Share Your Double-Tracked Guitar Method

[scottmd06]

So I guess there is no real science to it after all.. Just experimentation and seeing what turns out well.. I typically record the first guitar with the tone that I want to be most present for the rhythm guitar, pan this one about 50% left, then record the part again for the double track but with less highs and more midrange and pan hard right. If you have these two tracks at equal volumes, the sound of the two takes blended will tilt to the right, so I will drop the hard right panned guitar about 3db and it creates a nice space between the two guitars as well as keeping the sound thick. Then I will record my "lead" licks and background guitar parts (ie higher octave, subdivided, palm muted picking; think Def Leppard) and have this track about 4db below the left panned guitar and pan it 25% right. Works out pretty well in the mix..

 

[Farview]

Hmmmm....I buy the hard floor argument. But I've never heard of, or heard for myself, phasing being an issue with double-tracking something. I'm not saying you're wrong, if you say you've witnessed it. I just never experienced it or heard of anyone else experiencing this.

I run into this with a few of my clients. It's really strange, but it does happen. It seems to follow the guitar player, not the setup.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Hmmmm....I buy the hard floor argument. But I've never heard of, or heard for myself, phasing being an issue with double-tracking something. I'm not saying you're wrong, if you say you've witnessed it. I just never experienced it or heard of anyone else experiencing this.

Phase incompatibilities *always* exist when meshing *any* two waveforms; i.e. there's always going to be a crest or a trough here or there that will fight the opposite trough or crest in the competing waveform. It's just that it requires more than just an occasional wave cancellation here or there to be audible as "phasiness". I can't put an exact number on it, but it requires a significant enough percentage of such phase incoherence to become audible as such.

The more similar the waveforms in structure, the more they will fight each other when time-shifted "out of phase". In guitars this can be exacerbated by the purity and regularity of the player's playing technique (not just in tightness, but in cleanliness of the notes played) and in the guitar's tone itself, as well as the "predictability" of the processing produced by whatever effects they have in line.

This is (just) one reason why using different gits, pickups and/or amps tend to often (depending upon the intent of the doubling) sound better for doubling parts than the same guy playing the exact same technique on the same git with the same gear and setup.

G.

 

[RAMI]

If I'm playing the exact same part twice and mixing the two takes together, I leave the mic in the same position. I realize that there is a "phasiness" to the result even still, since no two takes are exactly identical, but they're similar enough that they blend nicely. I've had many instances where moving the mic around arbitrarily between the two takes made for some goofy results.

Phase incompatibilities *always* exist when meshing *any* two waveforms; i.e. there's always going to be a crest or a trough here or there that will fight the opposite trough or crest in the competing waveform. It's just that it requires more than just an occasional wave cancellation here or there to be audible as "phasiness". I can't put an exact number on it, but it requires a significant enough percentage of such phase incoherence to become audible as such.

The more similar the waveforms in structure, the more they will fight each other when time-shifted "out of phase". In guitars this can be exacerbated by the purity and regularity of the player's playing technique (not just in tightness, but in cleanliness of the notes played) and in the guitar's tone itself, as well as the "predictability" of the processing produced by whatever effects they have in line.

This is (just) one reason why using different gits, pickups and/or amps tend to often (depending upon the intent of the doubling) sound better for doubling parts than the same guy playing the exact same technique on the same git with the same gear and setup.

G.

OK. Fair enough. So, it seems that the reason MATTDEE has this problem might be because he's a really tight player who manages to get 2 tracks to sound so close to each other that they manage to produce phase problems. Which probably also explains why I never have that problem.

 

[gecko zzed]

The more similar the waveforms in structure, the more they will fight each other when time-shifted "out of phase". In guitars this can be exacerbated by the purity and regularity of the player's playing technique (not just in tightness, but in cleanliness of the notes played) and in the guitar's tone itself, as well as the "predictability" of the processing produced by whatever effects they have in line.

I have a girl that comes in to do occasional backup vocals. Her phrasing and pitch is so close from one take to another that I often encounter a 'phasiness' to her double-tracked vocals. Perversely, I actually like the sound of it.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

OK. Fair enough. So, it seems that the reason MATTDEE has this problem might be because he's a really tight player who manages to get 2 tracks to sound so close to each other that they manage to produce phase problems. Which probably also explains why I never have that problem.

Well, there's "tight", and there's "tight". The ultimate in tightness would be to duplicate the original track, and we all know how ineffective that is (unless you like mono ). It's one of those tings that's hard to quantify, but offhand, Rams, I'd say that the fact that you *sound* tight but don't have the problem is a good thing, wouldn't you?

