Doubling guitar tracks

What's your preferred solution?

  • Play it again, sam!

    Votes: 105 76.6%
  • Copy it, paste it, offset it

    Votes: 8 5.8%
  • Neither, or maybe both

    Votes: 24 17.5%

  • Total voters
    137
They can be tricky to get synched.

I'd be inclined to disagree. I find the doubling a easier than laying down the first track TBH, because when playing the second time round I've got the first track to groove with. If a guitarist can't play in time with himself, then how in heck is he giong to play in sync with a band?

A lot of time with the music I write, cutting and pasting isn't an option (and it sounds like shit even if it is). The rhythm guitars are often harmonized in places rather than just playing a carbon copy of each other.
 
I'd be inclined to disagree. I find the doubling a easier than laying down the first track TBH, because when playing the second time round I've got the first track to groove with. If a guitarist can't play in time with himself, then how in heck is he giong to play in sync with a band?

A lot of time with the music I write, cutting and pasting isn't an option (and it sounds like shit even if it is). The rhythm guitars are often harmonized in places rather than just playing a carbon copy of each other.

I agree it does help to follow yourself. Sometimes I abandon the first track and use the tighter later tracks. But what I meant if you want it to sound like one performance the tracks have to be right on with each other. Yes it is cool to have the guitars weaving in and out also. it is all good.
VP
 
I meant if you want it to sound like one performance the tracks have to be right on with each other.

I get what you mean, but If you are talking in the sense of one performace = one person playing... you want it to sound like one performance, you record one performance.

2 guitars panned at opposite ends of the stereo field will not sound like 1 guitar. But then I'm a pessimistic realist.
 
If you are talking in the sense of one performace = one person playing... you want it to sound like one performance, you record one performance.

I play fast death and thrash metal. For the most part, my tracks have to be right on. There is very little leeway there. It ain't one performance. It's 2 performances. 2 guitars. I'm not under any illusions of trying to make that sound like 1 guitar. 2 guitars at different ends of the stereo field does not, and never will, sound like 1 guitar.

Well one performance with the fat sound of doubled tracks. For instance Black Sabbath's War Pigs, Doubled guitars but sounds like one performance.
VP
 
Sometimes I abandon the first track and use the tighter later tracks. But what I meant if you want it to sound like one performance the tracks have to be right on with each other. Yes it is cool to have the guitars weaving in and out also. it is all good.
VP

Yeah I do that all the time, I have extra guitar tracks in every proj. I'll decide later which 3 sound best together. Plus I have material to copy/paste over wonky notes if I need it. Which I do :D
 
I'd be inclined to disagree. I find the doubling a easier than laying down the first track TBH, because when playing the second time round I've got the first track to groove with. If a guitarist can't play in time with himself, then how in heck is he giong to play in sync with a band?

A lot of time with the music I write, cutting and pasting isn't an option (and it sounds like shit even if it is). The rhythm guitars are often harmonized in places rather than just playing a carbon copy of each other.

This has been my experience, as well as the experience of a bunch of other guys I've talked with - you'll take a fair number of takes to get your first track down exactly the way you like it, but the second one, rarely more than one or two. It must be something psychological, or maybe a question of just being more "warmed up."
 
What's up, guys? I do everything by a rule. If I am recording something for myself, I do what I want. If I am recording something for other people, I do what they are used to. The commonality is doubled guitars. Pantera, Sublime, Green Day. They double. why? Because that's the only way to get true stereo. Doubling behind a solo can go either way, but the big picture is that you're not giving people CDs so you can listen to them, you want the listener to like it, and the average music listener isn't going to pick apart your doubled tracks, or notice your recording has keys and strings, but WAIT! They don't have a string section or a keyboard! The average person listens to the vocals anyway.

I know this person only has one post and it's from way back in april... but i gotta say... this was one of the more retarted things i've ever read on the internet. and that includes the unpublished OJ memoir. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

That's the only way to get true stereo... kid's prolly only got one ear. :eek:
 
I record pretty casually and have never doubled guitar tracks. I've always avoided since I've seen people do it with vocals and the final product being really cheesy and out of sync.

I might have to give this a try though. Do you guys usually EQ each of the doubled tracks differently?
They don't necesarilly sound out of sync unless you solo just the guitars for a listen. But part of what makes the sound are those minor fluctuations between performances. You barely hear them unless they're done badly or intentionally.
Sometimes, I use an electric mandolin to double the guitar. It's different !!
 
I do both

I try not to limit creativity in the studio. I do different songs different ways. I agree that it can get muttled up double tracking some parts so in those situations it seems stereo recording with a good tone and a bit of delay, chorus, or verb works great. Double tracking your own stuff is a lot of fun and adds layers. I double track stereo recordings too...talk about full and rich! Use an old sextet of 6L6's with a couple mics in front of your 4x12's and you are a Tone machine.
 
Back
Top