Double tracking rythm parts. Tips needed please

[rikkbeatty]

Overkill indeed!! lol The thing is that when you are doing an instrumental album and are using unlimited tracks (on a computer) or in a huge studio like what the big guys use with well over 100 tracks, you go for ALLOT of overdubs that are 100% perfect to get a huge sound. When you try to overdub a ton (more than 2 tracks) no matter how good you are, you will get slight variations in your vibrato or where you come in on notes. Even a fraction of a second starts to sound like mud when dealing with a ton of tracks.

Heck I put the drums on 8 tracks, bass on a stereo track, and that leaves me with 23 tracks for my guitars if I am just using my ADAT's!! lol And that is not counting my computer trackas as well (I sync the ADAT's to my computer).

Yeah if it were just a little lead break or something then no biggy. But if its an entire song, instead of beating yourself up for hours, just make it sound perfect the first time by using your direct outs on your mixing console.

[babahi]

Heads up -- Rikk is totally right, that`s what we do too. There is not other way, unless you have 2 guitarists -- and they better be pretty tight!

[J Todd Beachler]

Rikk, do you have any examples of this technique? Maybe some before and after samples?

I've heard this technique used ina similar manner. It's called re-amping. You set up different heads, cabinets, combos, preamps and wire them into a pathc panel in the studio. You then just patch to different pieces until a sound fits in the mix. Time consuming and a real money drain in a real studio.

[davester1234]

I usually double tracks by playing them again until I get it right.

If i don't have time, I copy that track to another track, and and a very short delay, so that it sounds like 2 distinct instruments.

[rikkbeatty]

Originally Posted by J Todd Beachler

Rikk, do you have any examples of this technique? Maybe some before and after samples?

I've heard this technique used ina similar manner. It's called re-amping. You set up different heads, cabinets, combos, preamps and wire them into a pathc panel in the studio. You then just patch to different pieces until a sound fits in the mix. Time consuming and a real money drain in a real studio.

I dont have any before and after examples. Its no more time consuming than mic'ing an amp over and over when trying to double a guitar track on an album. As a matter of fact you can record all 2, 3, 4, 5, 6...... guitar tracks at one time if you take your clean signal and assign it to 6 busses then use the direct out of the busses into each of the 6 different (or how ever many different setups you prefer to use) setups then run all 6 setups back directly into your recording device. If you do it that way, you will not actually hear the clean track, just the HUGE tone from having your signal go into 6 individual setups all at once. Just think about hat your guitar would sound like going into 6 different amps. You could cover the loose lows on one amp, the tight midrange on another, a overdrive distortion on one, a monster distortion on another........ I mean the whole point is to fill in all those EQ gaps. mic'ing the same setup 6 times over really doesn't "ADD" to your tone. When most people do that they end up tweaking the EQ different on the second take to make it sound slightly different anyways.

Anyone ever remember watching that video "A Year and a half in the life of Metallica"? remember when they wee in the studio and they had all those cabs mic'd along the one wall and they were using everything from Gretch, Rickenbacker... and other various guitars to record with? Thats how you get that HUGE monstrous tone. I may be an EARLY Metallica fan (Master of Puppets, Ride the Lightening, Justice, the ORIGINAL $5.98 EP Garage Days..) but I happen to think that their tone on the Black album kicked major butt. Bob Rock just knows how to produce the HUGE guitar tones more than their prior producer Flemming Rasmussen. But I digress.... lol

[Drew]

Originally Posted by rikkbeatty

[color=blue]Here is a cool trick used by many (as well as me).

Before I go any further, let me just say that this is in reference to rhythm, not lead guitar.

I've always considered that cheating. Sure it works... But to my ears, part of what makes doubled tracks sound so massive isn't merely timbral differences in the amplifiers, but rather slight changes in harmonic overtones that the different takes provide. Additionally, while you can get cool results merely by changing amps, like that, you can get even better results (IMO) tracking with a few different guitars, or even just different pickups on the same guitars.

Back in the day, i used to use a similar shortcvut- not reamping, but copying and pasting the same track, and panning them. Sure, it isn't perfect, and you don't get the different amp vibe going, but i was a total novice screwing around on a laptop with a cheap computer mic (now, I'm a reasonally experienced novice screwing around on a laptop with a cheap radio shack dynamic mic, lol) and it was the easiest way to get more expansive rhythm tracks, for me.

