Double Tracks or Duplicate?

[keilson]

Looking for a thicker fuller sound. Wondering how many people actually double tracks by playing them a second time, and panning. And how many just duplicate the same track and pan them adding slight delay. Thanks

[King Elvis]

gotta double track it. The subtle differences give it that fuller sound. Also, eq each track a little differently or use different amps

[keilson]

thanks for the fast response. Alright guess I'll gave to tell the band I'm working with to keep practicing. The kid can't play some parts the same way twice. It's pretty sad.

[esactun]

Double-track!!

My two cents: Duplicate only if you can't get the kid to play it the same. If the tracks are off by too much, due to sloppiness or eternally changing riffage, it'll sound like fuzzy mud.

Duplication doesn't work so well, but it works a little. If they're not perfectly aligned though, it'll get a chorusy effect. Panning to opposite sides with delay gives, to me at least, a cheesy fake stereo sound. Good for an effect IMHO, but I wouldn't do it for a whole song. It also prevents you from having a separate guitar track in each channel, which sounds better for metal etc. than having essentially mono guitars (even if panned and delayed).

The way duplication worked best for me was by taking the duplicate and compressing the living crap out of it, adding some EQ to taste etc., and mixing it back in under the original track (a cheap variation of the "exciting compressor" technique!! )

Lately I've been trying out recording three guitar tracks--each with a different tone-- per channel (a total of six). Ferinstance, a Marshall sound in each channel, a Mesa sound in each channel, and a stompbox sound. It's the beefiest thing I've tried yet. But I'm trying to get a 'heavy" sound, so this might not be what you're looking for.

[keilson]

esactun, thanks for the response also. I do find that when I duplicate it sounds a little fake. I am gonna talk to him later about either practicing more or about him changing thepart to make it easier for him to play over and over.

Do you always pan hard right and left?

[esactun]

You're welcome!

Actually, I've been panning more like 70-75% to the left and right. I've also been playing with panning the orignal tracks like that and then panning the "layer" tracks either slightly closer or slightly wider.

It seems to me like the tracks lose a little punch or something panned all the way over. (Could be other technique problems of mine though .) Sometimes I'll try hard-panning and then put a duplicate track run 100% wet through reverb 50-75% in the other channel, with a slight delay, for that "traveling reverb" effect (like on Page's guitar on some old Led Zeppelin albums).

[Track Rat]

Play the track twice. Just copying the track and delaying it can add a little width but FAT comes from playing it twice.

[eyeslikefire]

Another vote for double track.

[Peter Maydew]

The only reasons for duplicating with effects would be if the part was genuinely unrepeatable, or if you ran out of tracks to record on. I usually pan 75% left and right also - hard panning makes it sound artificial and disassociated from the rest of the instruments. It can be useful if you want that effect, but a stereo recording made with a crossed pair or whatever would never pick up a signal in one channel only. That's why it sounds wrong...

[Phyl]

I've tried it both ways, copying a track then panning, and double tracking and panning. Double tracking is the hands down favorite.

Doubling an acoustic part with an electric also works very well.

[NobleSavage]

I like to go the AC/DC route and double track. I usually do one side panned -70% with a humbucker guitar and heavy distortion, then I do the other side panned 70% with a telecaster using light overdrive. When I get it tight enough it sounds like one huge guitar where you can actually hear the notes.

[Aaron Cheney]

Gotta play it twice. Gotta.

But here's an option:
You can also try double micing the amp. Stick a 57 up close and another mic (condensor) 5-6-7- or more feet away to mic the sound of the room. You will probably have to play around with mic position a little to find the sweet spot. Record each mic to a seperate track. Then you can pan them L and R.
It's an entirely different sound than doubled guitars, but often a great fattener for a dude that can't play well enough to play it twice. It's more of a Van Halen 1 sound.

Or maybe this: instead of playing the same thing twice, play something completely different. Write a complementary part. Record it, and then pan the different parts L and R. You end up with a cool syncopated stereo guitar effect. Two guitar bands do this all the time, a la Scorpions, Eagles, etc.

Aaron
http://www.voodoovibe.com

[Lopp]

No question: Double Track.

[crosstudio]

are we talking about rhythm or lead?

because lead riffs with alot of glissing, note bending, harmonics, or wah are so friggin' rediculously hard to duplicate.

for that reason i don't normally double track lead parts, unless i record them an octave apart. i especially enjoy double tracking lead parts from a classical guitar with split octaves.

[keilson]

we're talking rhythm, but thanks for all the responses. It's clear you must play it twice.

[beaverbiscuit]

Hey, crosstudio's comments made me think of another option: try *triple* tracking your guitar a la Randy Rhoads. Listen to some of the leads, particularly on *Blizzard of Ozz*, and you'll hear guitar left, guitar right, and center. Producer Max Norman said something about how intense it was for Rhoads to do that and that Ozzy didn't want him to do it. But the result was a huge sound. Of course YMMV — after all, I know *I* can't play leads like Rhoads, let alone duplicate the feat twice after so closely that it's scary.

[keilson]

wouldn't that crowd the mix too much?