Suppose you are happy with the BIAB arrangement and you export the tracks to your DAW. For each track (bass, guitar, piano, etc), you may add your favorite VST instruments.
But will you double the tracks in order to have a fuller sound? I mean, should you duplicate so that you will have two tracks of piano, two tracks of drum, etc?
I will do it for lead vox, rhythm guitar, and occasionally backup vox if I am the one singing. Some artists use doubling as an in-your-face effect, but I tend to keep it subtle.
"My primary musical instrument is the personal computer."
I've done it on a part or two to emphasize a part. I've also detuned or put a little chorus on the doubled one and that can change the sound, sometimes making it sound fatter, sometimes just weird - experimentation is the key for me.
But I think if you did it to all the parts, it would sound pretty much the same.
I'm also talking MIDI here, I do most of my editing with MIDI because (1) it's easier to edit MIDI and (2) there are hundreds of edits you can perform on MIDI that you just can't do with audio yet.
Mostly.......NO! Doubling a track in that manner does nothing except make it louder and risk other issues.
You can use compression and level control to get a louder sound if that's what you're after.
But before you do anything..... ask yourself and answer this question. What do you mean when you say you want a "FULLER SOUND"? Is there anything wrong with the version you have with one track each? Does it sound OK or does it lack something? Could the problem be solved another way...such as with EQ and compression?
Figure out what it's lacking first. There may be a way to get what you want... in fact there is....and you don't need to double to get it.
Having said that: doubling, tripling, and more (aka layering) is a useful tool when it's used correctly and in the proper places. Doubling everything in the project is NOT the right way to get it. In fact, that will simply cause other issues to occur. I use it on vox and acoustic guitars..... but I NEVER copy a track to do it. I always ALWAYS record unique tracks for each track I want in the mix. Levels and EQ are critical to a successful double vs something that isn't.
Most of the lead vocals in my projects are triples..... main in the center up nice and loud... 2 additional leads, lower, and panned 100% L/R. In fact, you probably can't hear the other lower vox in the mix..... but in a soloed state.... they are audible. That's how it works best. The subconscious hears them and to you....they simply sound a bit fatter, or fuller.
Often, the desire to double the tracks to get a "fuller sound" is really a band-aide solution on something else that's really the problem. You should be able to get a nice full sound with relatively few instrument tracks and none of them doubled. If you can't..... you need to find out why you can't and work on that problem.
You can find my music at: www.herbhartley.com Add nothing that adds nothing to the music. You can make excuses or you can make progress but not both.
The magic you are looking for is in the work you are avoiding.
Doubling is a fine technique to use if it helps you accomplish the sound you are looking for!
I have used it on vocal tracks to "thicken" my voice. And I have used it when I want a background of something like a strummed acoustic panned both right and left.
Of course you have to do a little more than just double the track...mainly add some delay to the doubled track. Check out these articles for more info,
If you are using BiaB, there is a special feature working behind the scenes to deal with the issue of doubling parts. It actually makes completely different parts, it doesn't try to just change one slightly from the other. This is for Realtracks.
If you put 2 or more of the identical Realtracks on separate tracks, BiaB will automatically generate different parts for each of them, so that there is no time in the arrangement that it would be playing the same thing - because if it did, it would sound like one player instead of two.
There is no setting needed for this, it just works, as long as you are generating them all at once by pressing the play button. We call this feature same-but-different.
Fwiw, in our tests, attempting to generate different parts by just offsetting the timing of an audio track, or panning doesn't work, and it often sounds worse. That's why we made the same-but-different feature, so that you actually hear 2 different parts play at all times.
If you are using BiaB, there is a special feature working behind the scenes to deal with the issue of doubling parts. It actually makes completely different parts, it doesn't try to just change one slightly from the other. This is for Realtracks.
If you out 2 or more of the identical Realtracks on separate tracks, BiaB will automatically generate different parts for each of them, so that there is no time in the arrangement that it would be playing the same thing - because if it did, it would sound like one player instead of two.
There is no setting needed for this, it just works, as long as you are generating them all at once by pressing the play button. We call this feature same-but-different.
Fwiw, in our tests, attempting to generate different parts by just offsetting the timing of an audio track, or panning doesn't work, and it often sounds worse. That's why we made the same-but-different feature, so that you actually hear 2 different parts play at all times.
This is really handy for the rhythm tracks. Use this on the acoustic guitars for example, in the background of the song. I simply set up 2 tracks and record my Taylor guitar 2 times playing the same thing. RB will also duplicate this quite easily and well.
