Professional Studio Engineers- Need Advice

[KLINKDETROIT]

Professional Studio Engineers- Need Advice

I am seeking the input of an experienced engineer with regard to cutting rhythm guitar tracks for a heavy alternative rock record.

We know that it always sounds best to cut 2 identical guitar tracks and pan hard left and right. More often than not this is typical practice for such an application resulting in the best stereo spread and big sound. The guitar player on this project is a very seasoned and "artistic" player. Unfortunately the flip side is that it has been very difficult for him to play 2 identical tracks with the precision timing it takes to really justify such an application.

That said, we also know that there have been hard rock projects that sound very good, have the desired bigness and stereo spread we hope to achieve-However we also know that this has been achieved in 1 performance.

We have attempted multiple mics and rigs simultaneously in order to differentiate left and right. We have also tried cutting 1 track and bussing to stereo aux bus-then panning. In both of these applications, it still just didn't sound near as cool as 2 independent performances.

Hoping that someone out there can provide us the necessary feedback that will allow us to be successful in overcoming such challenges.

We have 4 stellar rigs, 10+ tip top Les Pauls with boutique pickups, and every possible pro studio mic, mic pre and y/splitter box imaginable.

Any assistance would be very much appreciated.

Thank You.

[Lyle Caldwell]

Well, it doesn't *always* sound best to double things. You can get phase issues, flamming, and a sloppy sound that way.

But my real advice is you would be better off hiring a good engineer/producer, based on work they've already done. Better one Les Paul and a good engineer than 10 Les Pauls and trying to learn how to engineer as you go.

[scottlr]

If you really want/have to get that doubled sound, without having to do a 2nd track, dupe the track, and offset it (if you are recording digital) or a very slight delay. Then it'll perfectly match the 1st one, but will open up quite a bit. I use this every now and then on rhythm tracks. But only when it seems to fit, and is really needed.

[enharmonic]

What Lyle said.

The other option, if you must track one performance multiple times, would be to delay one of the tracks by a miniscule amount of time (10ms for instance).

The bottom line, is that if this gent is a technical player that embellishes his performances with each pass, you might be doing more harm than good by trying to double track it. Try a couple of passes and just let him do his thing. The variation in the performances could provide some interesting motion in the track. If he's not that good and just over-thinking it...TRYING to make it seem like two players playing two different parts, that is a whole other issue...and more a matter of Studio Psychology than Engineering chops.

Listen to the Audioslave stuff...proof that you don't need a wall of guiatrs to make a hard hitting rock track these days. :BEER

Good luck.

[Bassomatic]

A "seasoned" guitar player that can't double up a heavy crunch part is someone who needs to get his sh*t together and do his homework. No amount of time/pitch shifting will get you to the same place as a competently played double track.

Is the part really that complex, or is the cat a scrub?

[drfrankencopter]

Suggestion,

Assuming you're wroking on a DAW here...(well you can do it with other mediums but its just more work).

1)Double track the part
2)Listen to both tracks together, pan hard L and R
3)On the double tracked part, mute the bits that don't sound right
4) Make a 3rd track thats a copy of the original guitar, delayed slightly (10-20 ms), and pitch shifted up slightly (2-3 cents). Pan this track to the same spot you panned the double tracked guitar.
5) Wherever you muted the double tracked guitar, un-mute the copied track from step 4. And, wherever the double tracked guitar is un-muted, mute the copied guitar.
6)A/B Compare against a single tracked guitar...maybe even crossfade the above results with the single tracked guitar so you can have a single fader that controls the 'width' of your guitar sound.

Just a thought...

Cheers,

Kris

[MichaelK]

I deleted all the silly crap I just wrote. Screw it, Basso's right.

The fact is, if he can't play the same thing twice you ain't gonna get the same thing twice. I don't know the part, I don't know the guy, but the way to do it is to do it or find someone who can.

If it's really that difficult a part (and let's say it is), then you duplicate the track and play with different ways to make them sound different.

[Bryan T]

Have you thought about running through two amps and then panning the amps left and right? The differences could get you a big sound - just make sure everything is in phase.

