TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Doubling/Layering to get PHAT sounds?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Doubling/Layering to get PHAT sounds?

What sounds do you guys usually double or triple up? Ive notice that when you triple up the main lead it gives you that think phat sound. This is especially useful if you use soft synths.

Also, i tend to do it to the pads as well, gives that nice full sound.

Yeah, you know why? Because if they are both in 0 degrees phase you are doubling the amplitude of whatever instrument you do it to.

Nice way to kill all your headroom. You might as well just not double it up and increase the volume.

Either that or double it up but increase the phase difference between the 2. But thats called widening and there are some situations where you don't want to do that.

I'm beginning to think that alot of people's definition of 'phat' is simply 'more gain.'

Why not just get rid of the bassline and the kick drum? I mean they are using up too much headroom. Headroom you could spend by taking a pad and playing it 3 times over itself!

You also have to be careful of phasing problems when you combine 2 different sounds, but if you're just doubling the same sound then that's pretty useless.

why do for reece bass in DnB for example almost always sample the bass then double it?

doubling serves no purpse, UNLESS you detune the second instance a bit (so that it has a different pitch) and perhaps add a bit of delay to it. This will give you a nice unison effect.

Derivative, you're only talking about digital or sampled instuments, right?

If the sound source you are doubling is analog or behaves as analog (free running or slightly unstable oscillators), doubling IS a good way to add phatness to the sound. It's essentially like doubling the amount of oscillators. Also in the case of analog, other parts of the synth like filter and envelopes may act slightly different each time, so that may add to the thickness as well. You have to actually record the sound twice, obviously, to get two slightly different sounds.

Don't do it with sampled instruments or digital synths though, that would do nothing but increase the volume, and in the worst case cause some nasty flanger sounds.

I use it very often to get that phat wide stereo image. Record the synth twice, for left and right channel respectively. You get a very nice, stable and wide mono compatible sound, that no chorus or spatial effect can achieve.

that's a good way to ruin a clean mix for shure. As derivative said, if yo uwant a "phat" sound by your definitions you might aswell just raise the volume.

In order to get a truly full and rich sound you have to place all instruments at different areas (frequencywise that is) and fill the spectre up that way. It will probably give the same effect for your ear but if you start analyze the sound in detail you will hear that it sounds way better than by doing it the wrong way (raising volumes in order to fill the spectre up)

The problem with this is that sound generally behave in a way that makes it hard to do this. A sound might feel and sound very boring when you cut out some important frequencies from it but that's a problem you have to adapt to, you might perhaps need to remove a sound completly from the production even though the sound alone is brilliant, all just because it clashes with everything else.

This is when producing and mixing becomes fun tho (at least imo), it's a bit of problem solving trying to find the best possible sound to fill the mix up with without fucking the whole sound picture up

buuuut anyway, went a bit OT there, sry bout that

Don't be afraid to double, triple or quadruple your lead if it sounds good. Make sure that each stem has different effects applied-EQ, reverb, flanger, phaser...- so that when played together instruments act in a synergistic way. Each separate track needs to be compressed and slowly brought up in volume while you're playing the original unaltered lead track until you start noticing the difference.
Parallel compression has been used extensively in mixing.
Mix engineers do more to the mix then they'd like you to believe.
Cheers

Eh, I take the opposite approach. What you are essentially doing is making a crude unison feature on a synth that probably wasn't designed with unison in mind or simply just doesn't have it.

And you are wasting a tremendous amount of headroom. Its easy to forget that you are working essentially in a box with a roof (0 dB).

As for analogue. Analogue has some subtle variation in periodicity and pitch of the oscillators. But not enough to put it out of tune if its digitally controlled. Even some of the older analogues hold their pitch fairly well as long as you don't move them and give them time to warm up.

Besides, if you record from analogue the result will most likely be a digital recording anyway (unless you record to tape). And you cant just double up analogue instruments like they have some kind of multi timbral mode or like you can add another instance of it.

