Double tracking same effect as stereo?

[Nightfire]

Working on a spoof metal tune for a friend and I need that heavy drony beefy guitar sound. I realize I need to doulbe track the guitars to achieve this...BUT, would recording the amp with 2 or 3 microphones do the same trick?

Mike

 

[scrouch]

I think double-tracking typically involves a short delay which gives a fuller sound. Using two mics might not get you the exact effect but I think recording in stereo with different mic placements is better than doubling a track. Just me though.

 

[Lt. Bob]

part of what's good about doubletracking is that there are inevitable differences between then two parts ..... no way anyone's gonna play EXACTLY the same both times ..... so the (hopefully) tiny differences between the two parts is what fattens it up.
But two or three mics on the same part is a useful technique too.

 

[pandamonk]

An easier way to acheive this sort of effect, is to duplicate the recording and reverse the phase, then pan the orginal left and new right(or vice versa). Or, you could probably place one mic further away causing phasing, then pan one mic left n the other right. Or just record two versions, and pan them left and right. They will all give this affect, and will probably all sound different, so experiment.

 

[MessianicDreams]

would recording the amp with 2 or 3 microphones do the same trick?

Mike

No.

Double tracking works because of small timing discrepancies between 2 different performances. Double mic'ing an amp will give you 2 different tones but the same perfomance. Copying 1 take and then delaying one side will make it sound like slap-back depending on how long the delay time is, and doesn't work anywhere near as good. You're much better off simply playing the thing in twice!

 

[pezking]

An easier way to acheive this sort of effect, is to duplicate the recording and reverse the phase, then pan the orginal left and new right(or vice versa)

Really bad idea IMO - if you ever listen to it in mono you'd hear no guitar at all. If you're wondering when you'd listen in mono: crap stereos, crap car stereos and hey you never know it might be on the radio some day; a lot of radios are still in mono. I also don't think the effect would be very useful even in stereo.

Another thing you can do (if working in a PC) is to duplicate the guitar track and shift it back by about 20ms and pan one hard left the other hard right. Creates a similar effect and it sounds pretty tight. This is effectively ADT (automatic double tracking) and you can get plugins and hardware that do just that.

 

[cusebassman]

Really bad idea IMO - if you ever listen to it in mono you'd hear no guitar at all. If you're wondering when you'd listen in mono: crap stereos, crap car stereos and hey you never know it might be on the radio some day; a lot of radios are still in mono. I also don't think the effect would be very useful even in stereo.

Another thing you can do (if working in a PC) is to duplicate the guitar track and shift it back by about 20ms and pan one hard left the other hard right. Creates a similar effect and it sounds pretty tight. This is effectively ADT (automatic double tracking) and you can get plugins and hardware that do just that.

Glad somebody caught that. Would be quite entertaining though...

As for beefing up your guitar sound, have you tried messing with the gain and EQ of the guitar before trying all these extras? I know that a lot of so-called "professionally" recorded good metal tracks are done with multiple layers of the same part, etc., but it doesn't hurt to try every avenue possible. Also play with compression on this - that will get the sound more upfront real quick.

 

[pandamonk]

Really bad idea IMO - if you ever listen to it in mono you'd hear no guitar at all. If you're wondering when you'd listen in mono: crap stereos, crap car stereos and hey you never know it might be on the radio some day; a lot of radios are still in mono. I also don't think the effect would be very useful even in stereo.

Another thing you can do (if working in a PC) is to duplicate the guitar track and shift it back by about 20ms and pan one hard left the other hard right. Creates a similar effect and it sounds pretty tight. This is effectively ADT (automatic double tracking) and you can get plugins and hardware that do just that.

Yes, I see the logic in this, although i do like the sound i get from it. And if someone is listening in mono, they probably aren't really caring much about how it sounds, and what instruments you can hear.

Anyway, i usually have a third track panned to the centre, and moved like you said, forward or backward very slightly. This helps give a fuller sound, 'cause with the reverse phase tracks panned far left and right, it does seem to make it sound quite thin. And this means there will be guitar if listned to in mono.

 

[pezking]

if someone is listening in mono, they probably aren't really caring much about how it sounds, and what instruments you can hear

I think that's a dangerous assumption because some people have no choice but to listen in mono, it doesn't mean that they aren't bothered about hearing the guitar.

