I've been experimenting a bit with micing my setup rather then using sims. I must say the sound, to me anyways, is more realistic in a sense. I'll just get to the point, is double tracking something you should do if you're micing or will the sound be BIG enough with one track in the mix? Also any other techniques are welcome, I've searched through the web to see if my question has been asked but couldn't find anything. Thanks my fellow musicians!
Is it necessary to double track your guitar if you're micing your amp?
- Thread starter bennie08
- Start date
Chili
Site Moderator
Well, you're asking some vague questions and it really comes down to what you want from your guitar tracks. How big is "BIG enough"?? What exactly is the sound you're looking for?
But, in a nutshell, lots of people double track when using amps or sims. So yeah, double track to double the bigness.
Other techniques... I dont' really go for that wall of sound notion. I like each instrument to stand on its own without flooding the sound field with one tone, but I also like depth and and stereo spread if I'm using one guitar, so I like to put a stereo chorus on my amp sim or as a plug when mixing.
hth,
But, in a nutshell, lots of people double track when using amps or sims. So yeah, double track to double the bigness.
Other techniques... I dont' really go for that wall of sound notion. I like each instrument to stand on its own without flooding the sound field with one tone, but I also like depth and and stereo spread if I'm using one guitar, so I like to put a stereo chorus on my amp sim or as a plug when mixing.
hth,
guitarplayr82
New member
The answer I think you're looking for is no. A lot of people will try to give arguments against/for double tracking which is great, but to be specific about what you're asking: to get the same wide sound and fullness you got when double tracking your software sims, you'll still have to double track the amp. The idea of double tracking is to give a wider stereo image by panning the two tracks apart. Even though the amp will probably sound more realistic than your software sims, it won't fill up your the stereo image the same way because the amp is still a mono source.
Filling up the stereo space would bring one too double tracking. That helps out a lot guitarplyr82 and Chili your right about what the song calls for, things need to be less or more so to speak. Do the commercial studios use the double tracking technique? Just curious if anyone would know. I think I'll just stick to double tracking rather than quad tracking for it seems a little excessive. I got the quad tracking idea from a youtube video How To Get a Killer Metal Guitar Tone - Sound Like the Pros in Minutes! - YouTube the vid is pretty funny which makes it less boring to view, but it just ends up using a lot of cpu having all those tracks.
jimmys69
MOODerator
Yes, double tracking in heavy rock/metal is very typical. Quad tracking? Well, that is hit or miss, dependent on how good the player is. Four tracks of crap, will equal a mush fest. If a guitar player is able to play consistently, then it could be a possibility. Dimebag never had to double his L/R tracks, but I am sure he could very well.
It just depends on what kind of sound you are after. If you cant get the tone you like from two guitar tracks, either find why they are not working, add more tracks, or start over with a different approach. There really is no wrong or right here. Just what works for any particular song.
It just depends on what kind of sound you are after. If you cant get the tone you like from two guitar tracks, either find why they are not working, add more tracks, or start over with a different approach. There really is no wrong or right here. Just what works for any particular song.
Rather than quad tracking I usually track something higher up that fits the song, it really brings out new dimension sometimes, then you can have all kinds of fun with EQ and effects on the second or third guitar part and bury it in the mix so you can't really hear it. It just adds something and doesn't gum up the works.
Mo Facta
Farts of Nature
Doubling guitar tracks is a production decision and therefore should fit the production. For instance, if you're recording a traditional jazz group where the piano is featured, it might be a bit much to double the guitars because they will become overbearing and detract from the piano performance. It just won't suit the production, most likely. You may notice I haven't given any absolute answers there and that is because of the infinite subjectivity of recording and production.
Furthermore, I think you're confusing production techniques with looking for a silver bullet for a "better", or "bigger" recording. There are plenty of great rock recordings where the guitars were not doubled and other production techniques in the recording phase were implemented, such as room mikes, proper mike placement, a good sounding room, etc. Then, of course, there's the player and the instrument. If both are up to standard, a good recording is imminent.
Doubled guitar tracks are usually done for a wider, pseudo-stereo effect and often panned hard L and hard R. Doubled vocals are done for a chorus-like, thickening effect, which is similar, but a little different to the guitar technique in that its not uncommon for them to be layered in both mono and pseudo-stereo fashions.
At the end of it all, you may be surprised to find out that real professionals often keep it very simple and rely mostly on the tone of the source. Often you'll find them using a single mike, carefully placed in the most appropriate section of the room for optimal tone and "bigness". Whether or not the production may need a double is entirely up the producer.
Cheers
Furthermore, I think you're confusing production techniques with looking for a silver bullet for a "better", or "bigger" recording. There are plenty of great rock recordings where the guitars were not doubled and other production techniques in the recording phase were implemented, such as room mikes, proper mike placement, a good sounding room, etc. Then, of course, there's the player and the instrument. If both are up to standard, a good recording is imminent.
Doubled guitar tracks are usually done for a wider, pseudo-stereo effect and often panned hard L and hard R. Doubled vocals are done for a chorus-like, thickening effect, which is similar, but a little different to the guitar technique in that its not uncommon for them to be layered in both mono and pseudo-stereo fashions.
At the end of it all, you may be surprised to find out that real professionals often keep it very simple and rely mostly on the tone of the source. Often you'll find them using a single mike, carefully placed in the most appropriate section of the room for optimal tone and "bigness". Whether or not the production may need a double is entirely up the producer.
Cheers
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
Just regards quad tracking for a moment, if you don't want to play the part four separate times, one way you could try is to use a Y cable or a Y box and send the output to two separate amps or an amp and a mixer or an amp and some kind of pedal, it's your call, depending on what you have available. Play your part and record each output on a separate track. Then rinse and repeat with different settings and ultimately you have 4 tracks of guitar but you've only had to play through twice which is double tracking anyway so you'd in effect double track the double track. If the second time you used different inversions or went higher up or lower down, you widen your scope and if you're an old fashioned varispeeder like me and you record at different speeds, you'll alter your tone further still.
ZiZO
New member
I say experiment and decide yourself, it all depends on how you define "Big Sound" if you know what I mean. I personally tend to double track all guitars (acoustic and electric). I also like recording separately for L & R, the slight difference in each recording gives the whole mix a very nice feel! I actually learned this trick here on the forum