"Fake Doubling"

[flmason]

Hi All,
From time to time in various forums I've seen engineering types mention that they have to "fake double" a part when the artist can't play the part tight enough the second time around.

Just curious, what techniques are actually used to do this, that also hold up in mono, yet are wide in stereo?

Everything I've ever tried seems to suffer from comb filtering in mono. Except for techniques that involve a phase invert. And then those often don't sound good in stereo, and of course you have just the one track audible in mono.

Seems to me, most commercial recordings don't suffer from this problem.

[Drugs]

I don't know if this would help but I use this when it's needed.

ADT - Artificial Double Tracking
http://www.vacuumsound.de/plugins.html

[Fabian]

Originally Posted by Drugs

I don't know if this would help but I use this when it's needed.

ADT - Artificial Double Tracking
http://www.vacuumsound.de/plugins.html

Sounds to me like a mix between the original signal and a delayed version, possibly with the delay time modulated. Could be done in Reaper with ReaDelay, but maybe the ADT plugin is easier to use...

[Zee Wavesurfer]

This is usually good for guitars....

Duplicate the track.
Hard pan the 2 tracks
Shift one in time by approximately +15ms

The reason for doing it by duplicating the track instead of using a delay is that you'll get much better results by EQing the tracks slightly different.
Which is way easier this way.

This is a very old trick which used to be done in the ''analog'' years by using multiple microphones for a single source.
Led Zeppelin records are full of it.

[Drugs]

Originally Posted by Zee Wavesurfer

This is usually good for guitars....

Duplicate the track.
Hard pan the 2 tracks
Shift one in time by approximately +15ms

The reason for doing it by duplicating the track instead of using a delay is that you'll get much better results by EQing the tracks slightly different.
Which is way easier this way.

This is a very old trick which used to be done in the ''analog'' years by using multiple microphones for a single source.
Led Zeppelin records are full of it.

I normally do it like that because it more versatile. I can add fx, param modulation, envelopes, etc...
I use the ADT for a quicky fake Doubling or for something that doesn't require doubling the tracks up.
I prefer multi microphone setups, as it adds a lot more options to the mix. But only having one file you gotta work with what ya got.

[timboz]

If I only have one take I will use CMX by Schawa

http://www.stillwellaudio.com/?page_id=267

[Drugs]

Originally Posted by timboz

If I only have one take I will use CMX by Schawa

http://www.stillwellaudio.com/?page_id=267

I forgot about that one. I like that plug alot

+1 for a better way of organizing vsts

[Fabian]

Originally Posted by Zee Wavesurfer

Shift one in time by approximately +15ms

But isn't one of the ideas behind ADT that the delay fluctuates? That's why you need to modulate the delay parameter if not using teh ADT plugin. Your approach (which I myself use on guitar, yes) keeps the delay constant, which is a (slightly) different thing, I think.

Using different EQ'ing etc can easily be achieved by sending the delayed version either to another track or through another channel pair.

[Deltones]

Originally Posted by Zee Wavesurfer

This is usually good for guitars....

Duplicate the track.
Hard pan the 2 tracks
Shift one in time by approximately +15ms

You prefer to go this route or to double your guitar by tracking again?

[PRS]

Originally Posted by Zee Wavesurfer

This is usually good for guitars....

Duplicate the track.
Hard pan the 2 tracks
Shift one in time by approximately +15ms

The reason for doing it by duplicating the track instead of using a delay is that you'll get much better results by EQing the tracks slightly different.
Which is way easier this way.

This is a very old trick which used to be done in the ''analog'' years by using multiple microphones for a single source.
Led Zeppelin records are full of it.

Could you then modulate one of the tracks within Reaper while using this technique to achieve movement?

[carbon]

If the instrument part has repetitions in it, then I cut the second track together from different places of the first track.

[Lokasenna]

Originally Posted by carbon

If the instrument part has repetitions in it, then I cut the second track together from different places of the first track.

This. Get one good take of the whole song, and then take a copy of the second chorus to double for the first, the first verse to double for the second, etc.

You *are* actually doubling it by doing this, since you have two performances of the chorus being played. You're just quietly cheating.

[QuIcK]

hmm, sneaky one carbon! nice technique.
i would say duplicate the track (if you cant double take), and do different eq, pan, delay, flange, anything like that.

[Sigilus]

might be a dumb question, but if you use the cut and paste puzzle approach, how is it possible to have smooth transitions between verse 1 and chorus 1, for example? do you just have extra data on both ends and crossfade?

[Zee Wavesurfer]

Originally Posted by Deltones

You prefer to go this route or to double your guitar by tracking again?