Bryan

[clothwiring]

I run two amps in stereo. On my album, Marshall Jubilee and Princeton Reverb with Chandler Tube Driver, worked great.

[E-Rock]

I have to disagree with alot of the responses. Delay/offset of dublicate tracks can KILL a sound. Proof- take your mix and sum to mono. Duplicate tracks that have been delayed like that will turn to phase shifted, comb filtered mush. This is NOT how to make a big guitar sound.
The 2 performances panned L/R can sound really big, but only if played right. Although, I don't really like it that much anymore.

I think you can get bigger sounds with just one "take" but maybe through 2 amps, maybe close mic the 2 amps, then add a couple of room/ambient mics.

There is a lot of ways to get big git sounds. I've had great luck with a combo of ribbon mics and either a dynamic or condenser.

Also, sometimes the biggest tone comes from the smallest amps. Huge ass Marshalls don't always sound that huge.

Anyway, good luck. Remember, move mics until it sounds right!
-peace
-e

[Denyle_Guitars]

Multi-amp/ Multi-mic setups can sound great. There's no substitute for actually playing the part twice though. It's the key to this type of sound.

All the same, here's my unorthodox suggestion. Send the track through an old reel to reel. If it has a weak motor or flattened pinch roller, even better. If you're feeling adventurous, grab the reels to speed it up and slow it down. Maybe it'll work, maybe it'll sound like crap. :crazy

[Cody McLain]

Also, sometimes the biggest tone comes from the smallest amps. Huge ass Marshalls don't always sound that huge.


This can be so true- I've been amazed at what can be done with certain small amps, especially when mixed with a big amp. Don't discount this thought...

[drfrankencopter]

Yeah, delay/pitch tricks can wreck mono compatability...but that's not necessarily a problem. Sometimes this is a great way to put a little hole in the center of a mix to leave a spot for center panned tracks (e.g. vocals or solos) to stand out. You can also monitor in mono and choose your delay time so that the phase cancellation is least objectionable. These tricks never sound like double tracked gtrs either...but its a useful trick to have in your arsenal.

A while back I experimented with Q-sound, and that was able to (again at the expense of mono compatability) pan gtrs out beyond the edges of the speakers, which was great for the odd part here and there.

Close/ambient micing can make for wide sounds, but you give up the "in your face" effect for the added width.

Multi-mics/multi-cabs can work too, but watch out for mono compatability (if it matters to you...depends on what the finished product is, maybe it doesn't matter for a CD, but for TV or radio commercial its pretty important).

Cheers,

Kris

[KLINKDETROIT]

If you really want/have to get that doubled sound, without having to do a 2nd track, dupe the track, and offset it (if you are recording digital) or a very slight delay. Then it'll perfectly match the 1st one, but will open up quite a bit. I use this every now and then on rhythm tracks. But only when it seems to fit, and is really needed.


That was an idea we were kicking around. Thanks

[Unburst]

Basso+1

If you have to go with one pass, try using a multi amp setup and spreading the amps across the stereo field.

[Rosecutions]

2 amps is my favorite if I'm not going to have it doubletracked. You can also dupe a track, pan the two hard left and right, and delay one about 27ms. It gives a tremendous sense of stereo spread, but because of phase misalignment, will suffer in mono. Use at your own risk.

[MichaelK]

As long as we're on to the two amps discussion...

If you can split the signal you can record one track direct, no amp at all. Then re-amp it any number of different ways and see what works best.

There are several boxes that convert a line level signal to instrument level for exactly that purpose.

[justicetones]

As long as we're on to the two amps discussion...

If you can split the signal you can record one track direct, no amp at all. Then re-amp it any number of different ways and see what works best.

There are several boxes that convert a line level signal to instrument level for exactly that purpose.


I have done this and it can work well. IMHO, It is still not the same as doubletracking but can be another cool big sound. I use the radial re-amp kit.

Like the others stated a hard panned delay track will present a bigger sound but will suffer in mono. Also I have noticed that this trick also suffers on boom boxes where the speakers are close together (Kind of weird???).

[wooldl]

Reamp it. Run the track back thru another mic'd amp and record it too. Same part...new sound.

