DAMN IT I AM SICK OF....

[jerdude]

comparing my crunchy guitar tracks to other CD's and hearing how much WIDER all those are....

any suggestions or tips/tricks anyone can offer to record WIDER guitars.

or WIDENING guitars during the mix?

i'll leave this open ended cuz i know there are alot of factors.... mic (57/421)... stereo micing... mic pre.... amp selection/gtr selection... layering techniques...etc

maybe someone could say what they did when they noticed the biggest improvement in their WIDE guitar sound.

[joelgtrnut]

Don't double track.. QUAD track your guitars.... if your are doing dirt guitar... it will rip your panties off.

All you need is one sm 57 properly placed.

Obviously the player, amp, room, pre, converter, ect... make a big difference

[Lawrence]

Try using a stereo cross-delay on your double tracked guitars to spread it out.

Lawrence

[Silver Sonya]

Can you provide a list of songs/mixes you admire? What is your aesthetic?
- c

[seb37000]

Don't double track.. QUAD track your guitars.... if your are doing dirt guitar... it will rip your panties off.

I agree with this and while your at it use two different mics, I usualy use a ribbon and a condensor and also change the guitare amp head.

[dach]

Originally Posted by joelgtrnut

Don't double track.. QUAD track your guitars.... if your are doing dirt guitar... it will rip your panties off.

While layering the tracks, mix it up a little. Begin with a much cleaner/punchy sound than you would normally use for the part. Once you have a couple passes of that down, go back to the drawing board and get a different sound with more "glue" and a bit more edge. Once you've done that, begin layering the more distorted tracks, combining everything and varying the pans slightly will give you alot of thickness, punch and width without the pitfalls of layering the same sound over and over.

For a part like this, I'll "usually" double track 3 different amp sounds and combine them (sometimes different amp/mic/etc-you know the drill) for a total of 6 tracks. Depending on the song and/or arrangement, you can vary the panning of these slightly with the cleaner ones closer in and distorted ones slightly out. Experiment with some ER's, slight delay or room to give the tracks depth from each other.

Chuck

[theblue1]

One trick that's been used for years for getting a stereo effect out of a single guitar track is panning the track to one side and then delaying the track by a very small amount (as little as 5 or 6 ms can give a sense of stereo space) and then panning that to the other side... if you overdue the delay, it can create rhythmic or other problems -- but it's one more trick you can toss in your bag.

[wwittman]

With respect, I think the WIDEST guitar sounds come from recording them with a little ambinece (not extremely close mic'ed) or with a room mic in addition to the close mic, doubling, and then splitting the original and double hard left and right with their respective ambience.

any cross delay or reverb may sound good but by definition narrows the spectrum.

[Micgiver]

MS is your best bet for stereo spread. youll need a converter though.
William, nothing personal but why do you put your credentials on all of your forums?

[planet red]

For me if the bass tone is blending too much in with the guitars itll make the guitars not sound as wide. Carving space out of the bass and guitars with eq will make the guitars seem a little wider, since they wont be blending with the bass which is panned dead center...

Decent stereo buss compression usually makes stuff feel a little wider as well...

[Jason Poulin]

Switching to analog made a huge difference


Jason

[alcohol]

Ok, this is mimicry.

Stacy's Mom by Fountains of Wayne. It opens with wide crunchy guitars. I like the way it sounds.

I listened closely and used my DAW to measure the distance between tracks. It sounds like they are the same guitar track, wide panned, delayed by 17 milliseconds.

Works for me everytime. I tried, the different mics, and the cloase and room mic, but I like the above technique, it's simple and it works. I haven't tried the different amp approach yet.

[max cooper]

Originally Posted by wwittman

With respect, I think the WIDEST guitar sounds come from recording them with a little ambinece (not extremely close mic'ed) or with a room mic in addition to the close mic, doubling, and then splitting the original and double hard left and right with their respective ambience.

This is absolutely rule number one (for me...)

[drew]

Originally Posted by Micgiver

\William, nothing personal but why do you put your credentials on all of your forums?

it's called a signature and it's put there automatically when he posts, he's not typing it every time.

there are a lot of hacks on boards like these regurgitating what they've "heard" or what has "worked" on their recordings (the quality of which you have no idea). So for me, I like having guys like William around who's work you'll recognize and words have some weight. Wish there were more. His sig is a way of letting people know where the info comes from.

[studjo]

word @ Drew

[Ruphus]

Originally Posted by drew

it's called a signature and it's put there automatically when he posts, he's not typing it every time.

there are a lot of hacks on boards like these regurgitating what they've "heard" or what has "worked" on their recordings (the quality of which you have no idea). So for me, I like having guys like William around who's work you'll recognize and words have some weight. Wish there were more. His sig is a way of letting people know where the info comes from.

