rhythm guitar doubling

[nat]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I just discovered rhythm guitar doubling. With the copied track a few
milliseconds off and both panned hard to opposite speakers, it's
amazing how full the sound is. And it's amazing how much space it
leaves the lead vocals. I'm cleaning up an album and I'm tempted to
use it on every song's rhythm guitar. Or at least maybe half of them.

So for those of you with experience, would I regret using this trick
everywhere? Will it sound overdone or, worse yet, chincy when all is
said and done?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

ot7doc@yahoo.com (Nat) wrote in
news:e6236419.0408140555.313e624d@posting.google.com:

> I just discovered rhythm guitar doubling. With the copied track a few
> milliseconds off and both panned hard to opposite speakers, it's
> amazing how full the sound is. And it's amazing how much space it
> leaves the lead vocals. I'm cleaning up an album and I'm tempted to
> use it on every song's rhythm guitar. Or at least maybe half of them.
>
> So for those of you with experience, would I regret using this trick
> everywhere? Will it sound overdone or, worse yet, chincy when all is
> said and done?
>

Check mono compatibility - depending on the delay length you may get some
odd comb filtering.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

its still nowhere as nice as playing the double track, if you can be
reasonably precise
--Lou Gimenez
The Music Lab
2" 24track w all the Goodies
www.musiclabnyc.com



> From: ot7doc@yahoo.com (Nat)
> Organization: http/groups.google.com
> Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
> Date: 14 Aug 2004 06:55:36 -0700
> Subject: rhythm guitar doubling
>
> I just discovered rhythm guitar doubling. With the copied track a few
> milliseconds off and both panned hard to opposite speakers, it's
> amazing how full the sound is. And it's amazing how much space it
> leaves the lead vocals. I'm cleaning up an album and I'm tempted to
> use it on every song's rhythm guitar. Or at least maybe half of them.
>
> So for those of you with experience, would I regret using this trick
> everywhere? Will it sound overdone or, worse yet, chincy when all is
> said and done?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

There was a time, in the '70's I guess, when almost every part was doubled,
usually by having the players double themselves, that is, play each part twice.

It bored me to death.

Having said that, there can be value in doing played doubles or 'virtual'
doubling the way you describe, but I think it should be done sparingly.

stv

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Nat" <ot7doc@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:e6236419.0408140555.313e624d@posting.google.com...
> I just discovered rhythm guitar doubling. With the copied track a few
> milliseconds off and both panned hard to opposite speakers, it's
> amazing how full the sound is. And it's amazing how much space it
> leaves the lead vocals. I'm cleaning up an album and I'm tempted to
> use it on every song's rhythm guitar. Or at least maybe half of them.


Once you have heard the part doubled by the actual player, in a second
pass on a fresh track (as others have said), you will think that a little
copying, pasting and time slippage sounds terrible.... depending on the
player and how it's used, of course.

There is no 'fattening' trick that beats a real, live, doubling of the part.

What you're doing is 'cloning'. If you like that effect, what a natural
'stack' of 2 identical guitar parts each played seperately by a human
being, will literally make cloned tracks sound like a transistor radio
compared to a cannon shot.

> So for those of you with experience, would I regret using this trick
> everywhere? Will it sound overdone or, worse yet, chincy when all is
> said and done?

Depending on the style of the song, it may not fit a lot of situations.

Clones (copied and shifted parts) always stand the *chance* of sounding
a bit artificial.

If the player is worth his weight in chops, have him play one of the rhythm
parts as identically as he can a second time - then have another listen
at what your discovery can actually sound like - without having to copy
or slide anything. It takes a decent player who knows his part, but the
resulting differences in the two parts (since no matter how hard they try)
cannot possibly be identical in vibration, timbre, or timing, etc.. The
effect is worth the effort, which can go just as fast as cloning & slipping.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http/www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http/www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Nat" <ot7doc@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e6236419.0408140555.313e624d@posting.google.com...
> I just discovered rhythm guitar doubling. With the copied track a few
> milliseconds off and both panned hard to opposite speakers, it's
> amazing how full the sound is. And it's amazing how much space it
> leaves the lead vocals. I'm cleaning up an album and I'm tempted to
> use it on every song's rhythm guitar. Or at least maybe half of them.
>
> So for those of you with experience, would I regret using this trick
> everywhere? Will it sound overdone or, worse yet, chincy when all is
> said and done?