I'd want to try this in action before i dismiss it completely, and i could see where possibly this would help for lead guitar where exact doubling is virtually impossible, but the way I see it, if you don't know your parts well enough to double a riff in a few takes, then you shouldn't be in the studio in the first place- bands you're producing, Rick, that need to fall back on this simply haven't done their pre-studio prep work. and then what's going to happen when you start playing live if you can't nail a riff 100% (or even 99.5) consistantly? there's something magical about multiple tracks of guitars form seperate performances playing in sync... God, even the sound of a couple tracks of sustained chords breaking into feedback at the end of the track, with a good stereo pan... It's beautiful.

-D

[rikkbeatty]

First off I can see "somewhat" of what you are saying. But I dont consider it cheating. I mean its not a race or a test. When a band comes in to record they want the best tone they can get. I mean I would not say that Metallica has not put in their "pre studio prep work" and they (as well as MANY bands that have been in the business for YEARS) use this recording option. I have never heard a band that was tighter than Metallica (seeing as how they are on the road for a year or two at a time!!) lol Bands and people make mistakes. And they usually make more when they record no matter how long they have been doing it. I have been to MANY Vai concerts and heard HIM make mistakes playing tunes like "For the Love of God"!! And he has played that a MILLION times!!

Plus when major studios use this type of recording trick (like Bad Animals) in Seattle where they charge $5,000 an hour to record major label bands and motion picture soundtracks I would call it a usefull tool and not cheating. I mean a good recording does not mean you have to sit down and beat yourself up for a year and do things that hardest way possible so you feel better about your recording in the end. And heck there is nothing saying that you cant do a mixture of both ways. If you like different guitars.... then record 4 different clean tracks with different guitars and have them all go into different amps with the direct outs. Now you have different guitars, different amps, and about 4 to 40 tracks of overdub guitars to thicken your tone. We are not talking custting and pasting. The tone you get fom using a direct out on your board, going into a new amp, and having mic'd with a different mic is COMPLETELY different than just cutting and pasting a track and panning it differently.

All I am saying is that people who dont record bands, commercials, and jingles everyday in the studio sometimes have a scewed way of looking at things. Sort of like those car enthusiasts who say "If you dont build your engine from the ground up then you dont really OWN your car". Allot of people think that if you dont try to kill yourself in the studio doing everything the hardest way possible then you "cheated" on recording the album. This is not so. Every trick in the studio is not meant to be the only trick you use. Its like all your outboard gear.... just because you have a pitch shifter in your rack, doesn't mean you have to use it on every track you record. But it sure sounds good when you are looking for that tone.

If all you want is one doubled track then its not even worth bothering with. If you can get it close enough then a slight "chorus" effect from not having it dead on to the millisecond will be just fine and can and does sound quite cool sometimes. But if you are trying to "thicken" your tone by addng 5 - 15 different rhythm or lead parts then that slight chorus effect multiplied by 5 - 15 will not sound "beautiful" anymore....... it will sound like "mud"...

Just my 2.5 cents though!! lol

[Drew]

Rikk (sorry, got the spelling wrong the first time, lol), If i ever find myself in a $5000-an-hour studio and the producer wants to track me that way, I'm certianly not gonna argue, lol. But it comes down to differences in approach- I'd rather have two (or, maybe four tops) rhythm guitar tracks than 10-15. I just don't see the point... So, for the way I view producing, it'd be a useful little thing to be able to do for special effects (imagine panning from a reamped fender twin to, say, a maxed-out dual recto... of, for maximum weirdness, the aforementioned twin run hard to a slightly gritty Vox, so you have no "gain" change, per se, but a drastic tone shift...) but little applicability. If on the other hand I wanted 15 tracks od rhythm guitar, then you're right, I'd probably be doing my two tracks then running them back through a couple amps- the process of setting up and micing the amp, deciding the placement wasn't quite right, then giving it another go, blowing a take, nailing the next one, and moving on to a new amp, only to decide a half hour later that the first one really needed a bit more gain... I'd shoot msyelf, lol.

For me, I've always been a fan of more "stripped" production techniques- I mean, I got my start playing Nirvana, it's just my generation. And when I do want to hear a monsterous, lush, full mix, I'd rather get a nice agressive up-front rhythm track and save the stereo field for overdubs- weird effects, textural noises, and just little bits and peices to give it a sense of space. So, for what I'm hearing and what I'm doing, I don't "need" 15 guitars all playing the same thing.