I don't like the technique myself, but each to their own. If it works for you, do it!

 

[pandamonk]

I think that's a dangerous assumption because some people have no choice but to listen in mono, it doesn't mean that they aren't bothered about hearing the guitar.

I don't like the technique myself, but each to their own. If it works for you, do it!

You'r eright though. I never really though about mono listeners, but for stereo it sounds gd, haha.

 

[Lt. Bob]

I think that's a dangerous assumption because some people have no choice but to listen in mono, it doesn't mean that they aren't bothered about hearing the guitar.

There are actually some audiophile types who prefer mono for various reasons. I don't agree, I prefer stereo (although a lot of old albums were mixed better in the mono versions ........ check out early mono versions of Beatles' albums .... MUCH better than the stereo versions) but they do exist and those people prefer mono because they care about the sound.

 

[pezking]

I'm sorry to digress.

I think that in a lot of occasions stereo is somewhat pointless. To experience the stereo image fully; you need to be sat at the "sweetspot" of your speakers.

How many people's hifis do you see where the speakers are right next to each other, or one on the floor and the other on a bookshelf? Sometimes it seems like an awful load of trouble for somewhat little gain.

Since I've got into audio seriously, I have begun to position my speakers properly, and I now really appreciate the image. But, most of the time, people just don't appreciate it and a lot of the time won't even notice it!

That's just my two cents anyway.

 

[austinm08]

I'm sorry to digress.

I think that in a lot of occasions stereo is somewhat pointless. To experience the stereo image fully; you need to be sat at the "sweetspot" of your speakers.

How many people's hifis do you see where the speakers are right next to each other, or one on the floor and the other on a bookshelf? Sometimes it seems like an awful load of trouble for somewhat little gain.

Since I've got into audio seriously, I have begun to position my speakers properly, and I now really appreciate the image. But, most of the time, people just don't appreciate it and a lot of the time won't even notice it!

That's just my two cents anyway.

You're so right. That's what sucks about it. Average "music-lovers"--not musicians or audio engineers, per say--don't know about a lot of what we do. They are missing out on a lot, but probably don't even realize it.

 

[Lt. Bob]

I'm sorry to digress.

I think that in a lot of occasions stereo is somewhat pointless. To experience the stereo image fully; you need to be sat at the "sweetspot" of your speakers.

How many people's hifis do you see where the speakers are right next to each other, or one on the floor and the other on a bookshelf? Sometimes it seems like an awful load of trouble for somewhat little gain.

Since I've got into audio seriously, I have begun to position my speakers properly, and I now really appreciate the image. But, most of the time, people just don't appreciate it and a lot of the time won't even notice it!

That's just my two cents anyway.

VERY true .... and you even see it in studios.
I recently saw one control room where the right speaker was in a corner and the left speaker peeked in between two large racks of equipment. The two speakers are gonna sound totally different which makes a good mix impossible but when I mentioned it to the guy he looked at me like I was nuts.

 

[Nightfire]

Thank you so much for all the replies. Im gonna mic with 2 diff mics, panned left right, then shift one over a tiny bit and we'll see what happens.
I refuse to do any more guitar playing than I would need to


Mike

 

[MessianicDreams]

Another thing you can do (if working in a PC) is to duplicate the guitar track and shift it back by about 20ms and pan one hard left the other hard right. Creates a similar effect and it sounds pretty tight. This is effectively ADT (automatic double tracking) and you can get plugins and hardware that do just that.

20ms it sorta verging on the threshold for hearing 2 distinct sounds, so you'll probably hear an "echo" rather than the stereo effect you want. Also the Haas (precedence) effect will totally fuck up your stereo image and pull it over to the side that isn't delayed.


I still say take another 4mins to record it in again; honestly, it WILL sound so much better!!

 

[NYMorningstar]

This isn't something to fix in the mix. If you want that heavy drony beefy guitar sound then work on the guitar and amp set to up get it first. Stick your head right up to the amp and move it around until you hear what you want. Then just stick one sm57 where your head was, point it to the cone and your in.

