As a rule of thumb, should doubled tracks be panned hard left and
right? Or does that lead to danger of making the lead vocal too
isolated in the middle?

wrote:
As a rule of thumb, should doubled tracks be panned hard left and
right? Or does that lead to danger of making the lead vocal too
isolated in the middle?
Need more info on that one..I mean how is the bass sound? Or the drums?
Psycadelic ambient type stuff is usually nice with hard panning but you
always have to reference it on another set of moniters, (a car,boom
box, etc...) to know for sure. Try duplicating the tracks and playing
with the levels while panned opposite. It's fun. Rock-n-Roll is
sometimes a whole nuther ball game too.
-thepaganjournalist

wrote in message
ups.com...
As a rule of thumb, should doubled tracks be panned hard left and
right? Or does that lead to danger of making the lead vocal too
isolated in the middle?

Who cares, as long as it works for the mix in question? If hard-panning
works, then do it, if not, then don't. With regard to your question about
lead vocals, you can usually "find the pocket" for vox, regardless of any
instruments are hard-panned or not. Sometimes it's more challenging than
others, depending on how the vocals were recorded (i.e. some mics just don't
want to "sit well" in a mix), but there's always a spot for one voice, IMO.
A couple other things to consider a
1.) Are the guitar parts you're planning to hard-pan identical to each
other, or at least close enough to where you wouldn't be distracted upon
hearing the two parts positioned so widely spaced from each other?
2.) If they're identical, are they actually played tight enough to where
they will still sound "tight" when panned that far apart?
3.) If they're not identical, but do indeed have some intentional
differences between them, are there other things/instruments that you could
pan accordingly to balance out the spectrum on each side? IOW, you wouldn't
necessarily want all your low end parts on the left & all your high-end
parts on the right for each instrument... or maybe you might

Neil Henderson

wrote:

As a rule of thumb, should doubled tracks be panned hard left and
right? Or does that lead to danger of making the lead vocal too
isolated in the middle?

"Should" is not a word that can be used here.
However if it helps I find that if you keep them together, unless they
are closely doubled, they can sound confused and muddy.

If you split them it can make things sound over produced.
(I over produce eveything so no worries there!)

Take your pick.

The other thing - with all panning don't think that you have to go hard
left and right. Or even symetrical. Listen to the overall balance and
see what works.

Dave

There is no "rule of thumb" except - If it sounds good, do it!

As always, I recommend checking in mono to see if you like the way it
sounds and to make sure the vocal still stands out or sits correctly in
the mix. Also, try panning at closer points and listening on different
systems.

Hope this helps.

Larry Lessard

As a rule of thumb, should doubled tracks be panned hard left and
right?

No rule of thumb. Do what sounds good.

Mark
"In this business egos can be wonderful, but they also can be a curse."
Michael Wagener

wrote in message
ups.com...
As a rule of thumb, should doubled tracks be panned hard left and
right? Or does that lead to danger of making the lead vocal too
isolated in the middle?


I tend to use both tracks to fill exactly the space I want filled. If you
pan hard right and left, the whole soundstage will be filled.

jb

it's fine to do that.

In article ,
"reddred" wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...
As a rule of thumb, should doubled tracks be panned hard left and
right? Or does that lead to danger of making the lead vocal too
isolated in the middle?


I tend to use both tracks to fill exactly the space I want filled. If you
pan hard right and left, the whole soundstage will be filled.

jb



Not in my experience. I find that double tracked guitar hard-panned leaves the
center of the soundstage open for drums/vocals. This does not work for tracks
that are artificially doubled, but for tracks actually played twice.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

Jay Kadis wrote:

Not in my experience. I find that double tracked guitar hard-panned leaves the
center of the soundstage open for drums/vocals. This does not work for tracks
that are artificially doubled, but for tracks actually played twice.

Right. Artificially doubled (without any kind of random effect) just
fills up the whole soundstage with a wierd phase shift effect happening
from left to right (or right to left).

