# Doubling live performers



## Thonex (Nov 29, 2006)

With singers... I have good results by having each one (4 singers) sing a different line (from a hymn) and then having them all swap mic positions and having them sing another line.. and then doing it again and again... 4 times... so I got a 16 voice choir... it sounded pretty good... maybe just a little tad too homogenous.

With horns... I'd try to have them not play unison... to much sympathetic freqs going on... and I think players play differently when they are trying to play a chord.

My 2 cents.

T


----------



## rJames (Nov 29, 2006)

Thonex @ Wed Nov 29 said:


> With horns... I'd try to have them not play unison... to much sympathetic freqs going on... and I think players play differently when they are trying to play a chord.
> 
> My 2 cents.
> 
> T



I would be worried that recording the horns that way (playing the same chord 3 times) would introduce phasing issues. Or would that just fatten up the sound?


----------



## José Herring (Nov 29, 2006)

Any approach is valid and all have their drawbacks and none will produce ideal results when multi tracking. That being said though it is possible to get good results. Often what I've done is record the parts then do multiple takes of the same parts. Then I'll slightly pitch shift and time shift the recordings. This works up to about 3 takes then after that it either starts to phase or sound out because of the excessive shifting of time and space.

Other times you can have players play one part, then another, then another. This is workable but as Thonex mentions players will play differently if all three parts are being played at the same time. Though if the players can hear the other parts then they'll compensate for the other record parts too. Though personally I don't like the sound that this method produces. If you use the method then auto tune is almost a must.

Personally in the past I've had good results by having live guys play the lead parts while samples fill out the rest. This for me works out pretty good and is my preferred method over multiple takes. Though you have to write with that ensemble in mind.

In the end it's all a compromise.

Jose


----------



## Mike Greene (Nov 29, 2006)

I double all the time. It's a less than perfect method but I think it's better than just living with the small ensemble. Below are a couple examples.

The first is a choir where I used 3 women and one man. The women did about four tracks for the soprano part and four more tracks for the alto part. The guy did about the same. I helped out a bit on alto and bass, but my tuning is awful when I sing and this was long before AutoTune.

Also long before good plugin reverbs, so don't judge too harshly! I could do a much better job on the mix and I intend to add EWQL Choirs to beef this one up. Why bother? When you do the goofy shows as I do, Hallelujah (and Ode to Joy and a few others) are mighty handy to have on the shelf! :mrgreen: 

The second example is one violin and one viola player. They played in unison (I liked the blend) and did about 6 or 7 tracks for each of the violin and viola parts. The rest is Siedleczek (this track is also very old.)

To my ears, it seems the end result is halfway between a small ensemble and legitimately large section. But good enough to get sign-off from the client! :mrgreen: 

http://home.pacbell.net/fresh38/hallelujah.mp3

http://home.pacbell.net/fresh38/telemundo.mp3


----------



## rJames (Nov 29, 2006)

I think they both sound good and the violin/viola example certainly sounds nicer than one and one. Very thick.

What I'm wondering is if anyone has been advised by an engineer that you will get pronounced phasing when using the same voice (even on a different note) because of the similarities.

I would assume that there is phasing even in a large ensemble and that it becomes part of the sound that we know as many voices singing. (when I say voice, I mean, FH, vio, human, anything)

I wonder if phasing has become an issue to anyone especially in the recording houses with super engineers that have ears of gold??


----------



## JonFairhurst (Nov 29, 2006)

rJames @ Wed Nov 29 said:


> I would assume that there is phasing even in a large ensemble and that it becomes part of the sound that we know as many voices singing.


Yes, whenever multiple voices play in unison, there is phasing. Not coincindentally, it's also known as a "chorus effect", which is likely a standard plugin on your DAW.

The problem with offsetting the same recording by just a few milliseconds is that the chorus becomes stagnant, and can act as an unstable and undesireable EQ.

A chorus pedal for an electric guitar just uses a sine wave to modulate the delays. It's predictable, so it doesn't sound like a real chorus. A real chorus moves with organic randomness, providing the sound of multiple real voices. 

The other key is that each of the voices should have a different timbre. I saw David Bowie perform about 25 years ago, and his backup singers were twins. The result onstage sounded more like a pop recording than live singers - and I assume that was the desired effect.


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Nov 29, 2006)

Ron and I were having this discussion this morning. I have doubled string and choir and winds and it works out fairly well. The biggest problem is brass, so if anyone can refine their answers to brass that would be appreciated.

an excellent engineer I work with says Brass is a no no, but he happily doubles everything else.


----------



## Mike Greene (Nov 29, 2006)

I double brass a lot and I like how it sounds. I guess maybe there's phasing, but it doesn't sound like any more than if I have a group play unison all at once.

