doubling/hard panning a mono ac. guitar

[grimtraveller]

Sure, but when you have thread after thread of different people saying the same thing, it's probably true.

Or it could just mean that they all happen to agree on something. There are a number of things I've seen mass agreement on at HR over 6 months and hundreds of threads that as far as I'm concerned are simply not absolutely true. They can be true in some instances but it's by no means a given.

Experimentation is fine. But musicians are generally a dumb bunch and they easily fall into traps of stupidity trying to be "different". It's easy to fool yourself into thinking something is good when it isn't.

In this instance, yeah. Especially with guitars. Mono doubling/panning/shifting is shit.

Some of your posts are classic literature ! Sometimes, you come across as more absolute than God !!

 

[Greg_L]

Fine...that's your personal preference and perspective, and you should go with what you like best.

I disagree.
There are times where, IMHO, it *can* work better than true double tracking or stereo miking, it just depends on the sound & effect you are going for...
...which gets back to the delay "pulse" (7010) thing I was getting at earlier.

I might buy a little tiny piece of your argument with organs, which you brought up earlier. You hit a key or chord and get basically the same sound every time. But this thread is about acoustic guitar. Acoustic guitars and organs are vastly different in both sound and technique. Finding that "pulse" on an acoustic is gonna be futile unless you hit every string the same way every time and in perfect time every time.

 

[Greg_L]

Or it could just mean that they all happen to agree on something. There are a number of things I've seen mass agreement on at HR over 6 months and hundreds of threads that as far as I'm concerned are simply not absolutely true. They can be true in some instances but it's by no means a given.

Nothing is absolutely true, but there's usually truth behind tendencies and the proof is in the pudding. Why is there so much double tracking on pro recordings?

your posts are classic literature ! Sometimes, you come across as more absolute than God !!

What can I say? I'm a man of strong convictions and practice what I preach. I'm no pro by any means, but I think I make reasonably decent home recordings and will share what I believe to be true and stand behind it. I'll put my modest home recordings up against anyone's.

 

[NYMorningstar]

I find it incredible that in an arena where artifice is as much a part of the picture as the music itself, advice is still given of "do not fix in the mix....". Firstly, why ? Secondly, the whole notion of fixing in the mix is a direct and inescapable consequence of the meeting of multitracking.....and human imagination. ...why shouldn't an engineer or producer utilize a little creativity of their own, if the ones being recorded are up for it ?
...

I can only share with you my own opinions on this one which as you can see everyone has one.

First of all, I don't see a problem with fixing an error here and there in a track but I don't consider that mixing.

Being a musician I want my work sounding pristine to my ears. When an engineer needs to hide how crappy my recording sounds by enhancing the audio with mixing tricks, I no longer consider that my art.
If I want to enhance my sound, I want to do it before I record it. Sounding good leads to a better perfomance.

As an audio tech I want to be invisible in reproducing the performance and hopefully not only capture the audio but also the spirit of the performance. In post production I do not want to be fixing problems that should have been addressed early on. Would I fix it in the mix to rescue a unique recording? Yes, in a jam but based on my own experience I would not suggest it as a good practice.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Nothing is absolutely true, but there's usually truth behind tendencies and the proof is in the pudding. Why is there so much double tracking on pro recordings?

For much the same reasons that there was so much verb and analog synth used in the 80s, for much the same reasons that so many people were buying McMansions they knew they really couldn't afford in the 90s, for much the same reasons everybody says that "studio monitors" are flat and consumer speakers are hyped, for much the same reasons that everybody and their brother is making a vampire movie or TV show today, and for the same reasons that chorusing is considered so "yesterday" and over-pushed autotuning is considered so "today".

Because most people in general tend to follow a herd mentality rather than actually figure things out for themselves. When they do actually think for themselves, and what they figure out is against whatever the current fad may be, they think they must be wrong and the herd must be right.

For the rest, they just want to take the supposed easy way and copy what has already worked for someone else, like running to where lightning has already hit and figuring that lightning is going to strike the same place twice, quality and creativity be damned.

