The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Is "copying" guitar tracks for a fuller sound common? Mas­ter­ing Plugins
Old 6th September 2011
  #31
Gear Head
 

How are you mixing for an established band not knowing this?
Old 6th September 2011
  #32
Lives for gear
 
jimmyboy7's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by kleraudio View Post
not sure if this is the right forum for this question but:

I am doing a mix right now for a pretty established band. This isnt for a record but for some promo work for sabian so this wont be printed on a CD or anything, strictly for web promotion.

Anyways, I get the logic session and the main guitar parts, there are 4 tracks, 2 of which are labled "copy"

when i mute them, the sound thins out, when all 4 are going its sounds very beefy.

Is this a common trick to get those full, fat, deep tones common of most harder rock??

If not, what is a good way to get really nice thick sounding guitars onto your tracks?
Absolutely!!! Not a trick but definitely the best way to create huge, fat, wall of sound guitar

In fact, for Rock I will quad track the rythym guitars, two panned about 30 Lft and Rt and two more hard left and right
Old 6th September 2011
  #33
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathan jetter View Post
just to be clear-

250ms delay is an 8th note delay at 120bpm. there's no way that's gonna be useful as a doubling effect. there's no way that even half that (125ms. 16th note delay @ 120bpm) is gonna be useful as a doubling effect.

also FWIW...i've never gotten much mileage from panning 2 mics for spatial effect. i'm curious to hear some cool examples of it, though, and see if i can learn some new tricks. you got any examples i could check?
Ill be at the studio tomorrow, ill see if I can grab a couple examples to upload.
Old 6th September 2011
  #34
Gear Maniac
 

Dude... there are a thousand miliseconds in a second. Sound travels at 1126 feet per second. So a couple feet represents a couple miliseconds. 1 foot represents approximately 1 milisecond (approximately).

It has been shown that the human ear detects sound as two separate incidents at roughly 15 miliseconds and above. So all you need to establish a different instance of a sound event (as perceived by the human ear) would be something in excess of 15 miliseconds. That's why they are laughing at you. 18-25 miliseconds is plenty to get the effect of 2 separate parts/performances. The reason they are suggesting that you modulate this delay between 18 and 25 by some random factor if possible is that it approximates human error. Otherwise, if you delay the sound by 18 all the time, it sounds "mechanical". Modulating pitch gives even more randomness... thus more human error...Thus more "realism".
Old 6th September 2011
  #35
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jroode View Post
Dude... there are a thousand miliseconds in a second. Sound travels at 1126 feet per second. So a couple feet represents a couple miliseconds. 1 foot represents approximately 1 milisecond (approximately).

It has been shown that the human ear detects sound as two separate incidents at roughly 15 miliseconds and above. So all you need to establish a different instance of a sound event (as perceived by the human ear) would be something in excess of 15 miliseconds. That's why they are laughing at you. 18-25 miliseconds is plenty to get the effect of 2 separate parts/performances. The reason they are suggesting that you modulate this delay between 18 and 25 by some random factor if possible is that it approximates human error. Otherwise, if you delay the sound by 18 all the time, it sounds "mechanical". Modulating pitch gives even more randomness... thus more human error...Thus more "realism".

A). I understand why this differentiates the same tracks panned in the stereo field. I said nothing about modulation. But yes I understand that as well.

B). It is not necessary to dude me since I stated I didn't mean to post numbers that long

C). However, In the double mic situations I was referring to, I did delay the second mic that much, which is why I was referring to this example, not necessarily just the short delay from a longer distance (hence it being related to the effect were discussing, though more extreme, which is why I said its not something I did on rhythm guitars? Did you read?)

D). Regardless of the real-world distance its still less then a second. Its not going to sound "hundreds of feet away"

E). The same auditory event happening milliseconds later will not be perceived as a different sound, but will increase the width of the sound. The same auditory event more than 50-100 ms later will be perceived as an echo ... that kind of thing (a noticeably different event). Why would you dismiss this as being useful by stating the speed of sound? Panning reverbs and delays opposite directions from your source sound is a similarly useful tool

F). I don't think you've actually ever tried the e x a c t thing I suggested, so maybe don't knock it before you try it
Old 6th September 2011
  #36
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nosleepPDX View Post
I could imagine that more than a couple feet would be more than a couple hundred ms.
Might want to double-check your numbers again there buddy. (Or stop just imagining stuff).