With brass, whether live or double tracked, I think tripling is generally better than doubling.

Here's a trumpet, I think I tracked him 3 or 4 times:

http://home.pacbell.net/fresh38/xprize.mp3

Same track, trumpets soloed:

http://home.pacbell.net/fresh38/xprizesolo.mp3

And a track with a trombones (and trumpets, too) all in unison and octaves.

http://home.pacbell.net/fresh38/agentdanger.mp3


----------



## rJames (Nov 29, 2006)

Thanks, Mike, you just proved my point. :wink: 

I just said that to piss Craig off...

So, here is the final result of our findings....

May I have the drum roll please.



dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd Its better to have more brass if can afford them!


Ta Da....

I think your brass sound awsome, Mike. But I have to say that there is bad phasing or Craig is going to kick my ass.


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Nov 29, 2006)

I think the results are passable, you can definitley hear the phasing though. BTW i have used the same trumpet player on all 3 parts, of a 3 part passage and would again if forced to. The big question is if you have 3 players and you triple it to nine, so the question is still not answerd. You would or could get that phasing times 3.


----------



## Pando (Nov 29, 2006)

I think what makes the difference in doubling/tripling in live players vs. samples is that live recording has usually ambience in the room that will greatly lessen the nasty phasing between the instruments, which would otherwise appear if the players are playing in an anechoic chamber or using samples and mixing dry. If you put each instrument playing in unison in an Altiverb room, space them out, then mix them, the results are much better, IMHO.


----------



## Mike Greene (Nov 29, 2006)

I dunno guys, I just checked out the VSL Pro Edition as well as EWQLSO 3&4 trumpet sections and the phasing sounds in the same ballpark to me. I think it's just the nature of the instrument, whether it's double tracked or multiple players at once.

To me, the problem with all the examples I've given isn't phasing, it's the lack of variety in the voices. What a group of trumpet players gives you is different horns, mouthpieces and lips. A single trumpet player multitracked gives more of the homogenous effect Jon described at the Bowie concert.

- Mike Greene


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 29, 2006)

The old trick is to record a trombone at half speed and then play it back at normal speed. Mix that in with trumpets and you have brass soup.

And it occurs to me that moving the players or the mic every pass could help. Plus you could create different players inside your DAW any number of ways: sliding tracks, modulating the pitch, etc.

Also, I like to double trumpets with flute when they get high (in a pop setting). That solves a lot of problems.


----------



## rJames (Nov 29, 2006)

I agree 100% Mike.

I know that phasing has been talked about on these forums. I think I learned the lesson at NS and it was really about using solo instruments to build harmonies.

That works great until you come back to a unison and you have the same samples coming out close in time.

I can understand that there might be phasing from similar timbres too. But I think your example shows that it is quite useable.

I'm working on a project where I will try to make a giant statement and I thought there might a be a use for doubling. That's where it all started.

I've had enough argument for a couple of weeks today. So, I'm just going to have to say that I'm right and that's the end of it.

...maybe that won't fly...


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Nov 30, 2006)

You can double to your heart's content. Just do it right.

With the brass/chord example, have all three players play the unison of each note. Let them hear the previous notes recorded in the headphones. You will get no more "phasing" than in a real ensemble. Don't record the "chord" multiple times, or you will not have control over tuning in post. If you must record the chord multiple times, have the players switch parts.

The choir is a little different, since you're dealing with ranges. I would still have each singer singing the independent part multiple times if possible. This gives you intonation control. But you can also get away with recording the full chord/part. If you do this, set up a microphone array that is distributed for an imaginary "ensemble" of the target size. Then move your session singers to different areas of that "ensemble" footprint. This will eliminate much of the doubling sound.

THERE IS NO INHERENT REASON THAT PHASING WILL BE A PROBLEM.

The only reason people even think that phasing is a problem is because they are hearing ROOM problems being doubled. That absolutely CAN be a problem. If your room is either too small, or is not well treated for recording you will be almost guaranteed to get not-so-great results from doubling.

Here's what happens. In an untreated room, it is nearly impossible to achieve a critical distance recording in all but close mic situations. Critical distance is the distance within which you are getting more of the source than the room. The moment you pass critical distance, you will have a failure when it comes to doubling. That's because no matter how different the take is, you will be hearing more room resonance than source--and room resonance DOES NOT CHANGE. So, the phasing you hear is actually the buildup of room resonance fighting with the source sounds. To make it worse, if you move the microphones to solve the problem, you are now actually introducing out-of-phase resonances into the equation...making it worse. That's why, rather than moving the mics in a doubling situation, you should use the tip above...setting the mics for a larger "virtual" ensemble, and moving your session players within that footprint. In this way, you will still get the room resonance buildup, but at least you are not altering its phase in each take.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Nov 30, 2006)

Another really important thing...