And there are so many potential variables involved; hell, just changing strings can potentially affect one's "phasiness". So I wouldn't take it as a personal reflection on your pickin' skillz.

For those that have more phase problems, changing your fingering or flipping the pickup switch, changing distortion or gain settings a bit, or simply drinking one (I mean ONE) beer between takes can help.

I have a girl that comes in to do occasional backup vocals. Her phrasing and pitch is so close from one take to another that I often encounter a 'phasiness' to her double-tracked vocals. Perversely, I actually like the sound of it.

Uh huh. She's cute, isn't she, Mike..."Um, I'm sorry, we're still getting some phase problems, miss. Can we try it one more time? OK! Take 73, rolling!" It's amazing how the better they look, the more takes it can take to get it right, isn't it?

J/K, I know what you mean; and yeah, a little phase on a voice can sometimes sound cool.

G.

 

[WhiteStrat]

Lately I've really liked the sound of dual miking a cab - an SM57 and an RSM-5. Double track as tightly as possible. Then I blend the two mics for one track, and pan them together. Then blend the other two, and pan them opposite the first 2 tracks.

The 57 gives very nice presence, and the RSM gives it some balls and warmth.

I love to mix a ribbon and dynamic as well. I do it this same way quite often.

 

[gecko zzed]

Uh huh. She's cute, isn't she, Mike..."Um, I'm sorry, we're still getting some phase problems, miss. Can we try it one more time? OK! Take 73, rolling!" It's amazing how the better they look, the more takes it can take to get it right, isn't it?

J/K, I know what you mean; and yeah, a little phase on a voice can sometimes sound cool.

G.

practice makes perfect, they say

 

[DrewPeterson7]

OK. Fair enough. So, it seems that the reason MATTDEE has this problem might be because he's a really tight player who manages to get 2 tracks to sound so close to each other that they manage to produce phase problems. Which probably also explains why I never have that problem.

You and I are blessed with the same problem.

For me, the added complication is that I record instrumental guitar music, and while some of the same problems exist for getting a guitar bed and a lead vocal to mesh, they're exasperated by the fact a guitar lead is more timbrally similar to a rhythm track than a vocal is. So, while the best way to get a huge, expansive stereo spread of guitar is to record a number of layers (2, 4, whatever) and then use varying EQ to give a bigger sense of space (say, one mid-heavy and gainy, another scooped bright and cleaner) and let them "fit" together, for me that's not necessarily the best bet because if it gets TOO big then the lead guitar will start to clash.

I'm just getting the hang of tracking with a new amp, and it seems more forgiving (partly because the 3rd channel absolutely slays for lead and falls in a slightly different sonic space than the 4th, whereas previously I was recording with a 2-channel Single Recto with the same lead channel), so I have started using slightly different gain and EQ settings and at least attempting to quad-track again, but for the longest time I'd just do two tracks of rhythm, with almost (if not) identical EQ and gain levels, and pan them hard left and right, simply because if the rhythm tracks got TOO big, then the leads had to get smaller, and as a guitarist I didn't like that.

It's really all about context.

 

[Greg_L]

My double tracking method is intensive and unique:

I just play the thing twice. Sometimes I'll use different guitars. Sometimes I'll use the same guitar but play the chords differently.

 

[Dogbreath]

I've noticed on some of my double tracked guitars, I get kind of a mild "chorus" effect goin on. Is this the phasing thing you guys are talkin about?
If so, I think it sounds oretty decent.

 

[mattdee1]

no. two signals must be phase coherent in order for "Phasiness" to occur. two performances do not result in phase coherence.

two mics on a single source captures two signals that are phase coherent.

I assume you mean phase incoherent?

If so, I'm curious how you make a blanket statement that two performances cannot result in phase incoherence?

Bottom line, phase coherence varies on a spectrum from fully constructive (two identical waveforms) to fully destructive (a waveform and its inverse), and everywhere in between.

When one waveform is at a peak and the other at a valley, the result is some degree of destructive interference, which is what causes some of the uglier symptoms of the phenomenon.

If you capture two takes of the same guitar part, played the same way, with the same mic position, and then you look closely at the waveforms, you will see at least qualitatively that they line up fairly well. This doesn't take divine tightness of playing to achieve. All bets are off if you move the mic around willy-nilly for the second take.

Of course, at this point it needs to be said that some degree of phase mumbo jumbo might actually result in a cool sound that is pleasing to the ear--stranger things have happened. My only point was, and perhaps I should have been more clear, that arbitrary mic movement is a recipe for results that are far more unpredictable than a stationary mic.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

I assume you mean phase incoherent?

