doubling/hard panning a mono ac. guitar

[NYMorningstar]

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



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!



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”.

...Pulse....

 

[miroslav]

...you're not going to create any "pulse" . It's a delay effect

Semantics...

Delay one track relative to its double...pan them hard L/R...
...the delay between them creates a pulse.
Assuming the delayed track is on the R....the pulse goes L-to-R.
You hear it on the left then on the right.

A single note isn't going to give much of a "pulse effect"...but when you are strumming through strings...it becomes much more pronounced, and it will at times even feel like it moves not just L-to-R...but in both directions...depending on the rest of the mix content and how it all interacts together....especially if mixed in with other tracks that are in some way doubled and panned.
You have to use it judiciously...but it works very well when done right.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

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.

Nice catch, Rami. It sounds like he's trying to use parallel compression, but separating the tracks in pan space. If that's the case, than one should not be surprised that it doesn't give him what he wants.

If he's trying to fatten up the sound with parallel compression a la Motown or NY style compression, except on a git box instead of vocals or drums, then the problem isn't track doubling or copying, but rather panning them apart.

I'd suggest in such a case that the tracks be stacked and not panned apart, bringing the compressed version up under the dry one just until the right amount of fattening is heard.

if he wants to add a wide-panned version to the mix *after* that, he can always do that as well - whether copied/delayed or double-tracked - but that would get it's own fattening treatment (or not) via it's own parallel compression stack (or not).

G.

 

[Yonce N Mild]

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

No way! I graduated from Stow in 94. You still in the area?

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.

Cool a clip would help a lot. What's you current setup? What gear do you have available? I can relate to the limited budget for sure.

 

[NYMorningstar]

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.

You can fix that better when tracking than when mixing.

Find a place where your guitar sounds good to you. A room with a lot of reflections like a foyer or a bathroom will sound more full. You might want to try out how things sound pointed to a corner. Experiment...

Set up your tracking where you like the sound the best and adjust the mic to capture the right balance between your guitar and the room. Use your ears. Record a small section and play it back to hear it. Move things around until you like how it sounds on playback. Use a condensor mic and if you are tracking ITB record at about -18dbFS. You can add the gain in after tracking.

When you finalize your mix shouldn't be needing to add any reverb, probably not compression and you'll need to EQ just a little probably.

 

[grimtraveller]

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.

Ahem........

You never really specify what you're looking for when you say 'doubled'.

 

[grimtraveller]

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.

I don't disagree with any of that. Neither was I coming down for or against. I was pointing out that it's a regular part of recording, and personally, I find it impossible to draw the line between fixing one thing and fixing ten. It's still fixed. I'd also add that the phrase "Fix it in the mix" is perhaps a misnomer because although some stuff gets done during mixdown, much after performance work is actually done before mixing.
I've heard it said that someone whose piece has alot of "fixing" will have a hard time looking at themself in the mirror. I wonder. I can't really divide the adventure into parts, it's a process that involves different bits, some of which are more enjoyable than others. I like the playing ride too but there's a part of me that does quite like fashioning it all into an end result.

 

[miroslav]

...I find it impossible to draw the line between fixing one thing and fixing ten. It's still fixed.

...................

I've heard it said that someone whose piece has a lot of "fixing" will have a hard time looking at themselves in the mirror. I wonder. I can't really divide the adventure into parts, it's a process that involves different bits, some of which are more enjoyable than others. I like the playing ride too but there's a part of me that does quite like fashioning it all into an end result.

Exactly.

I don't see anything wrong with wanting to record with a "capturing/documenting the moment" approach...but then when you start doing ANY stuff after you've captured it...well, that's already "fixing", though I don't see that as actual *fixing* and certainly not as "faking".
I see it as *producing*, which is what you do with a production.
I mean...how many here are really tracking as though it's for some PBS/NatGeo documentary?

For those guys who only play...the entire recording/editing/mixing process should not be solely the engineer's decision. You are the artist...BE INVOLVED.
All this implied stuff about the engineer messing with YOUR art...huh?...where were you, on vacation when it happened?

 

[noisewreck]

Exactly.

I don't see anything wrong with wanting to record with a "capturing/documenting the moment" approach...but then when you start doing ANY stuff after you've captured it...well, that's already "fixing", though I don't see that as actual *fixing* and certainly not as "faking".
I see it as *producing*, which is what you do with a production.
I mean...how many here are really tracking as though it's for some PBS/NatGeo documentary?

