Horse With No Name

GuitarLegend

GuitarLegend

New member
The well-known America song, Horse With No Name was the first song I recorded on a new 12-string guitar that was given to me as a present a few years ago. The rhythm guitar and lead guitar solo are both 12-string guitar.

I used to think it was one of my best recordings but learning from you guys kinda shredded that idea...

I remixed the song tonight because when I listened to my first recording of it last night, it really sounded bad. I am under no illusion that it will sound great now but I am posting the remix here for an idea that I had for the bass guitar - to record the bass as a mono track. I wondered about the requirement for a stereo bass track and would value your opinion.

Horse With No Name

P.S. I am sorry, I just saw the notice on posting in the MP3 Mixing Clinic... its over there now :/
 
GuitarLegend said:
an idea that I had for the bass guitar - to record the bass as a mono track. I wondered about the requirement for a stereo bass track and would value your opinion.
Click to expand...

I haven't had a listen, but as a general rule, there is no need to record any instrument in stereo unless it is an instrument with a strong spatial dimension (such as a piano, a drum kit or a choir).

Instruments that provide a single point of sound (e.g. human voice, flute, bass etc.) are usually best recorded as mono tracks.

There are exceptions, of course. For example, if you are playing a guitar and using a strong stereo effect on it (such as a stereo chorus), then there are benefits of recording guitar and chorus in stereo. However, you can always record the guitar in mono and add a stereo effect later.
 
I came up with idea by accident when I was recovering the tracks for this recording. I didn't re-record anything, just remixed what I had. But I noticed the left channel of the bass was clipping and I couldn't UNclip it... so I panned it fully right and bounced that to a mono track. When I listened to that I thought, why not? So I left it as a mono track.
 
GuitarLegend said:
I came up with idea by accident when I was recovering the tracks for this recording. I didn't re-record anything, just remixed what I had. But I noticed the left channel of the bass was clipping and I couldn't UNclip it... so I panned it fully right and bounced that to a mono track. When I listened to that I thought, why not? So I left it as a mono track.
Click to expand...

Like Gecko was getting at. I've never heard of anyone recording bass in stereo. Same with any mono instrument. In fact, I'm wondering how you even manage to record bass in stereo.Rrecording it onto a "stereo track" doesn't make it stereo, it just makes it mono, but on 2 tracks.
 
RAMI said:
Like Gecko was getting at. I've never heard of anyone recording bass in stereo. Same with any mono instrument. In fact, I'm wondering how you even manage to record bass in stereo.Rrecording it onto a "stereo track" doesn't make it stereo, it just makes it mono, but on 2 tracks.
Click to expand...

I think I can do it with my Zoom H4n. :D
 
I record acoustic guitar with two mics, one is an AKG D7 dynamic and the other is an AKG P170 condenser. So far I have been pretty happy with the results even though, by comments in this thread, the guitar should probably be considered a mono instrument. The two different mics give it some spatial effect that I like. I just thought that would be wasted on the bass. Other things that prompted that thought was the fact that my home cinema has a single subwoofer, ditto some 3.1 sound systems I have previously had connected to the computer. If a single subby works then why bother recording or mixing the bass in stereo?
 
Two mics does not necessarily equal stereo... it's just two related channels that you put somewhere in the stereo field when mixing.
 
GuitarLegend said:
I record acoustic guitar with two mics, one is an AKG D7 dynamic and the other is an AKG P170 condenser. So far I have been pretty happy with the results even though, by comments in this thread, the guitar should probably be considered a mono instrument. The two different mics give it some spatial effect that I like. I just thought that would be wasted on the bass. Other things that prompted that thought was the fact that my home cinema has a single subwoofer, ditto some 3.1 sound systems I have previously had connected to the computer. If a single subby works then why bother recording or mixing the bass in stereo?
Click to expand...

I use two mikes on acoustic guitar as well, but not all the time. I do so when it is an important feature of a track. If not, I simply record it in mono.
 
Armistice said:
Two mics does not necessarily equal stereo... it's just two related channels that you put somewhere in the stereo field when mixing.
Click to expand...

If I used identical mics and taped them together so they point at the same spot on the guitar, I would agree with you completely. Although AKG says their D7 has similar characteristics to a condenser mic, I still think there is a difference, especially when I point one at the 12th fret and the other at the bridge. I get tonal differences and a stereo effect that I like.
 
GuitarLegend said:
If I used identical mics and taped them together so they point at the same spot on the guitar, I would agree with you completely. Although AKG says their D7 has similar characteristics to a condenser mic, I still think there is a difference, especially when I point one at the 12th fret and the other at the bridge. I get tonal differences and a stereo effect that I like.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's not different.... after all, all my stuff is acoustic guitars and I multi-mic all the time... what I'm saying is it's not necessarily STEREO... :)

If two mics = sterero, what does three mics on a source equal? Trereo? :confused:

No-one has a fancy term for miking a drum kit with 2 room, 2 overhead, kick, snare and god-knows what else.... octereo?

Following me? They're just multiple channels which we use as we like to create various different sounds... the end result is a stereo recording... :drunk:

The fact that you're using two different variations of a source via two mics doesn't mean it's stereo - that depends upon what you do with it... put them on top of each other in the pan spectrum and it's once again mono, but you recorded in stereo, yes...? :eek:
 
Armistice said:
... the end result is a stereo recording... :drunk:

:
Click to expand...

Funny, I was thinking about this and couldn't really come up with an answer, your right the only thing really "stereo" is the mix to the output we listen too.
 
Armistice said:
If two mics = sterero, what does three mics on a source equal? Trereo? :confused:

No-one has a fancy term for miking a drum kit with 2 room, 2 overhead, kick, snare and god-knows what else.... octereo?
Click to expand...
I always thought trereo and octereo were common knowledge in the tracking sphere.........
 
PDP said:
Funny, I was thinking about this and couldn't really come up with an answer, your right the only thing really "stereo" is the mix to the output we listen too.
Click to expand...

That's just it. 99% of tracks in most songs are mono tracks: Guitar, vocals, bass, snare, kik, etc....Of course, you can record the same guitar or vocal track to double it up and make it "stereo", but they're still individual mono tracks. What makes stereo is how we're taking all those tracks and panning them for the final product.
 
Stereo audio is the artificial recreation of the soundfield as taken in by an ear on each side of the human head with each at a fairly close/opposing angle to the other. In my case one should be slightly louder than the other as one of my ears is more stuffed than the other.
Stereo Binaural recordings are the current closest match to this natural phenomenon, (using as they do a special head with sockets into which a pair specialized mics are mounted - one mic in each "ear" position - these recordings need to be listened to with head phones to get the best match eg - Lou Reed Take No Prisoners Live or The Bells.
Any two signal of the same source - no matter how close - ie: a pair of mics each translating a monaural impression, will achieve a spatial and acoustic variation on the other and could then be reproduced in a stereo soundfield to recreate a "spacial effect". The spatial relationship (difference & similarity) between the two signals gives the cues to our brain for the sense of direction & depth in the sound field that make it seem real. It's the lack of subtlty in our hearing that makes wide panned/heavily effected spatial relationships satisfying. Whilst the two ultra close signal paths thingo is technically true it is not realistic being that our own audio processing, sensitivity and degradation (ie hearing) may render any difference inperceptible and therefore redundant.
Where was I? Oh, stereo is mixed mono of the same source from slightly different perspectives just as binocular vision is the blend of two separate images to create a spatial relationship, (any combo of at least 2 of L, W, H & T), & allow the brain to perceive depth/field etc.
Now, since some clever maker has fixated upon twos & the the summing of them to give perception we also extrapolate that to our feet & hands as they can convey sensations that are compared and contrasted to make relative spatial or sensory determinations. Nostrils????
PS Brian Wilson can't relate to a thing I say!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top