3 mics on amp vs. 3 performances

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dark Imagery
  • Start date Start date
Dark Imagery

Dark Imagery

New member
Alright, so I've been messing around with tracking three seperate performances of my 1st guitar tracks and have gotten good results so far. By the way, my MXL 990 LDC placed four feet from my loud ass tube amp sounds amazing. I recently read an article where a bunch of engineers were horny for using three mics on a single amp instead of doing three separate takes with different settings.

I'm playing my guitar tracks very tight. Can I assume I'd get the same results from placing three mics on the amp, taking the time to make sure they all sound good together with minimal phase issues, will have the same results as tracking three separate performances. Or, is there some magic about tracking multiple performances that I need to explore. I'm really into the idea of saving time but a great sound is the most important goal.

Thanks guys!
 
Hey Dark have you ever tried reamping your guitar sound? ;)






:cool:
 
Havent tried that yet actually. I really just don't trust DI.

Edit: Plus I'm not sure I have the right equipment.
 
Havent tried that yet actually. I really just don't trust DI.

Edit: Plus I'm not sure I have the right equipment.

Try something as simple as this play your track through a pa speaker in a room or a stair well etc. and capture that with a room mic, you get that and blend it back in with your original or just keep the rerecording .... just experiment. different rooms different LDC room mics. ;)






:cool:
 
I've done something like that before, but it is a different sound than recording different takes for sure. The timing, even if you play tight, is going to be slightly different and you will hit the notes slightly different every take, so the two takes will have enough differences to sound more like two guitars playing. That's good if you want the "wall of guitars," but not so good if you just want to fill out a single guitar a little bit.

When I did it, I actually ran the amp simulator output of a DF7 pedal, a mic on the amp, and another mic sitting in a glass jar farther back. I was mostly experimenting with sounds to see what would happen, but they made a fairly filled-out sound. I panned one left, one center, and one right. The point is that, if done right, it can work pretty well, but it's not the same as different takes.
 
I still prefer to double track seperate performances with 2 different guitars.I've experimented some with close micing two seperate cabs in different rooms during one performance.

Although i got a different sound from each mic and cab combination it still doesn't thicken up the sound like double tracking.I also tried adding a room mic and it just sounded awful.I used a dynamic mic though since i didn't have a LDC.I just ordered one of those mxl 2003a mics so we'll see if it's as good as some of the reviews.

I'm also using a low watt amp and recording late at night so cranking it isn't much of an option for me.
 
David Bowie did something to that effect with guitar on one take but would have one at the amp, then one at 15' with a gate so it would only open on the harder hits then one out at 30' with a gate to do the same. Then all you have to do in your DAW is to line them up .... or add the right amount of delayed time to each while recording. ;)






:cool:
 
You'll get a better sound by doing three takes.
I've done the mutiple mic thing a couple of times when trying to determine the best mic for the situation. It can work but multitracking guitars is much the same as multitracking vocals in that it's the minute differences in time, pitch and dynamics that create the magic.
 
You'll get a better sound by doing three takes.
I've done the mutiple mic thing a couple of times when trying to determine the best mic for the situation. It can work but multitracking guitars is much the same as multitracking vocals in that it's the minute differences in time, pitch and dynamics that create the magic.

What RayC says. It is the slight differences in three separately recorded trakcs that gives the big sound.
 
Three mics and three takes are different things that offer different results. On my last tracking session we double-tracked a triple-miced cab for a version of the Vortex setup. The two takes were panned mirror image. On one song we also recorded a third "hype" take with one mic.
 
Thanks for the helpful replies everybody. I've made up my mind to track three seperate performances. Just need to refine it a bit. Let me know about that MXL 2003!
 
Great advice, eveyone!

Hey, what's wrong with a single guitar track recorded, then duplicating that track in your project once or twice? You would have the same identical recording, but couldn't you play around with the panning or effects or the duplicate tracks and have all of them bounced together later on for a full sound without recording three separate taks or using multiple mics?

Mike Freze
 
Great advice, eveyone!

Hey, what's wrong with a single guitar track recorded, then duplicating that track in your project once or twice? You would have the same identical recording, but couldn't you play around with the panning or effects or the duplicate tracks and have all of them bounced together later on for a full sound without recording three separate taks or using multiple mics?

Mike Freze

Nothing's "wrong" with it, except for the fact it doesn't really work.

A huge part (arguably, the entire part) of what makes a multi-tracked performance sound so big and spacious isn't just that there are two tracks of guitar playing back, but rather that there are two different performances playing back. Duplicating a performance gives you two versions of the same sound, and really just has the effect of making the original sound louder. Doubling it with a different performance, however, and it's the slight, unavoidable differences between the two parts that makes the resulting sound big and lush. You really just can't get that with a single guitar part, copied and pasted.
 
Back
Top