G.

 

[miroslav]

I Finding that "pulse" on an acoustic is gonna be futile unless you hit every string the same way every time and in perfect time every time.

And that too has been my point! Thank you!

If you split/double/delay (instead of double tracking)...the strings WILL be hit perfectly in sync on both the L and R tracks in perfect time, every time...and THAT is where you get the "pulse".
It works with ANYTHING...not just organs, it's just the organs w/vibrato add yet another dimension to the pulse.
Now also figure in the BPM, and the pulse will also work WITH THE BEAT and not just between the L/R tracks.

You're almost there...

 

[Dogbreath]

pulse.

 

[miroslav]

When an engineer needs to hide how crappy my recording sounds by enhancing the audio with mixing tricks, I no longer consider that my art.

See...this again alludes to the whole "real" VS "fake" perspective, which I think is rather played out and has been so for a LONG time when it comes to pro recording.
EVERYONE fixes stuff in the mix!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Creating a *totally fabricated performance* is NOT the only thing that one does when they "fix it in the mix". No one is talking about totally fabricating performances, etc.

And all this stuff about "degrees" of "fixing it in the mix"...gets a little self-serving.
Like OK...so I can fix this one sour note...but I shouldn't move the phrase from the first chorus into the second chorus to replace the bad section...?????
C'mon....who is kidding who...how many folks can nail any/every take without any issues..every time?
Oh yeah...then there's that "play it until it's perfect" argument...but you know, that too is a "fix", because all you are doing is rolling the dice every time you run through it...and when you get lucky to nail it, then what...that's legit?
Not to mention…after about 5 passes…it often becomes an exercises in forced perfection…which usually loses all the emotion and vibe no matter how perfect the execution.
Then what about the guys who sequence, loop and sample…are they also “faking it”?

The only thing the matters is the *end product*…and let each person decide how much “fix” they need to employ to get there.
There are big-name, well-respected bands who sound *phenomenal* on CD…but when you hear them live, they are only so-so. Were they then “faking it” in the studio?
No….’cuz studio production ain’t always (rarely) about capturing single, perfect performances. Often a production is put together with many takes, many edits, many “adjustments”…which are all some form of “fixing”.

There is really no need to debate this stuff...go make music, do what you need to do to get the best product you can.
Heck...if you really can't play...that will show itself during your first live performance after you nail that record deal!

 

[Greg_L]

And that too has been my point! Thank you!

If you split/double/delay (instead of double tracking)...the strings WILL be hit perfectly in sync on both the L and R tracks in perfect time, every time...and THAT is where you get the "pulse".
It works with ANYTHING...not just organs, it's just the organs w/vibrato add yet another dimension to the pulse.
Now also figure in the BPM, and the pulse will also work WITH THE BEAT and not just between the L/R tracks.

You're almost there...

Oh my God, you don't get it.

The stupid fucking "pulse" is gonna sound double shitty when doubled and shifted if the original track isn't perfect.

Hell, it's gonna sound shitty anyway.

 

[Greg_L]

For much the same reasons that there was so much verb and analog synth used in the 80s, for much the same reasons that so many people were buying McMansions they knew they really couldn't afford in the 90s, for much the same reasons everybody says that "studio monitors" are flat and consumer speakers are hyped, for much the same reasons that everybody and their brother is making a vampire movie or TV show today, and for the same reasons that chorusing is considered so "yesterday" and over-pushed autotuning is considered so "today".

Because most people in general tend to follow a herd mentality rather than actually figure things out for themselves. When they do actually think for themselves, and what they figure out is against whatever the current fad may be, they think they must be wrong and the herd must be right.

For the rest, they just want to take the supposed easy way and copy what has already worked for someone else, like running to where lightning has already hit and figuring that lightning is going to strike the same place twice, quality and creativity be damned.

G.

Double tracking isn't a "fad".