I wouldn't do anything "everywhere" (by formula). See what the song needs.
Also try switching up guitars/amps/tone for the doubles instead of just
playing the exact same setup on both tracks. A brighter track to one side
and a darker track to another often works well.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>I just discovered rhythm guitar doubling. With the copied track a few
>milliseconds off and both panned hard to opposite speakers, it's
>amazing how full the sound is. And it's amazing how much space it
>leaves the lead vocals. I'm cleaning up an album and I'm tempted to
>use it on every song's rhythm guitar. Or at least maybe half of the

This little trick has been in use for many yeats, predating digital delays-used
tape machines-and works especially well on BG vocals.
Phil Brown

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< There is no 'fattening' trick that beats a real, live, doubling of the part.
>>



And there's no "doubling of the part" trick that fattens a guitar track like
swapping out the guitar and/or the amp and/or the recording signal chain. It's
the differences in the performance and the sound that ad the desired fat.



Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

 

[nat]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Okay, I'll try live. In my limited experience, live doubling of
rhythm guitar has led to a sloppy sound. But I'm not sure if I was
ever smart enough to pan each track to its own speaker. Maybe that
could do the trick. After all, even electronic doubling sounds
peculiar to me when both guitars are coming out of the same place,
like the center of the mix.

....which makes me wonder, how is this going to sound for the poor saps
with mono speakers or stereo speakers that are very close together,
like on a boombox? It seems that it will sound muddier to them than
it will to people who place their speakers a reasonable distance
apart.

Anyway, I absolutely believe what you're saying is right. I'll see
whether I can get this to work.



philcycles@aol.communged (Phil Brown) wrote in message news:<20040814165905.24808.00001350@mb-m16.aol.com>...
> >I just discovered rhythm guitar doubling. With the copied track a few
> >milliseconds off and both panned hard to opposite speakers, it's
> >amazing how full the sound is. And it's amazing how much space it
> >leaves the lead vocals. I'm cleaning up an album and I'm tempted to
> >use it on every song's rhythm guitar. Or at least maybe half of the
>
> This little trick has been in use for many yeats, predating digital delays-used
> tape machines-and works especially well on BG vocals.
> Phil Brown

 

[nat]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

My second message hasn't posted yet, so in case this beats it in, this
is my third.

My first question was a technical question... now I need sage-like
advice about rhythm guitar doubling. And maybe something to cheer me
up.

I am a recording hobbiest. I write music, record it, and want it to
have a hot sound that I can give to my friends and relatives and get a
little local airtime with. That's what I did with my first album,
anyway.

I've traveled a lot in the last five years and even when I'm home, I
have very little time. Over the last five years, I've slowly
assembled my second album on a Fostex 8-track. Other than dealing
with some drums headaches, I am close to being done. After doing a
little experimenting and listening to some of my favorite music, I
think that legitimate live rhythm doubling would help my twelve-song
album.

But the thought of going back and doing that on the four, five, six,
or seven songs where it would improve things is overwhelming. I don't
know if I could ever get my guitar to sound close to what it did on
the other tracks, and even if I could, the project would take another
month to complete. Of course, what's a month on top of five years,
eh?

Anyway, I am a little neurotic right now, so close to the end. I
guess I'd just like to hear practical advice -- maybe about rhythm
guitar doubling or maybe about recording in general -- about what to
do when one gets into this kind of jam.

If you have any wisdom for me, man, I'd appreciate it. Even if you
don't, I appreciate you taking the time to read my long post.

Nat

philcycles@aol.communged (Phil Brown) wrote in message news:<20040814165905.24808.00001350@mb-m16.aol.com>...
> >I just discovered rhythm guitar doubling. With the copied track a few
> >milliseconds off and both panned hard to opposite speakers, it's
> >amazing how full the sound is. And it's amazing how much space it
> >leaves the lead vocals. I'm cleaning up an album and I'm tempted to
> >use it on every song's rhythm guitar. Or at least maybe half of the
>
> This little trick has been in use for many yeats, predating digital delays-used
> tape machines-and works especially well on BG vocals.
> Phil Brown

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <8625c844.0408151257.505a6c2a@posting.google.com>,
broadwayfrog@earthlink.net (Matt) writes:

> I've heard a lot of rock songs these days that
>copy a part to a different track and delay it.

There is no difference between this and simply putting a delay on the original
track. Copying the track does nothing except increase the volume 3dB.

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Nat" <ot7doc@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e6236419.0408151600.49007deb@posting.google.com...
>
> ...which makes me wonder, how is this going to sound for the poor saps
> with mono speakers or stereo speakers that are very close together,
> like on a boombox? It seems that it will sound muddier to them than
> it will to people who place their speakers a reasonable distance
> apart.