It's mostly rock for me. A Vines type sound. It seems to me they
double all their guitar tracks, and I'm guessing the tracks are hard
panned, though I don't have the ears to tell for sure.
BTW, this new googlegroups format is sa-weet.

Pretty near identical. And pretty tight. I think hard panning is a
pretty good sound for what I'm doing. But I hear that novices have to
be careful about stranding the vocals up the barren middle, so since
I'm a novice I'm wary.

I used to think artificial doubling sounded good. I can't believe that.

"Jay Kadis" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"reddred" wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...
As a rule of thumb, should doubled tracks be panned hard left and
right? Or does that lead to danger of making the lead vocal too
isolated in the middle?


I tend to use both tracks to fill exactly the space I want filled. If
you
pan hard right and left, the whole soundstage will be filled.

jb



Not in my experience. I find that double tracked guitar hard-panned
leaves the
center of the soundstage open for drums/vocals. This does not work for
tracks
that are artificially doubled, but for tracks actually played twice.

-Jay

I hadn't thought of that, I assumed he was talking about duplicates. Usually
I'll duplicate tracks and pan them slightly away from each other in order to
make them 'bigger' in relation to the other tracks, or blend duplicates with
slight processing differences as a technique to get the sound I want. A part
that is played twice has a real musical function though, and I think it's a
lot harder to find space in the mix for that.

jb

I like it. And I love overproduction. Other than his freaky violent
streak, Phil Spectre rules.

"reddred" wrote in message
news

"Jay Kadis" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"reddred" wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...
As a rule of thumb, should doubled tracks be panned hard left and
right? Or does that lead to danger of making the lead vocal too
isolated in the middle?


I tend to use both tracks to fill exactly the space I want filled. If
you
pan hard right and left, the whole soundstage will be filled.

jb



Not in my experience. I find that double tracked guitar hard-panned
leaves the
center of the soundstage open for drums/vocals. This does not work for
tracks
that are artificially doubled, but for tracks actually played twice.

-Jay

I hadn't thought of that, I assumed he was talking about duplicates.
Usually
I'll duplicate tracks and pan them slightly away from each other in order
to
make them 'bigger' in relation to the other tracks, or blend duplicates
with
slight processing differences as a technique to get the sound I want. A
part
that is played twice has a real musical function though, and I think it's
a
lot harder to find space in the mix for that.

I'm going to wildly disagree with you here... there is no better way (imo,
ymmv, of course) to double guitars than to actually ****ING PLAY THEM TWICE!
lol If you delay the original track a coupla milliseconds or whatever, &
apply whatever effects, etc, then it's still a constant; but if you actually
double them via real playing (assuming you've got a decent player), then
every note will be either very slightly off in the late direction, right on
top of it, or very slightly off in the early direction - that's a a TOTALLY
different feel than what you can get from any duplicate/cloned track in
terms of doubling. It's not harder to find a space in the mix for that,
really... it should be easier. Think about it - a real life, "doubled" track
vs. a cloned/timeshifted/pseudo-doubled track. It will add depth to the mix;
hence, generating even more space to work with.

Neil Henderson

Well, if you really are going for the type of sound the The Vines have,
it doesn't sound like they are using artificial doubling. IT is a
pretty straightforward ambient kind of sound. Try recording the 2
guitar tracks each with a close mic and another mic at least 20 feet
away in a pretty live room if possible. Then pan your close mics hard
left/right and the ambient mics hard right/left. This will give you a
natural ambient sound with hard panning on the rhythm guitar tracks but
the ambient tracks will help to fill up the space more.

wrote...

I like it. And I love overproduction. Other than his
freaky violent
streak, Phil Spectre rules.


Well, do you want to get a natural sound like The Vines like a real
band playing in front of you or do you want a PHil Spector kind of
sound? Maybe try for something completely new!

