doubling/hard panning a mono ac. guitar

[miroslav]

Why not use 2 mics?

That just gives you the same thing twice, in perfect unison...so even if you split-pan them...they will still sound dead center.

But you can delay them same as a copy/doubled track.
They will sound a *tad* different because of the different mics...most of which can be also done with using different EQ on copied/doubled tracks.

Now...if you stick one mic right up to the grill...and put the second one a few feet back...and then split-pan them...that will give you "natural" delay...BUT...if you want the BPM/rhythmic pulse to be on time, you would have to compute the second mic distance in advance, rather than working it out in the DAW by sliding tracks.

It's all good...people should not look for a single "best" option, as each one has it's own flavor and can be right for a given mix.
I don't buy the "always play/record a second track" approach as the only "best" option for a given mix (sometimes yes).
It's about choosing a production approach...and that's why it's called a prodcution and not a "formula".

 

[Yonce N Mild]

That just gives you the same thing twice, in perfect unison...so even if you split-pan them...they will still sound dead center.

But you can delay them same as a copy/doubled track.
They will sound a *tad* different because of the different mics...most of which can be also done with using different EQ on copied/doubled tracks.

Now...if you stick one mic right up to the grill...and put the second one a few feet back...and then split-pan them...that will give you "natural" delay...BUT...if you want the BPM/rhythmic pulse to be on time, you would have to compute the second mic distance in advance, rather than working it out in the DAW by sliding tracks.

It's all good...people should not look for a single "best" option, as each one has it's own flavor and can be right for a given mix.
I don't buy the "always play/record a second track" approach as the only "best" option for a given mix (sometimes yes).
It's about choosing a production approach...and that's why it's called a prodcution and not a "formula".

Isn't he talking about acoustic guitar?

 

[miroslav]

Isn't he talking about acoustic guitar?

What's the difference...?
Not sure what you are getting at.....

Two mics are two mics...either for electric guitar & cab or for an acoustic.

The panning, splitting, doubling, delaying...applies to both scenarios...right?

 

[Yonce N Mild]

What's the difference...?
Not sure what you are getting at.....

Two mics are two mics...either for electric guitar & cab or for an acoustic.

The panning, splitting, doubling, delaying...applies to both scenarios...right?

I think you can get a pretty nice stereo spread with two mics on an acoustic. Mic position gives you a subtle difference between the two. Use two different types of mics for even more variation.

I disagree that using two mics just gives you the same thing twice. Especially on acoustic guitar.

 

[TripleM]

I agree with the people who say that your fullest sound is going to be double tracked. You said your style is not conducive to that. How much time have you spent trying? It takes a bit of work to get it right. So if you tried once and didn't like it, you gave up too fast.

Additionally you can get your doubled tracks basically complete and use punch-ins to fix a spot here or there where they're off. Alternatively you can record quite a few tracks and compile two well synch'ed tracks from the best bits of all of them.

I don't know for sure, but i suspect you're giving up too fast.

 

[Greg_L]

I disagree that using two mics just gives you the same thing twice. Especially on acoustic guitar.

Right. Unless the mic capsules are an electron's width apart and the guitarist doesn't move at all, two mics on an acoustic will give you two unique tracks of the same performance. You'll probably run into weird phasiness, but it won't sound any worse than copying and doubling and shifting.

 

[miroslav]

I disagree that using two mics just gives you the same thing twice. Especially on acoustic guitar.

Like I said...it depends where you position each one of them.

If you are talking about a true stereo mic setup...that's another approach, but that is different from just sticking two mics in the same spot for different tone flavors (which is often done)...and then the tracks are either combined for a total tone, or only one is used....etc...but if they are to be used as doubled tracks and panned L/R...you would need to introduce some amount of delay between them, otherwise they would both appear in the same spot and/or have odd phase issues.
The tone differences of the mics alone won't do the trick in most cases.

Also...I'm not a big fan of stereo miking acoustics.
Yeah, it can sound great in a sparse mix...but it can also clutter up a denser mix.
I prefer the "rhythmic pulse delay" approach of splitting/doubling because it works WITH the rhythm of the song if you sync it to the BPM…and you can control exactly the amount of delay/pulse/pan.
A stereo pair has its own rhythmic pulse and ambience that may or may not work well with other mix elements.
Just like playing the same part twice will have its "pulse".

You have to consider the context of the mix and goal of the production…there is no one way that is the best way for everything.

 

[Greg_L]

Lol @ typing "pulse" 7000 times in one thread.

 

[miroslav]

Well... "pulse" (7001) is exactly the right word if you consider the whole split/pan/BPM/delay approach.

Just listen to the rhythm of the song and then listen to the doubled tracks...there is a rhythmic "pulse" (7002).

There is no other word that describes the effect as accurately.
I could use “beat”…but that gets confused with talking about the beat of the song.