[elambo]

If you want this to sound great, double track it. Triple track it. Quadruple track it. That's how it's done. Any shortcuts (offsetting, for instance - please DON'T do this. As mentioned already, it will not hold up in mono) will be a sacrifice. This sounds like an issue for the producer, not the engineer. Get the guitarist to learn his part and play it multiple times. If he's an "artist" he'll appreciate the results and find it well worth his effort in the end.

[KLINKDETROIT]

Wow, lots of cool stuff. Keep it comin. Thanks

[tedm]

by playing once. Listen to Neal Schon and the Roland GP-100.


A "seasoned" guitar player that can't double up a heavy crunch part is someone who needs to get his sh*t together and do his homework. No amount of time/pitch shifting will get you to the same place as a competently played double track.

Is the part really that complex, or is the cat a scrub?

[rwe333]

by playing once. Listen to Neal Schon and the Roland GP-100.

With all due respect, Basso knows what's up...

[sysexguy]

:dude Record two tracks.....real good ones with lots of feel and no blantant errors but take feel over perfection.

Pan these tracks hard left and hard right

Take a feed of each track (mult or using a send) and sum them to mono.

Run this mono feed into a compressor set to a pumping over the top compression (1176 4 button mode ish) and blend this signal back in dead centre.

If you're not sure what to expect, give Aerosmith "Rocks" a listen.

note: if you're doing this inside a DAW. make sure your plugins and routings are properly delay compensated or you'll lose the energy and impact.

one of the best secrets I picked off the internet (although a buddy showed it me me previously)

Andy

[KLINKDETROIT]

Cool. Thanks

[Tim Bowen]

If you want this to sound great, double track it. Triple track it. Quadruple track it. That's how it's done. Any shortcuts (offsetting, for instance - please DON'T do this. As mentioned already, it will not hold up in mono) will be a sacrifice. This sounds like an issue for the producer, not the engineer. Get the guitarist to learn his part and play it multiple times. If he's an "artist" he'll appreciate the results and find it well worth his effort in the end.

I agree with this post 100%.

Unless it's some sort of improvisational and/or 'bare bones' thing - let's say "blues" or "jazz" - that benefits from *one* track -

Artificially "doubling" a track has always bugged me, and while I don't claim to have great ears, it's not difficult to hear the difference. Same with 'post' - vs - 'pre' ambience. Delay or reverb that is superimposed 'after the fact' (mixdown) - just sticks out like a sore thumb to me. For maximum character, print the ambience with the track.

The 30 ms delay offset with a duped track is bubble gum/band aid, in my opinion, although I do hear this on the radio all the time. I'm small potatoes, but that doesn't change the way that I hear things. I'm more of an arranger than an instrumentalist. There is no substitute for physically doubling a track - it's simply "larger". Any professional musician worth his or her salt should be able to physically double any rhythm track that they might lay down, at any given time, period. It goes with the territory of creating cool and large sounding tracks.

[justicetones]

There is no substitute for physically doubling a track - it's simply "larger". Any professional musician worth his or her salt should be able to physically double any rhythm track that they might lay down, at any given time, period. It goes with the territory of creating cool and large sounding tracks.


Amen brother. 100% agreed. A competent musician should be able to double or triple the part.

[elambo]

Even an incompetent musician can double his OWN part. If he played it once there's a strong chance he'll be able to stumble upon it again.

[justicetones]

Even an incompetent musician can double his OWN part. If he played it once there's a strong chance he'll be able to stumble upon it again.


I Love it. That was funny elambo.

:rotflmao It might just be a matter of when he might stumble upon it.

[KLINKDETROIT]

We have a dual rectifier and a Marshall as well as a tweak fuzz, Engl. All modded by either Egnater or Voodoo amps so the tones would be different enough from left to right. Would they be different enough to cancel phase?

[Bassomatic]

Even an incompetent musician can double his OWN part. If he played it once there's a strong chance he'll be able to stumble upon it again.

And a more-than-equal chance he'll fu*k it up.

Enter the PT Masseur.

Life's too short for such foolishness, imo.