 

[Yonce N Mild]

I've got no problems with copying tracks and sliding them around for an effect. Although I personally use a chorus or delay plug for that type of stuff.

The OP said he tried the track duplication and doesn't like the sound. He also said that he can't double track the guitars. Next best thing is probably 2 mics.


The funny thing is we've made it 4 pages here and unless I missed it nobody asked the OP why he wants to double his tracks.



So, circusfreak. Why do you want to double your guitar tracks? Is it too thin sounding? Are you just doing it because that's what you've heard you're supposed to do? What don't you like about the sound you are getting now?
How about a clip so we can hear what's going on?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Double tracking isn't a "fad".

It sure is on this board.

G.

 

[Greg_L]

It sure is on this board.

G.

I'll leave you experimental Warhols to double and slide your mono tracks all around. I'm gonna go rock the fuck out.

 

[circusfreak]

I've got no problems with copying tracks and sliding them around for an effect. Although I personally use a chorus or delay plug for that type of stuff.

The OP said he tried the track duplication and doesn't like the sound. He also said that he can't double track the guitars. Next best thing is probably 2 mics.


The funny thing is we've made it 4 pages here and unless I missed it nobody asked the OP why he wants to double his tracks.



So, circusfreak. Why do you want to double your guitar tracks? Is it too thin sounding? Are you just doing it because that's what you've heard you're supposed to do? What don't you like about the sound you are getting now?
How about a clip so we can hear what's going on?

First off - my wife graduated from Cuyahoga Falls HS. I went to Tallmadge. Small world.

Secondly, I just want a 'beefier' sound. The acoustic guitar is the main instrument in my music and I want the best, richest tone I can get. Problem is, I have a limited budget and limited amount of gear to work with. I'll try and post a clip of something recent so you can reference it.

Thanks for being the voice of reason.

 

[miroslav]

Oh my God, you don't get it.

The stupid fucking "pulse" is gonna sound double shitty when doubled and shifted if the original track isn't perfect.

Who's talking about the "original track"...???

We are talking about the second *doubled* track, and ways of getting it.
If anything...trying to double track another "perfect" take is much more difficult than taking the one take, splitting, panning...getting that pulse with some delay... ...done!

And the two WILL be in perfect sync, note-for-note, with whatever desired amount of delay-- *PULSE*-- you wish to have.

I'm still not suggesting that is the best/only way to go...I've stipulated that double tracking has its own "sweetness"...but man, there are more ways to produce a song than just the old traditional ways (most of which I use when needed and when it’s the better way to go).

 

[miroslav]

The funny thing is we've made it 4 pages here and unless I missed it nobody asked the OP why he wants to double his tracks.

There's no problem with asking...but IMHO it has no direct bearing on the discussion about *options for doubling*.
Now...if he was a total noob, and it was obvious he was clueless...the question might also help lead him to a different solution, but it appears to me the OP knows what he is after, so in that case there's no point in dissuading him from his desired production approach just ‘cuz it’s something one of use wouldn’t use.

I wouldn't mind hearing the track in question and his doubling attempt...and then I wouldn't mind demonstrating the possible ways it could work.
We often spend a great deal of time just talking about how stuff should "sound"....when simply hearing it would speed up the clarification.

 

[miroslav]

Secondly, I just want a 'beefier' sound. The acoustic guitar is the main instrument in my music and I want the best, richest tone I can get. Problem is, I have a limited budget and limited amount of gear to work with. I'll try and post a clip of something recent so you can reference it.

Well...then maybe we might put aside all discussions of two-mic, double-tracking and split-doubling....

...and instead discuss how you are tracking the initial one-mic take?

"More beefier" can be solved in other ways that doesn't necessarily involve stereo tracks or two tracks of any type.

What is your gear and how did you track...signal chain and all that?

And yes...put up a clip so we can hear what you are talking about.

 

[NYMorningstar]

EVERYONE fixes stuff in the mix!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Creating a *totally fabricated performance* is NOT the only thing that one does when they "fix it in the mix". No one is talking about totally fabricating performances, etc.

First of all can you keep the long winded posts with 50 questions a little shorter. Not only does it put me to sleep but it's a pita to keep qouting.

When you are duplicating whole tracks for trickery you are totally fabicating the recording IMHO

And all this stuff about "degrees" of "fixing it in the mix"...gets a little self-serving.
Like OK...so I can fix this one sour note...but I shouldn't move the phrase from the first chorus into the second chorus to replace the bad section...?????

You gotta serve somebody...There is not much difference between editing a note or a phrase but editing the whole track amounts to polishing a turd.

C'mon....who is kidding who...how many folks can nail any/every take without any issues..every time?

Well, rehearsed musicians can. For those that can't that's why we use punch ins when tracking.

Oh yeah...then there's that "play it until it's perfect" argument...but you know, that too is a "fix", because all you are doing is rolling the dice every time you run through it...and when you get lucky to nail it, then what...that's legit?

You bet because then you have the artist on the recording and not the engineer.

Not to mention…after about 5 passes…it often becomes an exercises in forced perfection…which usually loses all the emotion and vibe no matter how perfect the execution.
Then what about the guys who sequence, loop and sample…are they also “faking it”?

If you can't play your music then practice. Guys who are using loops and samples are creating music, not mixing a recording.

The only thing the matters is the *end product*…and let each person decide how much “fix” they need to employ to get there.

Maybe that's what it is for you. What matters to me is the ride.

There are big-name, well-respected bands who sound *phenomenal* on CD…but when you hear them live, they are only so-so. Were they then “faking it” in the studio?

That's the problem, it's not them in the studio it's the engineer. Without the fix, they sound like crap.

Heck...if you really can't play...that will show itself during your first live performance after you nail that record deal!

Is that what you tell your car mechanic?

 

[RAMI]

I've got no problems with copying tracks and sliding them around for an effect.

And that's what it is...when you copy or clone a track and then "move" it over a few milliseconds, all you're doing is creating a DELAY EFFECT. No different than using a delay and setting it to the same milliseconds and setting it to repeat once. It's a delay EFFECT. If that's what one wants, fine. But one shouldn't call it anything other than "adding a delay".

What Greg is trying to explain (which isn't getting through) is that unless the ORIGINAL TRACK is "perfect" ("perfect" in the same sense that hitting a note on an organ will always sound the same), then you're not going to create any "pulse" . It's a delay effect and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same thread as "doubling acoustic guitar".

Having said that, the OP typed this:

compress one hard and leave the other one alone it sounds really bad to me because my left ear sounds totally different than my right...

Like Yonce N Mild hinted at, the above statement makes me wonder if the OP really wants to double his tracks at all. If some compression makes each side sound too different, I think any other kind of doubling will have the same negative effect to his ears.

 

[miroslav]

First of all can you keep the long winded posts with 50 questions a little shorter. Not only does it put me to sleep but it's a pita to keep qouting.

Then go take a nap instead of dissecting my posts phrase by phrase.

When you are duplicating whole tracks for trickery you are totally fabricating the recording IMHO

WTF is the "trickery"...???
If you slap a delay on your pedal board...is THAT trickery???
When you add some compression to the entire track or any type of FX...is that trickery???

That's some thin ice you are walking out on now!

What matters to me is the ride. That's the problem, it's not them in the studio it's the engineer.

In today's Home Rec world...the guy playing is often also the engineer and the producer.
So yeah...whether I'm playing the guitar or turning the knobs or moving the faders...
…it's ALL THE SAME RIDE.
There is no trickery, fakery or any of that...there is only "production" toward an end product.

You wanna be all holy and pristine about it......then do it with just a couple of mics direct to 2-track...and then DON'T TOUCH IT once it's down.
Otherwise, if you are multi-tracking and using a DAW for editing and comping and processing and mixing...get over it, you're already very deep into "fixing".

Oh…and duplicating a track isn’t really the same as “editing a whole track”.