Right!

Ruphus

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by drew

it's called a signature and it's put there automatically when he posts, he's not typing it every time.

there are a lot of hacks on boards like these regurgitating what they've "heard" or what has "worked" on their recordings (the quality of which you have no idea). So for me, I like having guys like William around who's work you'll recognize and words have some weight. Wish there were more. His sig is a way of letting people know where the info comes from.

Others beat me to it but.... RIGHT ON!!!




Also I believe William's sig has started a few very cool threads around here on it's own.

[Raw-Tracks]

Originally Posted by alcohol

Stacy's Mom by Fountains of Wayne. It opens with wide crunchy guitars. I like the way it sounds.

I listened closely and used my DAW to measure the distance between tracks. It sounds like they are the same guitar track, wide panned, delayed by 17 milliseconds.

I've only heard that song a few times, but yes, from what I remember, that is a classic example of one guitar track being spread out by a delay. 17ms sounds about right too as far as length. It's a bit of a long delay for many applications, but I think it works great in this instance. Shorter delay times will work better in most instances.

I was never really into the Cars, but I believe they used this same technique on at least one of their tracks. For some reason that Fountains of Wayne tune's intro always makes me think of the Cars.

[ricknroll]

One big difference I notice is when I record to my digital recorder vs. analog tape deck. I'm just using the stock converters on my HD24 but when I compare a guitar track on that to the same one on my tape machine (an Otari MX-80 with the 1" 8 track headstack) the tape one sound noticeably "wider" even though it's a mono track. I have done this testing with reamping guitar parts (to make sure I'm really recording the same performance with the same amp, mic, and guitar) and the tape sounds better. I'm not saying this as an indictment of digital media, but I suspect if I bought a quality outboard converter the difference wouldn't be so obvious. What kind of converters are you using?

-Rick

[Fletcher]

Originally Posted by ricknroll

One big difference I notice is when I record to my digital recorder vs. analog tape deck. I'm just using the stock converters on my HD24 but when I compare a guitar track on that to the same one on my tape machine (an Otari MX-80 with the 1" 8 track headstack) the tape one sound noticeably "wider" even though it's a mono track.

Thank you folks... we have a winner!!

jerdude; I'll bet you better than even money that it's just a case of your converters kinda sucking... if you nail down some better converters, or even clock the converters you have to a more stable clock source I'm willing to wager that your tracks will indeed get "larger" sounding without doubling, ADT'ing, futzing around with them with more processing [reverb, delay, kitchen sink, etc.].

Best of luck with it.

[desol]

Originally Posted by Micgiver

MS is your best bet for stereo spread. youll need a converter though.
William, nothing personal but why do you put your credentials on all of your forums?

I think it's good that he put his credits up...i very much respect it. Besides...it's just a default signature...who cares? Nothing personal...but...i think it's just a waste of time to even ask about it? My two cents.


Peace out.

[jdunn]

Originally Posted by Fletcher

Thank you folks... we have a winner!!

jerdude; I'll bet you better than even money that it's just a case of your converters kinda sucking... if you nail down some better converters, or even clock the converters you have to a more stable clock source I'm willing to wager that your tracks will indeed get "larger" sounding without doubling, ADT'ing, futzing around with them with more processing [reverb, delay, kitchen sink, etc.].

Best of luck with it.

Okay, I'm not looking to start anything w/ Fletcher, but I expected his reply to end with something like "Yes, most people feel that electric guitars just sound bigger on analog tape than digital". So the 'buy more gear' answer sounded a bit dealer-ish to me.

Hell, maybe an Apogee AD-16X or Big Ben or new Benchmark A/D will make the guitar tracks sound wider, but I don't know. I have a friend who tracks alot of guitars to the HD24, and they sound pretty good.

Assuming it's a gear issue and not the room/mic technique, then shouldn't we also be examining the mics/preamps, guitars/amps being used ?

[EngineEars]

Originally Posted by Silver Sonya

Can you provide a list of songs/mixes you admire? What is your aesthetic?
- c

Weezer's "Hash Pipe." A Marshall on one side and a Mesa Boogie on the other. A Rick Ocasek production coincidentally.

[Gregg Sartiano]

Watch those cross-delay times. If they're shorter, phase interference will occur when they are mono'd out. 20 (17?) ms seems to be the cutoff.

Agreed with Fletcher on the converter/clocking issue.