Just to make sure I wasn't talking out of my ass here, i spent the last hour and a half or so coming up with a little groove and recording some rhythm guitar, and as I'm typing this I'm listening to the playback of a fairly Tool/Staind-esq groove with a grinding metal guitar tone composed of two tracks of guitar, my 7620 on the middle position and on the bridge, with of all things my lead settings on my TSL (hell, i didn't even modify the EQ settings between takes) with a touch more gain, and the master at a measly little 2, VPR on. If you're curious, i could pass a clip your way... Just gotta get some bass guitar in there (although, on that B string, it's so thick it almost seems like you don't need it... I might have to roll off the lows a bit, lol)

anyway, food for thought from both sides here, i guess... cool.

-D

[rikkbeatty]

Rigt on. Yeah for me I am into a more "produced sound". I am 6 years older than you so I guess I cut my teeth more on Satch's "Flying in a Blue Dream" album's tone vrs the "Nirvana" sound. It makes sense knowing that though because we both like to hear things different ways. I have had people come in that when they record dont want to hear anything BUT all of their instruments recorded at the same time. No overdubs at all. Just plain bare bones. Their arguement was that they wanted the CD to sound just like their live performance. Ok ...understandable..... but for me I like hearing a CD and then hearing the difference live. Why see a band live if it is the same unproduced sound thats on CD. Save $20.00 (or $83.00 if you are talking about the G3 tour ticket prices) and just listen at home. I still cant believe I paid $83.00 for one ticket since I have seen these guys so many times but I like to hear them live because it sounds different than the album. It has a different "vibe" to it and sometimes they mix it all around (or make mistakes and cue us in that yes indeed they are human!) lol

But to me recording is just as cool of an artform as live performance. I like making things sound "produced" and having all those layers filling in all the EQ gaps. Those 15 rythm guitars all being played through different amps and setups sound INTENSE when you hit that first chord. Think like a symphony, a couple violins can play the required piece but 20 violins playing the same piece sounds even better!!

But like I said. Recording styles and taste vary just like people's opinions on guitars, amps, cars, cloths....... lol Its all good!!

[Drew]

Funny thing is, I agree with you completely... I mean, I LOVE that "live in a room" vibe, but that's so hard to do right. If the band just wants you to mic the drums, throw a close mic on the guitar and bass, and record the vocals, then the playback is going to sound like crap- you really need to capture the sound of the room, and so many of the bands that are into that (without stereotyping generally punk rock, indie rock, and novice classic rock bands) don't realize that what makes a live-in-the-room performance sound so cool is just that; the room. But at the same time, I agree, that sound doesn't work for everything. That might be why "The Extremist" has always been one of my favorite Satch albums- It's got a very "live" feel to it, to the point where I'd almost wonder if a lot of it wasn't tracked live, but at the same time, you've got these huge layered guitar sounds, tons of post-recording effect processing going on, and lots of little overdubs- aurally it may "feel" live, but it's a very "studio" album, a lot more so than many of his other discs, in fact.

anyway, we're drifting off topic, so let's try to pull this all together somehow- there's LOTS of different ways to get good rhythm sounds. Rikk went into a lot of detail for one, and if that's the sound you're hearing and you've got the gear, then great. But if you're more of a two-track, doubled rhythm guy like I am, then here's what i can offer for suggestions.

1.) There's no way around it, your playing has to be RAZOR tight if you want to double tracks and have it sound good. spend some time practicing the riff before you hit "record"- make sure any syncopations are dead on the beat, make sure if there's any silenced, stacatto passages where you bite off the chord, you're doing so cleanly and perfectly in sync, and make sure you're really nailing those downbeats. don't even think about recording until you can nail the riff all the way through cleanly with at least, say, an 80% ratio of perfect performances to screw-ups. (8 out of 10 times, you play it right, twice there's something a little odd here and there). It's tough, but your playing ability will rise accordingly, and you'll be the better guitarist for it.

2.) You're probably going to need less gain than you think. I'm not saying play it virtually clean, but that doubled riff i was screwing with earlier today is right on the edge of sounding over-distorted- think "AEnema"-era Tool- and I had the gain on my TSL at 6.5 with an Air Norton 7/ Tone Zone 7 set with the pickups pretty far back from the strings. Make sure you have enough to get some chunk, if that's what you're going for, but that expansive "spacious" sound tons of gain gives you will be augmented greatly by the doubling, so you don't need to get it as much straight out of the amp.

