About doubling vocals by tracking them in stereo

[AsPeeXXXVIII]

So this is something that's puzzled me for a while and I finally decided to make a thread about it. I had a studio session with some friends back in September (largely non-professional, save for our "producer") where we recorded a demo to potentially promote our band with. During the mixing process, I happened to notice that our "producer" made a stereo track out of the vocal track (it was recorded in mono). I inquired as to the reason for the decision, and the response I got was that it was an easy way to double the vocals.

As far as I understand, the common recommended practice with tracking different instruments is to record everything in mono, with the possible exception of synths and certain multi-tracking scenarios. So what purpose might tracking vocals in stereo, or perhaps alternatively, double-tracking them, serve?

Now I'm aware that double-tracking things, even if you pan the individual tracks, increases the perceived volume of the part. Which may mean that I've sort of answered my own question here. Either way, I greatly appreciate any and all insight you can offer.

[vurt]

it thickens them up a little adding depth.
but just doubling the track only makes it louder, doesnt achieve the thickening alone.
moving one a sample or so forward, or 0rocessing them differently can though

[DJ Warmonger]

If you just pick a sound from two mics recording same performance, it may lead to phasing effect - just because the signal between two mics is delayed. This is no different than magically "doubling" your track in DAW with extra effects.

[crimsonwarlock]

You want to go beyond just phasing or chorus effects, you want it to sound like it's being sung by two people (although with the same voice). This can be achieved by actual double tracking which means recording the part twice and pan them left/right. The other way is to use 'Auto Double Tracking', a technique invented at Abbey Road for John Lennon, who didn't like to do the extra recording sessions to get the doubles. There are some free ADT plugins around, but I get the best results with the free Azurite plugin. If anyone's interested I can post a ADT preset for Azurite that I made.

[BertKoor]

During the mixing process, I happened to notice that our "producer" made a stereo track out of the vocal track (it was recorded in mono). I inquired as to the reason for the decision, and the response I got was that it was an easy way to double the vocals.

Did you also notice how it was stereo?
Because copying the same mono track to both stereo channels won't make it truely stereo , just double-mono.

There must have been a technique or effect. Like shifting one channel in time by 10ms or so.
Or he did it because otherwise the next effect in the chain (delay, reverb, etc) would keep it mono. Some effects give the same number of output tracks as they get input tracks. So then mono remains mono, but double-mono becomes stereo.

[planetearth]

During the mixing process, I happened to notice that our "producer" made a stereo track out of the vocal track (it was recorded in mono). I inquired as to the reason for the decision, and the response I got was that it was an easy way to double the vocals.

Did you also notice how it was stereo?
Because copying the same mono track to both stereo channels won't make it truely stereo , just double-mono.

There must have been a technique or effect. Like shifting one channel in time by 10ms or so.
Or he did it because otherwise the next effect in the chain (delay, reverb, etc) would keep it mono. Some effects give the same number of output tracks as they get input tracks. So then mono remains mono, but double-mono becomes stereo.

I would bet it's something like @BertKoor suggests here, with slightly shifting one of the tracks by a few milliseconds. Otherwise, you wouldn't have a true "stereo" track, you'd have a dual-mono track. If you kept those two mono tracks panned to the center, you'd get a boost in the overall signal of the "vocal track". It wouldn't be "thicker", just a bit louder, and you could have achieved the same effect by just raising the fader. And if you panned the channels hard left and hard right, the signal would still appear to come from dead center (since they're the same signal), but it wouldn't be any louder than one mono vocal track by itself.

Steve

[crimsonwarlock]

...the response I got was that it was an easy way to double the vocals.

As I stated in my previous reply, it seems clear to me he is talking about Auto Double Tracking (ADT) as that is the industry standard for 'the easy way to double vocals' (instead of getting two similar performances that has to match somewhat closely which might take some considerable time).

[skipscada]

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques ... ing-vocals

[AsPeeXXXVIII]

Right, chances are I left out an important detail or two. The guy works in Logic Pro, which apparently has a feature to quickly "re-render" a mono track as a stereo track with the exact same waveform on both channels - that's what he used. It was a single stereo track, not two mono tracks, so there was no moving one track around slightly either.

The ADT technique mentioned here managed to pique my interest, though. I should dig deeper into that...

[crimsonwarlock]

The guy works in Logic Pro, which apparently has a feature to quickly "re-render" a mono track as a stereo track with the exact same waveform on both channels - that's what he used. It was a single stereo track, not two mono tracks, so there was no moving one track around slightly either

In that case he didn't "double" the track in any way, just replaced a mono version with a stereo version which does NOTHING to the sound. The only advantage is that you can then use a stereo-routed effect on the track (for whatever reason).

[planetearth]

The guy works in Logic Pro, which apparently has a feature to quickly "re-render" a mono track as a stereo track with the exact same waveform on both channels - that's what he used. It was a single stereo track, not two mono tracks, so there was no moving one track around slightly either

In that case he didn't "double" the track in any way, just replaced a mono version with a stereo version which does NOTHING to the sound. The only advantage is that you can then use a stereo-routed effect on the track (for whatever reason).

And again, it's still not a "stereo" track, since true "stereo" requires different information in both channels. Having the exact, same audio information in both channels would make it a "dual-mono" signal, not a stereo one.

Steve

[crimsonwarlock]

And again, it's still not a "stereo" track, since true "stereo" requires different information in both channels. Having the exact, same audio information in both channels would make it a "dual-mono" signal, not a stereo one.

You are technically correct. However, normally we use the term 'stereo track' to designate the fact that there is separate information for left and right, regardless if that information is different or not. A stereo plugin doesn't care if it is processing the same signal on each side, the result is still two separate channels with information. From the perspective of a DAW there is no difference between stereo or dual-mono.

[Forgotten]

I don’t know it’s really that necessary these days to do any of this - there are plenty of harmonization plugins available that will thicken up vocals with a unison harmony.

However, you will never get the same effect as recording more than one take of the same voice singing a unison harmony due to the small differences between takes.

[crimsonwarlock]

However, you will never get the same effect as recording more than one take of the same voice singing a unison harmony due to the small differences between takes.

Actually, ADT does come pretty close, especially when compared inside a complete mix. Besides that, the tools are getting better. As I stated before I'm using Azurite which does a much better job then the 'normal' delay based ADT plugins (that I've tried and used before) because Azurite has a random mod feature that mimics human timing differences (when singing a double take) that comes pretty close.

Another thing is that with ADT your transients do line up pretty close by default, while doing double takes can involve some serious editing to get them to line up.... unless you are recording the Beach Boys or Steely Dan of course

[an-electric-heart]

I've never had any luck with double tracking vocals then panning them left and right, weather be it using effects or actually recording twice. It always just seems lop-sided. I normally "thicken" lead vocals by sending the vocals to an effect channel then adding auto-tune, followed by chorus to widen, but the main vocal is dead center with little more then eq and compression... the auto-tune isn't used to "correct" the tune, it's more used to make the thickening channel slightly different to the main vocal, as people have said, if they were the same it wouldn't work, there needs to variations.