I have to agree with the hate on the haas effect widening trick. About as cool as completely replacing all of your drum kit close mics with drum samples.
Old 6th September 2011
  #37
It's a common newbie misconception that copying a track, panning it to the opposite side will somehow make for a bigger sound. What that will do is simply make a mono signal.

You can "widen" single tracks with delays, harmonisers or very short reverbs but the traditional pro way to get width on guitars is to double track them with different performances playing the the same part.

You can then add to that with the same part but with different chord inversions.

Or doubling parts just on choruses or from 2nd verse onwards or from outro onwards.

Just using the same gtr amp mic set up for every overdub doesn't give the best width effect, best is to use different guitars for the left and right - so Tele / Les Paul is a great stereo rhytem gtr combo.

Changing amps / mic / even pre amps all can help too.

A good study for this is the Foo Fighters song "Monkey Wrench" it is a shining example of layered guitars IMHO. It seems like a new pair of guitar overdubs is added at every chorus until at the end it sounds enormous.
Old 6th September 2011
  #38
Harmless Wacko
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jroode View Post
Dude... there are a thousand miliseconds in a second. Sound travels at 1126 feet per second. So a couple feet represents a couple miliseconds. 1 foot represents approximately 1 milisecond (approximately).
Hey jroode.

Don't get ANGRY!!!(?)

That 180-250ms poster is the dude who invented MIDFIELD micing.









Ya know.

Amp on the goal line.





Mic one(Beyer M201) on the dust cone.






Mic (array) 2 on the 50 yard line.



Modified Decca Tree/Ortif/Mid-Side/Blumlein/Sanskrit/Doorbell Transducer with a steam driven Cooper time cube(strapped).
















Mic 3(U47 Nuvistor only) being "real-time modulated" by having the mic nose mounted on the Fuji Blimp, which should be zipping back and forth on a twisted steel cable between the OTHER goal line and the box seats.







Very common.






Wide panning is what brings it all together.













I mean pulls it apart.





Or something.



...








This place is a f*cking trip.

No really.

Complete bedlam.



People say absolutely CRAZY sh*t and then attempt to defend it to the death with absolute hocus-pocus obfuscatory nonsense under the guise of "additional explanations".

But hey!!! This is GS! Even core physics is apparently wholly subjective!


These actions are:

Tolerated.

Endorsed.

Promoted.





Bewildering really.


Completely flummoxed.

SM.
Old 6th September 2011
  #39
Lives for gear
 

Double checked the math.. sorry..

Wasn't Tryna add to any bedlam or mic a football game.
Old 6th September 2011
  #40
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slipperman View Post
Completely flummoxed.

SM.
I once had a flummox as a pet. I miss the guy......
Old 6th September 2011
  #41
Harmless Wacko
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
I once had a flummox as a pet. I miss the guy......
Hey Doc!

How iz ya?

Ever get really, really...

Tired.

Like...

All of a sudden?

Best regards bud!

Slippy
Old 6th September 2011
  #42
Lives for gear
 

Maybe the tracks are M-S to get a huge sound in mono?
Old 6th September 2011
  #43
Harmless Wacko
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wxyz View Post
Maybe the tracks are M-S to get a huge sound in mono?
Actually had somebody slap me with that(undocumented M/S guitar mic pairs) on a record I mixed about 5-6 years ago.

Lotsa various micing techniques from song to song.

NONE documented. AT ALL.

So, after a day of pulling my hair out just LISTENING to the tracking on the record... I finally get a hold of the organizational genius who tracked this debacle...

And...

HE

SEZ

HE

CAN'T

REMEMBER
"What is what".

"Too long ago" sez he:

"We did a ton of different sh*t"".

"Ahh heck... too bad... Geez... No track sheets or notes?" sez I.

""Nope" sez he "I don't normally need them".


...


Fast Forward to Slipperman on phone with label and management 30 seconds after hanging up politely with this wholly unpleasant gentleman.



Turns out it had been about 2 weeks since end of tracking, and aforementioned AE was apparently deeply pissed that he had been relieved of mix duties by unanimous decree of label, band and management.

