Questions On Double Miking From A Guitar Amp Speaker

[Mike Freze]

Hi! I have a few questions concerning "double miking" and separating two or more mics when recording.

I know you can close-mic one and have one further back on miking an amp speaker for a fuller sound, room ambience, etc. You can do this with the same mics (say, 2 dynamic SM57s) or 1 SM57 with a condenser mic as the second mic.

Is there an advantage or disadvantage to either concept I just mentioned?

Can't a person just mic a speaker, duplicate the track, and do things with the duplicated track (like reverb, change in volume, change in panning, etc.) to get a great sound instead?

Finally, if you record two mics on an amp speaker (say, guitar), should you record both mics simultaneously to one track (both inputted at the same time in your audio interface) or should each mic get recorded on two separate tracks (again, simultaneously)?

Thanks! Mike Freze

 

[miroslav]

It's mostly personal choice.

A duplicated track is not quite the same as two tracks from two different mics (or even same mics, different position).

You can put two mics to one track...but check the sound for any weird phase/EQ issues. Of course, that's a commitment, and you won't be able to separate them out later...so unless you have small track availablility...I would keep them on two tracks and you can blend to taste in the mix.

 

[drumslinger]

try recording both mics on seperate channels and blend them when mixing it. you just might like it and if you don't then you can keep the one you like.

 

[mixsit]

... you can close-mic one and have one further back on miking an amp speaker for a fuller sound, room ambience, etc. You can do this with the same mics (say, 2 dynamic SM57s) or 1 SM57 with a condenser mic as the second mic.

As always you try to pick which mic, for where, based on your best guess as how it might fit what you're going for. As you do this you gather from the experience and the guesses get better!

For your example there I'd guess (well it's common not much of a guess here that the 57'll sound good up close (in any number of usable variations on placement), but by it's design would sound full bodied up close but rolled off and thinner as a far mic, where a condenser ('typically'..) starts flatter and might sound more natural at a distance.

... duplicate the track, and do things with the duplicated track (like reverb, change in volume, change in panning, etc.) to get a great sound instead?

..just to add 'duplicate the track' is the same as making a parallel/split path off of it; Typically an aux send off the track to said effects, or an insert of the effect on/in the track (in this case the effect's wet/dry mix makes its own parallel path).. all same same.

Finally, if you record two mics on an amp speaker (say, guitar), should you record both mics simultaneously to one track (both inputted at the same time in your audio interface) or should each mic get recorded on two separate tracks (again, simultaneously)?

Two ways to see this, both with up sides and downs.. 'Commit early (to the single track), spend the time and get it right on the recording, spend less time futzing at mix. But less options to play with it at mix.
Two tracks, more options later.

...To many tracks...? Maybe a mess at mix?

 

[Uhdinator]

2 tracks, two mics:

The close mic will sound dry, the far mic (condenser if possible) will pick up room ambience and can add to a fuller sound unless the room sounds bad. Experiment.

Copying / duplicating a track will not sound any different unless you EQ one track different than the other and do some panning. Ive done this and added a 10-15 ms delay to one track (no dry signal 100% delay) and the other track dry except for a little verb from the amp when it was tracked. I only did this as I could not track 2 different mics at a live performance (on stage far mic would pick up everything)