Doubling Guitars

[RAMI]

If you want a stereo sound out of a mono track, go with 2 mics and pan them. The copy/paste/shift thing sounds way to out of phase. You might be able to use a plugin like PhaseBug (BetabugsAudio ::lug-in development turned inside out::: all the way at the bottom) to get them in phase, but then it kind of takes away from the stereo effect.

Point being made - Double track unless you want it mono.

And if you want mono, you already have it without double-tracking.

It has nothing to do with phase or polarity. When you double, the signals are completely in phase with each other. The problem is that it's impossible to get stereo from mono. Period.

 

[gecko zzed]

Here's a plan:

Grab a guitar, hit record, play the guitar. Stop when you get to the end.
Select a new track, grab the guitar, hit record, stop when you get to the end again.
Pan them to taste
Done

 

[RAMI]

Here's a plan:

Grab a guitar, hit record, play the guitar. Stop when you get to the end.
Select a new track, grab the guitar, hit record, stop when you get to the end again.
Pan them to taste
Done

Too simple. What's the catch?

 

[laz777]

I don't have much experience with home recording so bear with me. I've read many times that one only has to copy and then pan hard to the left/right. It just goes to show that you shouldn't believe everything you read. Do you know the reason why a second recording of the same riff or whatever sounds better then a copy? Does it have something to do with the slight differences in the two recordings? So if you do two separate takes of the same passage of music do you then pan each track hard left and hard right?

Thanks guys,

-laz.

 

[Greg_L]

Do you know the reason why a second recording of the same riff or whatever sounds better then a copy?

Yes.

Does it have something to do with the slight differences in the two recordings?

Yes

So if you do two separate takes of the same passage of music do you then pan each track hard left and hard right?
.

Pan it however you want. But usually, left and right.

 

[laz777]

Please elaborate on question number one. Either that or I'll rephrase the question:

Will you tell me why two separate recording of the same guitar passage sound better then a single track that has been copied and panned? It seems like this is more than subjective or just opinion based.

-laz.

 

[Greg_L]

You answered your own question with your own question.

 

[RAMI]

Will you tell me why two separate recording of the same guitar passage sound better then a single track that has been copied and panned? It seems like this is more than subjective or just opinion based.

-laz.

The reason playing it twice sounds better than copying is simple. One works, the other doesn't. It's not even a matter of one "sounding better". Copying simply doesn't work.

Like all things, the best thing to do is try it. Take any track, copy it to another track. You now have 2 tracks. Now, pan them anywhere you want...you can't. .They still sit right in the middle. All you're doing is creating a louder mono track.

This isn't opinion. It's scientific fact.

 

[Greg_L]

Right, now cue the time shift supporters.

 

[RAMI]

Right, now cue the time shift supporters.

You mean the people that don't realize that what they're doing is exactly the same as applying a digital delay to the signal, making it repeat once, and panning it to the other side? So, yeah, if someone wants their guitar panned one side, and a delay panned to the other side, I guess they could do it by copying. But, that's not "stereo". It's just a delay.

 

[laz777]

I appreciate the input gentlemen.

I'll try it tonight. The best way to knowing is doing. I've got a lot to learn.

-laz.

 

[Greg_L]

You mean the people that don't realize that what they're doing is exactly the same as applying a digital delay to the signal, making it repeat once, and panning it to the other side? So, yeah, if someone wants their guitar panned one side, and a delay panned to the other side, I guess they could do it by copying. But, that's not "stereo". It's just a delay.

And nevermind the thin hollow sound that the "technique" produces.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Please elaborate on question number one. Either that or I'll rephrase the question:

Will you tell me why two separate recording of the same guitar passage sound better then a single track that has been copied and panned? It seems like this is more than subjective or just opinion based.

-laz.

If you copy a track and don't process it but just pan in across from the original then you've done nothing different than using the pan and level controls. If you do process the copy you can get a stereo effect, but as soon as the song gets summed to mono (say on your local AM station or with aggressive mp3 compression) it changes from a sort of cool effect to a terrible phase interaction.