People tend to use the wrong microphones. The pro-sumer audio market has been FLOODED with large diaphragm condensers. Nothing wrong with them, all good mics for the most part, at great prices.

But the hidden problem is that nothing reveals a less-than-optimum recording environment like large diaphragm condensers. They are uber-sensitive, and the smallest room artifacts get recorded clear as a bell.

Sensitivity does not equal better quality recording. It only equals higher sensitivity to weaker input. YOU DON'T WANT THAT in most instrumental recording. It only means that you'll hear every movement of spittle through the horn, every breath, every creak...and in this case, every weak reflection in the room that will eventually build up and bite you in the ass.

You will get much more usable recordings from a small-diaphragm condenser, in almost all instrumental studio work. They are less sensitive, therefore, they record more of what you want to the track, and less of what you don't want. The fidelity is not worse on a less sensitive mic, they just have a sensitivity rolloff that doesn't pick up the things you DON'T want.

Large diaphragm mics are really great for the solo line you want to saturate an entire mix. That is why they're used for pop vocals...the greater sensitivity, placed close to the singer, gives intimacy. Even the smallest details are pushed right up front. And that is exactly the opposite of what you want when you're trying to blend a part into an ensemble.

No rule is hard and fast, of course, but you can take this general principle to the bank every time.

So, to encapsulate it...

1) If you're hearing phase artifacts with doubled players, it's probably the room, not the players.

2) Small diaphragm mics are less sensitive, and will help

3) Setting up the mics for the "virtual section" you want to record, and moving players within it gives better results than panning the same image around (which guarantees you'll set up phase problems).

4) If you have three players, a three note chord, and want a section of nine...have all three record each note in unison. This will give you the most control over tuning in post, and will only excite the room resonance ONCE per pitch, rather than three times, reducing overall resonance problems.


----------



## RickD (Nov 30, 2006)

rJames @ Wed Nov 29 said:


> Could I get a bigger choral sound in the studio if I recorded three singers three times or would it be better to just record them once and live with the smaller sound even though I want a bigger choral sound?
> 
> What if I had just 3 FH players (not a full orch) and I wanted a really fat triad.
> 
> Could I record them all playing a C, then all playing an E, then all playing a G and get a bigger sound than if I just recorded them as an ensemble playing one C major chord only one time?



This is commonly done with budget Christian Music, and it does make it sound bigger, but it will never replace the sound of more voices.


----------



## Aaron Gant (Nov 30, 2006)

This is my first post here but I thought I would just mention a few things that tend to help me when I'm forced to double or triple stack a section. I'll try and post a few links to examples as well but they will be streaming audio and not the greatest quality.

First off, a doubled group will NEVER sound like twice as many people recorded all at once. But we're talking about creating the illusion of size in a studio. 

If I were to record a large orchestra or choir I would have two basic sets of mics. One group of "close" mics and one group of "room" mics. So when recording a smaller group that I want to double to sound bigger I take the same approach. 

First example, 16 person choir that I want to sound like 40. Four close mics on the choir, about 6 feet back and 5 feet off the ground, spaced equal distance across the front of the group. Two small capsule room mics, conductor position (about 10 feet back and 10 feet in the air) First pass record all close mics and ONLY the left room mic. 2nd pass record all the close mics (change the panning) and ONLY the right room mic. Third pass, room mics only, reverse the panning.

http://www.615music.com/core/cd_details.cfm?id=100234
All the cuts on this disc were recorded this way.

2nd Example, a small string group (8 violins, 2 viola, 2 cello, 1 bass) recorded in a similar fashion. Brass is a 9 piece group, one pass.

http://www.615music.com/musicsource/audiosample.cfm?FNAME=sfl1107_02&cid=100080

Other things you can do:
- play the other parts on different instruments or with a different mouthpiece
- have them move their chair a few inches between takes 
- set up multiple mics and record each pass with a different one

As far as the original question. I would have the three players play all three parts at once, then swap the parts and double it. If you wanted more of the top part then record a third pass of one person playing it solo.

This is the longest first post in the history of the internet. . . .


----------



## rJames (Nov 30, 2006)

Aaron, your music is beautiful and big.

I suppose you had a large brass section (for a session that is cutting corners elsewhere) and no doubling there for the reasons that Craig mentions.

Do you remember what made up the brass section?


----------



## Dr.Quest (Nov 30, 2006)

Aaron Gant @ Thu Nov 30 said:


> This is my first post here but I thought I would just mention a few things that tend to help me when I'm forced to double or triple stack a section. I'll try and post a few links to examples as well but they will be streaming audio and not the greatest quality.
> 
> First off, a doubled group will NEVER sound like twice as many people recorded all at once. But we're talking about creating the illusion of size in a studio.
> 
> ...



