Help with backing vocals

[Georgia_Boi]

For some reason, only the backing vocals of my chorus are dropping out in mono, but the other bk vocals in the verses are just fine. Now I bypass all effects, so I know that is not the problem. Maybe it could be the way I recorded them or the way I panned them, but the other vocals are fine. All vocals were recorded in mono, if that helps. I have one panned left and one panned right, with one moved slightly to the right. Someone please help me out here.

 

[dvyce]

For some reason, only the backing vocals of my chorus are dropping out in mono, but the other bk vocals in the verses are just fine. Now I bypass all effects, so I know that is not the problem. Maybe it could be the way I recorded them or the way I panned them, but the other vocals are fine. All vocals were recorded in mono, if that helps. I have one panned left and one panned right, with one moved slightly to the right. Someone please help me out here.

it would be a phase cancellation issue.

when you say "one panned left and one panned right, with one moved slightly to the right" do you mean you copied track to a new track and then panned one left and one right... the slid one of the tracks visually to the right to make it play slightly later?

If so, you likely threw the tracks out of phase and they are cancelling eachother out.

Solution: If you feel the need to have this effect... then shift the track even later... or delete one of the duplicated tracks and use a delay plugin.

 

[rhythmgj]

Or, simply sing the parts over (separately, on separate tracks, rather than copying and pasting).
This is the best way to get a full sound with backing vocals, without the phasing issues/comb filtering
that can occur with the "copy/paste" method. Then you can pan them how you'd like them-- hard left and right,
grouped, fan-panned, whatever...

GJ

 

[dvyce]

Or, simply sing the parts over (separately, on separate tracks, rather than copying and pasting).
This is the best way to get a full sound with backing vocals, without the phasing issues/comb filtering
that can occur with the "copy/paste" method. Then you can pan them how you'd like them-- hard left and right,
grouped, fan-panned, whatever...

GJ

but, of course, singing the part over (i.e., "doubling") would be a very different sounding result than what he did... what he did is exactly the same as putting a delay on the vocal and panning the dry and wet signals opposite directions... this is a very different sound from doubling... "best"? not necessarily... "different"? absolutely.

 

[rhythmgj]

OK, semantics and subjectivism here from both of us, granted. Feel free to insert "really good way" or "perhaps better" or "imho" wherever necessary to get the point across-- " without the phasing issues/comb filtering
that can occur with the 'copy/paste' method." Of course they are different techniques, and maybe that's exactly what the OP wanted, etc., etc. But that technique comes with a price (the phasing issues and mono "incollapsability"), and while a few people back in the analog days may have doubled with a second track/bussed delay technique, most people did/had to sing multiple parts if they wanted the same vocalist to sing all/most of the back-ups, back in the day. While the technique of cutting and pasting may indeed/de facto be "different," it really arose as a matter of digital convenience, which is why I boldly said "best," in relation to getting a good sound _without the attendant issues_. I think Bruce Swedien was pretty sure that having Michael sing all of those parts, at different distances from the microphone, while trying to sing as close to the original track as possible, was a worthwhile process.

Of course, ymmv, and everyone is free to produce as they see fit (at least in this country). Certain "best practices" do tend to rise to the top for a reason, though.

GJ

 

[Georgia_Boi]

it would be a phase cancellation issue.

when you say "one panned left and one panned right, with one moved slightly to the right" do you mean you copied track to a new track and then panned one left and one right... the slid one of the tracks visually to the right to make it play slightly later?

If so, you likely threw the tracks out of phase and they are cancelling eachother out.

Solution: If you feel the need to have this effect... then shift the track even later... or delete one of the duplicated tracks and use a delay plugin.