Try playing the guitar part 1, 2, 3 or 4 times on each side and then
add artificial doubling ar a stereo chorus to that. Try a direct box
and amped sound together or use the one that fits best with the other
tracks. Take that sound and send it to 2 different amps and add that to
the sound or just use the amped with the ambient sound. Try micing the
amps close, taking direct outs from the head or a mic in the middle 40
feet away. Try different combinations of all these sounds. Maybe you'll
find a unique sound that really fits the song or maybe you'll just
learn something along the way.

You never know what anything might sound like until you try it. Maybe
that sounds like a lot of work to some people but it sounds like a lot
of fun to me. (Note - If you're paying for studio time it might not be
practical to experiment like this)

I've tracked the same guitar part on both sides as many as 8 times. IT
can sound pretty cool and if the guitar player is playing it almost
exactly the same every time it can sound like just one doubled track.
Of course, with anything you try, it has to be appropriate for the
song. I've also done this with background vocals with great results.

Did you ever try a 4 part harmony with each note sung 4 - 6 times on
each side? That's over 32 voices altogether. I did this with a band
called the "Tax Collectors back in the 80's on a 1 inch Tascam bouncing
back and forth. It was great fun and everyone was very happy with the
results. I even added a little artificial doubling to that with the
chorus setting on a Yamaha SPX-90. The sound was pretty cool and
different than anything that you could do with artificial doubling
alone. The final mix sounded pretty tight (3 piece hard rock band with
wild thrashing guitar) and I think all that doubling of the backgrounds
helped give the lead and background vocals their own space in the mix.
Sorry if I went a little off topic here!

wrote...

I like it. And I love overproduction. Other than his
freaky violent
streak, Phil Spectre rules
..

Well, do you want to get a natural sound like The Vines like a real
band playing in front of you or do you want a PHil Spector kind of
sound? Maybe try for something completely new!

Try playing the guitar part 1, 2, 3 or 4 times on each side and then
add artificial doubling ar a stereo chorus to that. Try a direct box
and amped sound together or use the one that fits best with the other
tracks. Take that sound and send it to 2 different amps and add that to
the sound or just use the amped with the ambient sound. Try micing the
amps close, taking direct outs from the head or a mic in the middle 40
feet away. Try different combinations of all these sounds. Maybe you'll
find a unique sound that really fits the song or maybe you'll just
learn something along the way.

You never know what anything might sound like until you try it. Maybe
that sounds like a lot of work to some people but it sounds like a lot
of fun to me. (Note - If you're paying for studio time it might not be
practical to experiment like this)

I've tracked the same guitar part on both sides as many as 8 times. IT
can sound pretty cool and if the guitar player is playing it almost
exactly the same every time it can sound like just one doubled track.
Of course, with anything you try, it has to be appropriate for the
song. I've also done this with background vocals with great results.

Did you ever try a 4 part harmony with each note sung 4 - 6 times on
each side? That's over 32 voices altogether. I did this with a band
called the "Tax Collectors back in the 80's on a 1 inch Tascam bouncing
back and forth. It was great fun and everyone was very happy with the
results. I even added a little artificial doubling to that with the
chorus setting on a Yamaha SPX-90. The sound was pretty cool and
different than anything that you could do with artificial doubling
alone. The final mix sounded pretty tight (3 piece hard rock band with
wild thrashing guitar) and I think all that doubling of the backgrounds
helped give the lead and background vocals their own space in the mix.
Sorry if I went a little off topic here!

I've had good results by recording 2 passes of an edgy guitar sound,
like a Marshall or Johnson, hard panning those tracks, then recording 2
passes of a thick Mesa (rectifier) sound, and hard pan those; for a
total of 4 tracks/passes doing the same thing. Duck the edgy tracks
some when the vocals come in, and throw them more out front when the
vocals go away. Fiddle with it enough and it matches Linkin Park and
some other guitar band sonics.

YMMV.