I would not advise using this on a lead part for the attempted purpose of doubling the track since it does NOT play the same thing twice...... HOWEVER..... I use this unique function quite often on lead parts, not to double, but to choose segments from each part to create one awesome solo. Listen to the piano and the guitar solo in this song.
There are 3 piano parts rendered from the same piano in real band and there are 5...yes 5...count them.... 5 guitar tracks rendered from the same real band track and in Sonar, I used envelopes to allow the parts I wanted to play. The result is fills and a solo that sound like they are one simply amazing part/solo. Some of the piano fills, while very short, are in fact coming from 2 different tracks controlled by volume envelopes.
AS PeterG points out... the worst way to attempt doubling is the lazy man's way.... simply copying a track and delaying it or detuning it.... this method causes some serious phase issues as the frequency of the notes played a few milliseconds apart mix in the DAW. You get comb-filtering and that doesn't sound good. I've done it, we've all done it, it's just not the best or recommended way to do this.
You can find my music at: www.herbhartley.com Add nothing that adds nothing to the music. You can make excuses or you can make progress but not both.
The magic you are looking for is in the work you are avoiding.
A lot of people have used double-tracking in hit records. It's an effect, and like most effects, it's probably best to use sparingly and only when it contributes something special to the song.
Here's another approach. Have you tried a BBE Sonic Maximizer? A little bit of processing with that gizmo can really liven up tracks. (they have a software plug in too).
Like most things, too much is too much.
The theory behind it is this (the way I understand their literature):
The voice coil of any loudspeaker delays the high frequencies more than the low ones. Coils resist changes in voltage. This results in the low frequencies hitting your ears first.
The BBE has a control (process) that delays the low frequencies so that they highs and lows can enter your ear in phase. Since no two voice coils are alike you use your ears to adjust the process control. Note: I find it best to adjust the BBE before equalization.
There is also a low contour that acts like the "loudness" button on an old stereo set. It boosts the presence of the low sounds, adding punch without adding mud.
I have the hardware unit on my PA set, and won't leave home without it
If you are using BiaB, there is a special feature working behind the scenes to deal with the issue of doubling parts. It actually makes completely different parts, it doesn't try to just change one slightly from the other. This is for Realtracks.
If you put 2 or more of the identical Realtracks on separate tracks, BiaB will automatically generate different parts for each of them, so that there is no time in the arrangement that it would be playing the same thing - because if it did, it would sound like one player instead of two.
There is no setting needed for this, it just works, as long as you are generating them all at once by pressing the play button. We call this feature same-but-different.
Fwiw, in our tests, attempting to generate different parts by just offsetting the timing of an audio track, or panning doesn't work, and it often sounds worse. That's why we made the same-but-different feature, so that you actually hear 2 different parts play at all times.
Peter, this is a wonderful feature of BIAB and I use it a lot!! But on a few occasions I have seen BIAB generate the exact same part for two different tracks on a few bars. In these situations I either regenerate or I export each track individually and manipulate them in my DAW. I noticed this because I had both tracks panned hard left/right and on some bars it would come back to the center as they combined! If I see it again I will save the file and send it to you. I do not think I have seen this in BIAB 2015 yet. And, as I recall it was a ukulele RealTrack in at least one case.
the worst way to attempt doubling is the lazy man's way.... simply copying a track and delaying it or detuning it.... this method causes some serious phase issues as the frequency of the notes played a few milliseconds apart mix in the DAW. You get comb-filtering and that doesn't sound good. I've done it, we've all done it, it's just not the best or recommended way to do this.
I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing here but I am talking primarily about doubling a single track for "thickening" a vocal where the singer cannot sing a double for whatever reason. In these cases this technique can work quite well.
IMHO it is silly to call a technique "lazy man's way". Did the Revolver album suffer because John and the others were "lazy" and chose to use ADT instead of actually performing doubles? If a technique helps you achieve the sound you want then use it!
I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing here but I am talking primarily about doubling a single track for "thickening" a vocal where the singer cannot sing a double for whatever reason. In these cases this technique can work quite well.
I thought that was the topic of discussion in this thread. If a singer can sing a track, certainly, they should be able to record a second (or more) track in a short time. Unless the taxi is outside honking the horn, in which case, you gotta work with what you got into that one track. I might have used this on "Give Me A Chance" because we recorded one take. I'd have to go back to the project and look to be 100% sure. The singer was not able to get back to record anther after that with her school schedule. So, yeah... sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, or do without. When we did the original recording, I wasn't thinking about doubling the track. After the fact, I did. Too late.
Quote:
IMHO it is silly to call a technique "lazy man's way". Did the Revolver album suffer because John and the others were "lazy" and chose to use ADT instead of actually performing doubles? If a technique helps you achieve the sound you want then use it!
It is the "lazy" way to do it since doing it right means you have to take the time and make the effort to record a brand new track and get the phrasing 99.9% accurate.... vs simply doing a copy and paste then nudging the track a few milliseconds.
After all the goal of a double is NOT to have two or more audible voices but to simply make the one sound fuller, thicker, fatter. IIRC, the Beatles did use it quite a bit and it kinda became a signature sound so to speak. The Beatles invented lots of things and as a result of them being at the beginning of new concepts, had the levels set differently from what many producers use today. Not wrong, but just different...they were breaking new ground and learning about things as they went. I heard a story about Paul. It was said that he spent 2 days...and not 8 hr days, but much more than that, working in the Abby Road studio on ONE vocal track for a single song.... doubling the tracks by recording a new unique track and getting it perfect. He didn't copy it or punch it in or splice it.... he wanted it right. Beginnings of words, the consonants, the endings, the inflections.... everything had to be right.
But here's the critical thing.... while yes, absolutely, lots of hit records from every genre are using this, and have been for decades, it's critical to get it right and most folks who are using the lazy man's way to double are probably also a sure bet that in addition to being lazy, they don't really know how to get a decent double that doesn't sound obvious and have comb filtering issues in it. A good ear can almost always tell when someone is just starting out using this technique and quite often when the track is copied and nudged. I admit I have used the lazy man's double a time or two myself. Nothing's wrong with that...we all have to start somewhere and learn as we go.
Last edited by Guitarhacker; 05/14/1503:15 PM.
You can find my music at: www.herbhartley.com Add nothing that adds nothing to the music. You can make excuses or you can make progress but not both.
The magic you are looking for is in the work you are avoiding.
I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing here but I am talking primarily about doubling a single track for "thickening" a vocal where the singer cannot sing a double for whatever reason. In these cases this technique can work quite well.
I thought that was the topic of discussion in this thread. If a singer can sing a track, certainly, they should be able to record a second (or more) track in a short time. Unless the taxi is outside honking the horn, in which case, you gotta work with what you got into that one track. I might have used this on "Give Me A Chance" because we recorded one take. I'd have to go back to the project and look to be 100% sure. The singer was not able to get back to record anther after that with her school schedule. So, yeah... sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, or do without. When we did the original recording, I wasn't thinking about doubling the track. After the fact, I did. Too late.
Quote:
IMHO it is silly to call a technique "lazy man's way". Did the Revolver album suffer because John and the others were "lazy" and chose to use ADT instead of actually performing doubles? If a technique helps you achieve the sound you want then use it!
It is the "lazy" way to do it since doing it right means you have to take the time and make the effort to record a brand new track and get the phrasing 99.9% accurate.... vs simply doing a copy and paste then nudging the track a few milliseconds.
After all the goal of a double is NOT to have two or more audible voices but to simply make the one sound fuller, thicker, fatter. IIRC, the Beatles did use it quite a bit and it kinda became a signature sound so to speak. The Beatles invented lots of things and as a result of them being at the beginning of new concepts, had the levels set differently from what many producers use today. Not wrong, but just different...they were breaking new ground and learning about things as they went. I heard a story about Paul. It was said that he spent 2 days...and not 8 hr days, but much more than that, working in the Abby Road studio on ONE vocal track for a single song.... doubling the tracks by recording a new unique track and getting it perfect. He didn't copy it or punch it in or splice it.... he wanted it right. Beginnings of words, the consonants, the endings, the inflections.... everything had to be right.
But here's the critical thing.... while yes, absolutely, lots of hit records from every genre are using this, and have been for decades, it's critical to get it right and most folks who are using the lazy man's way to double are probably also a sure bet that in addition to being lazy, they don't really know how to get a decent double that doesn't sound obvious and have comb filtering issues in it. A good ear can almost always tell when someone is just starting out using this technique and quite often when the track is copied and nudged. I admit I have used the lazy man's double a time or two myself. Nothing's wrong with that...we all have to start somewhere and learn as we go.
Sounds like elitist BS to me! if a technique works and gets you the sound you want then by all means use it! John Lennon knew that as do thousands of others. I guess it is lazy to use pitch control or a digital reverb instead of building your own plate version? Must be really lazy to use BIAB instead of hiring studio musicians! It is always about the results, not whether you used this tool or that tool or took a route someone else considers "lazy".
Sounds like elitist BS to me! if a technique works and gets you the sound you want then by all means use it! John Lennon knew that as do thousands of others. I guess it is lazy to use pitch control or a digital reverb instead of building your own plate version? Must be really lazy to use BIAB instead of hiring studio musicians! It is always about the results, not whether you used this tool or that tool or took a route someone else considers "lazy".
That made me smile......
Yes, it's lazy when you simply copy a track to double it rather than recording it two, three, four or more times, taking the time to do it the right way when you have the option and the time to do it the right way. I don't think I have said "don't do it"....just that there is a better way to do it that takes more time, effort, and skill. It's not the easy path, but it does yield better results in the long run.
That's all.
Just as "nudge" is a tool that can line up a clip properly, pitch, reverb, and BB/RB are tools. Just as using a hammer to drive a nail is using a tool, rather then trying to use your hand or a rock..... tools make a job easier. It's not laziness to use a tool.
And if you want to use copy/paste/nudge & detune for your doubling .....all I can say to that is... be my guest. You will get out of it what you put into it.
Last edited by Guitarhacker; 05/15/1502:46 AM.
You can find my music at: www.herbhartley.com Add nothing that adds nothing to the music. You can make excuses or you can make progress but not both.
The magic you are looking for is in the work you are avoiding.
Sounds like elitist BS to me! if a technique works and gets you the sound you want then by all means use it! John Lennon knew that as do thousands of others. I guess it is lazy to use pitch control or a digital reverb instead of building your own plate version? Must be really lazy to use BIAB instead of hiring studio musicians! It is always about the results, not whether you used this tool or that tool or took a route someone else considers "lazy".
That made me smile......
Yes, it's lazy when you simply copy a track to double it rather than recording it two, three, four or more times, taking the time to do it the right way when you have the option and the time to do it the right way. I don't think I have said "don't do it"....just that there is a better way to do it that takes more time, effort, and skill. It's not the easy path, but it does yield better results in the long run.
That's all.
Just as "nudge" is a tool that can line up a clip properly, pitch, reverb, and BB/RB are tools. Just as using a hammer to drive a nail is using a tool, rather then trying to use your hand or a rock..... tools make a job easier. It's not laziness to use a tool.
And if you want to use copy/paste/nudge & detune for your doubling .....all I can say to that is... be my guest. You will get out of it what you put into it.
Need my EBS filter for sure! You say doubling a track is lazy yet you use computer-generated backing tracks rather than hiring studio musicians! Gag at a gnat and swallow a camel much?
Everyone has their tools and techniques and shortcuts. One man's BIAB/digital reverb/ADT is another man's lazy technique. There is ALWAYS "a better way to do it" for everything in producing music (and life in general) but I choose the techniques that work for what we are trying to achieve in any given situation and ignore "authorities" who frown on such techniques. Because the end result is what I am after!!
Some do.....some talk. You talk a good game. When was the last time you posted some music you worked on?
Just wondering, because I took a few minutes to search back over 2 years to find and listen to something you actually recorded and posted to see and hear your skills in action.... sorry, but I came up empty handed.
Last edited by Guitarhacker; 05/15/1508:29 AM.
You can find my music at: www.herbhartley.com Add nothing that adds nothing to the music. You can make excuses or you can make progress but not both.
The magic you are looking for is in the work you are avoiding.
Some do.....some talk. You talk a good game. When was the last time you posted some music you worked on?
Just wondering, because I took a few minutes to search back over 2 years to find and listen to something you actually recorded and posted to see and hear your skills in action.... sorry, but I came up empty handed.
I don't post my music here. Simple as that!
Care to elaborate on how you can say ADT is lazy while you use computer-generated backing tracks and that is not lazy? For the record, I don't think either one is lazy!
The first plug-in on ++ THIS ++ page should work. Here is a quote from the developer's page:
"ADT - Artificial Double Tracking The ADT technique was developed at Abbey Road Studios by engineers recording the Beatles in the 1960s. To free John Lennon from having to sing everything twice for real double tracking they came up with an artificial replacement: they sent the original signal to another tape machine and re-recorded it. Due to the physical distance between record and playback heads the new signal was delayed. The length of the delay depends on the tape speed (the slower the tape is running the longer it takes for the signal to travel from the record to the playback head). However, due to the machine's (small amounts of) Wow and Flutter the delay time was not fixed but varied slightly, giving an additional chorus-like effect. The ADT Plug-In takes a mono input signal and creates a stereo output. The original input signal will be output on one channel, the new ADT signal on the other. Blending the two is also possible. The Plug-In allows to control the delay time (10 - 50ms), Wow and Flutter (both with intensity in % and frequency). All values are based on the technical data of the tape machines that was originally used to create this effect."
