I have a pair of main vocal tracks, different performances of the same thing. I want to do something interesting with the second one and I'm looking for ideas.
 
I've tried delaying it to simulate a hard L, hard R, pair and adding a tad of chorus but I'm new to processing vocals - thought I'd throw it out there.
 
Thanks - rev
 
PS: Is anyone else not getting notified when a reply is posted?

Try less harsh panning.
 
I used to double vocals around 10 o'clock / 2 o'clock,  or 9 o'clock / 3 o'clock.
 
I'd do it occasionally, so maybe double vocals with the panning above on the hook phrase, then back to a single vocal in the center.
 

I used to double vocals a lot, but these days, I'm using a single vocal as much as possible, with any "doubling" providing a harmony. I feel a solo vocal is more intense, and makes it easier to convey emotion.
 
The key to the switch was doing phrase-by-phrase normalization to make for a strong-sounding vocal. I then do limiting for dynamics control to shave off the peaks, followed by compression.
 
It takes a lot of time to do the normalization, but it makes all the difference in the world. It's also killer for narration.

Mark:
Yep, I've tried a whole bunch of pan and chorus settings and they're all quite striking but you're probably right, less harsh more subtle. 
 
Anderton:
I've always thought of normalization as the cardinal sin because of what it does to the dynamics but I'll take your word for it and give it a try. Why phrase by phrase?
 
 

Main vox - increase the top end, second vox lower the top end for separation. Feed both into an aux and put over that Waves Doubler or Abbey Road ADT. Either or and you can get either effect for 30 bucks if you keep your eyes open. Alternatively use a granular delay...I use Guitar Rig 4...only 90 bucks and its a swiss army knife of effects. And no I don't work for either or any company for that matter...I'm a very naughty boy :). Alternatively, alternatively lol...use a granular synth like Padshop by Cubase or Wave's Codex. The options are limitless...how about a backwards verb or Wave's Abbey Road Chamber verb lol.

Sorry, its 4 in the morning...the end of December...hmm no that's Leonard Cohen...but it is 4 in the morning here in Oz.

Peace and Love

revnice1
Anderton:
I've always thought of normalization as the cardinal sin because of what it does to the dynamics but I'll take your word for it and give it a try. Why phrase by phrase?

Because it maintains the internal dynamics of the phrase. Think about it for a second...people compress the living daylights out of vocals, which destroys dynamic range FAR more than just making sure that the peaks of phrases are consistent. Normalization doesn't destroy dynamics; whatever dynamics were there in the first place, remain. 
 
Of course, this isn't an automatic process...that's why it takes so long to do it right. There will be times when normalization brings up quiet parts that were supposed to be quiet, and you don't want to do that.
 
The bottom line is for me, normalization makes vocals "pop," and yet include dynamics, in a way that compression can't. If you listen to my album Simplicity, you'll hear that almost all the vocals are not just individual vocals, but you'll also hear how the normalization brings them up front in the mix, without a lot of compression.

Anderton

revnice1
Anderton:
I've always thought of normalization as the cardinal sin because of what it does to the dynamics but I'll take your word for it and give it a try. Why phrase by phrase?

Because it maintains the internal dynamics of the phrase. Think about it for a second...people compress the living daylights out of vocals, which destroys dynamic range FAR more than just making sure that the peaks of phrases are consistent. Normalization doesn't destroy dynamics; whatever dynamics were there in the first place, remain. 
 
Of course, this isn't an automatic process...that's why it takes so long to do it right. There will be times when normalization brings up quiet parts that were supposed to be quiet, and you don't want to do that.
 
The bottom line is for me, normalization makes vocals "pop," and yet include dynamics, in a way that compression can't. If you listen to my album Simplicity, you'll hear that almost all the vocals are not just individual vocals, but you'll also hear how the normalization brings them up front in the mix, without a lot of compression.

I've always disliked using compression on vocals to "even" it out for the same reasons. Compression is fine, if you want that effect (and I do use it on vocals as an effect), but using it simply to even out levels kills all dynamics.
 
I used to normalise phrases within the vocal by hand, which worked, but was time consuming.
 
I've since got Waves Vocal Rider, and wow - what a difference - a very even level with all the dynamics.

+1 on Vocal Rider, Mark. I use it on all final vocals.

Compression on vocals is used on almost 90% of vocals from the past and present.
I do hand limit like others, but that's for sibilance purposes. I cant stand what de-essers do to a good vocal track.
 
I do quite a bit of double vocals but like Anderton I have found a single vocal is more powerful and more importantly, clarity. Sometimes even good double vocal tracks can muddy up great performances even if EQ'd correctly.
 
I use a lot of Waves plug ins to achieve the effect I like but the OP might want to try using Channel tool

It can do wonders for double vox tracks creating that separation that's needed for clarification.

Phoen1xPJ
+1 on Vocal Rider, Mark. I use it on all final vocals.

Vocal Rider is very cool. However, it doesn't really work on narration; it's designed for more continuous sounds, like vocals. But, I also have a thing about doing procedures manually as much as possible, whether it's cutting out silence between phrases, adjust levels, reducing rogue peak levels, etc. I like the degree of control, but it's also why I do only one album project a year