Great.

Punish me for it.

So, I got a kid sitting in another control room doing NOTHING for the first 2-3 days of mix, sorting(literally) through all the various guitar tracks(130+ on a 12 song record) on a song by song basis so we can keep mixing as he keeps figuring them out.

Funniest/Best part is:

Guy who tracked/produced the record is:

Marquee tracking(mostly) engineer in utterly World Class shop.

The tracks are SERIOUSLY GOOD guitar tones one we got them sorted.

Musta been a dozen different micing techniques/combination's used.

Add this to the fact that they were changing amp heads and guitars like madmen throughout.

A lot of which was divined by grilling the 2 guitarists endlessly on the phone about "who played what?" on each song.

Example: "So, you THINK that's song 3 where you played the Les Paul thru the Top Hat combo that had the 2 mics kinda pointing at each other at like 90 degrees in the center of the dust cone, on the semi-dirt part in the segue"?

Absolute hell.

Musta added a total of 3-4 days total mix time to the process.

"All in" job.

Completely unpaid additional work.

Meanwhile.

Never met the tracking guy in my life.

Admired his work for years.

Never a hard word or attitude(on my part) in my ONE completely baffling initial phone conversation with the guy.

People are crazy.

Crazy.

And I mean, considering the source of that comment(me)... That's really saying something.


Best regards,

SM.

PS. What comes around goes around. About 2 years ago I was employed as mixer months before a certain record was due to be tracked about a thousand miles from where I work.

Mover/Shaker kid in band calls me and sez the management is tossing up between 2 different tracking guys for what will probably be 5-6 weeks of tracking all told.

One is some guy I had never heard of before, until they send me some of his work(which was solid, if unremarkable, stuff).

The OTHER is:

My "buddy" the amnesiac prick.

I told the whole story as truthfully, and in as compelling a fashion as I could muster, to both the band guy and later the management.

He was not used.

Funny how that works.
Old 6th September 2011
  #44
Lives for gear
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 

guitars sometimes need no doubles, even with metal
the faster stuff just gets smeared, no matter how good you play and even with the tricks
get the drums big and leave the gits in the mids, where they belong
Old 6th September 2011
  #45
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slipperman View Post
Hey Doc!

How iz ya?

Ever get really, really...

Tired.

Like...

All of a sudden?

Best regards bud!

Slippy

Hey Slippy!!! I iz good!

Tired???? Tired ya say????

Um....yeah. Like every day. 9A - 11P. 6-7 days a week. It will make you tired. But I love what I do and am feeling blessed, so it's a GOOD kind of tired......

But still...........tired......


Hang in there bro. Or is that brah? I get comfused so easily these days.......

bp
Old 6th September 2011
  #46
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slipperman View Post
He was not used.

Funny how that works.

Indeed. When push comes to shove, it's a very, very small world isn't it??? Thanks for that fun story....
Old 6th September 2011
  #47
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by nosleepPDX View Post
If they are in fact copies, try delaying one a little bit (85-250 Ms), this can created a perceived difference between the two tracks, and add some width when panned.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Gearslutz.com App
that is too much delay ...start with 1 ms and go up
Old 6th September 2011
  #48
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by RARStudios View Post
This advice is all bad from what I've read. Have you ever Mono'd your mix after doing mini delays on "copied" guitar parts. Sounds like ****. Sounds like you have a terrible muddy effect over the whole mix.

Good luck x.x
whats mono??
Old 6th September 2011
  #49
Lives for gear
 
RARStudios's Avatar
In My experience, if you don't check your mixes in mono, they don't translate as good to other sources where the sound is in stereo, but the left and right are so close that it seems mono. Pseudo mono.

Also, iPhones play in mono on their speaker.

Idk, maybe I'm just crazy and like my mixes sounding good everywhere.

If you actually play the part twice, that can make parts sound bigger. If you copy the track and paste it, it will sound muddy and phasey.
Old 7th September 2011
  #50
Lives for gear
 

In this day and age though, the percentage of your audience listening in mono will be VERY small. I wouldnt put too much emphasis on it.

Mono is good for checking the polarity of your mix. General rule to go by....if it sounds bearable in mono, you're on the right track in stereo.

