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.

___________________
Layered Sounds Radio Show
Myspace
The DJ List

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

___________________


https://soundcloud.com/ghostea stuff

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

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by davedresden i suggest getting the gabriel & dresden prog-a-minute. in 3 easy steps you too could change the face of dance music. batteries not included. - dave

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.

___________________


Found Atlantis - Mixography [mix archive/mokumentary/my soul]?
i writed a song.

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.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here