[gainiac]

[quote=Bassomatic]Enter the PT Masseur.

quote]

Alishad!!!!!!!! :crazyguy

:D

[MichaelK]

Life's too short for such foolishness, imo.

Don't get me started...

[justicetones]

I am a fan of mixing it up with different amps. It sounds like you have the amps to get the tones.

[Tim Bowen]

I don't know if it would be of any help, but I have a few more thoughts on all
this, which are geared more toward the psychological perspective of the player
than that of engineering/technological considerations.

Personally, I've always found cutting doubled tracks to be substantially easier
than is cutting the initial track. I'm fairly certain that psychology is a
player here. If I'm cutting a particularly difficult or tricky part, I often
first lay down what I call a guide track; for this, I simply plow through
the tune from top to bottom, and let the clams and stinkers fall where they
will, damn the torpedoes. I then double additional tracks to the guide, and more
often than not, those will go down fairly quickly. Usually, I'll wind up tossing
the guide and cleaning that track. Occasionally though, as has been suggested by
others earlier within the thread, the marriage of an imperfect track and a very
precise track is just too cool and vibey not to keep.

On a somewhat related side note: I usually don't put a lot of time and effort
into getting a tone for a guide track, given the mindset that it'll most likely
be ultimately dumped anyway. But as with the aforementioned scenario, sometimes
the combo of a less-than-great tone with one that has been meticulously
sculpted, can sit in a mix in a way that two "really great" tones just won't. I
think you just have to keep an open mind and open ears as you go along, embrace
any "happy accidents" that might present themselves, and be willing to forego
any pre-conceived "plan" that you brought in, in a heartbeat, regardless of how
precious that plan might've been in the sketchpad of your mind.

Many players, myself included, feel that headphone mix is absolutely critical in
laying down solid tracks, and every player hears it a bit differently. I'm very
picky about this, and I won't hesitate in being adamant about getting the phone
mix to my liking. Most engineers are hip to this anyway, and unless they just
happen to be a cad, they'll happily take the few moments required to accomodate
the player's needs. After all, they'll probably shave off some time with this
approach, by cutting less takes in order to find a keeper. As for myself, I
typically want the part that I'm cutting in real time to be slightly lower in
level within my phones, than how it will probably sit in the mix in relation to
other instrumentation; this allows me to dig in with more conviction, and I can
still get my touch dynamics, if the part calls for such. If the phone mix for
the part that I'm cutting is too stark, hot, or present, my performance tends to
come off as sounding a bit cautious and tentative, even if it is otherwise "right".
For doubling to a rhythm guitar track #1,
I often remove the new real time track from my phones entirely, opting instead
to hear/feel what's coming out of the amp, provided that it's loud enough and is
not positioned within an isolation booth.

Sometimes I want a click track in my phone mix, other times not. It entirely
depends upon the nature of the tune itself, any interaction with other
instrumentation that's already down, and what all instrumentation is in fact
down at the point of doing my bits. If I do choose to go with a bit of click for
rhythm guitar #1, I usually get rid of it for any additional tracks that I cut.
I've listened to tunes I've done in the past where I worked with a click for
everything, and it comes off sounding a bit clinical and sterile to me. At
some point, you simply have to trust your internal clock and sense of groove and
meter, and just let it fly.

While I've never done this myself, this is a cool "psych" trick that I've read
about, and I can't offer any specifics as to the nuts and bolts of the routing:
set the player up in a big, comfortable chair in the control room where the
board is, and have them play along to a loud reference monitor mix, sans
headphones, through a Pignose amp or some cheezy solid state amp, while the
"real" signal is routed out to the 'amp of choice'. Or maybe keep the Pignose
track! Again, it's a process of tricking the brain and nervous system into being
relaxed.

Speaking of which, something that doesn't often come up in discussions of this
sort is just how important it is to be physically comfortable in the studio
environment, as is creating an atmosphere that's conducive to capturing the good
stuff (for instance, I don't like bright lighting when I track). I've cut tracks
standing up, kicked back and lounging on a sofa, sitting cross-legged on the
floor, even lying on the floor and staring up at the ceiling. Whatever it takes
to get a keeper is my MO.