As for guitar thickening. You can try copy/pasting with delay but IMO that method is crap. All it does is introduce waveform cancellation on the waveforms and thins out the overall sound.

Nothing and I repeat...NOTHING beats a played double for natural sounding thickness.

You can create a double though. If you have a track that has looping sections, you can copy / paste different parts against one another for a very similar effect. Just be careful of the joining sections.

For example:
Say I have a loop of the same motif for 4 bars. I duplicate the track and then chop up the new track into 4 sections (1 for each bar obviously ). Then I match the original tracks bar 1 to the cut bar 2, original bar 2 to cut bar 3 etc etc. Can fake the effect and I find its worth a shot long before reaching for the delay knob.

IME, its good for quick demos, but I wouldnt even consider it for anything that will be released.

For thickness, especially in doubling rhythm tracks, change something physical in the guitar chain... In order of dramatic differences change: 1 - amp, stompboxes/effects (if applicable), cab, guitar. I'm assuming changing the player is not an option because this does make a massive difference also, but its rare you can get that opportunity.

If you keep the signal chain the same, you will get a good doubling effect also, but it wont be as thick. It will be more focused though, so its good for solos and guitar runs etc, but thats even if you need it.

The more layers you use, the tighter the playing must be and its can very easily turn into unfocused mushy fizz! The more layers you use, reduce the gain. Otherwise it will build up and you will lose note definition. Personally, I find that you rarely need more than two tracks panned hard left and hard right.
A little bit of parallel compression can really bring the guitars to your face a long as you level match and dont over do it. To each their own though....
Old 7th September 2011
  #51
Lives for gear
I find that 2 tracks (panned Hard L & R), performed seperately using same gtr/amp/mics/pre is all that is needed.

But, I prefer my grand piano to sound bigger and bolder than the guitars.

"Wall of sound" is a pretty antiquated, mutilated, grotesquely cheesy, cliche dead horse at this point IMHO -- so utterly 90s, and almost as bad as 80s gated snare verbs

These days it seems like peeps who can actually play an instrument are becoming the new "trend" amongst the anti-establishment hipster youngsters (18-25 crowd); strange how the pendulum swings.

Old 7th September 2011
  #52
Gear Head
 
stevelalonde's Avatar
 

I had this quite often from a guy I worked with who was on cubase and it was only because, as he said, he wanted to use the same channel strip settings to record different guitars or doubles and was too lazy to rename the tracks. When you copy a channel strip, cubase automatically rename it "copy".
Old 9th September 2011
  #53
Gear Maniac
 

Thanks for the great advice here guys.

I just wanted this info for my own recording purposes. I just mix usually and am not a tracking guy at all. I just dont have the gear to track good stuff. Mics/amps/etc...

I have everything I need to make good mixes, just cant track stuff yet..

Thanks again, very helpful stuff here!

Jim
Old 16th October 2016
  #54
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by malaclypse View Post
Yeah that pan delay thing always turned my guitars to mush the times ive tried it.

What I've found works better is to PROCESS one of the copies with a short to medium reverb and pan it opposite the original. Gives you size and depth without the phasey mess
How is this different from using a mono reverb and panning it completely to one side?
Old 16th October 2016
  #55
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by woodnote View Post
Thankfully most people listen in stereo. It's such a moot point these days. So many people don't even bother checking in mono anymore because there are so little sources, although there are a couple, that sum the audio to mono.
Most smart phone speakers sum to mono. Hundreds of millions of people listen to these.
Old 17th October 2016
  #56
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by woodnote View Post
Thankfully most people listen in stereo. It's such a moot point these days. So many people don't even bother checking in mono anymore because there are so little sources, although there are a couple, that sum the audio to mono.
I check mono constantly. In fact after setting pans I do most of my level and eq work in mono. I figure any non headphone source turns mono after you get out of the sweetspot between the speakers. Which describes most of the listeners in the real world.
Old 17th October 2016
  #57
Lives for gear
 
brockorama's Avatar
 

I like a slightly duller pickup configuration, colliding with a chimey neck pickup in stereo and maybe some lower volume dirt up the middle for e-guitars, and some creamy bass as the flower pot.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump