Talk:Automatic double tracking

Not so complicated

The article makes the process sound inordinately complicated. All you really need is a stereo analogue tape deck that has separate record and playback heads. The playback heads will be offset to the right of the record heads, so that they can play back the sound a split-second after it has been recorded. Feed the output from the left channel into the right channel and the sound will be delayed a second time. Mix the left and right outputs together and presto - ADT. Alternatively the left and right channels can be assigned separate positions in the stereo field. I've tried to show this in the following diagram. Maybe I'll produce a proper and possibly more understandable graphic at some stage.

INPUT ----> LEFT RECORD HEAD --(DELAY)--> LEFT PLAYBACK HEAD-->MIXER------> OUTPUT
       |                                                 |      ^
       |                                                 V      |
       |<-----------------------<-------------------------      |
       |                                                        |
       V                                                        | 
       --> RIGHT RECORD HEAD -(DELAY)--> RIGHT PLAYBACK HEAD--->|

Lee M 03:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the explanation yesterday (09/09/2009). The correct way ADT was used is explained in the book "Recording the Beatles". It was applied during MIXDOWN and involved taking the vocal signal off the multitrack tape AHEAD of time (using the record head), and then delaying it using an external tape recorder, and then feeding it into the mix. The application of this external delay allowed the signal to be fed back almost in time with the original sound, and using varispeed on the external tape recorder even allowed the signal to be placed a little ahead or a little behind the original vocal.--200.14.108.1 (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Explanation is incorrect

There seems to be a mistake in the article. George Martin's explanation of the ADT system in his autobiography is very different from what is explained in this article. According to George Martin, the ADT was applied during mixing, not during recording. As the 4-track tape was run through the 4-track machine, the vocal track was read by the record-head, which wired appropriately for that purpose, and taken to another tape machine which delayed the signal using a loop. The signal then went to the mixer were it was combined with the 4 tracks coming out of the playback head of the 4 track machine.

Because the record-head is before the playback-head, the vocal track lifted from the record-head was ahead of the other 4 tracks read by the playback head. That is where the delay adjustment from the tape loop was necessary to make the lifted vocal match the other 4 tracks, leaving a small difference to produce the ADT effect.

George Martin further explains that he once received a phone call from John Lennon who was trying to reproduce the ADT system during recording of one of his solo albums, and that it wasn't working well. It turns out he was trying to do it while he was recording, and George Martin explained to him that it had to be done during mixing, after the vocals had been recorded.

I hope this can help you correct the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.14.108.1 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a specific cite for this information? If you do, you can fix the article yourself. I suggest that you add it as an alternate explanation, and review WP:CITE on how to give citations ("George Martin's autobiography" isn't quite the detail needed, it needs to be a title, author, publisher, year (and hopefully page number))... thanks! ++Lar: t/c 04:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've got two sources, both cited directly from George Martin at different times by different people. I'll fix the article as soon as I find some time. That will mean deleting the current explanation, because, in my opinion, it is incorrect and even if somebody tried to do it that way, it wouldn't work.--200.14.108.1 15:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the explanation yesterday (09/09/2009). The correct way ADT was used is explained in the book "Recording the Beatles". It was applied during MIXDOWN and involved taking the vocal signal off the multitrack tape AHEAD of time (using the record head), and then delaying it using an external tape recorder, and then feeding it into the mix. The application of this external delay allowed the signal to be fed back almost in time with the original sound, and using varispeed on the external tape recorder even allowed the signal to be placed a little ahead or a little behind the original vocal.--200.14.108.1 (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Merge with Doubling echo?

Do NOT merge these articles; it will be a disservice. Doubling echo is a relatively common studio technique; ADT was more or less exclusive to the Beatles recordings. Doubling echo is still in use; ADT is obsolete with the end of reel-to-reel tape recording. Zephyrad 01:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

ADT is a method of producing doubling, which can be done using other magnetic tape-based methods, or analog or digital delay processing. The articles shouldn't be merged, but a brief bit about ADT with a link would be appropriate.

Btw, there has never been an end to reel-to-reel tape recording. Many engineers have gone back to using 24-tack analog machines to capture the warmth and natural compression the medium can produce. Some never abandoned the medium and younger engineers are discovering the benefits of analog tape that are difficult if not impossible to achieve with only digital technology. Analog mutitrack recordings are usually transferred to a digital medium before mixing.

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're preaching to the choir here. By the "end" of reel-tape recording I meant the end of it on a large scale. Of course many studios and amateurs still use analog tape for just the right sound... but it's not prevalent anymore. (I've spent a good chunk of the last five years digitizing old studio stuff from tape. Comes out nicely, but I prefer starting on digital nowadays.) Zephyrad (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see (said the blind man). Cool... If you've got a good pre-amp with some warmth to it and a good A/D converter - much more affordable nowadays - you're in good shape. (I'm not quite that fortunate - yet.)