In article .com,
says...
snip
Did you ever try a 4 part harmony with each note sung 4 - 6 times on
each side? That's over 32 voices altogether. I did this with a band
called the "Tax Collectors back in the 80's on a 1 inch Tascam bouncing
back and forth. It was great fun and everyone was very happy with the
results. I even added a little artificial doubling to that with the
chorus setting on a Yamaha SPX-90. The sound was pretty cool and
different than anything that you could do with artificial doubling
alone. The final mix sounded pretty tight (3 piece hard rock band with
wild thrashing guitar) and I think all that doubling of the backgrounds
helped give the lead and background vocals their own space in the mix.
Sorry if I went a little off topic here!

I've been listening to the latest Def L, I mean, Shania Twain CD (it was
a gift, honest!) and the backing vocals sound more like a vocoder-type
effect than many multiple tracks of actual human singing.
--

Imagining a world with no hypothetical situations
BC Project - www.bcproject.com

"Neil Henderson"

I hadn't thought of that, I assumed he was talking about duplicates.
Usually
I'll duplicate tracks and pan them slightly away from each other in
order
to
make them 'bigger' in relation to the other tracks, or blend duplicates
with
slight processing differences as a technique to get the sound I want. A
part
that is played twice has a real musical function though, and I think
it's
a
lot harder to find space in the mix for that.

I'm going to wildly disagree with you here... there is no better way (imo,
ymmv, of course) to double guitars than to actually ****ING PLAY THEM
TWICE!

Depends on why you are doubling them. As I said, you can double tracks and
adjust panning just to make them bigger in the mix in realtion to
non-doubled instruments. Thats it. People do it all the time.

It's also fun to have two or three tracks with different EQ curves and
sculpt the sound you want that way.

On a DAW, you can double the track and apply 100% reverb to the non doubled
track and place the verb exactly where you want, to add some depth, or use
two reverb tracks, apnned left and right, with different verb settings, and
create a more realistic faux room. I did this all the time in my pre-DAW
days, just printing 100 percent verb to tape. It's easier now to duplicate
the track once or twice and add a plugin.

lol If you delay the original track a coupla milliseconds or whatever,
&
apply whatever effects, etc, then it's still a constant;

Which is much better then a chorus effect or plugin IMO if that's what you
want. More akin tho the way the beatles did it, without the manual control
of the secondary tape machine - unfortuneately.

but if you actually
double them via real playing (assuming you've got a decent player), then
every note will be either very slightly off in the late direction, right
on
top of it, or very slightly off in the early direction - that's a a
TOTALLY
different feel than what you can get from any duplicate/cloned track in
terms of doubling.

Absolutely. If you want to take the processing route on a track that's
already been recorded, though, you can use a pitch shifter and raise one
track a few cents. Sounds neat.

It's not harder to find a space in the mix for that,
really... it should be easier. Think about it - a real life, "doubled"
track
vs. a cloned/timeshifted/pseudo-doubled track. It will add depth to the
mix;
hence, generating even more space to work with.


I'm not sure I folow. The posts above were about having to pan hard left and
hard right so one could have some space in the mix.

I never pan much besides reverb to the edges. Hard panned instruments are
way too 1969 for me. I'll go 4 and 8 oclock all the time, though.

jb

It seems like the more you track a vocal or instrument, the more you
need a talented performer. I've heard Enya sometimes does over a
hundred vocal tracks, but she's Enya. But then, I haven't experimented
much with multiple tracks. It does sound cool to try.

"reddred" wrote in message
...

It's not harder to find a space in the mix for that,
really... it should be easier. Think about it - a real life, "doubled"
track
vs. a cloned/timeshifted/pseudo-doubled track. It will add depth to the
mix;
hence, generating even more space to work with.


I'm not sure I folow. The posts above were about having to pan hard left
and
hard right so one could have some space in the mix.