Both give very different results...
Sometimes I double track and then scrap one.
Double tracking makes an uneven chorus that is good/bad depending on the occasion.

[Bezmotivnik]

How do you avoid comb filtering and other predictable artifacts with fake doubling?

This is not an idle question for me as I'm struggling with a piece with extremely packed vocal with complicated inflection which I think would be effectively impossible to double cleanly. Magical VSTs would be the only answer.

[Zee Wavesurfer]

Originally Posted by PRS

Could you then modulate one of the tracks within Reaper while using this technique to achieve movement?

I wouldn't know how to make it sound real, Reaper or any DAW.
You want ''alive'', then have the track doubled by a human.

[Lokasenna]

Originally Posted by PRS

Could you then modulate one of the tracks within Reaper while using this technique to achieve movement?

If you mean modulation the delay, so the track keeps shifting in relation to the original, this is exactly what a chorus does. Just set it to 100% wet and you're done.

[Staccato]

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

This. Get one good take of the whole song, and then take a copy of the second chorus to double for the first, the first verse to double for the second, etc.

You *are* actually doubling it by doing this, since you have two performances of the chorus being played. You're just quietly cheating.

Very nice...if locked to a click.

[flmason]

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

This. Get one good take of the whole song, and then take a copy of the second chorus to double for the first, the first verse to double for the second, etc.

You *are* actually doubling it by doing this, since you have two performances of the chorus being played. You're just quietly cheating.

Now this makes good sense. Sounds to me like it would get around the comb filtering problem that just using a delay or chorus unit suffers when the tune ends up being played mono.



Will definitely file this one in my techniques.

[kindafishy]

Originally Posted by Bezmotivnik

How do you avoid comb filtering and other predictable artifacts with fake doubling?

This is not an idle question for me as I'm struggling with a piece with extremely packed vocal with complicated inflection which I think would be effectively impossible to double cleanly. Magical VSTs would be the only answer.

Bookmarking this thread because I want to see the answer to this question.

[Drugs]

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

This. Get one good take of the whole song, and then take a copy of the second chorus to double for the first, the first verse to double for the second, etc.

You *are* actually doubling it by doing this, since you have two performances of the chorus being played. You're just quietly cheating.

This is also a very helpful method. The only thing I don't like about it is that both verses sound the same.
Although I have heard alot of this on other commercial releases. (They record a verse and make it sound the way they want, then reuse the same audio every time that verse comes up in the song/ cut & paste).
I much prefer songs that have each section original. All instruments & vocals. It needs to change up a little each go around for me.

[daal]

http://www.hometracked.com/2007/06/0...a-mono-source/

[Drugs]

Originally Posted by Bezmotivnik

How do you avoid comb filtering and other predictable artifacts with fake doubling?

This is not an idle question for me as I'm struggling with a piece with extremely packed vocal with complicated inflection which I think would be effectively impossible to double cleanly. Magical VSTs would be the only answer.

I'm not sure your situation is a good candidate for "Fake Doubling" If it is creating noticeable C.Filtering that's unpleasing. Most doubling is used on pieces thats panned off center. Vocals are usually panned center.

You can try tripling it. Main vocals center then a copy panned left and another right. The left and right pans would definitely have to be way quieter than center and some kind of processing on them to change the timing/pitch/eq... Something would have to be done so as not to conflict with the Main source. Your situation sounds like you need to experiment. Ultimately it's up to you on how you want it to sound. A little C.Filtering is negligible since most people can't here it anyways, especially in a whole mix. I'll look through my VSTs and see if I can find something that will work.

[Sheppola]

I use FreeHaas depending on the instrument/project.Used it enough to make my $5 donation plus all of the above ways as well

http://www.vescofx.com/vfxFreeHaas

[karbomusic]

Shift one in time by approximately +15ms

This works great but always immediately check the results in mono maybe even do the offset while in mono. First reason is phase and combing type effects and if that's OK you might loose a bit of volume in mono compared to stereo due to the cancelations that do happen causing the gtr to disappear in the mix whenever it is heard in mono environments. Sometimes, minute shifts at the sample level with 15ms as a starting point can help find the least offending downmix. It never sounds as good as it could have when played in mono this way but sometimes the trade off is worthwhile. When it works though, it works pretty well but does have the above caveats.

Karbo

[Colin_D]

Originally Posted by kindafishy

Bookmarking this thread because I want to see the answer to this question.