Yeah i copied the track

 

[dvyce]

OK, semantics and subjectivism here from both of us, granted. Feel free to insert "really good way" or "perhaps better" or "imho" wherever necessary to get the point across-- " without the phasing issues/comb filtering
that can occur with the 'copy/paste' method." Of course they are different techniques, and maybe that's exactly what the OP wanted, etc., etc. But that technique comes with a price (the phasing issues and mono "incollapsability"), and while a few people back in the analog days may have doubled with a second track/bussed delay technique, most people did/had to sing multiple parts if they wanted the same vocalist to sing all/most of the back-ups, back in the day. While the technique of cutting and pasting may indeed/de facto be "different," it really arose as a matter of digital convenience, which is why I boldly said "best," in relation to getting a good sound _without the attendant issues_. I think Bruce Swedien was pretty sure that having Michael sing all of those parts, at different distances from the microphone, while trying to sing as close to the original track as possible, was a worthwhile process.

Of course, ymmv, and everyone is free to produce as they see fit (at least in this country). Certain "best practices" do tend to rise to the top for a reason, though.

GJ

I think you have missed my point.

These are totally different effects we are talking about here.

My point is that "copying, pasting and time shifting" gives you a completely different result from "singing another layer"...

One is not a substitute for the other.

If you want the sound of a "copied, pasted and shifted" vocal, you would not "sing another layer" because it would be the wrong effect.

If you want a "doubled" (which would mean to sing another layer) vocal, you would not "copy, paste and shift" because it would be the wrong effect...

Just like if you want the sound of a "chorus" effect, you wouldn't "double" your vocal because it would be the wrong effect (just like a "chorus" would not be a substitute for "singing another layer")...

And if you wanted the sound of an echo/delay effect on the word "yeah" so it echoes and fades away like "yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah", you wouldn't sing the "yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah" going quieter and quieter as you went along...

And if you want the vocalist to sing "c-c-c-c-c-c-come on!", you wouldn't have him sing one "come on" cut and paste the "c" sound a bunch of times... you'd have him sing it that way... unless you wanted the digital stutter effect.

All totally and completely valid and different effects.

None are "better"...

All are "different"...

None are substitutes for eachother.



The "copy, paste and time shift" gives you the exact same result as a short delay effect... A person who wants to use a "short delay effect" will not find "singing another layer" to be an acceptable substitute.


...and for the tracks to cancel eachother out, the delay would need to be so short as to be almost imperceptible... he would probably be ending up with more of a "phasing" or "flanging" effect... or he may have some other problem with his audio, too, that is causing the cancellation.

 

[rhythmgj]

A different effect born of the convenience of not having to sing it over and over, so perhaps you missed my point. It may also be pointless for us to debate terms without knowing exactly what the OP was trying to do, but just a funny observation:

>>>>And if you wanted the sound of an echo/delay effect on the word "yeah" so it echoes and fades away like "yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah", you wouldn't sing the "yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah" going quieter and quieter as you went along...

And if you want the vocalist to sing "c-c-c-c-c-c-come on!", you wouldn't have him sing one "comeon" cut and paste the "c" sound a bunch of times... you'd have him sing it that way... unless you wanted the digital stutter effect.<<<<

I have actually done _both_ of those things to great effect, so yeah, I get it, different production decisions for different people for different reasons. Again, as I tried to clarify in my second post, perhaps "best" was a poor choice of words, but somehow I think that word stopped you from reading/digestiong receiving the rest of the content that I was actually sharing. I made an assumption that the OP was talking about backing vocals (which can be "doubled" or not), because the OP strictly mentioned _backing vocals_, not any special lead-vocal-exact-copy-delayed technique. And to be technically accurate, cutting and pasting is _exactly_ an _exact form_ of "doubling." It uses a "double," silly, so I don't know what we're arguing about(?)...

GJ

 

[Ray Beccarelli]

idk.......

 

[chris carter]

Yeah i copied the track

Don't copy the track. That's now how people get more voices on background vocals. You get more vocals by singing the parts over and over. There are no shortcuts. You want two voices, you sing it twice. You want three voices you sing it three times. You want 80 voices you sing it 80 god damn times.

 

[bandcoach]

or you record 40 people twice

 

[rhythmgj]

We used to call those "Gang Vocals," Coach. It's probably a good time to think of a better name...

GJ

 

[bandcoach]

call them crew or call them chorus - a chorus is a group of people who sing or recite the same words and melody -comes from the Greek dramatic comedies and tragedies