Tim

[elambo]

set the player up in a big, comfortable chair in the control room where the
board is, and have them play along to a loud reference monitor mix, sans
headphones, through a Pignose amp or some cheezy solid state amp, while the
"real" signal is routed out to the 'amp of choice'. Or maybe keep the Pignose
track! Again, it's a process of tricking the brain and nervous system into being
relaxed.

That's exactly why I always record in the control room, where the vibe is. Monitoring LOUDLY is necessary sometimes and it helps you fall into the groove.

[johnnyguitar]

What we used to do in the studio was to place a extension speaker in a iso box and add it as a seperate track the other was miced with 2 mics one very close to the amp and the other about 3-6 feet away..mix the 3 tracks..of course that was in the old tape days..but it worked pretty good but Basso is right..guess I never did get my s#&t together

[KLINKDETROIT]

So having a rectifier and a marshall recorded at the same time far from each other and panning them hard left and right would achieve what we are looking for outside of 2 seperate tracks?

[elambo]

"Outside" of two seperate tracks - yes.

It's certainly better than duplicating a track and offsetting the 2nd, but since the playing itself will be IDENTICAL, it's not going to sound as big as if it were stacked.

You're still resisting the stack idea... Is it really that difficult to get the guitar player to stack?

[ZenFly06]

Like Tim I also go for a feel track, but I find that if that first track is a "acoustic" track it really can fill up the sound of the song. Many times it seems to be there but not, blending with the drums but without it the song seems to be missing something. The guide track isn't neccessarily the exact part that I double or triple.

Another technique is to double using different pickup combinations or different guitar altogether This really fattens things up if done correctly.

I prefer a "less perfect" attitude toward production, and have had great results doubling, but acting as if it were a different player...all depends on the song. An "allmost" exact double will fatten and spice up the mix much better than an exact one.

Good luck.

[sweet_vendetta]

We have 4 stellar rigs, 10+ tip top Les Pauls with boutique pickups, and every possible pro studio mic, mic pre and y/splitter box imaginable.




but the guy can't play his part. who did you rob?

[sosomething]

A "seasoned" guitar player that can't double up a heavy crunch part is someone who needs to get his sh*t together and do his homework. No amount of time/pitch shifting will get you to the same place as a competently played double track.

Is the part really that complex, or is the cat a scrub?

My question and thoughts exactly.

Either his parts are arranged loosely enough that some variance between performances isn't going to hurt, or he's attempting to play beyond his competence level. Maybe someone should step into more of a producer-role and get the guy to scale things back a little bit so it's easier to double. Often times that approach provides a better musical / artistic yield anyway.

[2012studios]

if you can't play the same thing twice (correctly) then you should figure out a new part.

for heavy rock records, double, triple, quadruple those guitars.

for everything else, it's just a matter of taste.

the delay/pan to the opposite side trick is great when you only have one track, just be aware of your delay time to avoid phasing.

[Rusty G.]

One time we were recording an old boogie and put one amp on the floor with the combo, which was placed in a bathroom. Cranked the amp. Then, we put another mic about 3 feet away. Then, we put another mic near the ceiling. Ran all three together. Got a huge sound, because the mic's further away created a natural delay, which made the sound BIG!:JAM

[gainiac]

if you can't play the same thing twice (correctly) then you should figure out a new part.

If you can't plat the same thing twice you don't belong in a recording studio. No amount of "pseudo-doubling" in the world will get you the sound of doubling. Hire a phantom, it'll probably save you money.

[Ed DeGenaro]

My 2 cents...
A)Get somebody to play the part right if the part needs to be played a ertain way and the player can't hack it.

B)Cobble it together in PT.

C)Don't double it. IMO one should be able to get it with one guitar. Want a stereo spread? Feed the guitar through a few ms delay (wet only) and pan it t the other side.

[regotheamigo]

I am not sure if this has been mentioned, but if your recording with Pro Tools, or Cubase, can't you just copy the part and put it on another track and pan both hard left right? I'm no engineer, but shouldn't this work?

[Bryan T]

I am not sure if this has been mentioned, but if your recording with Pro Tools, or Cubase, can't you just copy the part and put it on another track and pan both hard left right? I'm no engineer, but shouldn't this work?