By the way, this VST is free and is comparable to the $150(US) Waves doubler. There are 12 pages of comments on ++ THIS ++ KVR Audio forum.
You've done it again! This looks excellent. I'll have to give it a go.
It makes sense that the automatic doubling using a tape recorder is more effective than today's 'copy and paste' because of the mechanical variations that the machine naturally experiences. It's interesting to note that delay was also variable and a consequence of the electronics. Cool.
XPro & Xtra Styles PAK Sets On Sale Now - Until May 15, 2026!
All of our XPro Styles PAKs and Xtra Styles PAKs are on sale until May 15th, 2026!
It's the perfect time to expand your Band-in-a-Box® style library with XPro and Xtra Styles PAKs. These additional styles for Band-in-a-Box® offer a wide range of genres designed to fit seamlessly into your projects. Each style is professionally arranged and mixed, helping enhance your songs while saving you time.
What are XPro Styles and Xtra Styles PAKs?
XPro Styles PAKs are styles that work with any version (Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition) of Band-in-a-Box® 2025 (or higher). XPro Styles PAKS 1-10 includes 1,000 styles!
Xtra Styles PAKs are styles that work with the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box® 2025 (or higher). Xtra Styles PAKs 1-21 includes 3,700 styles (and 35 MIDI styles)!
The XPro & Xtra Styles PAKs are not included in any Band-in-a-Box® package.
The XPro Styles PAKs 1-10 are available for only $29 ea (reg. $49 ea), or get them all in the XPro Styles PAK Bundle for only $149 (reg. $299)! Listen to demos and order now! For Mac or for Windows.
The Xtra Styles PAKs 1-21 are available for only $29 ea (reg. $49 ea), or get them all in the Xtra Styles PAK Bundle for only $199 (reg. $349)! Listen to demos and order now! For Mac or for Windows.
Note: XPro Styles PAKs require Band-in-a-Box® 2025 or higher and are compatible with ANY package, including the Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, and Audiophile Edition.
The Xtra Styles require the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box®. (Xtra Styles PAK 19 requires the 2025 or higher UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition. They will not work with the Pro or MegaPAK version as they require the RealTracks included in the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition.
Supercharge your Band-in-a-Box today with XPro Styles PAKs and Xtra Styles PAK Sets!
With the release of Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac, we’re rolling out a collection of brand-new videos on our YouTube channel. We’ll keep this forum post updated so you can easily find all the latest videos in one convenient spot.
Whether you're exploring new features, checking out the latest RealTracks or Style PAKs, this is your go-to guide for Band-in-a-Box® 2026.
Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac is here and it is packed with major new features! There’s a new modern look, a GUI redesign to all areas of the program including toolbars, windows, workflow and more. There’s a Multi-view layout for organizing multiple windows. A standout addition is the powerful AI-Notes feature, which uses AI neural-net technology to transcribe polyphonic audio into MIDI—entire mixes or individual instruments—making it easy to study, view, and play parts from any song. And that’s just the beginning—there are over 100 new features in this exciting release.
Along with version 2026, we've released an incredible lineup of new content! There's 202 new RealTracks, brand-new RealStyles, MIDI SuperTracks, Instrumental Studies, “Songs with Vocals” Artist Performance Sets, Playable RealTracks Set 5, two new RealDrums Stems sets, XPro Styles PAK 10, Xtra Styles PAK 21, and much more!
Special Offers
Upgrade to Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac and save up to 50% on most upgrade packages during our special offer—available until May 15, 2026. Visit our Band-in-a-Box® packages page to explore all available upgrade options.
2026 Free Bonus PAK & 49-PAK Add-ons
Our Free Bonus PAK and 49-PAK are loaded with amazing add-ons! The Free Bonus PAK is included with most Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac packages, but you can unlock even more—including 20 unreleased RealTracks—by upgrading to the 2026 49-PAK for just $49.
Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac® users: Build 904 now available!
If you're already using Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac®, make sure to grab the latest update! Build 904 is now available for download and includes the newest additions and enhancements from our team.
One of our representatives will be happy to help you over the phone. Our hours of operation are from
6:00AM to 6:00PM PST (GMT -8) Monday thru Friday, and 8:00AM to 4:00PM PST Saturday. We are closed Sunday. You can also send us your questions via email.
One of our representatives will be happy to help you on our Live Chat or by email. Our hours of operation are from
6:00AM to 6:00PM PST (GMT -8) Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 4:00PM PST (GMT -8) Saturday; Closed Sunday.
Norton Music
You say doubling a track is lazy yet you use computer-generated backing tracks rather than hiring studio musicians! 
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean