doubling/hard panning a mono ac. guitar

[miroslav]

Well...that's why I think a comparison might help.

If they hear a double tracked version VS a split/doubled version...they will have a better idea.

But I disagree that pro recordings don't use split/doubled tracking. It's also used on stuff...but so is true double tracking. It's about the style of music and production approach that makes one work better over the other, IMO.

I think the problem is in the reason, approach and oversue of split/double tracking by noobs that makes it ugly most of the time...they just overdo it, or do it poorly.

 

[Greg_L]

Well...that's why I think a comparison might help.

If they hear a double tracked version VS a split/doubled version...they will have a better idea.

But I disagree that pro recordings don't use split/doubled tracking. It's also used on stuff...but so is true double tracking. It's about the style of music and production approach that makes one work better over the other, IMO.

I think the problem is in the reason, approach and oversue of split/double tracking by noobs that makes it ugly most of the time...they just overdo it, or do it poorly.

A comparison will only encourage more retarded doubling and shifting.

If you need to make a sticky thread to validate your existence, why don't you encourage good playing, good miking, and good double tracking? It will always sound better.

 

[miroslav]

A comparison will only encourage more retarded doubling and shifting.

You're killing me!
So I guess if I record a bunch of demonstrations of different stereo/doubling techniques for two tracks...it will forever be my fault if noobs continue to split/double?
I did say I would also demonstrate true double tracking...I wasn't going to just promote split/doubling.

Hey...I got better things to do...I just thought it might be nice for peopel that don't know, to be able to A/B/C/D different options...but if no one says they are intersted...no problem, I won't do it.

If you need to make a sticky thread to validate your existence, why don't you encourage good playing, good miking, and good double tracking? It will always sound better.

NO...NO...the "sticky" was an inside joke...nevermind.
We don' need no stinkin' stickies!

 

[Greg_L]

I think noobs should learn solid tracking and playing techniques first. They'll figure out doubling and shifting on their own if they're interested and hopefully realize that it ain't very good.

 

[miroslav]

I think noobs should learn solid tracking and playing techniques first.

I"ll agree with you there 100%.

But after that...productions are about whatever your imagination wants to do.

If people can take good vocals and run them through a torn up speaker for a "lo-fi effect"...who's to say what can and can't be used or what is "good"?

 

[circusfreak]

I think noobs should learn solid tracking and playing techniques first. They'll figure out doubling and shifting on their own if they're interested and hopefully realize that it ain't very good.

Respectfully, I think this is a narrow minded viewpoint to the recording of an instrument that can be played in a variety of ways - some which you may not be comfortable with.

I am certainly not a recording guru, (not a 'noob,' but not exactly wet behind the ears) - that is precisely why I come to forums like this... But as I said earlier, I have been honing my craft on the instrument for over 18 years, (which I think takes me out of 'noob' status.) I happen to play in a style which is not easily recorded in multiple takes.

DOUBLE TRACKING IS NOT AN OPTION IN MY CASE. It's just not. I hate to mention it again and again, but the thread started as a discussion on doubling mono tracks and trying to acheive the best results. I appreciate the discourse, but please stop telling me that I'm simply not able enough on my instrument to perform what is neccesary to get a good recorded acoustic tone.

I am just trying to take my specific skillset, combine it with the skillsets of all of the people who record acoustic guitars every day, and make a finished product that we both can be satisfied with... cheers.

 

[WhiteStrat]

Respectfully, I think this is a narrow minded viewpoint to the recording of an instrument that can be played in a variety of ways - some which you may not be comfortable with.

I am certainly not a recording guru, (not a 'noob,' but not exactly wet behind the ears) - that is precisely why I come to forums like this... But as I said earlier, I have been honing my craft on the instrument for over 18 years, (which I think takes me out of 'noob' status.) I happen to play in a style which is not easily recorded in multiple takes.

DOUBLE TRACKING IS NOT AN OPTION IN MY CASE. It's just not. I hate to mention it again and again, but the thread started as a discussion on doubling mono tracks and trying to acheive the best results. I appreciate the discourse, but please stop telling me that I'm simply not able enough on my instrument to perform what is neccesary to get a good recorded acoustic tone.

I am just trying to take my specific skillset, combine it with the skillsets of all of the people who record acoustic guitars every day, and make a finished product that we both can be satisfied with... cheers.

And like I said before the train wreck--I agree that some parts can't be played twice effectively. As much you hear big guitar parts that are doubled that way, there are many that aren't--especially with acoustic parts like you're probably dealing with.

I can assure you that in these cases, the semblance of a big sound is way more often than not obtained with two mics placed in contrasting positions on the guitar, and then panned accordingly.

If two mics just aren't an option for you, then by all means--you'll have to play with doubling the one track you have. As you've already discovered, phase issues are a concern. You may have better luck leaving it as one track, and applying a stereo effect (or effects) to make the sound bigger/wider.

 

[Greg_L]

Respectfully, I think this is a narrow minded viewpoint to the recording of an instrument that can be played in a variety of ways - some which you may not be comfortable with.

I am certainly not a recording guru, (not a 'noob,' but not exactly wet behind the ears) - that is precisely why I come to forums like this... But as I said earlier, I have been honing my craft on the instrument for over 18 years, (which I think takes me out of 'noob' status.) I happen to play in a style which is not easily recorded in multiple takes.

DOUBLE TRACKING IS NOT AN OPTION IN MY CASE. It's just not. I hate to mention it again and again, but the thread started as a discussion on doubling mono tracks and trying to acheive the best results. I appreciate the discourse, but please stop telling me that I'm simply not able enough on my instrument to perform what is neccesary to get a good recorded acoustic tone.

I am just trying to take my specific skillset, combine it with the skillsets of all of the people who record acoustic guitars every day, and make a finished product that we both can be satisfied with... cheers.

I never said you're not good enough to double track. I don't know anything about you. I do know that people double track drums, leads, pianos, everything.

But fine, you can't do it. No problem. Go ahead and mess around with doubling and shifting and throw effects at it until you decide that you need to double track or record it again with two mics. I think most of us who've been there are just trying to save you some time.

 

[NYMorningstar]

I think noobs should learn solid tracking and playing techniques first. They'll figure out doubling and shifting on their own if they're interested and hopefully realize that it ain't very good.

I totally agree. Maybe this thread should have been named: How do you fix it in the mix...ummm, errr simple, YOU DON'T!

 

[miroslav]

DOUBLE TRACKING IS NOT AN OPTION IN MY CASE. It's just not.

While I agree with Greg that for many things, true double tracking can provide a very sweet sound that split/doubling can't duplicate....and that WhiteStrat's suggestion to use a two-mic spread on the acoustic guitar with a split/pan approach is also a very nice option...
...I also TOTALLY get where you are coming from about the need to use a different approach, like split/double/pan, which I've used when needed and there's nothing wrong or bad about it. It can work very well for a given situation where other approaches can't.

There really should not even be a debate about using different options for a given production. It's ALL valid if it gives YOU the end result you are after.
I think the crux of the debate always centers around the idea of "real" VS "fake"...but it's not always about that unless that is what you want to focus on.
Guys that do a lot of pure electronic/sequenced music never have any problems with "real" instruments VS "fake"...and we all use synths at one point or another to give us sounds that are synthetic, yet if they work for a given production, there's nothing bad or wrong about it.
Same thing goes with double tracking, split/doubling, adding delay and reverb during the mixdown...etc...etc...etc.

And it's OK to have personal preferences. If you don't like using amp sims, then don't (I don't), but I couldn't say they are not "valid" in a given production.
It's only when people hate the tones they get, but they don't want to change their approach that other options matter and need to be considered.

 

[Greg_L]

For me, it has nothing to do with real vs fake. It has everything to do with sound.

 

[grimtraveller]

Go ahead and mess around with doubling and shifting and throw effects at it until you decide that you need to double track or record it again with two mics. I think most of us who've been there are just trying to save you some time.

In something as far and wide and so full of different strands as recording, saving people some time is actually counterproductive in my opinion. I understand why we do it but I think people need to understand why something may not work for them. Or if indeed that something doesn't work. Also, things that we feel are 'stupid' or 'not a good idea' or daft or whatever for us, may actually yield great results for someone else.
These arguments that often ensue on various threads are actually pretty interesting. Sometimes, various parties so dig their heels in that they don't realize that there are some of us that become really curious about what one is/may be saying is a great way or can't be done. And in the oddest way, fuels experimentation. This thread is loaded with conflicting, but ''worth investigating'' methods.

 

[miroslav]

Maybe this thread should have been named: How do you fix it in the mix...ummm, errr simple, YOU DON'T!

While it has become a sort of anecdotal perspective..."you can't fix it in the mix"...the reality is that you actually CAN fix a LOT in the mix these days, thanks to DAWs...and many people DO, from the home recordists right on up to the top pro sessions.
Actually...the pros get away with it even more so...because they are good at it and know how to edit and fix.
What you fix and how much you fix...that's really up to the individual.

No listener ever knows what really went on in the studio during tracking/mixing. All they hear is the end-product.

 

[Greg_L]

In something as far and wide and so full of different strands as recording, saving people some time is actually counterproductive in my opinion. I understand why we do it but I think people need to understand why something may not work for them. Or if indeed that something doesn't work. Also, things that we feel are 'stupid' or 'not a good idea' or daft or whatever for us, may actually yield great results for someone else.
These arguments that often ensue on various threads are actually pretty interesting. Sometimes, various parties so dig their heels in that they don't realize that there are some of us that become really curious about what one is/may be saying is a great way or can't be done. And in the oddest way, fuels experimentation. This thread is loaded with conflicting, but ''worth investigating'' methods.

Sure, but when you have thread after thread of different people saying the same thing, it's probably true.

Experimentation is fine. But musicians are generally a dumb bunch and they easily fall into traps of stupidity trying to be "different". It's easy to fool yourself into thinking something is good when it isn't.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Sure, but when you have thread after thread of different people saying the same thing, it's probably true.

Or it's just a bunch of Net 2.0ers parroting the same baloney back and forth to each other over and over again until they actually believe that what they are saying came straight from the Bible.

G.

 

[miroslav]

For me, it has nothing to do with real vs fake. It has everything to do with sound.

Well...you were the one that mentioned "trickery" earlier, and about playing it twice for real...so it seems like you were focusing on "fake" VS "real".

AFA "sounds"...that's exactly what I've been getting at all along!
Each approach has a different sound that needs to be put into the context of the entire mix for a given production...you can't just pick a single approach based on how it sounds by itself and use it for everything.
You seem to be suggesting that only one sounds best for ALL situations...?

 

[Greg_L]

Or it's just a bunch of Net 2.0ers parroting the same baloney back and forth to each other over and over again until they actually believe that what they are saying came straight from the Bible.

G.

WTF is a Net 2.0er?

 

[Greg_L]

Well...you were the one that mentioned "trickery" earlier, and about playing it twice for real...so it seems like you were focusing on "fake" VS "real".

AFA "sounds"...that's exactly what I've been getting at all along!
Each approach has a different sound that needs to be put into the context of the entire mix for a given production...you can't just pick a single approach based on how it sounds by itself and use it for everything.
You seem to be suggesting that only one sounds best for ALL situations...?

In this instance, yeah. Especially with guitars. Mono doubling/panning/shifting is shit.

 

[grimtraveller]

Maybe this thread should have been named: How do you fix it in the mix...ummm, errr simple, YOU DON'T!

While I totally agree that one shouldn't be a mangy corner cutting cur and be lazy about good techniques, {indeed, 'solid tracking and playing techniques' as Greg put it earlier, should be the bottom line beneath which one just doesn't drop} I find it incredible that in an arena where artifice is as much a part of the picture as the music itself, advice is still given of "do not fix in the mix....". Firstly, why ? Secondly, the whole notion of fixing in the mix is a direct and inescapable consequence of the meeting of multitracking.....and human imagination. It's treated as a dirty pastime, but during a session there are so many variables, little things that can go slightly amiss. And also, why shouldn't an engineer or producer utilize a little creativity of their own, if the ones being recorded are up for it ?
Let me stress again that I don't think one should embark on a recording with the idea that it doesn't matter what shit is laid down, after all, it can be fixed later. That's walking backwards down the escalator. But you can polish turds. You may not have been able to in 1921. You sure as heck can now - and very few would ever know.

 

[miroslav]

In this instance, yeah. Especially with guitars. Mono doubling/panning/shifting is shit.

Fine...that's your personal preference and perspective, and you should go with what you like best.

I disagree.
There are times where, IMHO, it *can* work better than true double tracking or stereo miking, it just depends on the sound & effect you are going for...
...which gets back to the delay "pulse" (7010) thing I was getting at earlier.