If you look at a distorted guitar waveform, that amp speaker is pushing and pulling the mic diaphragm in strange, complex ways -- not saying that other waveforms aren't strange and complex, but distorted guitar is quite a tough one to nail. See, the very fact that it's distorted means:

1) what WAS low-level information (parts of the vibration happening near the zero-line) are now magnified beyond all reason, causing steep rises/drops (however STILL containing the high-end treble wiggles within the wave), and

2) the guitar->amp->speaker chain is somehow putting out a wave which has been MASSIVELY CLIPPED at the tops and bottoms and yet (hopefully!) manages to sound MUSICAL. The clipping, besides adding strange and unknown high-end partials (especially during pick strikes), also has the potential to squash the dynamics of the signal to the point where the 'loudness' and 'spank' of each pick strike really rely as much on frequency content as on actual amplitude. And yet, just when you think all is lost, if you BACK OFF ON THE GAIN a little bit and then step into the room with the amp, you know damn well that THAT sound is gonna work, if you can just capture it...

O.K., my two cents:

You wanted "wider." First, I must ask why is "wide" the term of choice? If you want synthetically wider, cross-delay it at 10 or 12 ms -- you'll have massive phase problems if the s*&t is ever played back in mono, but it'll sound good for an intro or something.

If you are into heavy guitars, check out Alice In Chains "Dirt." Mess with the balance knob -- sounds to me like a midrange-y, medium gain amp (Marshall?) on the left and a higher gain, slightly scooped (Mesa?) on the right -- 100% pan.

Most of all you have to envision the sound you want before and during the tracking (while you're getting sounds) -- Pensado said he can teach somebody how to get a good snare sound, but he can't teach 'em what a good snare sound IS. I think the same applies here.

[Fletcher]

Originally Posted by jdunn

Okay, I'm not looking to start anything w/ Fletcher, but I expected his reply to end with something like "Yes, most people feel that electric guitars just sound bigger on analog tape than digital". So the 'buy more gear' answer sounded a bit dealer-ish to me.

It wasn't a "buy more gear" answer, it was a "check your gear" answer. I use a RADAR-V, it's great... but there are other converter systems out there that are great... but most, like the MOTU and ShitiDesign snot just suck ass.

There is no way on God's Grey Earth that you can get a great guitar sound to come back through those things... and if you can, you're a hell of a lot better engineer than I will ever be... which is why I said "check your converters and clocking".

I have recorded some really excellent guitar sounds (crack... sound of arm breaking as he pats himself on the back) to digital, there are systems out there that will indeed do an exceptional job of it, but there is a greater quantity of systems that I would catagorize as "sub-standard", even to go as far as calling them an "impediment" to the process.

Now we can all point to the nice 2" deck and say "golly, everything sounds better from that big machine", or we can face a little reality which is that they didn't stop making tape because everyone is falling all over themselves for shit to sound better.

There is some line in the middle where you can get the sound you have in mind as the artist, producer, engineer [whatever your role] that doesn't necessarily include tape. FWIW I think tape is a wonderful medium... even a mediocre tape machine is probably preferable to 95% of the digital systems out there... but the reality, at least in my case, is that I hadn't touched tape for a couple of years before last month [when I did some bouncs through a 2" 8-track].

On the "pimping" thing... I didn't point anyone in the direction of anything, which is what I would classify as pimping something I put an honest effort into not doing.

Sorry to offend.

[rlnyc]

Originally Posted by jerdude

comparing my crunchy guitar tracks to other CD's and hearing how much WIDER all those are....

any suggestions or tips/tricks anyone can offer to record WIDER guitars.

or WIDENING guitars during the mix?

You could try recording with two microphones and put one out of phase. If you pan the in phase microphone to one side and pan the out of phase microphone to the other side and play with it you will notice how the image widens and changes shape depending upon the panning. It will apear to push the image to the outside of the speakers. This is an old trick and forms the basis of sensurround in boomboxes and home stereos.

All of the replies about delaying a panned clone widening the image are due to this effect. Of course, in using this kind of effect you will likely lose volume on the instrument in single speaker mono -- this effect is only applicable to stereo. You can find it in most audio engineering books about "secret tricks in mixing", etc.

Good luck,
rlnyc

[Jules]

Originally Posted by jdunn

Okay, I'm not looking to start anything w/ Fletcher, but I expected his reply to end with something like "Yes, most people feel that electric guitars just sound bigger on analog tape than digital". So the 'buy more gear' answer sounded a bit dealer-ish to me.

