Question about wider guitars through mastering.

[James Lugo]

Question for the pro masterers; There's been a lot of talk about wider guitars and I have been using the new AIC record as a reference. Those guitars are so wide, I've read that it can be achieved in mastering with some sort of MS thing. My question is can this only be achieved with all the rhythm guitars panned hard and left when mixing? I ask because I am tracking a song of my own and I have a pair of heavies panned hard but I have a secondary cleaner single rhythm that I have panned center and tucked in the mix a little lower, will that inhibit the MS effect in mastering? Also if anyone has any tips on tracking or mixing to get wider guitars I'd love to hear some specific details on delay settings or harmonizers etc..

[brethes]

This is a mixing issue rather than a mastering one. Widening is not usually used in mastering as it affects the whole mix and have nasty side-effects (pushing the vocals back and making them sound more "wet", bringing out mono compatibility issues...). M/S techniques are used to fix an issue when a remix is not possible and anything that alters the mix is usually avoided unless the mix is flawed or needs help.

Hard panning two rhythm guitars is usually the way to get a wide GTR effect. It works particularly well with bright E.GTRs or acoustic guitar double tracked. But if you are doubling up the same part (copying the same part to the Left & Right, or sending one sound to the other side with a different EQ or amp simulation, beware of phase issues as they are likely to cancel in mono. A small delay with modulation may help but double tracking the part works best.

If you want the two guitars to sound even wider, use a stereo widener just on the guitar pair (NOT on the whole mix!), but again, be very aware of phase issues as the guitar are likely to disappear in mono, as wideners work by changing the phase!

[ORC]

I can sometimes widen big guitars in mastering by going m/s and using some eq to bring out the gtrs. Other than that this isn't really a mastering issue.

When tracking, go for the gtr, amp, mic, pre/eq, comp. that gives the mono tracks the most 3D sound. This 3 dimensionality, has much to do with how wide guitars can sound. I prefer Neve style pre's for this, usually with a 57 and/or a royer blended together. Room mics are great if you want to make a single gtr track sound huge, but I don't like them on double tracked in your face stuff. Its great to double a guitar part, but I like to use a different guitar and amp for the doubled part. This allows for uber wide gtr sounds with less phase cancellation when played in mono, or when the image is narrowed by FM radio.

If you're mixing from protools, you can take a single track, send it to a buss in PT, pan the two, and it will give a stereo effect, due to the latency. You can take the output from that buss, and send it through another buss for more delay. Experiment with flipping the polarity of the buss, applying eq to that buss etc.

Also, try high-passing your guitars at higher freqs, the wider you pan them. This gives the illusion of more width.

Also using plenty of mono and center panned tracks can really accentuate those wide guitars. I think Tool's "46 and 2" is a great track to demonstrate this mixing style. Give it a listen if you can.

Here's a great FREE plug you can use on your stereo guitar buss to get a ton of depth and width: http://dallashodgson.info/articles/OpenAmbienceProject/

Good Luck!

[Bob Olhsson]

My experience has been that it is more a tracking issue than even a mixing issue. Most anything you try to do after the fact risks mono compatibility issues that can reek havoc in broadcast, streaming, MP3s and live shows where sounding great directly affects an artist's career.

[James Lugo]

Thanks guys, there's a track I'm working on that was tracked somewhere else with an AxeFX type DI guitar thing. I'm so use to working on stuff I've tracked with amps and cabs.

[Storyville]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

My experience has been that it is more a tracking issue than even a mixing issue. Most anything you try to do after the fact risks mono compatibility issues that can reek havoc in broadcast, streaming, MP3s and live shows where sounding great directly affects an artist's career.

Yeah, I'd start it at tracking. Width is the difference between left and right, so if you are using the same guitar, same amp, same mic, same part - it really only goes so wide. I generally opt to keep the same guitar, but switching to a practice amp, or changing to a more "nosey" mic can help the tonal difference. Beyer M300 or something of similar ilk is good for a doubled guitar part - it accentuates the 800hz area at the cost of other frequencies. Sounds pretty bad on its own, a little telephonic. Sounds good when doubled with something like a coles 4038, or even an LDC or something with a beefier sound.

A little bit of S1 Imager can also work for this. Just a touch - because there will be similarities in the parts, specifically in the room reaction, you can still widen the image this way. But it tends to thin down the signal and dry out the room - and make phasey artifacts. So it's a very little-dab-'ll do ya.

[CeretoneAudio]

Dangerous Sum & Minus

[Riccardo]

Tracking no doubt about it.
Widening during mastering is possible but the wider guitars almost always change the balance of the other elements in the mix.

A good player doubling a part is a good start. Selection of amps, cabs with different speakers that work together, and selection of different mics usually do the trick. Switching guitars sometimes works altough it is not a guarantee. The player/musician is far more important. Some are better than other at doubling a part.

When in a hurry or when the guitarist doesn't want or cant double a part) we always keep a couple custom of 2x12 with different speakers (i.e. a G12 Heritage and a Tayden Retro) handy and mike them up with different mics (i.e a Royer and a 409). It goes witouth saying that the room also plays a big part as it does with tracking drums .........

[ORC]

Originally Posted by James Lugo

Thanks guys, there's a track I'm working on that was tracked somewhere else with an AxeFX type DI guitar thing. I'm so use to working on stuff I've tracked with amps and cabs.

Yeah, those amp sim tracks are harder to get sounding right, especially if the player used the same guitar, and "amp" settings for the double. If you're stuck
with these tracks, I'd try to eq the two differently. I also might try changing the envelope of one track with a compressor, so that it pumps and breathes just a bit against the first track.

[James Lugo]

How is it that slightly different sounding double tracked guitars panned had left and right can sound wider? What actually makes them sound wider?

[ORC]

Originally Posted by James Lugo

How is it that slightly different sounding double tracked guitars panned had left and right can sound wider? What actually makes them sound wider?

They sound wider because they sound different from one another. Even though the parts are doubled, the 2 guitar tone's are different. This makes for more separation between the two tracks. This tecnique actually does several nice things for a mix.

[Riccardo]

Small timing differences also contribute

[gogar]

I think that Brainworx m/s plug is kinda fun for mixing, but it definitely is a -very specific- sound.

You could probably achieve wider guitars in mastering, but you would get wider everything else along with it.

[lu432]

Why don't u just create a copy of the guitar track phase invert it and pan it until u achieve the desired result?

[James Lugo]

So I just took 2 guitar tracks, single mic each and split them out onto 2 channels on the console and panned them hard left and right. The I set up a stereo aux in protools, bussed them to it and put Imager on it and sent that aux to the same 2 channels on the console. Messing with the Imager plugin widened the guitars. There seems to me a sweet spot before it starts sounding weird. There's also an M/S function on it and when engaged it adds quite a bit of fatness and gives the illusion of a 3rd guitar part that is center panned. It seem to change the sound a bit and I didn't really dig it that much, it seemed to taken some of the crunch away from the guitars. I think I'm onto to something with this, I finish a tune up tomorrow and then I'm going to experiment with it.

[James Lugo]

Originally Posted by CeretoneAudio

Dangerous Sum & Minus

I just watched the video and downloaded the free trial. Wow that thing sounds unbelievable. Way better then the stock pt Imager.

[Wave theory]

If you want a wide sound, do you track in stereo?

[ryst]

Brother James,

I'd also recommend checking out DrMS from Matthew Lane. It's a great plugin m/s and stereo imager plugin.

[ORC]

Originally Posted by James Lugo

I just watched the video and downloaded the free trial. Wow that thing sounds unbelievable. Way better then the stock pt Imager.

Nice plug, but those guitars don't jump out of the speakers into the room like the real deal.

When the chorus hits, listen to the size, width, and depth of these guitars. Only 1 track each, Royer 121 8 inches back, 1073. I know one amp was a 100 watt plexi, I think the other was an old Traynor. Fender Tele, and Les paul Jr., Waves S1 on guitar buss set to 1.15 if I remember correctly. Its been several years.

[George Necola]

Dr MS works sometimes.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Gearslutz.com

[James Lugo]

Thanks for the input guys, I've been up all morning messing around with guitar sounds and the ShreadSpread and the console. I think I'm onto some really good results. For the music I want to do I think this approach is gonna be the ticket I was a/b'ing some reference tracks to so of my tracks and with the Brainworx and some alternate eqing I was able to get the heavies to sit in the exact spot and feel as the ref tracks. F**kin sweet.

[James Lugo]

So I have been listening to some ref tracks this morning, muting left side and right. Keep in mind I'm into hard rock/metal stuff, I was referencing the new Symphony X, Nickelback, AIC and Fireflight's Unbreakable, to my ears the guitar track didn't strike me as different amps maybe a slight variation (like maybe if it was a combo of amps one amp on one side was switched out) but both sides reacted in much the same way to the guitar and playing which gave it continuity and a wall of sound. What I did hear on all 4 bands was that the right side was darker and had more low mids. I used 2 different sets of monitors and I turned my head both ways when listening so I was using the same ear to reference. Very interesting. They all seemed to be adding weight with eq to the right side of the guitar tracks and also had the guitars spread past hard left and right.

Things that make you go hum.....

[chuckduffy]

I did read an article somewhere (maybe SOS) about a widening technique. Keep in mind two things - I don't make music in this genre and I am a total dork - but the jist was this:

Duplicate the track. Pan left and right. Use a parameteric and sweep to find the meat. Boost it in one side, make a complimentary cut on the other. It didn't do much for me, but based on what you are hearing it might be something to play with.

Originally Posted by James Lugo

So I have been listening to some ref tracks this morning, muting left side and right. Keep in mind I'm into hard rock/metal stuff, I was referencing the new Symphony X, Nickelback, AIC and Fireflight's Unbreakable, to my ears the guitar track didn't strike me as different amps maybe a slight variation (like maybe if it was a combo of amps one amp on one side was switched out) but both sides reacted in much the same way to the guitar and playing which gave it continuity and a wall of sound. What I did hear on all 4 bands was that the right side was darker and had more low mids. I used 2 different sets of monitors and I turned my head both ways when listening so I was using the same ear to reference. Very interesting. They all seemed to be adding weight with eq to the right side of the guitar tracks and also had the guitars spread past hard left and right.

Things that make you go hum.....

[Riccardo]

Originally Posted by James Lugo

So I have been listening to some ref tracks this morning, muting left side and right. Keep in mind I'm into hard rock/metal stuff, I was referencing the new Symphony X, Nickelback, AIC and Fireflight's Unbreakable, to my ears the guitar track didn't strike me as different amps maybe a slight variation (like maybe if it was a combo of amps one amp on one side was switched out) but both sides reacted in much the same way to the guitar and playing which gave it continuity and a wall of sound. What I did hear on all 4 bands was that the right side was darker and had more low mids. I used 2 different sets of monitors and I turned my head both ways when listening so I was using the same ear to reference. Very interesting. They all seemed to be adding weight with eq to the right side of the guitar tracks and also had the guitars spread past hard left and right.

Things that make you go hum.....

There are quite a few thing to consider. It could have been say four heads hooked up to different cabs with different speakers, different mics. The second pass could have had mics spaced differently,cabs moved to different places in the room. The list is endless. There are a few producers and engineers that mix layered fake and real tracks.
The options are endless. It is probably easier to actually do it than to talk about it. No real secrets just the fact that a little goes a long way and that options being almost unlimited it makes you dig and experiment with all sorts of ideas.

[ORC]

Originally Posted by Riccardo

There are quite a few thing to consider. It could have been say four heads hooked up to different cabs with different speakers, different mics. The second pass could have had mics spaced differently,cabs moved to different places in the room. The list is endless. There are a few producers and engineers that mix layered fake and real tracks.
The options are endless. It is probably easier to actually do it than to talk about it. No real secrets just the fact that a little goes a long way and that options being almost unlimited it makes you dig and experiment with all sorts of ideas.

Yes! Always remain open to trying new techniques. Many folks have stumbled upon great sounds by accident. Whatever it takes to help a track to be in maximum service of the song, is worthwhile.

[Storyville]

Originally Posted by James Lugo

So I have been listening to some ref tracks this morning, muting left side and right. Keep in mind I'm into hard rock/metal stuff, I was referencing the new Symphony X, Nickelback, AIC and Fireflight's Unbreakable, to my ears the guitar track didn't strike me as different amps maybe a slight variation (like maybe if it was a combo of amps one amp on one side was switched out) but both sides reacted in much the same way to the guitar and playing which gave it continuity and a wall of sound. What I did hear on all 4 bands was that the right side was darker and had more low mids. I used 2 different sets of monitors and I turned my head both ways when listening so I was using the same ear to reference. Very interesting. They all seemed to be adding weight with eq to the right side of the guitar tracks and also had the guitars spread past hard left and right.

Things that make you go hum.....

That's the idea of using different mics!

When you use the same setup, and eq one side differently - you can stretch the image. My only qualm with this is it creates smear rather than big width - as you're not really changing the sides, your adjusting register based level. It's effective, sometimes even preferable - but phase free, separate source tones sound more open to me.

The Imager is really cool in this situation as you can actually use it to change the room tone. On different takes, the biggest similarity is the room reaction if you are using the same guitar and cab. So when you use the Imager to reduce the shared information it actually moves some of the room tone down in the mix, and brings the guitars forward. It's a cool effect, and there's an audible sweet spot. Works on tightly doubled vocals to a certain extent as well if there's two or more doubles if you want to reduce room tone (I work with a lot of home cooked rap music).

The M/S mode on the Imager enables a mid-side matrix. There's an input and output switch I believe - one which sets to interpret an incoming mid-side configuration, the other which converts left-right to mid-side. The output mode allows you to then buss your mid/side split out to separate channels and effect the mid and side signals independently. This can be very very useful for fixing surgical issues in a mix, or certain mix applications, particularly when working with stereo sources (drum overheads, synths, etc), or for creating weird special effects like an expanding & contracting synth pad.


blah blah blah


Width is based on two things primarily. Having information on the left that differs substantially from the right. And the natural localization of certain sounds. Things like woodblocks, shakers, sine wave blips - focused sounds with clear transients really localize clearly. Particularly upper register sounds as well - the dispersion of low frequency information is much wider than high frequency information.



EDIT: I'll also say after a point getting width stops being about the music and becomes more about sonic dick size. Something to consider.

And I'm done my mighty yammering.

[Budda]

Also, depending on how this thing was tracked with an "AxeFX DI thing"... do you have a dry DI track along with the "effected" track of the same performance? If so, try panning one track to one side, and the other to the other. Put "whatever amp sim you like" on the DI track, add EQ/delay/mod to taste: boom, you have a perfectly tight double-tracked part that's kinda sorta put through two amps (no substitute for real amps, sorry, not in my experience). Possible to get that WAY wide without (too many) mono issues just by playing with the delay.

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by James Lugo

I just watched the video and downloaded the free trial. Wow that thing sounds unbelievable. Way better then the stock pt Imager.

Not only that but it does have a really cool "tone" control as he showed in the video that really makes a difference.

[kosmokrator]

James if you have to deal with pre-recorded stuff (meaning you're just mixing), always remember that mixing is all about contrasts.

Meaning, if you have a super-wide drumset, your guitars will appear to be not as wide.
If the verse is already wide, the chorus won't appear as wide.

I have watched some of the super-heavyweights in mixing (f.e. Andy Wallace), and he for one never uses widening-tools. It's all about eq, panning and levels.

[vespiz]

Take a look at this interview with Randy Staub:
Randy Staub On Black Album: 'The Idea Was To Get A Huge Drum Sound' | Interviews @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com