I was freaked out a couple years ago when I read Quantegy was discontinuing production of mag tape, and that apparently they were the last manufacturer of the stuff. But I guess somebody's still producing it, 'cause since then I've read interviews with engineers still using it. Not that I need 2" wide reels, but it would be nice to know I can still get 1/4" mag tape if I want to fool around with analog recording. I was thinking of running some of my digital recordings through my analog deck to see if I can get better sounding compression. Does anybody make mag tape in 1/4" anymore? (I guess I could search online, but that would be too easy. :)

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I built up a stock of 1/4" tape through eBay auctions and sales (my preferred brand is Maxell), and I still kick myself for not getting a case of tapes when I worked in music retail (and knew the supplier) in the late 1990s. Existing stock can still be found; I didn't bother with Quantegy because they used the old Ampex formulas, and I'd already discovered to my horror that my old masters on Ampex tape had not aged well. The tape stuck to itself over time, and working with it was a nightmare; I'd have to stop after one track and clean the entire tape path (which had become gummy). As far as preamps go, I've had good luck with BlueTube. Best wishes. Zephyrad (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip re Quantegy. I used Maxell as well (UD and UDXL, no iron oxide). I have tapes over 30 years old that still play great. I'll search eBay.

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: "universal practice"

ADT was essentially exclusive to Abbey Road Studios, and something of a trade secret for years. Other studios used forms of doubling echo, or true doubletracking. Zephyrad 03:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Title change needed

According to my research, this really should be called Artificial Double Tracking rather than Automatic Double Tracking. I checked both Lewisohn's Beatles Recording Sessions and Brian Southall's Abbey Road books and they both call it Artificial Double Tracking. I changed it in the body of the article, but don't know how to change the title itself (nor whereever it is referenced from). Bud Loveall 15:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also called this in The Beatles Anthology. 134.88.151.168 11:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that the correct term is either "Artificial Double Tracking" or "Automated Double Tracking". (See Sweetwater.com's Glossary article Artificial (or Automated) Double Tracking or ADT) Similar phraseology in film is Automated Dialog Replacement.

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

George Martin's All You Need is Ears also called it "Artificial Double Tracking". I believe I used that term on here once, in a Beatles-related article, and got Wikifruit thrown at me for it. "Dude, it's automatic - don't you know anything?!" Zephyrad (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Explanations still not correct

This is an A topic if ever there was one; ADT is one of the most discussed, desired, and argued-about recording techniques ever. The correct explanation of how it worked, including diagrams, is in "Recording the Beatles" by Brian Kehew and Kevin Ryan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.14.108.1 (talk • contribs)

I corrected the explanation yesterday (09/09/2009). The correct way ADT was used is explained in the book "Recording the Beatles". It was applied during MIXDOWN and involved taking the vocal signal off the multitrack tape AHEAD of time (using the record head), and then delaying it using an external tape recorder, and then feeding it into the mix. The application of this external delay allowed the signal to be fed back almost in time with the original sound, and using varispeed on the external tape recorder even allowed the signal to be placed a little ahead or a little behind the original vocal.--200.14.108.1 (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

One needs an ancient Studer tape deck with outputs from the sync head to do this. The output from the sync head is inputed to the record head of a second tape machine, then the output from the second machine is routed to a separate fader on the console. An oscillator is attached to the second machine to slow it down or speed it up, depending on the amount of delay required. And Ken Townshend did not "invent" ADT. Radiopathy •talk• 02:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Automatic Double Tracking is different than manual double tracking. Really enough with the anti Beatles crap. This from Eddie Kramer who worked with Jimi Hendrix. www.gcpro.com/ab_kramer Profile - GC Pro -- Guitar Center Professional Division

EK: If you look at what the Beatles did, the thing they came up with, automatic double tracking, ADT, when you expand that idea it become phasing. What he had done with the Beatles, he had done it in mono, but we decided we wanted to do it in stereo. It had never been done in stereo before. So we experimented for a couple of weeks and we came up with this stereo phasing. Very tricky to do.--Kingcrimsonfan (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC) --Kingcrimsonfan (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2009

Expansion

I just expanded the article a little to explain where and how ADT was used on Revolver and how it came to be used widely by other artists, plus some other stuff. I'll add the references in the next couple of days when I get the chance. Incidentally, I removed a claim that Ken Townsend invented ADT "on 6 April, 1966" because I believe this may have been due to a misunderstanding - in Lewisohn's book, the story of how Townsend developed ADT is indeed listed under the entry for this date, but I think this is because it's the entry for the first Revolver session. Nowhere in the entry does it state or in any way imply that Townsend actually invented it on this day - it just says he went home one night after a particulary trying session spent doubletracking Lennon's voice and had the idea that night, with no indication at all as to which session this was, so this could have been after any session over a number of weeks from 6 April (according to Lewisohn, ADT was used on Lennon's vocal on 'Tomorrow Never Knows' recorded on 6 April, which would actually mean ADT would have to have been invented after the last sessions in late '65, but Lewisohn was wrong about this anyway). In short, we cannot work out from Lewisohn when exactly ADT was invented. If I am mistaken and someone has some other source specifying that it was actually on 6 April that Townsend invented ADT, then feel free to change it back. Also, to try and clear up the 'Automatic' vs. 'Artificial' debate, I've pointed out in the article that the guys who actually came up with ADT, and named it, always called it 'Artificial Double Tracking' (they still do). When the technique became widely used elsewhere, other engineers usually seem to have called it 'Automatic Double Tracking' (whether through error or simply because they preferred it), which is usually the term you see in textbooks or whatever now and that name is more commonly used. Hope that might clear it up. MarkB79 (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent downgrade

I concur with the recent downgrade of this article. My initial work was a brief explanation of the technique with a few examples. Others were able to add to it in a positive way, but some recent adds have gotten way out of hand. I don't think we need to know every last Beatles song employing the technique (or instrument it was used on), and I think one or more recent editors may have confused the method Abbey Road used with mere doubling echo, which was a far more common effect. (Can the editor who mentioned Hendrix, Simon & Garfunkel, etc. provide cited references specifically stating they used ADT, "as invented at Abbey Road Studios"? - Pink Floyd did work there, so their use of it is likely.)

From everything I have read on Abbey Road's use of it, they kept it as a trade secret for a long time (cf. All You Need is Ears, etc.). This sounds at present like every recording studio in the world began using the effect almost immediately, and that every effect since slapback echo came as a direct result of it... and do we need to see the term "ADT" on each and every line in the article? I think it could be pared down considerably. I would go through it personally, but my time is largely occupied elsewhere these days. Zephyrad (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

OR and Synthesis

Ken Townshend did not "invent" ADT; he merely developed a new method of doing what had already been done by American studios for ten years. This integrity article (and some of its sources - Lewisohn in particular) is apparently compromised by Beatlemania and Abbey Road worship. I've changed the mentions of "invention" to "technique" and "process" in the interest of neutrality.

The mentions of the technique throughout the article are unsourced; they need refs. Radiopathy •talk• 20:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Put your money where your mouth is

On the one hand, I am surprised that none of the wonks who regularly edit these articles have already made such citations, and you are right about "Beatlemania and Abbey Road worship" with most of them. (Check my adds to various Beatles talk pages; I find it as grating as you do, if not more, and kindly don't lump me in with such people.) On the other hand... all I see are more accusations from you, following your first accusations (which I reverted), and "supposedly" from your first round of edits sure doesn't sound "neutral" to me. Zephyrad (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Automatic Double Tracking is different than manual double tracking. Really enough with the anti Beatles crap. This from Eddie Kramer who worked with Jimi Hendrix. [www.gcpro.com/ab_kramer] Profile - GC Pro -- Guitar Center Professional Division

EK: If you look at what the Beatles did, the thing they came up with, automatic double tracking, ADT, when you expand that idea it become phasing. What he had done with the Beatles, he had done it in mono, but we decided we wanted to do it in stereo. It had never been done in stereo before. So we experimented for a couple of weeks and we came up with this stereo phasing. Very tricky to do. --Kingcrimsonfan (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)KingCrimsonfan

Cannot be duplicated on digital systems

The article states: "This effect cannot be duplicated on digital systems due to the analogue characteristics of the original system."

I think that "cannot be duplicated" is an overstatement. "Has not been duplicated on digital systems", perhaps, or "presents technical challenges which make duplication on digital systems prohibitively difficult due to time and expense required in such an effort". But a flat assertion that it "cannot" be done underestimates the possibilities of digital systems. If I'm wrong about this -- if it's absolutely truly impossible to mimic this effect digitally, no matter how many millions of dollars were thrown at the problem -- then I'd like to see an explanation, with reference to reliable source. Karl gregory jones (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Tomorrow Never Knows Claim

The article states that: "It has been incorrectly claimed that the first use of ADT was on the first half of Lennon’s vocal track on "Tomorrow Never Knows", but in fact this vocal track features manual doubletracking." This statement requires reference to at at least one source saying that.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Automatic double tracking/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*This article needs work. Its hard for me to say how close to the fringe this article is, considering that the Beatles were instrumental in the development and implementation of the subject. Certainly, I think that a link from within a more pivotal Beatles article is a requirement, if one doesn't exist already, and I'm actually tempted to suggest a merge. Probably best to leave it on its own though: there is plenty of material in it as a free-standing article. The article needs some colour though - in the form of sections and a photo if at all possible. -- Mal (10 March 2006) I'm confused, why is this an A-class then? Sounds like maybe a B ?? ++Lar: t/c 00:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Re-assessed the article today. Lar is correct - B-Class it is. --Mal 15:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 08:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)