Does anyone know how you can layer/multi-track guitar parts without getting lots of horrible phasing/comb-filtering(?)
Say, you've got an electric Voxy take panned hard left, and a marshall version hard right and then the same chords played on acoustic in the middle?
I kinda wonder if proper records are recorded with one guitar take being sent to loads of different amps to create a huge wall-of-sound without introducing phase anomalies - isn't that what some of those big Rock producers do?
Thanks. Maybe this is why this stuff should be left to the professionals?
You're not too far off in your line of thought. I don't know about leaving it to the professionals, because you can certainly achieve a similar result if you have the gear.
What you're up against is almost always a problem with the source. It takes a lot of amps and a lot of planning to make this work, and it has to be done in a way that doesn't rely on the everything to be mended in the mix down stage. There are several different trains of though in the overdubbing vs multiple amp micing scenarios. I like to mic multiple amps. I'm currently working for record labels that have sent in the highest teir session players in Nashville. Even for them, I don't like them doubling their performances more than twice, because the variances in the timing start to create a muddy sort of washed out sound that I'm not a huge fan of. All of these guys are perfectly capable of one-shotting an immaculately in sync dub, but its just not the sound I'd want.
So using your example of the vox left, and the Marshall right, here's what I'd do. I would start with about four different amps that sound like a vox. I have a pair of good British AC-15's. I also have a Morgan AC 20 here, and there is a /13 nine-fifteen at my disposal, all are capable of producing the vox chime at breakup. I would place every fucking one of those things live room, feed them through a radial distribution splitter (I'd use the Radial JD8) and have the player stand in the room while shooting, because I want him to see how his pedal board choices are affecting the amps. Once I had a rhythm part I was happy with, I might immediately have him double it.
Then I would set up three Marshalls and have him do the same. If I wanted a thick powerful crunch to compliment the chimeyness of those voxes I'd use the Silver Jubilee + a JCM800 and then maybe do something like + a PRS Custom 20 since its very Marshall-ish when dialed to a glorious crunch setting. Then repeat the process.
So at the end of the day I have four prints. Vox L1, Vox L2, Marshall R1, Marshall R2.
The trick is using the dialing them. Not all are going to be the same volume. Not all are gonna have the same mics. You want to be very intentional about the roll each amp plays in the wall of sound. I start with my best sounding vox that is my main amp. Then the other second one adds a little more chime. The third one fills in crunchy mid range information. The fourth is for even more sparkle. Same process with the Marshalls. You need good mics and highly detailed preamps to pull this off. Sm57's and MD 421's could be your direct mics, but I would want at least a couple Royer R121's handy. Its critically important to use a good U87 or something like a M149 to make use of the room. Your room is SO vitally important in this. An amp breathes and just explodes with color when put in a large room and cranked up to where it wants to be. If your room is too small, it won't be able to handle volume the amps will project in a natural way and all kinds of nasty ass flutter echo and standing waves will turn this to shit real fast. Get three or four vox amps creating a harmonious symphony of texture in a well built live room and no Kemper or Amp sim will every be able to compete with it.
using the same track, or even two recordings played the same way with the same gear, were much more likely to behave badly together than two recordings where variables were switched.
Whether it's changing pickups, guitars, amplifiers (head or cab or both), microphones, chord position, mic position, or any combination, I always find there's less negative interaction.
I suppose it's different if you're trying to layer two or more amp tones to create one big tone, to create the effect of one badass amp/recording, but certainly for trying to create width or audibly separate layers I find the above to be true.
I'm gonna add a response here. There's a lot of validity in this. In my scenario, there hopefully won't be a need to swap a mic and guitar to shoot the same part. Because the whole idea is to capture that wall of sound in one pass. I strongly agree with Steenamaroo in the instance you don't have enough gear and you're forced to double shoot, then ...yes, those subtle changes are vital (capo, voicing, pickup position).
In my method, the doubles of the Vox left and Marshall Right would be for supplemental processing in the mix down stage. I wouldn't have the player change anything, because he's gonna run a lot more passes anyway with different amps for leads, riffs, fills, comps etc... for those I would certainly recommend making gear changes. Though after setting up 12-15 amps, I would hope I'd be able to leave all the mics in place. If anything, I'd double mic certain cabs then just use the mute button on the console to select different mic combos for different lead passes.