Mixing Acoustic and Dirty Electric rhythm Guitar

E

Ex3vious

New member
Does anyone have any advice on mixing an acoustic guitar with a distorted electric guitar for a rhythm part. I normally record the acoustic guitar twice by micing the amp I'm plugged into, and pan one track all the way left and the other track all the way right. I Then do the same thing for the distorted electric guitar, however I'm having trouble mixing them together for a good sound. Any tips or tricks I can use to try and get a better sound.

Heres an example of the style and tone I'm going for.
https://youtu.be/RT8dNkD-Byc?t=14m18s
acoustic guitar plays then electric comes in at 16:00
It sounds to me that the acoustic is still playing but just at a lower level.

Thanks in advance for any insight.
 
I can't listen to your sample because I'm at work. Try recording the acoustic guitar with a mic or two - not plugged into an amp. If you want real acoustic sound, you won't get it the way you are doing it.
 
In this clip the acoustics were were double tracked (two separate performances) and panned hard right and left. They were recorded though microphones...not through an amp.

I'd reverse the scene. Put the two acoustic tracks more toward the center and if it's recorded well (meaning...tracked in a good room with stereo mics) it will sound more natural. Then I'd double track the electrics, if possible, and pan those two tracks to the outside. If you can't double track the electric because the part is too complicated then you can double that track and pan that to the outside. You'll get good separation and a more natural outcome.

The acoustic guitars are pretty unnatural in this clip. You said you were going for this sound but not a lot of engineers are going to actually shoot for that when tracking and mixing acoustics. You do hear stuff like this sometimes but learning how to do it naturally first leaves you the option of going for special sounds later. There's no right or wrong...but it's a good thing to know what you're after and know a good approach to getting it.
 
Last edited:
StuGort said:
In this clip the acoustics were were double tracked (two separate performances) and panned hard right and left. They were recorded though microphones...not through an amp.

I'd reverse the scene. Put the two acoustic tracks more toward the center and if it's recorded well (meaning...tracked in a good room with stereo mics) it will sound more natural. Then I'd double track the electrics, if possible, and pan those two tracks to the outside. If you can't double track the electric because the part is too complicated then you can double that track and pan that to the outside. You'll get good separation and a more natural outcome.

The acoustic guitars are pretty unnatural in this clip. You said you were going for this sound but not a lot of engineers are going to actually shoot for that when tracking and mixing acoustics. You do hear stuff like this sometimes but learning how to do it naturally first leaves you the option of going for special sounds later. There's no right or wrong...but it's a good thing to know what you're after and know a good approach to getting it.
Click to expand...

Note that if you duplicate the electric track and pan either one wide, it'll just be a louder center-panned sound. You would need to process the duped track somehow - delay, for example.
 
I'm working on a recording right now with acoustic and distorted electric. What I did was double track the acoustic and record a single electric, with the electric center and the acoustics panned wide. I'll probably move the electric over a little and put some reverb on it in the opposite channel.

In the case of your sample it sounds like they did much the same thing with the acoustic double tracked and panned wide and the electric rhythm a single track with a stereo effect. To get the double tracking to work like this you have to play very close to the same thing both times, with excellent timing.
 
Last edited:
i'm right in the middle of tracking a new song that has this very scenario.....

i actually have 4 tracks of rhythm electric..

4 tracks of rhythm acoustic...

all basically playing the same thing....

but two of the elec gtr tracks are one guitar, panned hard left and right..
and the other two elec tracks are a different guitar, different amp, different mic positions, etc...


same with the acoustic...

so i pair two acoustic and two electric, one of each flavor, hard panned left and right together...
with complementary eq.


then the other 4 tracks, i pan at 50% left and right, same deal.


then i automate all 8 tracks with volume envelopes, and change the levels of the hard panned tracks and the inside tracks up and down, based on the songs' arrangement.


sometimes the outer tracks are favored, sometimes the inside tracks.

typically, they follow the verses, or the choruses, with either one pan scheme or the other.



key element:

levels, and then EQ....
all the 'same-panned' guitars have to be eq'd to allow each individual to shine in wherever it's 'sonic fingerprint' is the strongest.

and never allow eq to build up on any one frequency.

nuke it.
 
mjbphotos said:
Note that if you duplicate the electric track and pan either one wide, it'll just be a louder center-panned sound. You would need to process the duped track somehow - delay, for example.
Click to expand...