Just remember…you heard the phrase and the concept here first!
If you try the concept and find the sweet spot of the "pulse" (7003)...you'll understand what I'm getting at and how it can work very well in a given mix.

 

[gcapel]

Yeah, it can sound great in a sparse mix...but it can also clutter up a denser mix.
.

A cluster f@#$ is what your trying to say. Another good point not to crowd the mix with a bunch of garbage.

"Like dude....lets set up every mic we have to record the acoustic guitar bit....and then we can pan them at every point on the stereo spectrum"

 

[Dogbreath]

"pulse"........7004.

 

[Greg_L]

Well... "pulse" (7001) is exactly the right word if you consider the whole split/pan/BPM/delay approach.

Just listen to the rhythm of the song and then listen to the doubled tracks...there is a rhythmic "pulse" (7002).

There is no other word that describes the effect as accurately.
I could use “beat”…but that gets confused with talking about the beat of the song.

Just remember…you heard the phrase and the concept here first!
If you try the concept and find the sweet spot of the "pulse" (7003)...you'll understand what I'm getting at and how it can work very well in a given mix.

I get what you're saying. I don't think anyone's buying it though.

 

[circusfreak]

I agree with the people who say that your fullest sound is going to be double tracked. You said your style is not conducive to that. How much time have you spent trying? It takes a bit of work to get it right. So if you tried once and didn't like it, you gave up too fast.

Additionally you can get your doubled tracks basically complete and use punch-ins to fix a spot here or there where they're off. Alternatively you can record quite a few tracks and compile two well synch'ed tracks from the best bits of all of them.

I don't know for sure, but i suspect you're giving up too fast.

With all do respect, I've been honing my guitar playing over 18 years. I think I've put in "a bit of work." It's just a style thing I was trying to find a workaround for. Apologies if I started any arguments.

 

[WhiteStrat]

Why not use 2 mics?

That just gives you the same thing twice, in perfect unison...so even if you split-pan them...they will still sound dead center.

Yonce is right.

I'm a huge proponent of double tracking--hell, I wrote the sticky the OP referenced in his first post. But sometimes, double tracking isn't an option--and that's okay--I certainly don't double track leads.

In this case, two mics is the best option. It's not the same thing twice as miroslav posits. One mic (the body mic) has more bottom end and the pick attack; the other (the neck mic) has more high end and finger sounds. Panned hard left and right, they sound way better than the "same thing twice."

If you don't believe me--go back to that sticky (https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=290919) and check out the part where I record the lead. I present it both in mono, with one mic, and in stereo, with two mics--one on the neck, one on the body--then panned hard left and right.

They're definitely not the same thing.

 

[WhiteStrat]

With all do respect, I've been honing my guitar playing over 18 years. I think I've put in "a bit of work." It's just a style thing I was trying to find a workaround for. Apologies if I started any arguments.

Don't sweat it. I wish I could record everything twice. But I can't either. And in those cases, two mics panned hard left and right get the job done. Because of the differences in what the two mics are picking up, they sound nice and big compared to one mic panned to center.

See my previous post and the mention I make of the sticky for an example.

 

[WhiteStrat]

Apologies if I started any arguments.

And don't worry about starting arguments around here. That's easier than falling off a bike and landing on the ground.

Unfortunately, for some folks, arguing on a BBS somehow makes them feel like they know something...

 

[miroslav]

It's not the same thing twice as miroslav posits. One mic (the body mic) has more bottom end and the pick attack; the other (the neck mic) has more high end and finger sounds. Panned hard left and right, they sound way better than the "same thing twice."

Yes...but I did say it depends on where you place them...didn’t I?
You are specifically placing them at body and neck.

In my discussion about doubling/delay...I was speaking generically about any recording situation, and not specifically just about acoustic guitar.

Sooooo...if you stick both mics in almost the same spot (on anything)...then split/pan them...it ain't gonna sound like any stereo spread.

 

[Greg_L]

But what about the pulse? THE PULSE, DAMMIT!

 

[miroslav]

I get what you're saying. I don't think anyone's buying it though.

It has nothign to do with "buying"...it's more about trying.

Try it...you'll not only get what I'm saying, you will also find uses for it in mixing situations.


Oh.... "pulse" (7007).

 

[WhiteStrat]

Yes...but I did say it depends on where you place them...didn’t I?
You are specifically placing them at body and neck.

In my discussion about doubling/delay...I was speaking generically about any recording situation, and not specifically just about acoustic guitar.

Sooooo...if you stick both mics in almost the same spot (on anything)...then split/pan them...it ain't gonna sound like any stereo spread.

Nice try. And nice fail. You have a real hard time admitting you're wrong. No one would (or even could, for that matter) use two mics on an acoustic guitar with the mics in the same exact place.

The implied meaning of two mics is clear. So you're wrong. Thanks for playing though.