If so, I'm curious how you make a blanket statement that two performances cannot result in phase incoherence?

While you're correct that theoretically it's possible, in the real world it's incredibly unlikely.

If two performances resulted in perfectly identical waveforms, then yes, phase incoherence is going to be a problem. However that's a statistical near impossibility to get enough alignment between different takes for even small amounts of a performance to align perfectly.

When using more than one mic on a single source, you need to worry about phase alignment, because the same fundamental signal is being picked up by two different sources, and unless they're phase-aligned then you'll get significant phase cancellation. However, when using a single mic on multiple performances, or even different mics on multiple performances (but no more than one at a time) it's basically a nonissue because the source sound is different.

So, yes, it's a blanket. It's one, however, that holds true in 99.9999% of recording situations.

 

[mattdee1]

While you're correct that theoretically it's possible, in the real world it's incredibly unlikely.

If two performances resulted in perfectly identical waveforms, then yes, phase incoherence is going to be a problem. However that's a statistical near impossibility to get enough alignment between different takes for even small amounts of a performance to align perfectly.

When using more than one mic on a single source, you need to worry about phase alignment, because the same fundamental signal is being picked up by two different sources, and unless they're phase-aligned then you'll get significant phase cancellation. However, when using a single mic on multiple performances, or even different mics on multiple performances (but no more than one at a time) it's basically a nonissue because the source sound is different.

So, yes, it's a blanket. It's one, however, that holds true in 99.9999% of recording situations.

Ok, perhaps I should dilute my statement to simply that, having tried a stationary mic and a moving mic, I personally have had a much easier time mixing multiple takes when I leave the mic alone. So much so that it's been a while since I've even bothered experimenting with moving the mic on the additional takes. Maybe when I had the problems I mentioned it was due to something else entirely (acoustic issues specific to that room, etc.). I'm kicking myself that I didn't hang onto those throwaway takes to post here and get everybody's thoughts on the comparison.

Matt

 

[Farview]

While you're correct that theoretically it's possible, in the real world it's incredibly unlikely.

If two performances resulted in perfectly identical waveforms, then yes, phase incoherence is going to be a problem. However that's a statistical near impossibility to get enough alignment between different takes for even small amounts of a performance to align perfectly.

When using more than one mic on a single source, you need to worry about phase alignment, because the same fundamental signal is being picked up by two different sources, and unless they're phase-aligned then you'll get significant phase cancellation. However, when using a single mic on multiple performances, or even different mics on multiple performances (but no more than one at a time) it's basically a nonissue because the source sound is different.

So, yes, it's a blanket. It's one, however, that holds true in 99.9999% of recording situations.

I don't think anyone is talking about aligning perfectly and cancelling completely. You can get enough wackyness to make the guitar to cancel out noticably in mono. It happens to me all the time with a couple of guitarists.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

Ok, perhaps I should dilute my statement to simply that, having tried a stationary mic and a moving mic, I personally have had a much easier time mixing multiple takes when I leave the mic alone. So much so that it's been a while since I've even bothered experimenting with moving the mic on the additional takes. Maybe when I had the problems I mentioned it was due to something else entirely (acoustic issues specific to that room, etc.). I'm kicking myself that I didn't hang onto those throwaway takes to post here and get everybody's thoughts on the comparison.

Matt

Oh, I agree with you there - once I get a mic position that works, generally I leave it. I could see maybe using two different positions that compliment each other well or something as seperate takes, but yeah, I don't think phase coherence is a reason to argue for moving mics around.

 

[Sonixx]

I assume you mean phase incoherent?

If so, I'm curious how you make a blanket statement that two performances cannot result in phase incoherence?

Bottom line, phase coherence varies on a spectrum from fully constructive (two identical waveforms) to fully destructive (a waveform and its inverse), and everywhere in between.

When one waveform is at a peak and the other at a valley, the result is some degree of destructive interference, which is what causes some of the uglier symptoms of the phenomenon.

If you capture two takes of the same guitar part, played the same way, with the same mic position, and then you look closely at the waveforms, you will see at least qualitatively that they line up fairly well. This doesn't take divine tightness of playing to achieve. All bets are off if you move the mic around willy-nilly for the second take.

Of course, at this point it needs to be said that some degree of phase mumbo jumbo might actually result in a cool sound that is pleasing to the ear--stranger things have happened. My only point was, and perhaps I should have been more clear, that arbitrary mic movement is a recipe for results that are far more unpredictable than a stationary mic.

I mean coherence as stated.

two performances have absolutely no time/frequency relationship. any cancellation is totally random in nature. whereas, two signals tracking the same signal source have a definite time/frequency relationship.