As an enginneer that has doubled parts over the last 25 years with many techniques this post has the best on the money advise of all of these.
Very good and very workable ideas.
Listen up on this one Ron.
J


----------



## Aaron Gant (Nov 30, 2006)

rJames @ Thu Nov 30 said:


> Aaron, your music is beautiful and big.
> 
> I suppose you had a large brass section (for a session that is cutting corners elsewhere) and no doubling there for the reasons that Craig mentions.
> 
> Do you remember what made up the brass section?



3 Horns, 3 Trumpets, 3 Bones (one was a bass bone)


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Nov 30, 2006)

Thanks Aaron and welcome!


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Dec 1, 2006)

Great tip about recording only part of the mic plot at once, Aaron!!! I have done that with mono-mic placement, but never with a full stereo plot, and it makes perfect sense.

B.

Edit: I do have one minor disagreement, which is the issue of recording the divisi parts in multiples, tutti takes each time. I find recording each individual divisi part as a unison more dependably useful and flexible. With first-call talent, not so much practical difference, certainly...but still some. With less experienced studio players, you don't want to preclude your ability to retune intervals...even to be able to use Auto-tune if you have a wham-bam job and can't afford to be needling around with tuning each note by hand.

Of course, there are many caveats (SATB, for instance) that make it impractical to use the "unison" method vs. the "chord" method.

But with a single instrument (three trumpets into nine, et. al.) session, I would always try to do the unison method. That way, I can deal with intonation issues post-session...none more pervasive than combining samples with live players. The central issue (besides room resonances stacking up) is chordal tuning. Samples are equal tempered. A section will naturally play "dead" intervals, so their thirds, especially, will not match those of the samples. The living, breathing ensemble will play thirds a few cents flatter by instinct, in order to correspond with the 5th partial, and produce a beat-free chord. A live section will always be going for the difference or "Tartini" tone, the unplayed fundamental that occurs in the air when the chord components lock into the natural overtone series of the tonic.

Just my own experience and preference, and naturally mileage may vary...but I thought it worth mentioning and clarifying as to my reasoning.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Dec 1, 2006)

Something else I use that works for me is Waves S1, both to widen some takes and narrow others. I don't use the "shuffler," however, since it really makes a phasy sound in and of itself. Anything above about a 1.25 "width" adjustment falls apart to my ears, unless realism is not a concern. Above that level also seems to make some surround decoders go berserk...BAD outcome for media-bound projects. But the S1 will definitely pan stereo with better outcome than just collapsing and moving pan pots...at least to my ears.

Cool that we seem to have a bunch of really experienced engineers here, and that this separate forum area exists to discuss engineering topics!!! I really love seeing how other people solve problems...there is alway so much to learn.


----------



## Hermitage59 (Dec 1, 2006)

Some great info here, and thanks for the tips from the experienced engineering chaps (of which i'm not.)

Few years ago, i got stuck with a urgent ad job that involved male choir. I didn't have one, either live or sampled, so i had to do it myself. Quick and dirty. 

I marked out 16 choir spots with Gaffa tape on the floor, and set up three mikes as if i were recording a full section. (One semi floor, approx 2 feet off the deck, and two overhead.) I figured if i actually sang the parts from 'real' positions, then i'd get a closer and easier end result, than trying to record 16 times standing in front of a mike, then having to manipulate the results on a desk.
After singing the same part standing on each spot on the floor, and with some deliberate change of voice texture, (there's always 'bright' and 'dull' tenors for example) the end result was better than i thought it'd be. Bruce hit the nail on the head here, as quite naturally, i 'tuned' each note according to chordal and harmonically progressive structure, but as it was all live I didn't face the problematic issue of live and sample mix.

With 4 singers, one could record with the same method 4 times, instead of my 16, shifting singers to other spots between takes. I personally think this would be even better, as the resonance of combined voices would change according to the proximity of one unique vocal tone to another, but you experts would have a better idea than I at the possible result of this particular 'small group' technique.
This is a highly unscientific approach, and i'm sure experienced engineers would cringe, but it worked at the time.

As for Brass, i was fortunate enough to work with a couple of great brass studio players, who changed mouthpieces and instruments if they were buidling up recorded sections. (Both carried two instruments, and a selection of mouthpieces.) It was the same with strings, and I discovered experienced studio string players can 'alter' the inflection of each recording enough to build a credible section without the potential trap of 'same player' recording.
(I'm sure there are string players here who do the same, as a matter of normal studio practise.)

I wonder if it would be more convenient to find experienced studio FH players, and explain what you want. It's more than possible they'll have had experience in building up 'big' sections on their own, or with one or two others.



Alex.


----------