If you want to double up a 3 oscillator minimoog. You need 2 minimoogs. How many here can afford even 1 minimoog? Thats that example out the window.

quote:

Originally posted by Derivative Eh, I take the opposite approach. What you are essentially doing is making a crude unison feature on a synth that probably wasn't designed with unison in mind or simply just doesn't have it. And you are wasting a tremendous amount of headroom. Its easy to forget that you are working essentially in a box with a roof (0 dB). As for analogue. Analogue has some subtle variation in periodicity and pitch of the oscillators. But not enough to put it out of tune if its digitally controlled. Even some of the older analogues hold their pitch fairly well as long as you don't move them and give them time to warm up. Besides, if you record from analogue the result will most likely be a digital recording anyway (unless you record to tape). And you cant just double up analogue instruments like they have some kind of multi timbral mode or like you can add another instance of it. If you want to double up a 3 oscillator minimoog. You need 2 minimoogs. How many here can afford even 1 minimoog? Thats that example out the window.

Well if you want to make the sound thicker like having more oscillators, or spread the stereo image, this is ultimately the best way to do it. The gain should then be adjusted obviously to bring the volume to appropriate level.

Whether this is good or bad is a completely different thing, though that's probably what this thread is about..

I've found myself countless times in a situation when I want something to sound thicker, or widen the stereo image, and this is the perfect solution in those cases.

It doesn't matter whether it's recorded to analog or digital, only thing that matters is if the sound source has perfectly stable oscillators or not.

- Rompler/sampler/any digital synth with perfectly stable oscillators:
Try to record it twice and you only get more volume. In worst case the two takes are not even aligned perfectly resulting in some nasty flanger-like effects. NOT GOOD.

- Analog/virtual analog/anything with slight random variations on the pitch/timing/phase:
Record it twice and the two takes are slightly different, the waveforms interact creating a thicker sound.

So you don't need 2 Minimoogs. One is enough, just record it twice. In fact you don't even need a Minimoog, any synthesizer on sound source that isn't perfectly stable can be recorded several times to make the sound thicker.

a nice compressed kick

rolling bassline

filtered down breakdown with a detuned h4xsaw

i like it.

Derivative is correct. By doubling or tripling the same sound you are at best creating a very crude unison effect, and at worst just raising the volume. Either way you're killing your headroom.

A better way to approach this would be to use delay, reverb, or various types of modulation (flanger, etc.). Or layer with a different sample. If you're particularly adventurous you might use an FM synth to add harmonics.

Usually though, if you want a phat sound then your best bet is to produce a phat sound or use a phat sample in the first place - and more often than not, you don't even need to do that, you just need good EQ.

Thanks for all your replies, its great to hear your input on this. I dont think i was descriptive enough though to really explain my meaning. Yes if you just layer up a sound on top of each other it will boost the volume , however what i wanted to say was.... lets say if i am working on the main lead. I have 3 tracks of the same synth sound , i pan the first hard left, pan the second hard right and then keep the last one in the middle. This would also be considered phattening up the sound wouldnt it? Instead of just one stereo lead, you have 3 mono signals that makes the sound seem very wide.

Usually when I think of layering sounds, I think of two or more sounds that are not the same.

For instance, a trance bassline. Some basslines, I've noticed, have at least two parts: a Low rumble, and a mid-ranged tremor. Especially where rolling basslines are concerned, I'll try to use two DIFFERENT kinds of synths, one with lower frequencies than the other. Making both sounds work together for the whole is difficult, and layering the same bassline over the other does absolutely nothing constructive to your mix. In a recent track, I've layered a very LP, square-ish Vanguard with a relatively mid-ranged raspy V-Station to create a nice rolling bassline.

Another instance would be the kick drum. In my very humble library of kicks, I'll get a nice low one with some good punch, EQ it, and layer another kick drum with higher buzz. I'll band-pass the new kickdrum so that there is no flanging in the bass frequencies. I might even place a highhat sample on top of it all with virtually no tail on it. It's a nice snappy kickdrum, and eve retains a newness of character if I decide to cut alot of the high-freqs on it. I've NEVER noticed anything productive about layering the exact same kick drum on another.

You FLStudio bashers will probably wave me off, as that's what I've used, but logically I still believe my illustration holds weight.

