Blending unharmonized vocals

Aside from the 'work on getting the support versions tighter with the original..
Put clip enevelopes on each of the new backing tracks, then with perhaps the just the lead and one backing track in track view trim the heads, tails (and word/phrase levels if need be) to match the lead, repeat with the lead and the next backing.. This is the same 'tack for harmony parts, getting everyone on the same page, based on the lead's phrasing.
Cutting and moving phrases is also game.
..Then do your blend of them under (behind/to the sides whatever..
Then there's also V-Vocal for pitch.

Panning will get you there aswell, dont go crazy but see how they sit in the song.

Post a sample if you want, then we could give you a better insight

If the sub-vocal tracks add mud to the vocal track? either decrease the reverb length (decay) and/or add HPF on that sub-vocal buss.

Or you could always EQ the reverb return.

Using an HPF & a LPF can work wonders.

The Sonnitus EQ is perfect for this.

Very true Greg

I have known that there are rules to follow on stuff like this but also at the same time...there are no rules.  What I have come to use as my rule of thumb is.... stuff either works or it doesn't.

When it comes to layering of vocals, thus far, I have not had good success (to my ears) with layering to thicken vocals. So I elect to use one good vocal track.

I agree with most of what is said above... keep the main vocal louder, and experiment with different things to get the second and third tracks "working" right.

I've tried that "doubling thing" more than a time or two... playing with pan, and levels, and FX on the BGV.... nothing I did ever sounded good.....or maybe the right term is "real". so now I go for a nice clean, in tune vocal track and let it roll.

Guitarhacker


I've tried that "doubling thing" more than a time or two... playing with pan, and levels, and FX on the BGV.... nothing I did ever sounded good.....or maybe the right term is "real". so now I go for a nice clean, in tune vocal track and let it roll.

Double Thing (as you call it) :lol:  I prefer to call it 'Double Tracking', a technique that dates back to the 60's, considering the Beatles (for example) had limited multi-track recorders (compared to what we have now = UNLIMITED tracks) yet back in those days the Beatles (vocals) were 'double tracked', so I guess George Martin and the boys (Beatles) thought it was worth the extra effort to get that sound, and if done RIGHT it sounds great IMO, and that technique is successfully used to this day but of course ADT technology (automatic, as an alternative to manually double-tracking) has been around since the 60's invented by Ken Townsend, but again DT or ADT is still used today and will be for a very long time to come :)

-

Hi Songcraft,

 FWIW, I am simply saying that the sound of double tracking is usually obvious... what I consider a myth is the idea that it is used routinely to somehow fatten a voice in a way that doesn't just scream "double tracked" vocals.

 Often times people offer Dark Side of the Moon as a great example of double tracks... I agree it's a great example... it's just that sometimes folks can't agree as to whether it's obvious the tracks were doubled.

 I also think that in the case of the Beatles that basic multi singer harmonies may have prevailed over instances of actual dub'ed layer with the same singer. I'll listen for examples the next time I'm in a Beatles mood. If you have any examples to share... I'd enjoy learning about them.

 My statement about 83% and last week was meant to be a joke.

 For all I know the number is more like 27%.

 Is you album for sale in the states? I like to buy CDs.

 best regards,
mike 

IMHO, all of these techniques have their place, depending on the type of sound or effect you're looking for.  There are times I've spent an inordinate amount of time trying to double a track when what I really wanted was another take with some minor, natural variations. 

I like to use different eq on backing vocal tracks.  I'll also use different (or more) reverb on the backing tracks than on the lead to make the lead stand out more.  I rarely like what I get when I use chorusing on the backing tracks, so I try not to rely on it to thicken the sound.

If I can get away with multi-tracking takes, I prefer to do that.  If multiple takes are not an option, then I settle for cloning and doubling.  If I clone a track, I usually bump it slightly so it's not perfectly aligned with the original track.

For lead vocals, I like to use a small amount of delay rather than reverb.  I feel that I get more clarity and the vocal comes through stronger than by using reverb alone.  If I use reverb on a lead vocal, I usually have a short pre-delay to avoid "vocal mush".

I hear you Mike, no problem :)

I agree about the thickening and hearing the doubling.

Interesting that ADT was used by a lot of well knowns such as you mentioned 'Pink Floyd', and also extensively used by Jimi Hendrix not only on vocals but also on guitar  :lol:  I thought the teeth technique alone would have been sufficient enough to get that ADT effect but I guess not.

Unfortunately no CD available for quite a while yet, this is a very slow process (intentionally) I'm taking one step at a time.

I should be done long before Dec 21st 2012.

I take long breaks between sessions (to refresh), and the last phase of the project will be going thru all songs again just prior to the mastering process to make sure nothing is sticking out like a sore thumb.

Currently working on a song that has 2-way, 4-part harmony vocals, but since it's ALL me the important thing I have to do is get all the vocal parts nicely balanced and clear in the mix especially since the vocals slightly over-lay one another in the choruses.   My wife has been sick, unable to add her vocal part (her voice will add more distinction for the 2nd-part overlay), but so far with just being all me it's not too bad. :lol:  Meanwhile I've started work on yet another new song.