Most people with listening systems set up like that don't care about good
sound in the first place. Though checking it in mono is still a good idea.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>I don't
>know if I could ever get my guitar to sound close to what it did on
>the other tracks,

well for one...tonewise it doesn't have to sound close to double it. That's
part of the charm & what makes it sound big...a different sound. You can double
the part with a different sound...tha can be a good thing.



Me at:
http/www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Nat" <ot7doc@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e6236419.0408152044.3562c51a@posting.google.com...
> I've traveled a lot in the last five years and even when I'm home, I
> have very little time. Over the last five years, I've slowly
> assembled my second album on a Fostex 8-track. Other than dealing
> with some drums headaches, I am close to being done. After doing a
> little experimenting and listening to some of my favorite music, I
> think that legitimate live rhythm doubling would help my twelve-song
> album.

Then do it, if you really think it would help. Hell, I recorded my entire
first CD ***twice*** because as I got to the mixdown stage, I realized it
just wasn't where I wanted it to be... if I can do that, you can double
some guitar parts.

> But the thought of going back and doing that on the four, five, six,
> or seven songs where it would improve things is overwhelming.

See above comment... it added several months to the project, since I
started all over again from scratch, but I was at least pretty happy with
the way it turned out. Are you going to be happy with the way it turns out
if you're kicking yourself in the ass for however long, because you'll be
sitting there saying: "DAMN! I wish I would have doubled those guitar
parts!". Nope. So do it... unless you have a release deadline, or something
like that, which I don't think you do - it's a self-released thing, right?
This is the luxury of being a completely independent musician at that
level, so you ought to take advantage of it.

>I don't know if I could ever get my guitar to sound close to what it did
on
> the other tracks,

Who cares? Get it as close as you can, and if it doesn't sound EXACTLY the
same, that will actually enhance the effect you're going for, which is a
thicker/bigger sound, yes?

> and even if I could, the project would take another
> month to complete.

<yawn> A Month? Unless you're the next Lacuna Coil trying to sound like the
next
Evanessence hit, that kind of time frame doesn't even enter into the
picture. I say Do it.

>Of course, what's a month on top of five years,

Yeppers.
--


Neil Henderson
Saqqara Records
http/www.saqqararecords.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Garth wrote:

> In article <8625c844.0408151257.505a6c2a@posting.google.com>,
> broadwayfrog@earthlink.net (Matt) writes:

>>I've heard a lot of rock songs these days that
>>copy a part to a different track and delay it.

> There is no difference between this and simply putting a delay on the original
> track. Copying the track does nothing except increase the volume 3dB.

Assuming you don't pan the two tracks (copy and original) differently.

- Logan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <wfYTc.18156$nu2.15701@fe2.texas.rr.com>, Logan Shaw
<lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> writes:

>
>> There is no difference between this and simply putting a delay on the
>original
>> track. Copying the track does nothing except increase the volume 3dB.
>
>Assuming you don't pan the two tracks (copy and original) differently.
>

You can pan the delay just as easily as panning a copy of the track. Making the
copy of the track doesnt buy you anything. Thats my point.

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 15 Aug 2004 21:44:52 -0700, ot7doc@yahoo.com (Nat) wrote:

>But the thought of going back and doing that on the four, five, six,
>or seven songs where it would improve things is overwhelming. I don't
>know if I could ever get my guitar to sound close to what it did on
>the other tracks, and even if I could, the project would take another
>month to complete. Of course, what's a month on top of five years,
>eh?
>
>Anyway, I am a little neurotic right now, so close to the end. I
>guess I'd just like to hear practical advice -- maybe about rhythm
>guitar doubling or maybe about recording in general -- about what to
>do when one gets into this kind of jam.

If a song needs redoing, redo it. After fiddling with a project for 5
years you must consider whether you're just turd-polishing.

Hopefully you now have a good idea what you want. Why not go back
and record it again, from scratch? The project will probably be
completed in a week

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

 

[nat]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I don't think it's that. Really, I feel solid about this. But I just
never seem to find time to work on it. I'm a hobbiest without any
real hobbying time.

Your right about song vision. I have redone some songs from scratch
because when they came together the first time, they really didn't
sound like what I had in my head. I also canned some songs that I
realized could never make it. So those things have slowed me down.

