multoc wrote: I've always been into that sound of vocals that have been doubled. My problem is when my vocals are summed to mono (which most "major label" productions with this technique sound like they are, and most new songs that are popular seem to have done) they sound thin and out of phase. Am i doing something wrong, do they actually need to be panned out more than it seems? Or is there a technique that needs to be implimented that I'm not familiar with?
Thanks

Are you merely "cutting and pasting" an identical copy of the vocals 'in time' in your editing software. Or alternatively, are you cutting and pasting an identical copy of the original vocal and then delaying one of the vocals by a small amount?

If so, many people consider that a big 'no-no' for more or less the same reasons you described.

It is [almost] always preferable to 'double' vocals by doing two completely different 'takes' (though the two takes can sound almost identical, they need not be different). It should sound better that way. Never "cut and paste" identical copies of vocals. Rarely will itever sound as good as two seperate takes. Getting the second take to match up with the first is a lot of work, an "art form", as recording always is.... but the music just sounds much more "real" that way.... with less of that 'thin' cheesy '"cut and paster" doubling effect'.

Mises wrote: [quote=multoc]I've always been into that sound of vocals that have been doubled. My problem is when my vocals are summed to mono (which most "major label" productions with this technique sound like they are, and most new songs that are popular seem to have done) they sound thin and out of phase. Am i doing something wrong, do they actually need to be panned out more than it seems? Or is there a technique that needs to be implimented that I'm not familiar with?
Thanks

Are you merely "cutting and pasting" an identical copy of the vocals 'in time' in your editing software. Or alternatively, are you cutting and pasting an identical copy of the original vocal and then delaying one of the vocals by a small amount?

If so, many people consider that a big 'no-no' for more or less the same reasons you described.

It is [almost] always preferable to 'double' vocals by doing two completely different 'takes' (though the two takes can sound almost identical, they need not be different). It should sound better that way. Never "cut and paste" identical copies of vocals. Rarely will itever sound as good as two seperate takes. Getting the second take to match up with the first is a lot of work, an "art form", as recording always is.... but the music just sounds much more "real" that way.... with less of that 'thin' cheesy '"cut and paster" doubling effect'.

Haha don't worry I'm not doing that, that'd only be useful for hard panned instruments, I'm actually recording two takes but it still comes out sounding thin and almost out of phase, when panned out they sound fine, but I'm after that narrow "mono" double that I hear. The only example I can think of off the top of my head is more recent Blink 182 and what ever that new Three Days Grace song that's on the radio is lol (its 12:57 am).
Figured I would ask on here before asking my recording professors (who have worked on major label releases such as toad the wet sprocket, static X, foghat and mick Jaggar).
Hope I can get some more help

Try harmonizing the second pass, not doubling.

Not what I'm after, when I have harmonization I tend to have that part doubled and panned (-75, 75).