Talk:Automatic double tracking

message: 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)
thread_title: Not so complicated

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Explanation is incorrect 

message: 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)
thread_title: Re: "universal practice"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Explanations still not correct

message: 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)
thread_title: Expansion

message: 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)
thread_title: Recent downgrade

message: 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)
thread_title:  OR and Synthesis 

message: 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)
thread_title: Put your money where your mouth is

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cannot be duplicated on digital systems 

message: Substituted at 08:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment