jhughs


So when I record the same guitar part twice and mix them together I get a nice full sound.

When I record the same vocal two or three times and try mixing them together, well, it does sound fuller, but really it sounds like three guys in a bar having a sing-song. 

It could be that I'm not much of a vocalist, but are there any tried and true techniques for blending vocals?  Or should I just build up a good clip and treat that to try to get a fuller sound?

Record your vocal in stereo using a Y splitter into a two channel mic pre. Either stereo the vocal track or make right - left seperate tracks. That way you won't have to struggle with getting a second take to match the first. Takes are never the same with vocals and the fine nuances are nearly impossible to correct. Putting two tracks or a stereo track down at the same time is going to sound much more natural.

Philip


Crg: "a Y splitter into a two channel mic pre"

If you have time; please elaborate a little:

1) Can one buy/use a Y splitter for a condensor mic (U 87, AKG 414, etc)?

2) ... and no horrid-phasy effects or phantom power effects?

3) Are you using different pre settings for each pre?

4) Could one just use 2 pres: like an Avalon for de-essing and a Neve Portico for attitude?

It's certainly something you'd have to dial in whichever way you do it. I really couldn't speak to question 4. It would certainly be a test and see situation. Question 3 would a variable. I would say same settings but that would depend on the pre and whether it had EQ per channel etc. Question 2, I don't see how that could happen with one line and one phantom source. Question one, yes. Splitting the input could be done in a variety of ways to acheive multiple tracks at the same time with the original articulations. 

Crg

jhughs

..When I record the same vocal two or three times and try mixing them together, well, it does sound fuller, but really it sounds like three guys in a bar having a sing-song.  ..

Record your vocal in stereo using a Y splitter into a two channel mic pre. Either stereo the vocal track or make right - left seperate tracks. That way you won't have to struggle with getting a second take to match the first. Takes are never the same with vocals and the fine nuances are nearly impossible to correct. Putting two tracks or a stereo track down at the same time is going to sound much more natural.

What is it you are suggesting to accomplish with that? The same sig to two tracks(?) ..is the same as one panned center turned up a bit. 
 
"Splitting the input could be done in a variety of ways to acheive multiple tracks at the same time with the original articulations. " 
In other words, using aux sends you don't even need mulitples or 'clones. Aux parallel splits to any number of effect or variations.

Well I can't see it degrading the signal quality so if it works it works! It does allow for some interesting options though - parallel compression reverb. You could play around with this and get a really interesting sound. You could get the same result with a buss, but it doesn't matter either way. Both do the same thing.

Also I like your post count - 3000!!

One more thing, if you just want a thicker sound, not necessarily wider, I would do two takes, and get the performance as close as possible even if you have to punch every 5 words on the second take.

Then, lower the second take until you can barely hear it in the mix, or even hardly hear it but just 'feel" it making the main lead sound more full...

3 is not really going to be necessary unless you want a crowd vocal, in which I would usually do at least 4-6 takes, but that is a different story.

Lanceindastudio: Again, vocal skill cannot be beat by production tricks- 


Testify!

mattplaysguitar


Well I can't see it degrading the signal quality so if it works it works! It does allow for some interesting options though - parallel compression reverb. You could play around with this and get a really interesting sound. You could get the same result with a buss, but it doesn't matter either way. Both do the same thing.

Also I like your post count - 3000!!

You know, just to be perverse, on my current project, I'm going to try to do it the right way, learn how to tweak my reverb controls without relying upon a cloned track.
 
Next time you're in Geelong, look up the Radojevic family and say hi for me. My girlfriend has a lot of family in Geelong

I will warn against using 2 mics for LT and RT for lead vox ... invariably, one gets 'slightly' behind the other and phase issues are guaranteed (for me) ... albeit, I experienced this phasiness using 'non-identical' mics and pres. 

Phase issues are certainly hit and miss for me now. 

Harmony vocs from multiple talents oft get phasy when they are < 30 msecs tight and melodically similar.

When that happens, I'm forced to pan them out (70 to 100%) and seperate them by 30 msecs.

"Again, vocal skill cannot be beat by production tricks"
 
"Vocal skill" (if there be such a thing) ... Well, Lance, while I agree with basic vocal skill(s).  Though I perceive your vox is utterly superb ... I require production tricks for my more cr&ppy (yet beautiful) samples.  
 
... I thank God for my signal chain, room, mics, pres, re-takes, mouse, automation, and Melodyne! 
 
Certainly, Melodyne is the drug I crave   I detect Melodyne all over the radio.  Its almost like i'm perceiving, "who in their right mind sings pop without 1st getting drunk on Melodyne".
 
... "Feminine Vocal skill": Much exquisite gush gets sickening (for me).  "I wish she'd lofi her angelic vocals" ... and "Get real about love."
 
And, are not catchy lyrics more edifying in 3-part harmonies?
 
Expectation/bias might be invoked here.  Vox is extremely beautiful on numerous levels ... and old-school "vocal skill" may be more arbitrary than most realize.  Much depends on listener's perceptions of vox illusion and the vox-hacker's determination to record beauty.
 
  (IOWs, I hope I'll *cheat* a lot for a great vox performance and do every trick imaginable for ANY willing talent.)

Hmm... what I was saying is
1. you really  dont need more than 2 tracks for a lead part unless you want panned vocals and a middle vocal.

To give a lead some filling in, a second SEPARATE take that is not exact but very very tight, turned down way low only to where you can "feel" it is the only viable option unless, again, you are wanting a "crowd sounding" vocal

But, I do agree, one good take on a melody is great, and I usually only use one take for the lead.

Vocal tricks for livening up the vocals:
1:
left and right panned vocals on accent words on certain parts that musically enhance the vocal, like certain phrases- separately recorded, this widens certain parts and gives the overall vocal some dynamics-

2:
One second vocal in middle that is only on certain words to enhance certain parts. This is the same effect, but without the widening vibe on those parts.

I usually like the widening left/right takes better on certain words. This is great on both melodic vocals or rap.

3:
Of course, harmonies of 1, 2, 3 or even more intervals on select parts in verses and of course the hook can greatly enhance the overall vocal. sometimes, the harmonies ruin the vibe. But, often, they help bring things out/enhance those sections.
I usually do harmonies both left and right, panning each interval a little different, usually the lower harmonies in more like 40-60% left and right, then the next up say 75%, then 85%, then 90-100%.

Wow last night I was pretty tired. I fixed the typos here haha-

Thanx Mike