-

mcourter


SongCraft does it like I do it, mostly. I'll use one solid dry vocal track, clone it, add some verb or whatever to the cloned track and bring that up just enough to support the main track, but not so much that it sounds like a second cloned track, if you catch my drift. So far I've had moderate success with it.

You are aware that this does not sound any different to not cloning, just alters the workflow? As the track is cloned, the clone will simply raise the level of the dry signal. It won't change anything else, unless you do some different editing or nudge it. As for the reverb always being too loud, I have found that just putting on a hall reverb with only 1% wet, that amount of reverb can be plenty. So I think I understand what you are saying about it being easier to tweak the levels. If you were just using a send (with full gain being sent to the send) then your reverb level might be down to -24dB on the send. Tweaking this with a mouse is more difficult than tweaking at -6dB due to the differences in resolution. Of course to get this better resolution you just decrease the level of the send so it doesn't send much signal to the buss, then you can tweak it in the more tweakable region.


As for double tracking, I do this in all my song choruses and I think it works great. I don't notice that it's doubled. I will sing the part three times, best one centre, and loud, second two takes will be panned left and right, generally around 50%. The level of these is very quiet. This is usually enough. The main issues with making it sound doubled come with sibilant and plosive sounds that are not perfectly on time. You can learn to sing the second and third parts without these bits "singing by the sea - ining eye uh eee" which can actually work well or you can volume envelope those bad bits out. I tend to envelope it because singing it differently is quite difficult for me. Also, eq, usually a lowpass or high shelving cut on the backing tracks can be a great thing. It can help mush it into a single, warmer sound, as well as send the backings further back in the mix where they belong.

Most important thing is SUBTLETY. And just stay away from cloning full stop, unless you want a chorus effect sound. Just singing again, it's not that hard. I find harmonising tools don't work nearly as well as just singing it again. And that's because they work with a clone. There is only so far you can go.

"Brian Wilson and Sir George Martin might have something to say about that, Mike (though I doubt they monitor this forum much). You may even have heard some of their work. "

Hi Planet, I grew up with a best friend whose goal it was to own every Beach Boys LP ever pressed. Back in 1979 he had well over a hundred different printings. I think we listened to every one... many times.

I was the guy with the complete Beatles collection.

Both ensembles have a great blended vocal sound... it's beautiful.

My very first rock concert was a Beach Boys concert. :-) I'm too young for the Beatles... although having grown up in Miami (where the Beatles made their USA debut) the legacy and collective memories of the Beatles shows there were a big influence on my music listening.

I think the only thing we might disagree on is whether the results sound blended or straight. In my opinion they sound blended. I'm not trying to convince you or sway you to my way of thinking... just throwing out some ideas.

Songcraft, please let me know when the CD is finished!!! :-)

I'm also pretty sure Mr Wilson had a LA2A available at just about every session he ever attended.

all the best,
mike

+++++++1 to everyone.  Thanks for chiming!

My 2 cents:

1) Cr&p vox is a myth.  IOWs, Melodyne/Autotune can fix almost anything and even create new harmony vocs ... even an octave up or down (depending on mics and pres).  Adjust formants to taste.

2) Double vocs must be extremely tight or panned wide enough to avoid comb-filtering (that phasy double-vox sound I despise so much in my mixes)

3) For Harmony vocs, I'd pan them 35% to 100% LT and/or RT

4) Plate reverb on the lead only; convoluted room/hall verb on harmonies

5) A good mic and a good pre ... de-ess/compress in advance on nasssty male vocs.

6) Consider using females and/or kids for excellent harmonies

7) Use counter-melodies and octaves ... (as per Brian Wilson)
 
8) Personally, I get 'happy' harmonies with:
    * Overly-Strong emotion
    * Hyper enunciation (despite de-essing them later)
    * HPF/EQing/Filtering, re-formanting, coloration, pitch changes on clones?
    * Treating the harmony talent with as much respect as the lead
    * Turning 'myVox' into a girls or a deep-singer (via Melodyne)
 
9) Of course, intuition (what is cool to me) and retakes of leads and harmonies ... depending on time constraints.
 
10) (You are an artist: I'm sure you'll help me with your tactics, too.)
11) I turn down the bass guitar and electric guitar(s) during vox harmonies.
 

True, Beagle:

But, the Haas-widening (slap back) effect (for me) requires at least 30 msecs to prevent phasy sounds.

For harmonies I must consider Haas-widening (cloning) at 30-40 msecs.
 
EDIT:
I've tried just panning the tight harmonies/backings ... and that seems to sound worse (in my mixes).  The Haas effect is a wonderful thing ... but it, too, requires a bit of 'luck' from my abuse of it.
It gets worse for me:
 
A 3rd backing harmony may get additional Haas effect cloning with yet another 40 msecs delay to prevent phasiness.
 
Thats almost 80 msecs delay to 'seemingly prevent phasiness!  Ouch!
 
Of course, my 'expectation bias' thinks it sounds super cool!  Perhaps the ears can't tell the difference after 30 msecs?
 
 

Here's a great article about the studio the Beach Boys worked in starting in 1962 after their first single release was recorded at a record company project studio in 1961:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ited_Western_Recorders

The idea of Frank Sinatra or Ray Charles singing in the room next to Mr Wilson seems too much to consider.

:-)