As for panning the equal parts left and right to achieve "phatness"... all you have to do is apply some stereo widening effects to achieve the exact same effect without the duplication nonsense.

quote:

Originally posted by Effero Don't be afraid to double, triple or quadruple your lead if it sounds good. Make sure that each stem has different effects applied-EQ, reverb, flanger, phaser...- so that when played together instruments act in a synergistic way. Each separate track needs to be compressed and slowly brought up in volume while you're playing the original unaltered lead track until you start noticing the difference. Parallel compression has been used extensively in mixing. Mix engineers do more to the mix then they'd like you to believe. Cheers

That is great info, thanks for sharing

personally i'm siding with derivative on this one. i think you just need to learn how to compress / EQ your sounds a little better to make it phatter. the only real reason i can see in needing to duplicate a synth is to perhaps for some dynamic effect like as some mentioned...panning to achieve a certain effect...

considering that you want to pan your synth left right and center...well personally sounds like a lot of space you're taking up. a phat synth isn't everything...i would be afraid of taken up all kinds of room for other sounds...

quote:

Originally posted by Floorfiller personally i'm siding with derivative on this one. i think you just need to learn how to compress / EQ your sounds a little better to make it phatter. the only real reason i can see in needing to duplicate a synth is to perhaps for some dynamic effect like as some mentioned...panning to achieve a certain effect... considering that you want to pan your synth left right and center...well personally sounds like a lot of space you're taking up. a phat synth isn't everything...i would be afraid of taken up all kinds of room for other sounds...

hmm makes sense. Althought i am pretty good with eq , one of my weaknesses is being real effective with the compressor. With EQ i tend to not use it to phatten up anything, I usually cut different frequencies to make a clean tight mix. However, I need to work on my compressor skills... dynamics is freaking hard

quote:

Originally posted by Krispy Kreme lets say if i am working on the main lead. I have 3 tracks of the same synth sound , i pan the first hard left, pan the second hard right and then keep the last one in the middle. This would also be considered phattening up the sound wouldnt it? Instead of just one stereo lead, you have 3 mono signals that makes the sound seem very wide.

I'm curious as to why you think this would make any difference, because I can promise you that it doesn't. When you pan one hard left and another hard right, it's precisely the same thing as just having one in the center (usually +3 dB louder, because that's the panning law in most sequencers). Unless you're doing different processing on the left/right channels, then you're still just raising the volume.

It's strange how often I hear this... it seems self-evident that a "center" panning is just two mono channels, left and right, with the same sound at equal volume. Of course a stereo sound could have stereo width even when centered, but that would be because the sound itself is stereo; separating the channels and recombining them will still recreate exactly the same sound. Converting the entire thing to mono and then panning them hard left/right will only create a mono version of the original stereo sound, which will reduce the stereo width.

If you want to create stereo width the way you're suggesting, you need to feed different sounds into each channel, usually by using delay or reverb or even EQ/compression.

I disagree with derivative, since nearly all of my lead sounds are played on > 2 soft synths.

I tend to end up with a lead sound that has the right feeling but for instance doesn't pack much in the low/mid range. Tweaking the synth sound doesn't provide the right feeling.

So I'll layer it with another synth that has the low-mids and then i'll eq them so they sit together (not doubling the amplitude).

This fills up more frequencies without necessarily raising the volume (and if it does, just lower the volume of both, duh!). More frequencies = fatter sound.

It's exactly as Four_On_Four-er said about basslines and kicks.

In fact, nowdays I also layer all of my percussion samples in battery by assigning > 1 sample to each key, and panning / filtering each sample individually. If your open hat sample lacks crunch, layer it with a some other crunchy sound. It works wonders.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I'm curious as to why you think this would make any difference, because I can promise you that it doesn't. When you pan one hard left and another hard right, it's precisely the same thing as just having one in the center (usually +3 dB louder, because that's the panning law in most sequencers). Unless you're doing different processing on the left/right channels, then you're still just raising the volume. It's strange how often I hear this... it seems self-evident that a "center" panning is just two mono channels, left and right, with the same sound at equal volume. Of course a stereo sound could have stereo width even when centered, but that would be because the sound itself is stereo; separating the channels and recombining them will still recreate exactly the same sound. Converting the entire thing to mono and then panning them hard left/right will only create a mono version of the original stereo sound, which will reduce the stereo width. If you want to create stereo width the way you're suggesting, you need to feed different sounds into each channel, usually by using delay or reverb or even EQ/compression.

I guess I got the idea from reading one of alphazones interviews. They said in one of their songs they used 3 vanguards for the main lead. I was not satisfied with my sounds and it was missing the phatness so i started layering them up and experimenting with panning and mono/stereo.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I'm curious as to why you think this would make any difference, because I can promise you that it doesn't. When you pan one hard left and another hard right, it's precisely the same thing as just having one in the center (usually +3 dB louder, because that's the panning law in most sequencers). Unless you're doing different processing on the left/right channels, then you're still just raising the volume. It's strange how often I hear this... it seems self-evident that a "center" panning is just two mono channels, left and right, with the same sound at equal volume. Of course a stereo sound could have stereo width even when centered, but that would be because the sound itself is stereo; separating the channels and recombining them will still recreate exactly the same sound. Converting the entire thing to mono and then panning them hard left/right will only create a mono version of the original stereo sound, which will reduce the stereo width. If you want to create stereo width the way you're suggesting, you need to feed different sounds into each channel, usually by using delay or reverb or even EQ/compression.