When I say "double track"...I mean..."played twice". Double tracked, panned hard electric guitar will have a chorus-like effect and will definitely not sound like it's up the middle. Sometimes double tracking is the ONLY way to get separation or space in a mix.

Another thing that can be done is to copy the track and throw one of them forward or aft a few frames...that gives a doubling effect with usually a slight bias to one side or the other.

One could also just use stereo delay panned hard to create a doubling effect...that won't sound up the middle either.
 
StuGort said:
Another thing that can be done is to copy the track and throw one of them forward or aft a few frames...that gives a doubling effect with usually a slight bias to one side or the other.

One could also just use stereo delay panned hard to create a doubling effect...that won't sound up the middle either.
Click to expand...

If it's below about 25ms it will cause audible changes in tone when (not if) your mix is played in mono. If it's above that range it will be audibly later than the original and perhaps alter the feel of the song.

BTW, CD frames or video frames? CD frames are something like 13ms while video frames are about 33ms (for 29.97fps).
 
StuGort said:
When I say "double track"...I mean..."played twice". Double tracked, panned hard electric guitar will have a chorus-like effect and will definitely not sound like it's up the middle. Sometimes double tracking is the ONLY way to get separation or space in a mix.

Another thing that can be done is to copy the track and throw one of them forward or aft a few frames...that gives a doubling effect with usually a slight bias to one side or the other.

One could also just use stereo delay panned hard to create a doubling effect...that won't sound up the middle either.
Click to expand...

You actually said:
If you can't double track the electric because the part is too complicated then you can double that track and pan that to the outside.
Click to expand...
, so I wanted to make sure the OP didn't just duplicate the track - notice you used 'double' two different ways.
 
mjbphotos said:
....notice you used 'double' two different ways.
Click to expand...

I see. Yes...when I said double there I meant to use a delay between sides.

In the long run there are numerous ways to get tracks isolated. At this point though...the guy seems to have bailed on his own thread and we can now talk about any kind of doubling we want. :)

I like stock splits....surgically separating Siamese twins...and mitosis.
 
Quite frankly, if you can't play the part twice because it's too complicated, you need to practice. Playing it right the first time was obviously an accident...

I cant listen to the clip, but there are a couple ways I approach this.
1. If the acoustic is in the mix as, more or less, a percussion instrument, I will record the acustic with 2 mics. Mix it bright and compressed to accentuate the pick attack. Then place it in the mix so the attack lines up with the other percussion.

2. If you are using the acoustic to ad depth to the electric, record the acoustic twice (either 1 mic or in stereo) and pan them hard. I generally take two performances of the electric as well, panning them until I get the desired result.

The type of EQ and compression varies wildly with the type of production, the available guitar sounds, and the desired effect.
 
StuGort said:
I see. Yes...when I said double there I meant to use a delay between sides.

In the long run there are numerous ways to get tracks isolated. At this point though...the guy seems to have bailed on his own thread and we can now talk about any kind of doubling we want. :)

I like stock splits....surgically separating Siamese twins...and mitosis.
Click to expand...

bailed, what do you mean bailed im still here!
 
Farview said:
Quite frankly, if you can't play the part twice because it's too complicated, you need to practice. Playing it right the first time was obviously an accident.
Click to expand...

That's one way to judge it....but that sounds like a rule to me.

Another way is to assume someone might be composing music they've created in their heads and then are striving to teach themselves how to play. If I have no intention of ever performing music live...but like composing and arranging...are my recordings just an "accident"? That's weird to hear...because most of time, every note I play is deliberate. :)

Some of the music I record are passages I've played exactly ONCE correctly...the way I hear it in my head. Sometimes they are complex and sometimes I want to double track them and do. Sometimes I don't want to spend a whole afternoon teaching myself how to play something well enough to double track it.

