Mixing Guitar Tracks

[Somelsewhere]

Lately I've been experimenting with guitar tracks and I've noticed that through either duplication or just replaying a track and then mixing both identical guitar parts so that one is completely in the right speaker, and the other the left, that the original guitar part is made to feel alot richer.

I understand this probably a novice epiphany, so I'm just going to ask here what the basic knowledge behind guitar mixing is for left-right matching, or complimenting.

Is this basically what must be done for all main guitar parts, especially on acoustic, for enrichment?

Should I always keep parts to either entirely left speaker, or right, or just try and keep them a little either way, or just have some in blended in the middle?

feed me.

(i'm sure the answer is going to be "just mess around", and I know that is the best way to find a good sound for anything, I'm just wondering if there are any facts to mixing left v. right etc. that are common knowledge that I should know.)

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by Somelsewhere

Lately I've been experimenting with guitar tracks and I've noticed that through either duplication or just replaying a track and then mixing both identical guitar parts so that one is completely in the right speaker, and the other the left, that the original guitar part is made to feel alot richer.

I understand this probably a novice epiphany, so I'm just going to ask here what the basic knowledge behind guitar mixing is for left-right matching, or complimenting.

What you describe, if the tracks are identical and exactly aligned, is nothing but a centered mono signal (un-panned mono = equivalent left and right information). Whatever "richness" one would hear is simply an increase in volume over just the left or right track centered alone. The same result could be gotten by simply bumping the gain on one single track panned center.

If, however, there is a slight shift in time (in the order of milliseconds) between the two tracks, that can cause some phase effects which some subjectively might consider a richness in the overall image.

G.

[Micter]

Originally Posted by Somelsewhere

Lately I've been experimenting with guitar tracks and I've noticed that through either duplication or just replaying a track and then mixing both identical guitar parts so that one is completely in the right speaker, and the other the left, that the original guitar part is made to feel alot richer.

I understand this probably a novice epiphany, so I'm just going to ask here what the basic knowledge behind guitar mixing is for left-right matching, or complimenting.

Is this basically what must be done for all main guitar parts, especially on acoustic, for enrichment?

Should I always keep parts to either entirely left speaker, or right, or just try and keep them a little either way, or just have some in blended in the middle?

feed me.

(i'm sure the answer is going to be "just mess around", and I know that is the best way to find a good sound for anything, I'm just wondering if there are any facts to mixing left v. right etc. that are common knowledge that I should know.)

I will double track certain guitar parts and pan them 75 left 75 right. That gives a stereo image. Hard left hard right as Glen mentioned is dual mono.

[Myriad_Rocker]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

What you describe, if the tracks are identical and exactly aligned, is nothing but a centered mono signal (un-panned mono = equivalent left and right information). Whatever "richness" one would hear is simply an increase in volume over just the left or right track centered alone. The same result could be gotten by simply bumping the gain on one single track panned center.

If, however, there is a slight shift in time (in the order of milliseconds) between the two tracks, that can cause some phase effects which some subjectively might consider a richness in the overall image.

G.

Glen, you prettied that up way too much.

"Replaying" the part is called double tracking. Panning one 100% right and the other 100% left is called hard panning. It's very very common in recording and can result in a "bigger" guitar sound. For me, I like to do this quite a lot. Especially on choruses. I'll double up on them again and hard pan 4 different tracks, placing the double parts some db's below the main ones. Good stuff.

Then, for me, I buss all those out to a buss and hit them with EQ and compression. I like to EQ the group because it's easier for me and I don't particularly worry about sculpting an individual guitar part unless it needs it because it's not popping out enough.

[NL5]

Originally Posted by Myriad_Rocker

"Replaying" the part is called double tracking. Panning one 100% right and the other 100% left is called hard panning. It's very very common in recording and can result in a "bigger" guitar sound.

Yeah, he mentioned doing both. if you double track it tightly, it can sound huge panned out. If you simple copy a track, and pan, all you 've done is made a louder mono signal as Glen said. Huge difference.

[Somelsewhere]

cool, thanks for confirming what I thought, I was pretty sure it was commonplace.
myriad, what exactly is a "buss", much less "bussing."
And what exaclty is the benefit of EQ and compression? is that like an overall after-touch to add after recording a song as a whole, or is it something that should be applied with discretion to certain parts? Or is it something I should know, and that is pretty essential to making things sound better and should be used liberally?

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by Myriad_Rocker

Glen, you prettied that up way too much.

"Replaying" the part is called double tracking.

I didn't pretty it up, I instead probably misinterpreted what Some was saying. When I read the "duplication" and "identical", I mis-interpreted the "replaying" in the middle as "playing back the same recording on a second track", not as "re-recording".

Some, just to make it clear, if you (note the nomenclature here) "double" or "double-track" a guitar part, that means recording two separate performances of the same guitar lines. This will usually result in a "richer" sound as previously described. This can be done in two ways, one is to pan them left or right (whether hard-panning full L and R, or something narrower). The second popular method that yields different but equally rich results would be to "stack" the tracks (i.e. pan them identically) to create a fuller, richer sound that doesn't have that wide stereo spread. And, as Myriad describes, you can combine the two techniques by panning two different "stacks" L and R.

"Duplication", OTOH, usually (though maybe not 'officially' ) referrs to making a copy of one recording/one performance and placing that on a separate track. In such a case, panning them L and R will have the original result I posted.

My apologies for the misunderstanding if you indeed meant replaying as re-recording a second performance of the same line and not just duplicating the one recording onto multiple tracks as I first thought.

G.