What you end up with is the sound of the track panned dead center but a bit louder. If you put a short delay on one of the tracks, then it tricks the brain into thinking there are two sources, though the sound isn't as full as if the guitarist played the part twice.

Bryan

[gainiac]

well, uh.
hmmm.
i know at least a few absolutely brilliant (and some well-known and well-respected) players who cannot repeat themselves, but.....

dt / spltrcl

Sure their is exceptions....sorry for sounding "absolute"...let me clarify then:

Don't walk into a recording studio unless you are thoroughly prepared to accomplish what you've set out to do. Know your material inside and out, that includes being able to double parts almost exactly if the "aesthetic" you'd like to achieve calls for it.

Otherwise, you'll end up wasting time, and money while causing yourself and others frustration. The end result being shiny coprolite.

[elambo]

C)Don't double it. IMO one should be able to get it with one guitar. Want a stereo spread? Feed the guitar through a few ms delay (wet only) and pan it t the other side.

It's been well discussed here and many other places (professional studios for instance) that track delaying isn't ideal and can actually cause phasing problems, especially for an inexperienced engineer.

Great suggestions (like getting a guitarist who can double) have already flown throughout this thread. They're there for the taking but the thread author doesn't appear interested.

[elambo]

...then it tricks the brain into thinking there are two sources, though the sound isn't as full as if the guitarist played the part twice.

Bryan

True, and the difference is drastic (in a good way, of course)

[elambo]

I am not sure if this has been mentioned, but if your recording with Pro Tools, or Cubase, can't you just copy the part and put it on another track and pan both hard left right? I'm no engineer, but shouldn't this work?
Yes, it seems like that would work, but it's only going to make the audio 3db louder. It will sound identical... just louder.

When you play one mono track you hear the same exact sound out of both speakers, not just one. When you put that audio on two tracks and pan them hard left and right you're still getting the same exact sound out of both speakers, but because there's two of them now they add together, but only in loudness, not any other beneficial way.

[KLINKDETROIT]

We are using pro tools and recording it ourselves. I am a guitarist but only sing in the band in question. We will most likely have the guitarist play 2 seperate tracks using a marshall and mesa with a splitter. What arrangement would you pan the trackS boogie left marshall right or some other combination of the 4 tracks?

[justicetones]

ebay......... That's a good point about over exciting the acoustic space. Every room has certain frequencies that it will excite or enhance in a miked up source. Even in close miking it still can affect the outcome.

Too much volume can be just as problematic as not enough to get the amp to open up.

[KLINKDETROIT]

but the guy can't play his part. who did you rob?


How you be knowin my name? I am the singer in the band in question. I do not play guitar in this band. I am a bad muthu! LOL.

[gainiac]

I am a bad muthu! LOL.


Geoff Tate/ Phil Anselmo?

[KLINKDETROIT]

Geoff Tate/ Phil Anselmo?

KING DIAMOND! LOL

[gainiac]

KING DIAMOND! LOL

"Them" was a cool record!

[daddyo]

Jimmy Page seemed to get a big guitar sound by close miking wound up small amps and an ambient room mike. I don't recall reading about Jimmy doubling his own parts.

[awakenedgroup]

Hi - An old trick we have used for years is to use two identical mics, or split the single track, add one or two frames of delay to one side. This will provide you with an amazing sound without the phase issue. If you always think about what your ears are hearing at a big concert, it is sound being reflected from multiple surfaces and arriving at our ears at different times. It is full of phase issues, comb filtering and distortion created by the room. Don't see these as problems, but opportunities to duplicate to get the sound.flip the phase (yes it will do some calcellation things) but then add one or two frames of delay to one side.) Some of the best things we did in the late 60's and 70's were so totally off the wall, and we would just keeo trying things until we got a sound we wanted. Today with things like convolution processors where someone actually has thought about why it sounds great, you can just dial it in and go. not as much fun, but certainly quicker. Well I haven given away my age and how long I have been doing this, but I would say - just try things, over and over again - you may just find a great sound and a grtat new method!

Skip Brown

The Awakened Group Studios

awakenedgroup@cox.net