The thing about music is...you get to do what you want with it and there aren't any rules. :)
 
I tend to think of composing and recording as two separate events. Obviously, you might want to record while you are writing, but in my case, those would be scratch tracks. Once the song is fleshed out, I would start over and record it for public consumption. But first I would practice all the parts to the point where I knew everything I was going to do and could perform it properly.

There are a couple different kinds of people on this site:

1. Techs, who are geeked out about equipment, editing, etc... This person would be worried about mic placement and such

2. Musicians, who are geeked out about playing technique and music theory. This person would be worried about flawless performance

3. Songwriters, who are geeked out about writing and arranging songs. This person is worried about the song.

Obviously, most people are some combination of these. Depending on your focus, or how you see yourself, it will lead you to value different things. I'm more in the tech/musician camp. I don't want to put down keeper tracks until I can play them flawlessly and repeatably.

From your reaction, I think you are probably in the songwriter camp. Your instrument is just a tool for communicating the song, as opposed to being something to master for the sake of mastering it.

But by definition, if you can't play something twice well enough to double it, the original time was a happy accident. (assuming you can't play it the second time because your playing is too loose, not because you can't remember what you did)

I don't think it's any more of a rule than being in time or in tune is.
 
Last edited:
"Properly" is a judgement.

I have a thing I'm working on that is composed of no less than 500 clips...recorded over the space of six months. In fact, I'm starting to think I may never finish the damn thing...it has grown so complex. The truth is...it is only "by (YOUR) definition" that if you can't play something twice it's an accident. For me, often...once...is exactly right...and if I am to move on to a state of completion I often have to be satisfied. In many of these cases I've taught myself techniques I've never used before. To master those techniques I'd spend the same amount of time it would have taken me to learn to fluidly play them in the first place. By then my creative zeal would be gone and my whole enjoyment of the process would fade. It's not an accident when I pull it off the way I want it. I see it as an achievement...which is a way of saying my "accidents" are deliberate. :)

If you judge what is proper...I don't mind so much. This is just a discussion. I'm just pointing out that it is, in fact, a judgement you make against someone who doesn't do it your way...which isn't something you'll find me doing to you. I'm in the camp that says do whatever you need to do to get your vision seen or heard. It doesn't matter to me what tools you use to get a job done.

Btw...I make guitars using cnc machines. Stuart-Keith-Guitars Some arguments against using certain tools in the luthier business are simply bewildering for me. Part of my reaction to you here is based on that baggage so please don't take any of this too personally...I don't mean to create animosity with this. :)

Here's that tune...in an unfinished state so you can get an idea about the arrangement and composition. I'm in the middle of writing the drums and it's not really mixed yet.

I don't think this could really be done if I had to play things all the way through. Much of the deliberate interleaving of tracks would be impossible that way. It's meant to be seen as a composition. There are many double tracked parts here...btw.

 
Last edited:
I get what you are saying but, for you, the recording process is part of the writing process. Since you have no intention of ever playing live, or ever recording it again, there is no reason to actually learn how to play it.

You are in the third camp, the songwriter camp. Even though you obviously perform the parts, performing isn't your focus, the writing is.

It wasn't so much a judgement, but a statement of fact. You would rather not stop the composing process to get yourself wrapped up in the technical aspect of practicing the part enough to double it. That's your choice, but it doesn't change the fact that if you really want to double it and you can't, it's most likely because you didn't put in the time it takes to practice the part well enough to accomplish that goal.
 
Personally, I almost always use an acoustic rhythm guitar when I record. I often overdub electric rhythm and/or lead too, but I like the way an acoustic colors and fills out the space. With electric rhythm, you often have to mute or play more restrained because just the nature of the instrument. Acoustic lets you go full out and even use big open chords strummed hard. I tend to use acoustic and electric differently, even if they are both doing rhythm work. The acoustic will be strummed more open and provide the background and fill space, with the electric pushed over top.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top