I like to use ReaDelay on a mono track panned center. It has some tools that can help defeat comb filtering. First turn the dry signal down all the way so you won't hear anything but the delay taps. Pan the first tap hard left or right and set the delay to 0.00. Create another tap, panned opposite of the first one and set the delay time somewhere between 10ms and 25ms. Depending on your material, the delay time can have a major effect on how severe the comb filtering is when you play it in mono. The relative volume of each delay tap can be adjusted. You can also HPF/LPF each signal. With distorted guitars for example, I find that a LPF on the delayed signal helps get rid of some comb filtering while still giving you a pretty wide effect. You can also then turn up the dry signal, which will just be your original center-panned track to eliminate even more comb filtering. Although you will sacrifice some width, hopefully it will sound decent in mono, but nice and wide in stereo.
I've been experimenting with this a lot lately, and have realized that a lot of modern rock albums make extensive use of these techniques. Listen to "The Beast and the Harlot" or "Bat Country" by Avenged Sevenfold in mono and the guitars practically vanish.

[Bezmotivnik]

Originally Posted by Drugs

I'm not sure your situation is a good candidate for "Fake Doubling" If it is creating noticeable C.Filtering that's unpleasing.

I'm not sure it will. I'm trying to anticipate problems before they happen. I've always been told that fake doubling/tripling of identical tracks would create comb filtering problems, period.

I have no idea if this is true. After all, I'm new at this.

Most doubling is used on pieces thats panned off center. Vocals are usually panned center.

You can try tripling it. Main vocals center then a copy panned left and another right. The left and right pans would definitely have to be way quieter than center and some kind of processing on them to change the timing/pitch/eq...

This was what I was thinking of doing...

Three tracks: Center [main], right, left -- with the sides done at different delays and run through two...oh...different guitar effects or something, just wet enough to make them sufficiently different not to comb-filter -- but I'm not entirely sure that this would do it. Differential pitch-correction, fuzz-boxing, detune, ???

The double & triple can (and maybe should) be kind of edgy-sounding as long as it doesn't screw-up intelligibility.

I used to do guitar with analog ping-pong L/R delay with a MFX/modeler, and if you groped around with the timing, it just sounded GIGANTIC. I want that effect on my vocal for this project. It has to be a devastating vocal sound, sort of a slam-poetry/rap vocal way up front in the mix, like right in the listener's pocket.

Something would have to be done so as not to conflict with the Main source. Your situation sounds like you need to experiment. Ultimately it's up to you on how you want it to sound. A little C.Filtering is negligible since most people can't here it anyways, especially in a whole mix.

Yeah, I have no idea how dreadful this whole comb-filtering thing is anyway. I've just heard, "Oh, you can't do that because of comb filtering..."

I'll look through my VSTs and see if I can find something that will work.

Cool! Thanks!

[dumant]

Another thing you can try: split your track using Loser's splitter (js effect): you will get several voices corresponding to different frequency ranges that you can then alter using pan and delay (or reverb) and then join again using Loser's joiner.

For instance, if you pan differently the low and high mids, you should get a "larger" sound. The good thing about this technique is that comb filtering is limited when you listen to the track in mono, since the panned signals have different frequency ranges.

Credits: I have borrowed this from Nicholas' ReaMix book, that contains many examples of such enhancements.

[capthook]

Voxengo Stereo Touch (free!): http://www.voxengo.com/product/stereotouch/

Very versitle with dual-delay taps, easy controls and some useful presets to get started with.

1 guitar track center, 1 bass track center
Drop Voxengo Stereo Touch onto the guitar track
Pick a preset (ie. guitar) and adjust the seperate delay times, gain and a HP/LP filter.
Yowza!

Never seen this VST mentioned anywhere on this forum....
Anyone else tried it? Pretty dang cool....

And then there's the mentioned duplicate track, pan 1 leftish/1 rightish and delay one.
An easy way to set it, right click the waveform, select item properties, and then the top/left box add .015-.030 to the items time position.

[camerondye]

When recording other people I try different things to get them to give me good doubles:

1. I get them to do one take all the way through the song and tell them to keep going even if they eff up.

2. I record and keep every take unless I'm positive it really sucked.

3. If they are having trouble getting good double, turn off the first take and let them feel like they are just retaking it. Also, mess with their headphone mix till it's right. A little more KD, snare or less vocals in a headphone mix goes a long way. You might have to edit some but it will be better than effects later IMO.

4. Try and get them as comfortable as possible, get to the point where you are telling them you have enough to make it sound good and that what they are recording now is just cream so really go for it. I like to do this on vocals especially because then if it's the last song for the day who cares if they blow out their voice a touch...you got the take.

5. On guitar, remind them it's good sometimes for the guitars to do a little bit different things to get a better product. Listen to Guns n Roses, they aren't playing the same stuff...they just compliment each other really well and it totally kicks ass.

