** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:10 pm

MoreSpaceEcho wrote: if there's two or more i hear a recording made in a studio. if that makes any sense.

Is that for a specific genre? I imagine for rock/louder stuff that'd definitely be true. A lot of what I record is softer "indie" stuff, and in that doubling kind of translates to i really strange intimacy, ala Elliot Smith. I do like to use doubling in choruses more than in verses though, but when I double my own voice I feel like it's a different character singing. Sometimes it's perfect.

The Scum · Post by **The Scum** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:44 pm

I've found that even a well-trained voice is more organic than most other instrumentalists. Even over a few minutes, a voice can change, and certainly in the microscope of the studio, tone, diction, phrasing and delivery all change a bit with each repetition.

So with that in mind, it can be useful to record several takes when shooting for a tight double. However, instead of using the first take, then trying to match it, see how the later consecutive takes sound together. IE: if you do 5 takes, you might find that #4 and #5 make a better pair than #1 and #5.

MoreSpaceEcho · Post by **MoreSpaceEcho** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:35 pm

jgimbel wrote:Is that for a specific genre?

eh, it's more just a veeeeeery general preference of mine i guess. i know what you mean about elliot smith and i agree.

i'm sure i have plenty of records where the vox are doubled and i don't even notice it specifically. it's more when i'm mixing stuff...just noticing how the vocal's making me feel, you know...

sometimes when the singer's pitch is not especially good, doubling can really help. you wouldn't think adding two out of tune takes together would sound more in tune, but i suppose it just kinda blurs the pitch enough to where it sounds a bit more pleasant. anyone agree or am i nuts here?

i remember listening to some julianna hatfield record and her vox seemed to be tripled (at least) all of the time, presumably in an effort to make her sound 'full' and 'tough'. i just thought it sounded retarded. one really loud would've worked so much better and had a lot more emotional impact. IMO.

mscottweber · Post by **mscottweber** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:37 pm

I have found that panning the two vocal takes apart from each other can often times help clear things up. When the two tracks are sitting right on top of each other, the pitch and timing differences will really clash. By separating them in the stereo field, those inconsistencies don't always sound as bad. Its kind of like having a double-tracked rhythm guitar part and hard-panning them to either side (not to say that you necessarily need to hard pan the vocals).

Also, I'm surprised no one mentioned pitch correction yet...

mscottweber · Post by **mscottweber** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:40 pm

sometimes when the singer's pitch is not especially good, doubling can really help.

+1

woodhenge · Post by **woodhenge** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:13 pm

msweber wrote:Also, I'm surprised no one mentioned pitch correction yet...

I figured that'd be cheating!

I've had singers track a double or triple take to a pitch-corrected vocal, and then removed the pitch-corrected one. Would that count? It really helps tighten up the singer's pitchiness if they're having trouble.

I suppose you could correct 2 takes that were pretty close and get good results, maybe. One of my friends likes to create doubles with Melodyne using the pitch + time randomization, but they always sound hokey to me. I usually like to record 4 or 5 takes anyway, so I don't see the point in creating an artificial double. But, to each his own...

palinilap · Post by **palinilap** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:23 pm

I like for the second take to be consistent in regards to phrasing, but different in some way timbre-wise. Whether it be a different mic, distance to the mic, placement in the room, or just approached with different emotion. That conveys more character to me than two perfectly executed, identical takes. Creative panning can help too.

sad iron · Post by **sad iron** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:44 pm

I'm really confused by almost all of these responses. What are we talking about? Doubling is easy, in my experience. Record a vox track, record it again, either with playback of the previous take in the cans or not. I've done this in the past and have actually ended up with takes that are so similar that there's no difference between the two and they had to be altered for the double to work right.

In the digital world, I sometimes just copy the single vox track to a new track and slide it out of time ever so slightly and that works too. Use your ears. You can hear when it's right.

IS double tracking vocals hard? Am I missing something? Do you really have to line up all the plicatives if it's the same singer? Isn't the point to be a little off? Just a little?

As I said: cornfused....

woodhenge · Post by **woodhenge** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:56 pm

sad iron wrote:IS double tracking vocals hard? Am I missing something? Do you really have to line up all the plicatives if it's the same singer? Isn't the point to be a little off? Just a little?

As I said: cornfused....

I think it all depends on how the double is to be used in the mix. If it's 2 vocals hard-panned, I don't think they both have to be dead-on to sound good. If it's doubles for the sake of layering to thicken the main vocal and sound like just one part, then they have to be REALLY on it. Some singers can do track after track and nail it every time, and some take a while. And with some, it's more work than it ends up being worth...

I like to "leapfrog" takes with singers... record the first take, double the first take with another one, remove the first take, double the second take, remove the 2nd one, etc... By the time you're 3 or 4 in, it usually ends up being pretty consistent and on. The notes find a center, so to speak. Plus, you've got more you can use to comp if you need to get more surgical with things.

sad iron · Post by **sad iron** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:04 pm

OK, so I'm listening to the reissued White Album and, man, some of those tracks are way off, both in pitch an timing, particularly Ringo's stuff. But they sound awesome, and they fill out the track. But it's an effect and should be deployed thusly, right? is that what we're talking about: Beatle-esque doubling?

In some cases they your plate or tape to get an echo, which is a different thing altogether, but working toward the same goal.

surf's up · Post by **surf's up** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:09 pm

Really working out the phrasings is important. Even a change in emphasis in one syllable or an early crescendo can lessen the effect of the double. So go over each section of the song and decide exactly how you want to sing it and practice it that way.

Once you have it recorded, play around with the balance between original take and doubled take. I was reading "studio stories" earlier and one of the engineers (think it was Roy Halee) talked about a 3:1 ratio as something he often used, but i think that yields a more subdued double, probably not as potent as what youre looking for.

Another thing you might try, if the style of the song can handle it, is to sing the double take in more of a whisper.

JGriffin · Post by **JGriffin** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:35 pm

sad iron wrote:Doubling is easy, in my experience. Record a vox track, record it again, either with playback of the previous take in the cans or not. I've done this in the past and have actually ended up with takes that are so similar that there's no difference between the two and they had to be altered for the double to work right.

IS double tracking vocals hard? Am I missing something?

I have had similar experiences to yours, but I'll say this: things that are easy for one person are hard for another. I can understand doubling being difficult even though I think I do it well and even enjoy it. But then I also think certain guitar playing is easy and see others struggling with it. And on the other hand I can't drum for shit and for other people it's effortless. Horses for courses.

I am reminded of the montage in "La Bamba" where Joe Pantoliano makes poor Lou Diamond Phillips sing the song over and over and over again because he can't mult it correctly.

A.David.MacKinnon · Post by **A.David.MacKinnon** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:50 am

firesine wrote: It's important to get all the Ss and Ts happening at the same time.

I don't double vocals all that offen but when I do I'll de-ess the shit out of the double so there aren't S's buzzing away all over the track. It sounds retarded on it's own but works really well in the track. I also prefer to have the double at about half the volume of the lead. For me, a doubled vocal is something I want to feel more than hear.

While we're on the topic, for extra vocal hugeness take a tip from Squeeze and try singing a pass an octave lower than the lead and lightly blend it in under the lead. Again, you want to feel it more than you want to hear it. Ideally you won't know that it's there but if it's muted you'll feel something is missing.

JGriffin · Post by **JGriffin** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:27 am

junkshop wrote: you won't know that it's there but if it's muted you'll feel something is missing.

Like a Michael Anthony bassline!

MoreSpaceEcho · Post by **MoreSpaceEcho** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:53 am

ZANG.

Message Board

Doubled Vocals

Who is online