What I was saying - maybe I didn't elucidate well enough - is that (IMO,
anyway) the doubled parts, if doubled by playing both parts, will interact
with each other in a different way than will cloned doubled parts. The
cloning creates a constant differential in all respects between the cloned &
the original track (unless you break up the waveform & nudge different
segments of it in different increments, apply different or automated
dynamics processing to each of those segments, etc); while doubling by
playing creates something more interesting - the very slight varying time
shifts between each note/chord/whatever, slightly different degrees of
vibrato (if applicable), slightly different degrees of dynamics, slightly
different sustain of each note or chord, etc. Now, we're talking very, very,
very small degrees here - assuming if you've got a good player & he's trying
to double it tight - but nonetheless, there are obviously going to be these
slight differences in all these areas, and to me (again, YMMV) that creates
the perception of more space in the middle than a
cloned/nudged/processed-slightly-differently track does.

Not that there's anything wrong with what you've described, but - and maybe
this is just me since I'm a guitarist, and it could be an idiosycracy of
mine - I tend to like a real doubled part much better; I think all these
very slight variances I mentioned add more real energy to the mix. Kinda
like having an actual violin section in a recording of a symphony instead of
recording one violin & cloning it a dozen times.

Neil Henderson





I never pan much besides reverb to the edges. Hard panned instruments are
way too 1969 for me. I'll go 4 and 8 oclock all the time, though.

jb

wrote in message
oups.com...
It seems like the more you track a vocal or instrument, the more you
need a talented performer. I've heard Enya sometimes does over a
hundred vocal tracks, but she's Enya. But then, I haven't experimented
much with multiple tracks. It does sound cool to try.

On one hand you do need a **reasonably** talented performer, but OTOH, it's
really no different than someone playing tight in a band context. Any good
player can do it... if they're not USED to doing it, it might take them a
few tries to get the hang of it & a few punches to mimic the phrasing & ends
of notes exactly here & there. And yeah if you haven't messed with it much,
you ought to try it just to learn something new & possibly very useable for
certain things you may work on.

Neil Henderson

"Neil Henderson" wrote in message
...

"reddred" wrote in message
...

It's not harder to find a space in the mix for that,
really... it should be easier. Think about it - a real life, "doubled"
track
vs. a cloned/timeshifted/pseudo-doubled track. It will add depth to the
mix;
hence, generating even more space to work with.


I'm not sure I folow. The posts above were about having to pan hard left
and
hard right so one could have some space in the mix.

What I was saying - maybe I didn't elucidate well enough - is that (IMO,
anyway) the doubled parts, if doubled by playing both parts, will interact
with each other in a different way than will cloned doubled parts. The
cloning creates a constant differential in all respects between the cloned
&
the original track (unless you break up the waveform & nudge different
segments of it in different increments, apply different or automated
dynamics processing to each of those segments, etc); while doubling by
playing creates something more interesting - the very slight varying time
shifts between each note/chord/whatever, slightly different degrees of
vibrato (if applicable), slightly different degrees of dynamics, slightly
different sustain of each note or chord, etc. Now, we're talking very,
very,
very small degrees here - assuming if you've got a good player & he's
trying
to double it tight - but nonetheless, there are obviously going to be
these
slight differences in all these areas, and to me (again, YMMV) that
creates
the perception of more space in the middle than a
cloned/nudged/processed-slightly-differently track does.


I don't disagree at all. That's not why I duplicate parts when I'm mixing. I
do it because it makes it easier to get the sound I want even when I'm
working with thin pres. It helps me shape the sound and settle it into the
mix.

Not that there's anything wrong with what you've described, but - and
maybe
this is just me since I'm a guitarist, and it could be an idiosycracy of
mine - I tend to like a real doubled part much better; I think all these
very slight variances I mentioned add more real energy to the mix. Kinda
like having an actual violin section in a recording of a symphony instead
of
recording one violin & cloning it a dozen times.

All good. You're not talking about mixing though, you're talking about
arranging. Most of the time a listener won't hear my doubled or tripled
parts. They'll just hear 'Guitar' or 'Singer'. When I do what you're talking
about, I might double those too, if I want a fuller sound. Some people rely
on compression for this. That's fine too, sometimes I use a compressor if it
does what I want.

jb