6. Nothing replaces well doubled doubles...ever. I haven't found a trick or an effect that will replace good doubles but I've gotten good doubles from people who weren't good doublers with a little bit of thinking and trickery. I'm never happy if I have to use "Fake Doubling" and that's my 2 pennies

[toyhouse]

There are those rare guitar performances that just can't be doubled through a second take.
The kind of rare player who's able to play rhythm and throw in tiny lead fills at almost seemingly the same time. And....sound correct doing it! Pretty rare though. I've always been a wee bit jealous, lol.

That's probably more an eighties thing style-wise but it always made me wonder how they pulled-off those recordings.
Some sounded huge in all the right places.
Done in the analog era as well. No plug-ins back then.



Jim P.





.

[shemp]

Originally Posted by toyhouse

There are those rare guitar performances that just can't be doubled through a second take.
The kind of rare player who's able to play rhythm and throw in tiny lead fills at almost seemingly the same time. And....sound correct doing it! Pretty rare though. I've always been a wee bit jealous, lol.

That's probably more an eighties thing style-wise but it always made me wonder how they pulled-off those recordings.
Some sounded huge in all the right places.
Done in the analog era as well. No plug-ins back then.

Jim P.

Randy Rhoads

[Drugs]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That voxengo plug is cool.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Upstereo is pretty neat too. Stereo image type plug, it doesn't double or nuthin.
http://www.quikquak.com/
A FREE stereo enhancer
UpStereo
Audio demos
Plug-in download
* Stereo width slider going from mono to wide, bringing the stereo image
out and towards the listener.
* Loudness control boost.
* Loudness overdrive option.
* Subtle Air & Bass boosters to lift and help the audio 'breath'.
* Movable 3D interface, with changable colours and light positions.
* Very low CPU usage.
* FREE

Also check out Rayspace

[Drugs]

Originally Posted by camerondye

6. Nothing replaces well doubled doubles...ever.

+1

.
.

[toyhouse]

Originally Posted by shemp

Randy Rhoads

YUP!

Of course I can think of only a handful of others.
As I said, "rare"!

Oh, it's funny that nowadays it's not uncomon to track a guitar three, four times or even more to get it sounding big.
Guys like the one you mentioned often sounded bigger tracked once, lol. IMO anyway.

Jim P.





.

[kindafishy]

Originally Posted by shemp

Randy Rhoads

...was a god.


I don't have any sources and I am not terribly inclined to look it up, but I recall reading that although his noodly leads in amongst his rhythms sound improvised, they were actually very meticulously planned and doubled in the studio for the most part.

[shemp]

Originally Posted by kindafishy

I don't have any sources and I am not terribly inclined to look it up, but I recall reading that although his noodly leads in amongst his rhythms sound improvised, they were actually very meticulously planned and doubled in the studio for the most part.

This is true. I have old magazine interviews where he states this.


but for what it's worth, my take on doubling, for electric, I always do 2 separate takes, and pan hard left/right and sometimes do a third take and put it in the center. Just personal taste, I like recording separate takes.

I do love carbon's idea above though where a separate live take is not possible.

But for some of the acoustic stuff I've done, I usually do a single take and use the FreeHaas (mainly because I'm not that proficient on the acoustic.. lol)

[toyhouse]

I think it'd be a safe bet to say that many of the tracks off at least the first V.H. album are a single guitar. A few overdubs here and there. I stink at trivia but sounds like it to me.
As good as ed is supposed to be, I don't think he could double track himself on some of those, lol.


Jim P.




.

[flmason]

Originally Posted by capthook

Voxengo Stereo Touch (free!): http://www.voxengo.com/product/stereotouch/

Very versitle with dual-delay taps, easy controls and some useful presets to get started with.

1 guitar track center, 1 bass track center
Drop Voxengo Stereo Touch onto the guitar track
Pick a preset (ie. guitar) and adjust the seperate delay times, gain and a HP/LP filter.
Yowza!

Never seen this VST mentioned anywhere on this forum....
Anyone else tried it? Pretty dang cool....

And then there's the mentioned duplicate track, pan 1 leftish/1 rightish and delay one.
An easy way to set it, right click the waveform, select item properties, and then the top/left box add .015-.030 to the items time position.

As fir Stereo Touch, yes, tripped over it back around 2005 when I did most of the tracks on my Soundclick page. Cannot recall how much I used it though. But yes, some of the presets are nice.

Around the same time, had the experience of it "sounding OK at home, terrible on someone else's monitors"... pretty sure that's when comb filtering first entered my vocab. Not sure if Stereo Touch was affected by this or not.