The classic technique of doubling up parts can add that missing ‘sounds like a record’ sheen. Some argue the real way sounds best and is easy, so why bother faking it?
Why Double Track?
Alongside basic effects like reverb, double tracking is one of the oldest production techniques out there. Producers and engineers discovered that recording parts twice and layering them created a larger-than-life sound that was more engaging to listen to, and as track counts grew, so did the ability to treat more parts with the expensive-sounding sheen that ‘tracked’ parts enjoy.
The Real Thing
The process of creating parts is simple. Once a performance is down, the artist then does another take with the aim of replicating their timing and pitch of the original with as much accuracy as possible. In the mix, the two are balanced against each other, giving rise to the familiar chorusing that relies on tiny variations in pitch for its effect. When done well, the result can imbue mix elements with an irresistible lustre that can elevate a good part into a great one. Often it’s vocals that benefit the most from this treatment.
Getting performances to match when layering parts can be surprisingly difficult to achieve, even for experienced performers. While pitch variations are welcome, too great a deviation from the original introduces unpleasant dissonance, while timing discrepancies can very quickly introduce raggedness to phrasing especially where vocals are concerned. Problems can be addressed by exploring the cause, as in the case of vocalists different singers will need very different headphone mixes from one another to perform their best. Certainly the last thing some will want is to hear the original if they know the part well, because singing in unison is no easier even if you are singing with yourself…
Very few performers can repeat a part so closely that they drift in and out of phase cancellation. For those who do, triple tracking can negate this, as the third pass can add the required difference for the effect to work. Tape workflows involved delaying headphone mixes by a few milliseconds, or pumping the tape speed by a few cents, but this is all achievable in seconds on your DAW’s timeline.
Faking It
The single most often cited reason to do real double tracks is the superior sound that it gives. The organic shifts that occur are as natural as the sound itself, and trying to replicate them using time-based processing has, before now, turned in disappointing results. With the right performer in front of the mic, why not just do another pass and get the superior effect of the real thing?
The reality is that three things can happen in a session. Firstly, an otherwise excellent performer is unable to replicate that standout take. Secondly, tracking-up a tired singer is arguably worse than other methods. Thirdly, as productions change or undergo revisions, it’s not unusual for the need to treat parts after recording to become apparent. This is no more salient than when time or geography is against the engineer.
In the video we compare real double tracking to faking it, showing how using a modern purpose-made double tracking solution can overcome these factors, giving results that are surprisingly convincing up against the real thing.
Using What’s There
The question of which sounds better is best answered by the mixer, however the choices made are not just aesthetic ones. Mixes often require practical solutions, including those that overcome the absence of an artist, change of mix direction, or both. We can use modern, purpose-built solutions which afford us the ability to ‘fake’ humanistic double tracking because they are good to the point of being so much better than bad ‘real’ double tracking or having none at all.