So has recording drums. I'm bad at recording drums and just have two
tracks to record on to at a time. My drummer and I have redone a
bunch and I'm lucky he hasn't killed me by now.

The thing is, I now have 12 pieces that I'm proud of, 12 pieces that
are close to being done other than a little drum work to rerecord.
And then I discovered doubling, cheesy delay doubling, and it blew my
mind. A thicker sound. Then I threw in some of my pet CDs, like The
Vines and The Dandy Warhols, and I realized these guys double a lot.

Funny it took so long for me to do this... I certainly record a number
of vocals side-by-side... I just never gave it much of a try on rhythm
guitar.

So here I am, realizing this project isn't so done as I thought.
Argh. Well, I do like it and I think it's worth the extra mile. If
you have more thoughts, I'd appreciate them. If not, thanks for
weighing in. It's upward and onward for me.

Laurence Payne <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<6tu0i05rtl8hfc3sf4quq4feh1qujhpq3g@4ax.com>...
> On 15 Aug 2004 21:44:52 -0700, ot7doc@yahoo.com (Nat) wrote:
>
> >But the thought of going back and doing that on the four, five, six,
> >or seven songs where it would improve things is overwhelming. I don't
> >know if I could ever get my guitar to sound close to what it did on
> >the other tracks, and even if I could, the project would take another
> >month to complete. Of course, what's a month on top of five years,
> >eh?
> >
> >Anyway, I am a little neurotic right now, so close to the end. I
> >guess I'd just like to hear practical advice -- maybe about rhythm
> >guitar doubling or maybe about recording in general -- about what to
> >do when one gets into this kind of jam.
>
> If a song needs redoing, redo it. After fiddling with a project for 5
> years you must consider whether you're just turd-polishing.
>
> Hopefully you now have a good idea what you want. Why not go back
> and record it again, from scratch? The project will probably be
> completed in a week
>
> CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
> "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

 

[nat]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I don't think it's that. Really, I feel solid about this. But I just
never seem to find time to work on it. I'm a hobbiest without any
real hobbying time.

Your right about song vision. I have redone some songs from scratch
because when they came together the first time, they really didn't
sound like what I had in my head. I also canned some songs that I
realized could never make it. So those things have slowed me down.

So has recording drums. I'm bad at recording drums and just have two
tracks to record on to at a time. My drummer and I have redone a
bunch and I'm lucky he hasn't killed me by now.

The thing is, I now have 12 pieces that I'm proud of, 12 pieces that
are close to being done other than a little drum work to rerecord.
And then I discovered doubling, cheesy delay doubling, and it blew my
mind. A thicker sound. Then I threw in some of my pet CDs, like The
Vines and The Dandy Warhols, and I realized these guys double a lot.

Funny it took so long for me to do this... I certainly record a number
of vocals side-by-side... I just never gave it much of a try on rhythm
guitar.

So here I am, realizing this project isn't so done as I thought.
Argh. Well, I do like it and I think it's worth the extra mile. If
you have more thoughts, I'd appreciate them. If not, thanks for
weighing in. It's upward and onward for me.

Laurence Payne <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<6tu0i05rtl8hfc3sf4quq4feh1qujhpq3g@4ax.com>...
> On 15 Aug 2004 21:44:52 -0700, ot7doc@yahoo.com (Nat) wrote:
>
> >But the thought of going back and doing that on the four, five, six,
> >or seven songs where it would improve things is overwhelming. I don't
> >know if I could ever get my guitar to sound close to what it did on
> >the other tracks, and even if I could, the project would take another
> >month to complete. Of course, what's a month on top of five years,
> >eh?
> >
> >Anyway, I am a little neurotic right now, so close to the end. I
> >guess I'd just like to hear practical advice -- maybe about rhythm
> >guitar doubling or maybe about recording in general -- about what to
> >do when one gets into this kind of jam.
>
> If a song needs redoing, redo it. After fiddling with a project for 5
> years you must consider whether you're just turd-polishing.
>
> Hopefully you now have a good idea what you want. Why not go back
> and record it again, from scratch? The project will probably be
> completed in a week
>
> CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
> "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Nat" <ot7doc@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> But the thought of going back and doing that on the four, five, six,
> or seven songs where it would improve things is overwhelming.

I'd be pretty certain that you could make it home from work, read the paper,
enjoy some dinner and TV with the kids, retire to the music room and add a
second rhythm guitar track to a song every other night.... have a day off in
between and time left for a beer before bed.

;-)

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http/www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http/www.artisan-recordingstudio.com