Hell, maybe an Apogee AD-16X or Big Ben or new Benchmark A/D will make the guitar tracks sound wider, but I don't know. I have a friend who tracks alot of guitars to the HD24, and they sound pretty good.

Assuming it's a gear issue and not the room/mic technique, then shouldn't we also be examining the mics/preamps, guitars/amps being used ?

Here are some non recording gear purchase suggestions to assist.

1) don't use the same gtr to layer
2) dont use the same amp / speaker cab / mic / mic pre in the SAME set up - to layer

Think about it,

Track 1 - Les Paul, Mashall, vintage 25w speaker mic'ed with sm57 into whatever pre - recorded to whatever system. Panned to one side

Track 2 - Done the same as above - but hard panned - to the other side.

OK - sit in the middle, hmmm fairly wide, when not tracked 100% perfectly you can hear 'the difference' for a split second.

OK, step back 6 feet from the normal listening spot..........

YOU HAVE JUST MADE A RECORDING THAT IS BASICALLY MONO YOU MORON!

YESSSSSSSSS the same player same gtr same amp & speakers same mic same mic pre same recording system. PLAYING THE SAME PART - WHAT DO YOU EXPECT?

instead,

Try doubleing with a set up that includes

a different gtr (Gibson / Fender frequently works)
a different amp (or same amp + pedal, or same amp with LESS distortion)
a different speaker cab (or mic a different speaker on the same cab)
a different mic (or same mic moved to a different position)
a different mic pre (if you have one)

Sit in the middle to hear it back - HUGE

Stand back 6 foot from the speakers - STILL HUGE

[Anderson]

My 2 cents here:

1. Track each guitar on two different cabs with 1 mic each(different speaker models is the key here), but with the same head. I think it gives good results since different speakers have different phase response. Double your guitars, Pan them L/R but not "hard" (maybe like +/-21dB L/R), then "blend the speakers" until you reach a good sound, then EQ if needed. That'll give you the "wall of sound effect".

2. Record a 3rd guitar with one cab and 2 mics (one close, one quite far away, last time I placed It 8,60m away -27ms- since we have a BIG room, niiiice + check your phase or use IBPs).
Make the guitar sound really "clear". On your desk, pan the close mic slitghly to the left, the amb mic in mono. That'll give you more depth + more clarity.

3. If you want wider/clearer sound, record 2 very crunchy sounding guitars doing the notes, not the chords, hard pan them and mix them so that you don't notice them when they are "in the mix", but you do notice them disappearing when you mute them.

4. Get a good drummer + good bass sound.

Cheers

[not_so_new]

Fletcher said.....

Sorry to offend.

WHAT!!!! Call the police someone has kidnapped the real Fletcher and replaced him with a caring civilized human being...



Jokes Fletcher, just jokes…..

He does make a very good point and one that I have been saying repeatedly for a while. As much as we want to make ourselves all self important and say that our skill is the only thing that matters and as much as we say it is about the song and the room and the player and the moon over Miami the truth is the gear you use is a good sized part of the equation.

Andy Wallace on a Mackie will mix circles around me on anything but Andy Wallace on an API or Neve board will mix circles around Any Wallace on a Mackie. Don't kid yourself, the gear is important and that is just a fact of playing the game.

[ricknroll]

Originally Posted by jdunn

Okay, I'm not looking to start anything w/ Fletcher, but I expected his reply to end with something like "Yes, most people feel that electric guitars just sound bigger on analog tape than digital". So the 'buy more gear' answer sounded a bit dealer-ish to me.

Hell, maybe an Apogee AD-16X or Big Ben or new Benchmark A/D will make the guitar tracks sound wider, but I don't know. I have a friend who tracks alot of guitars to the HD24, and they sound pretty good.

Assuming it's a gear issue and not the room/mic technique, then shouldn't we also be examining the mics/preamps, guitars/amps being used ?

When I did my testing, I was just using the stock preamps on my Ghost and an SM57...the difference was not subtle between the HD24 and the Otari tracks. I didn't think my digital tracks sounded particularly small in the first place, so it was kind of a shock to me to hear the difference. In my anecdotal experience, most people seem more focused on preamp selection than converter selection. It's like they assume that because it's 2005, the stock converters in whatever they're using must be good enough (whatever that means). Plenty of people are willing to spend money on top gear preamps, but it seems like more compromises are converters (i.e., people who don't hesitate to buy a Great River preamp balk at a converter more expensive than a MOTU).

jdunn, if I may ask an obvious question, have you hung out with your buddy with the HD24 to see what he's doing differently when recording guitars? If you have access to someone who records guitars that you like the sound of, it seems like he'd be a good place to start.

-Rick