[rayc]

There are many terms & things I've picked up along the way. The glossary for recording is as jargonistic and exclusive as any other profession, art form, hobby, eight day wonder but the problems created by it are, well, problematic. There are so many people dabbling & not getting a chance to get their brains around the terminology. I'm lucky to have hung about & read around this bbs a bit and am slowly sorting out track from tracking and low from low mid etc.
I ought to have started a proper glossary when I began reading.

[Somelsewhere]

Indeed, by "replaying", I meant recording a second performance. Is the richness of doing this simply because the timing is discreetly off?
Thanks again,
and somebody needs to educate me in the means of EQ and compression.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by Somelsewhere

Indeed, by "replaying", I meant recording a second performance. Is the richness of doing this simply because the timing is discreetly off?
Thanks again,
and somebody needs to educate me in the means of EQ and compression.

The timing, the relative volumes (no two notes will be *exactly* the same volume and decay time), everything, really. But it will have a human randomness to it - unlike a simple delay. Yet that randomness has to be within a fine tolerance; i.e. the sloppier or more different the two tracks are from each other, the worse it tends to sound. It take a good enough musician to be able to play the same line twice well enough to actually sound good.

It's not really rocket surgery, just think of it as the same thing as two guitarists playing the same thing simultaneously. Whether acoustic or electric, having two guys playing the same line always sounds fatter and more powerful than one guy alone.

As far as the means of compression and EQ (and we might as well throw the third category of processing, reverberation, in there too) you have a long pursuit of learning and experimenting and practice ahead of you. Just like guitars and mixing boards, they are instruments or tools to be used as fit for any given situation or sonic desire. Perhaps not as difficult to master as a guitar, but certainly not as easy as driving an automobile, either, but like both can't be taught in a simple forum post.

I do have a couple of resources available on my website for helping the newcomer down these roads. Click on the icon in my signature line, below, and from that web page that comes up, click the "Resources" tab. On that Resources page you'll find "Compression Uncompressed", an in-depth tutorial for beginners on the whats, whys and hows of using compression, and the infamous "Interactive Frequency Chart" which, *if used and a training guide for your ear, and not as a recipe book for what to EQ* will help you learn to relate what you hear when you listen to your tracks to the frequency numbers on your equalizers, so that you'll know when you hear this, that you might want to adjust that on your EQ. Additionally I have an article on that site describing a particularly useful method for using an equalizer called a "parametric sweep". You can find that article here.

There are also many good articles to be found on on-line archives from The Recording Project website, TapeOp magazine online and SoundOnSound magazine online, among others.

Just don't forget to not only study up by reading this stuff, which is important, but to combine such study with practice and experimentation with your own gear on your own tracks as well, which is also important.

And most of all, have fun with it all!

G.

[Simman]

Don't usually pan anything (other then effects) hard left or right. As far as panning double tracked guitars, here's an article that describes various panning techniques you might want to experiment with.

http://www.recordingwebsite.com/articles/pandouble.php

[Somelsewhere]

thanks for the advice. glen, now I think I understand. compression is not just some blanket effect, is seems like an intensive process that takes a load more than a forum post to explain. your website is INVALUABLE.
and thanks Simman for the link.

Are things basically the same when you approach panning vocals?

So far I've been having trouble with "fattening" up main vocal parts to sound more powerful, I've tried duplication, re-singing, subtle-harmonies, and when I pan them either which way, or just stack them on top, the main vocal parts always just sounds "bloated", rather than enforced.
any tips?
Should I just try and layer things way more delicately, or should I just look into effects?

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by Somelsewhere

Are things basically the same when you approach panning vocals?

Weeeelllllllll...not really. The physics remain the same - sound is sound is sound as far as the laws of nature are concerned - but the human perception and expectation is often a bit different. While there is no law against panning doubled or quadrupled vocals wide like a wall of guitar - it has been done - it usually winds up sounding like a spacey special effect kind of thing, and not what the human brain commonly expects to hear from a vocal, which is a fairly definitive source.

Stacking vocals can work, especially if one has a weak voice or pitch issues. Again, a lot depends upon the voice itself as well as what effect you wish. It is a fairly common trick these days in pop music dominated by personalities and performers who are not necessarily singers (Britney, Madonna, and the like, or many rap vocalists who are fine rappers but who aren't singing.) But it would be a crime against humanity and simply a crying shame to play such tricks with a real voice like an Ella Fitzgerald or Lyle Lovett.

Originally Posted by Somelsewhere

Should I just try and layer things way more delicately, or should I just look into effects?

As expressed above, it depends a lot on your voice, vocal style and musical style.

But for almost anybody in anything there are two givens: first, make sure you're good at "working the microphone"; i.e. modulating the distance of your mouth from the mic. Watch any professional singer with a quality voice perform (not some dancer pretending to be more of a singer than the computers he/she is hooked up to, wearing a headset mic and lip syncing to a recording) and notice how they move their head or the mic (or both) as they sing. It's usually not all just emotion moving them around, but a purposeful on-the-fly adjustment of their mic distance as they go from a whisper to a scream, and everything in-between. This helps keep the overall signal levels of the vocal smooth and even while still capturing the changes in emotion. this makes the vocal sound much more solid and helps it hold it's own in the mix with the rest of the instruments.

Second is an augmenting of such level control with a taste of compression. Usually the gentler and more transparent the compressor, the better...again unless you're looking for a "special effect" sound to the vocals. Again, the general idea is to "solidify" or "even out" differences or inequalities in the vocal performance itself, to help it stand up stronger on the recording and in the mix.

G.

[Somelsewhere]

thanks, I shall experiment

[NL5]

For modern (ie, the last 40 years or so) vocals, you need to slam them with a compressor. That will fatten, accent the overtones, and bring them forward. I wouldn't bother with compression for the purpose of "gain control".

Just my two cents.