Doubling guitar tracks
- Thread starter P-J
- Start date
legionserial
New member
Play it again. In my eyes it's the best option. The other way seems a bit lazy to me. I can't see why you wouldn't want to play it again. Unless you don't actually like playing guitar or the tune you are recording. 
WhiteStrat
Don't stare at the eye.
Play it again. In my eyes it's the best option. The other way seems a bit lazy to me. I can't see why you wouldn't want to play it again. Unless you don't actually like playing guitar or the tune you are recording.
Not only is it lazy, but it really doesn't get the job done. There's some "aural effect" to be had by duplicating and offsetting a track, but it's not at all the same effect as a rich stereo wall of sound.
When you stand in a room and listen to a guitar player, you're listening with two ears. Each ear picks up minute differences--reflections from different sides of the room, noises from the players hands (if acoustic) etc. Recording it twice recreates this texture (in fact, it exaggerates it a bit, which is good since you're going to be dropping it in a mix with a bunch of other stuff.)
shockingcandy
Leads for all occasions
I'd prefer not to have to double track especially on more complex parts as it's easy to lose some of the subtleties of the original perfomance. But until I figure out how to archeive that big fat guitar sound another way then it has to be done.
I tend to use a different pickup or amp setting for the 2nd track, pan it in opposition and a little lower in the mix. I do this for each different guitar part except the solos. 7 or 8 guitar tracks sometimes!
I tend to use a different pickup or amp setting for the 2nd track, pan it in opposition and a little lower in the mix. I do this for each different guitar part except the solos. 7 or 8 guitar tracks sometimes!
undrgrnd studio
New member
Why not just stereo record and heavy pan? I do this all the time for acoustic stuff and it gives a great overall rich sound. Heck if you have the time you could even throw another mic on the other end of the room and use it as ambiance or a natural reverb.
shockingcandy
Leads for all occasions
Interesting point. I want to try using a mic in front of the cab and the direct output of my Trademark hard panned at some point (you can hear this for yourself on the Tech 21 website) but it's not really practical at home due to volume limitations. The choice of mic would probably be the key to obtaining sufficient difference between tone of the tracks. A 3 mic approach (close front, close rear and further back from the speaker) might also work
WhiteStrat
Don't stare at the eye.
I double track acoustic too, but once when working with a piece too complex for me to double nicely, I learned about a mid side stereo set. I was surprised by how good it sounds. A standard wide separated stereo recording sounds great too.
But this is all acoustic--the stereo recording picks up the differences between the two hands and the neck vs. body of the guitar. I've never tried these stereo techniques with an amp...doesn't seem like it'd benefit nearly as much. Anyone? Bueller?
DrewPeterson7
Sage of the Order
I at least double track all rhythm guitars. Leads, I improvise all of my solos, so going back to double them would pose a certain problem... 
Copy and paste just doesn't sound the same.
Copy and paste just doesn't sound the same.
undrgrnd studio
New member
Good point I wasn't really thinking about that. I suppose if you were just looking for slightly different tones and a fatter overall sound you could just use two different mics and pan them. Why not? It'll probably sound better than just one mic on the amp.
DrewPeterson7
Sage of the Order
Well, I play a 1x12 combo, so the stereo spread isn't really there, lol. However, this is effectively the same principle behind using more than one mic on an amp - to capture a bit of the room sound and blend it in with a more traditional close-mic'd tone, or to mix a bit of a "edge of speaker" darker sound with a more traditional placement, or even to pair off complimentary characteristics of different mics.
As far as doubling acoustics, I figured it was just too hard to get right for ages. However, the acoustic tone on Porcupine Tree's "Trains" is not a stereo mix but rather two seperate takes, and it sounds great. So lately I've been doing stereo recordings of my acoustic for fairly sparse mixes, but doubled mono tracks on more dense stuff since they seem to sit better.
WhiteStrat
Don't stare at the eye.
Might be worth trying--especially for leads.
guitarded2
New member
I voted play it again. I play with a lot of heavy guitar parts so thats my reasoning.
I've tried using different mics on the same amp or even splitting the source to come out of two amps/amp models at once and every other way to save time but it just never sounds "big" enough even with a 13-19ms delay/reverb.
I've found the best results for me come from recording two tracks that aren't very distorted at all and pan one left and one right (with the same amp settings) then recording a few more on differen't amp(s) that are much more distorted than the other two and pan those hard left and right the heavily distorted ones give it a lot of space and the less distorted ones are there for clarity and that in-your-face-sound. Just how I do it.
I've tried using different mics on the same amp or even splitting the source to come out of two amps/amp models at once and every other way to save time but it just never sounds "big" enough even with a 13-19ms delay/reverb.
I've found the best results for me come from recording two tracks that aren't very distorted at all and pan one left and one right (with the same amp settings) then recording a few more on differen't amp(s) that are much more distorted than the other two and pan those hard left and right the heavily distorted ones give it a lot of space and the less distorted ones are there for clarity and that in-your-face-sound. Just how I do it.
WhiteStrat
Don't stare at the eye.
I've found the best results for me come from recording two tracks that aren't very distorted at all and pan one left and one right (with the same amp settings) then recording a few more on differen't amp(s) that are much more distorted than the other two and pan those hard left and right the heavily distorted ones give it a lot of space and the less distorted ones are there for clarity and that in-your-face-sound. Just how I do it.
Yep. As the discussion broadens, that's an important point. Too often people think that "wall of guitar" comes from distortion. Nope. It comes from "size." And the whole point is that size comes from doubling up. So a doubled track with a lot less distortion than you think is what creates that killer sound...
DrewPeterson7
Sage of the Order
Actually, I've tried it - phasing just becomes too big a problem for me, if I pan them apart - it begins to sound VERY different on a set of phones vs. monitors.
I thought it worked better if you panned them together - the gutiar behaved more predictably in the mix. Did it sound better? Yes and no - it seemed to sound "grainier" to me, but also more 3D.
P-J
Rank Amateur
I've found the best results for me come from recording two tracks that aren't very distorted at all and pan one left and one right (with the same amp settings) then recording a few more on differen't amp(s) that are much more distorted than the other two and pan those hard left and right the heavily distorted ones give it a lot of space and the less distorted ones are there for clarity and that in-your-face-sound. Just how I do it.
Great tip! I might have to try that for myself
For me, nothing quite compares to recording a track two times. It's great practice for the chops and becomes much easier to do over time. Tip 1: try subtly changing the tone of the doubled track to accentuate the doubling. Tip 2: try doubling a solo lead and then pan both tracks dead center. Overdriven leads, especially, can produce a wonderfully wild and big sound via the phasing problems when the tracks are laid onto each other. I use this sound sparingly when I need to pull teeth.
J.
J.
mikemorgan
panned out
I like to chop a dry waveform into tiny bits and then nudge them, both forwards and backwards a bit, re-amp, compress, eq and bring this up under the original. So I voted to "move it". It takes just a little more time than another run at it, but the outcome is completely open to manipulation.
hardwire666
New member
Personally I either Play it again, copy paste, or none of the above. It all depends on what sounds the best for the song in question, because that is all that really matters.