For those guys who only play...the entire recording/editing/mixing process should not be solely the engineer's decision. You are the artist...BE INVOLVED.
All this implied stuff about the engineer messing with YOUR art...huh?...where were you, on vacation when it happened?

There are times where the only way you can achieve what you want to achieve is through audio manipulation within the DAW or some other medium (samplers, cutting up tapes, reversing them, etc). This is where you start venturing into more sound design than mixing in it's widely understood and accepted sense. And I think this is where the disconnect is between the likes of you and Greg.

For an example of blurring the lins of performance, sound design and mixing,
have a listen to this.

Is it faking? Some of the sounds there are possible only thanks to extreme timestretching within the DAW. And one of them was done by modulating Reverb time and predelay amounts with LFOs, not something you want to do when creating an "acoustic" space

 

[miroslav]

This is where you start venturing into more sound design than mixing in it's widely understood and accepted sense. And I think this is where the disconnect is between the likes of you and Greg.

Not really...I'm not drawing any lines in the sand between one approach or the other.
I've used the “as-it-falls” approach when it worked...and also the "sound design" (as you call it) approach when needed.
In many productions...both.
Some things are tracked and left as-is...others are manipulated to whatever level is needed...then all of it is mixed together.

Honestly...even most of guys who argue just for the “as-it-falls” approach, are NOT actually doing that, and are in fact doing a whole lot of "fixing"...though they like to do draw lines and permit themselves what they feel is valid "fixing".
I only fix up to this point...but not that point."
As I said earlier...that's a lot of self-serving hooey.
Since when has there ever been a scale AFA how much is acceptable and how much is over the line?

Again...no one is talking about total Milli Vanilli madness where it's ALL a complete fabricated lie.
We are talking about solid performances that use very typical editing/processing when needed to fine-tune (polish if you will) the end product. Stuff that is done every day in just about every pro studio on the planet.
And that includes track doubling if needed (just to tie it all back into the original discussion).

Really...I think it's almost irrelevent what production process was used....as long as you got what you wanted in the end.

 

[gcapel]

I'd also add that the phrase "Fix it in the mix" is perhaps a misnomer because although some stuff gets done during mixdown, much after performance work is actually done before mixing.
.

There is one way to fix it in the mix. Turn the fader all the way down!

 

[Yonce N Mild]

Ahem........

You sir, are a very wise man.

 

[grimtraveller]

You sir, are a very wise man.

Wow, that's spooky......I was going to use this phrase from an old Kansas song on my signature;

"And if I claim to be a wise man
It surely means that I don't know"

 

[Chibi Nappa]

I'd also add that the phrase "Fix it in the mix" is perhaps a misnomer because although some stuff gets done during mixdown, much after performance work is actually done before mixing.

I don't think you quite understand "Fix it in the mix". The expression does not refer to comping, editing, punching, or any of that business. It means exactly what it says. You fix stuff at mix time.

For example, a muddy guitar tone is burying the vocal. "Fix it in the mix" involves EQing the guitar track and possibly compressing the vocal track or whatever until the guitar no longer burys the vocal. "Don't fix it in the mix" involves re-recording the guitar differently in a way that works as soon as it hits "tape".

 

[rayc]

Has anyone read "The Recording Angel"?
One of the subthemes therein being the departure point between performance, the recording or a performance, the recording becoming the performance & the playing of recordings as a performance.
I've cloned/digitallydoubled once or twice but that was because the source I was using was 20+ years old & I was unable to duplicate the set up & chain to get an homogenous 2nd take.
I don't have the chops to record a near perfect double BUT the differences are the point eh!

 

[grimtraveller]

I don't think you quite understand "Fix it in the mix". The expression does not refer to comping, editing, punching, or any of that business. It means exactly what it says. You fix stuff at mix time.

Well, yeah, that's how I have generally understood it but I've noticed from time to time that it's also used in a somewhat generic {though admittedly incorrect and lazy} way to mean something to the effect of "these imperfections can be ironed out later". It's kind of lazyspeak, rather like the way many speak of DAWs but meaning only computer based when, in fact, there are a few kinds, like standalones etc. I guess there can be both literal and colloquial meanings ascribed to the same phrase in some cases.