3.) try different ways to differentiate the tone. I like combining pickup positions- the middle position (both humbuckers in parallel) of my 7620 offers some great well-defined low end thump, but is a little weak for harmonics, and I've always dug that 311-esq stacatto-on-the-edge-of-natural-harmonic sound they get when they bite off a chord. solution? One track with the middle for that Petrucci-esq "thump," and another with the bridge for a little more bite. Sometimes, using different guitars works- I've dialed up a very expansive "wall of sound" sort of distortion before by usingmy 7620 on one side with a fairly dark, high-gain tone dialed up, and my strat on the other with a cleaner, much brighter one. Set 10 o'clock/2 o'clock, the results are BIG. Of course, sometimes two similar tones work to make the sound you're looking for- don't be afraid to experiment.

But the main thing, judging from your initial question, i think, is going to be practicing playing riffs over drum beats until you get them meter-perfect. there's no easy studio trick to get around a sloppy riff (short of hiring someone else, lol).

-D

[rikkbeatty]

Originally Posted by Drew

Funny thing is, I agree with you completely... I mean, I LOVE that "live in a room" vibe, but that's so hard to do right. If the band just wants you to mic the drums, throw a close mic on the guitar and bass, and record the vocals, then the playback is going to sound like crap- you really need to capture the sound of the room, and so many of the bands that are into that (without stereotyping generally punk rock, indie rock, and novice classic rock bands) don't realize that what makes a live-in-the-room performance sound so cool is just that; the room. But at the same time, I agree, that sound doesn't work for everything. That might be why "The Extremist" has always been one of my favorite Satch albums- It's got a very "live" feel to it, to the point where I'd almost wonder if a lot of it wasn't tracked live, but at the same time, you've got these huge layered guitar sounds, tons of post-recording effect processing going on, and lots of little overdubs- aurally it may "feel" live, but it's a very "studio" album, a lot more so than many of his other discs, in fact.

Right on man I totally agree with ya. Getting the perfect "room sound" can be very difficult! Especially if you want a "live reverby" sound and all you have is the perfecty balanced no reverb sounding room. I use a ton of that auralex studio pyramid foan and sound baffles to get a more controlable "dead room" that I can add reverb to with Sonic Foundry's Acoustic Mirror program. If you have never tried te program... it rocks. It gives you a picture of te room that they recorded the ambience of and then you just put the mix through that plug in and.... vwala!! Instant killer room ambience. Not just processor room ambience REAL room ambience!! Or you can put your guitar track through an OLD tube mic or one of over a couple dozen different types of mis and I will be damned if it does not sound like it was recorded with that microphone!! Its a cool program I like to use RIGHT before I get ready to put my project through my "mastering programs".

[Drew]

Yeah, I've been using that mic sim function in Acoustic Mirror on and off for a while now- I've never really dug deeply into the reverb functions, but the mic impulses are great for warming up a direct track or just screwing around with to make weird noises. I'll have to give the reverbs a try again, I don't know if I've ever really auditioned them from within a mix, and that's really the best measure of usefulness...

-D

[glynn]

I use a similar method to the one Rikk described, but with a few differences:

I split the signal out of the guitar (I use a M/B amp switcher now, but there is a new box by radial comming out at AES that may replace it).

One signal goes to a mic'd amp - Mackie - Delta1010, one goes to a direct box (Avalon U5) and then into the 1010, each recorded to a different channel.

That way, I get the signal strait from the pickup to feed the amps.

Sometimes you find out that the original amp isnt working out like you hoped, this p/u track can do wonders down the line.

[Drew]

Oh, and i forgot to mention this with my "double tracking rhythm parts" thing up there- this seems kinda anti-intuitive, but at the same time, i can see where it might work,t oo. one of the top players at www.guitarwar.com, theJonezter, always mutes the first rhythm track he recorded when he's doubling it it. He insists he plays tighter when he's not consciously trying to follow a pre-recorded track. Granted, it seems a little odd, but i ca see where this might help- if you start second-guessing your instincts, you might run into problems. worth a try.... (myself, i've got them audible, but panned to one side, so they always get drowned out by the rest of the mix and the sound of the amp itself, it seems... sorta in-between, guess)

-D