Doubling something and panning hard left/right is definitely not always the same thing as having one mono sound panned center. If the sound is coming from analog or virtual analog it's slightly different everytime the note is played. So using one instance for left and another for right with exactly similar settings (or recording it twice, for each channel) WILL increase the stereo width. I've done this countless times, and even with my Oberheim Matrix-1000 with DCO's, or any of the VSTi's I use, I can confirm it widens the stereo image. That's what I most often use doubling for, and it's the best way to increase stereo width.

If the sound is sampled (playes exactly the same each time), THEN there is no reason to double it.

Stereo widening effects simply double the sound and modulate it slightly differently for each channel. They often use some basic waveform, so that every once in a while the sound coming from left and right channel is in perfect sync. So the stereo image fluctuates between extremely wide and mono. Using two instances of the same synth or recording it twice instead, makes the wide stereo image much more stable and mono-compatible.

if your using a good synth like waldorf, virus or any of those you definatly do not need to layer.....

Recording a synth once, copying the track and panning left and right will give you mono.
If you want a wider image, delay the copied track by a few miliseconds and voila...instant wide image. Also, you can use MS processing on stereo tracks to enhance the width but be carefull of the phase issues, i.e. always check your mixes in mono.
But in most cases wide imaging comes from a carefull placement of sounds in a song. It's better to have most of the sounds in mono, give them space by using early reflections, reverb and delay and place across the panning spectrum so that they will all have their own little spot.
This mixed with one or two stereo sounds will create amazing environments.
And for the end, if you're adding reverb to pads, don't pan them all the way left or right. Pan them slightly off, and pan the reverb return all the way. This will give you an even wider image...
Trust me on this, I tried it sucessfully.
Regards
Effero

Most of the time, the oscillators oscillate freely, so youre sure to have a phase difference between the 2 or 3. However if the phase init. is a fixed value, then youll just get what derivative said. And if you have to run 3 copies of the same softsynth to get a ''phat'' sound......how about getting softsynths with unison?

quote:

Originally posted by Four_On_Four-er As for panning the equal parts left and right to achieve "phatness"... all you have to do is apply some stereo widening effects to achieve the exact same effect without the duplication nonsense.

Stereo widening is not the same as panning. When you pan something left/right, you are decreasing the gain of the channel in the stereo pair which you are panning away from.

If you hard panned a sound left, then it only plays out of the left channel in the stereo pair.

Stereo widening involves using 2 duplicate sounds (both may be stereo pairs if desired). Getting them to start at exactly the same time then adding a delay to one of the sounds. I dont mean a delay effect. I mean a short delay of a few milliseconds so it starts slightly later than the other sound. But the delay shouldn't be long enough that your ear perceives it as an 'echo.'

The result will put one sound slightly out of phase with the other one but because the delay is so short (no more than a few millseconds really) it is still perceived as a single sound.

Widening like that is the basis of chorus effects, flangers and phasers. The only difference is the length of the delay. Some of these also route the signal through an LFO to make things more interesting. When you increase the delay to a certain point the 2 different parts are perceived as 2 different sounds (an echo). Then it ceases to be a chorus/flanger/phaser/whatever and becomes a digital delay effect.

There are uses for widening but I dont get why you would take 3 sounds, in phase. Layer them all so they start at the same time. Then centre one. Hard pan one left and the other right.

They are all still in phase. You are just doubling the amplitude of the left channel and the right channel and you may as well just take 2 in phase sounds and double them up.

Scratch that. You may as well just use the one sound and increase the gain so its way louder.

Louder does not equal more 'phatness.' I don't even know what that word is supposed to mean because some people feel its loudness. Others feel it is more oscillators in parallel with unison on it. Otheres seem to feel 'phatness' is the characteristic of a minimoog and if it aint a minimoog it just ain't as fat. I dont get it.

It seems like a few people in this thread just like sounds that are really fucking loud but its all a relative thing. It depends on what else is swinging in your tune at the same time, and how loud all those other instruments are.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.