 

[pezking]

20ms it sorta verging on the threshold for hearing 2 distinct sounds, so you'll probably hear an "echo" rather than the stereo effect you want. Also the Haas (precedence) effect will totally fuck up your stereo image and pull it over to the side that isn't delayed

Not correct. The Hass effect states that for two sounds with a time of arrival difference of less than ca. 50ms the second sound will be masked, so it won't be heard as two separate sounds. I agree that if the difference were greater than about 50ms then the Haas effect would occur, and would result in two sounds being heard - like a slapback echo. If the delayed signal is masked (more likely the attacks will be masked), then you can boost the delayed signal by a couple of dB to compensate for that.

I'm not presenting this as a perfect technique. In fact I think it's a lazy way of doing it, and it doesn't compare to actually double tracking something. But if you didn't have time to do it, and you need to create that effect then it's useful.

ADT was (apparently) invented especially for Abbey Road for when the Beatles were recording. The effect was done by chaining in a second tape machine that ran later, but Lennon got annoyed at having to do so many extra takes that he suggested they found a technical solution to it. So they did.

 

[MessianicDreams]

Not correct. The Hass effect states that for two sounds with a time of arrival difference of less than ca. 50ms the second sound will be masked, so it won't be heard as two separate sounds.

For a start that's not what the Hass affect relates to. But more on that later.



quoting from Wikipedia...

The effect occurs when arrival times differ by up to 30 - 40 milliseconds. When the difference is greater than 30 - 40 milliseconds, two distinct sounds will be heard and commonly described as "reverberation" ("reverb") or "echo", depending upon the amount of time between the arrival of the two (or more) sounds and their perceived independence from one another.

so 20ms is getting there, which is why i said "sorta verging on the threshold of..." And before you start ripping into Wiki, you'll find it quoted everywhere as 30-40ms. I've never heard of anyone quoting it as 50ms, but if you can find some references I'd be interested to see what sources they came from.


Incidently the Haas effect is not about hearing seperate sounds it's about the effect of NOT hearing seperate sounds. It is a statement on the psycho-acoustic effect of having non-descretly distinguishable delay times in a stereo monitoring setup. The law of the first wave front states that our ears automatically use time & phase differences to accurately locate a sound - even if these aren't strickly audible.


I'd suggest understanding the laws first before telling people how to interpret them!! But i say that in the nicest possible way




Either way if you don't hear the second sound it will still fuck with your stereo imagine, especially if it's as long as 20ms.

 

[pezking]

For a start that's not what the Hass affect relates to.

I realise on re-reading my previous post that I had two conflicting statements:

The Hass effect states that for two sounds with a time of arrival difference of less than ca. 50ms the second sound will be masked, so it won't be heard as two separate sounds.

which is the correct statement (please note I said circa 50ms), but then somewhat foolishly:

if the difference were greater than about 50ms then the Haas effect would occur

that should have been "won't occur" (I'm not very good at wording what I actually mean maybe I should be studying English instead.)

You're correct, 30-40ms is very widely quoted, but it's very much a rough figure. It depends on what kind of sound it is. I've seen it quoted as 8-60ms. If you have a transient sound, the time is much shorter compared to a continuous sound. Heck it also depends on the individual listener, as they might not hear or perceive the same things that the next person does. Unfortunately the only specific reference I have right now is my acoustics lecturer; I had to give back my books to the library at the end of last semester

I'd suggest understanding the laws first before telling people how to interpret them!! But i say that in the nicest possible way

I do understand them but like I said I find it hard (especially just through typing) to get across what I actually mean; it's something I need to work on for sure! I don't get how I'm telling people to interpret them though.

It is a statement on the psycho-acoustic effect of having non-descretly distinguishable delay times in a stereo monitoring setup.

It's not necessarily to do with stereo monitoring, or even binaural hearing. It directly relates to reflections (specifically early reflections). Somebody who is deaf in one ear would still experience the Haas effect.

Either way if you don't hear the second sound it will still fuck with your stereo imagine, especially if it's as long as 20ms.

Please try it with a vocal track or a guitar track, it really does work! Then feel free to say it's rubbish!

Oh and please don't quote wikipedia! It's unreliable (although in this instance it isn't too wrong) anyone can write an article on there. I think together we could write a great definition!

Anyway sorry for the long post and for hijacking the thread somewhat!