Double tracking avoids all that. The tones will be similar but the waveform will not match up with the first track in any way that will cause audible problems. You can pan them apart or not and they play well together.

 

[Farview]

Please elaborate on question number one. Either that or I'll rephrase the question:

Will you tell me why two separate recording of the same guitar passage sound better then a single track that has been copied and panned? It seems like this is more than subjective or just opinion based.

It sounds better because it gives the illusion that there are two instruments in a space. There is twice as much information and you can put the two performances where ever you want in the stereo field. In order for something to be stereo, there has to be a difference between what is coming out of the left and right speaker.

Mono track panned center = same thing coming from both speakers = mono
Two copies of the same performance panned wide = same thing coming from both speakers = mono

See how that works?

 

[Armistice]

Here's a plan:

Grab a guitar, hit record, play the guitar. Stop when you get to the end.
Select a new track, grab the guitar, hit record, stop when you get to the end again.
Pan them to taste
Done

^^^^^ This...

Assuming a 4 minute song, and that you know what you're doing, you're done in 10 minutes and can get on with your life... rather than spend countless hours proving to yourself what many very very knowledgable people have already pointed out...

 

[laz777]

Thanks BSG and Farview,

That's the kind of information I was looking for.

-laz.

 

[Fletcher]

^^^^^ This...

Assuming a 4 minute song, and that you know what you're doing, you're done in 10 minutes and can get on with your life... rather than spend countless hours proving to yourself what many very very knowledgable people have already pointed out...

Due respect mate - this isn't [or at least shouldn't be] a race to "get things done". It is quite common [at least in my world] when we're working on an album to spend a good 6 - 8 hours getting a rhythm guitar part tracked, and a good 4 - 6 hours getting the "double" of that track finished. At least in my world its not so much about "getting it done" but "getting it great".

In terms of taking a few hours to experiment - try things that have been posted here [including the "copy / paste / slide" thing] its probably a very good idea to try it - and determine for your own bad self why so many people advise against the technique. There are things that you can learn no matter what you're doing - and no matter who advises against it. Rules were made to be broken, but you have to know "why" you're breaking the rules and "why" it is a good [or bad] idea to break a rule at any given time.

The more experimentation you do, the more you learn, the more you know from direct experience rather than internet jibber jabber.

Peace.

 

[miroslav]

It is quite common [at least in my world] when we're working on an album to spend a good 6 - 8 hours getting a rhythm guitar part tracked, and a good 4 - 6 hours getting the "double" of that track finished.

I don't feel so odd now.
I often spend an entire day/session just tracking one of the main instrument or vocal tracks. I would tell folks that I don't like to move real fast throughout the session and that I prefer savoring the experience.
But really...it can take some time trying out amps, mics...and sometimes working out parts of the production as you go along.
I'm not working against the clock...and when I'm also playing a lot of the parts, well...I'm not that meticulous, so yeah, it takes a few passes.

In terms of taking a few hours to experiment - try things that have been posted here [including the "copy / paste / slide" thing] its probably a very good idea to try it - and determine for your own bad self why so many people advise against the technique. There are things that you can learn no matter what you're doing - and no matter who advises against it. Rules were made to be broken, but you have to know "why" you're breaking the rules and "why" it is a good [or bad] idea to break a rule at any given time.

The more experimentation you do, the more you learn, the more you know from direct experience rather than internet jibber jabber.

Right.
This is what I was getting at earlier...that it's GOOD to *try* things...even if you read it somewhere where someone is suggesting a different approach. They may be right....but you don't learn as much just doing monkey see, monkey do. It's good to make some mistakes and find some things out for yourself, as that raises your consciousness level and awakes your imagination.

 

[Greg_L]

Well I did say to try it. If the guy has functioning ears he'll see that copy/paste/shift is shit.

 

[miroslav]

Well I did say to try it. If the guy has functioning ears he'll see that copy/paste/shift is shit.

Oh I agree...it's not going to sound as good as double tracking.

Though a lot of newbs hit the Internet and just want someone to TELL them what to do...rather than making their own choices/decisiosn.