Double tracking vs quad vs more? Is it only for sloppy players?

    Quote from Lokasenna

    I think I see the issue. From the screenshots, and listening to the examples, @Cederick is reamping a single pair six times each. That's NOT what we're talking about - you should be physiaclly playing the riff twelve times.

    Actually, Cederick is a machine, man. He played it all.


    The waveforms only look so-similar 'cause of his accuracy, unless I'm mistaken.

    Quote from Cederick

    That really doesn't get the same result tho.

    Yeah I know it doesn't, I was being slightly tongue in cheek as I don;t record that much, so Iits avery quick way to add a bit of depth. The only real way to do it is:


    1) double or quad track - accurate enough for it not to disappear, inaccurate to get some slight out of phasing, using some variations, particulalry on chord inversions
    2) Different sounds. Low gain in with high gain should add some depth and character. I think Low gain does have a place..


    To me its the same as 2 guitarists on stage - you play the same thing and it doesn't necessarily sound bigger. If you are wildly out of time/not tight, it just sounds mushy. A single guitar can sound bigger than 2. I think you have to work hard to make 2 guitars that play the same chord inversions etc sound bigger, hence you have to have different sounds and use different variations.


    I think we are all agreeing...

    Quote from wwittman

    this is true if you're a robot.
    Humans don't play "exactly" the same way twice even if they think they do.

    Definitely not me :) I struggle to play the same notes, and in tune...


    My point was double or quad tracking in adding "hugeness" relies on a level of variation to achieve that effect.

    Quote from Monkey_Man

    Actually, Cederick is a machine, man. He played it all.
    The waveforms only look so-similar 'cause of his accuracy, unless I'm mistaken.

    You are corect, Monkey :)


    Quote from Lokasenna

    I'm not a machine, but I'm pretty tight when I want to be. Those clips sound like two takes reamped a bunch of times. Even if you spent a few hours slip/stretch-editing every transient, the natural imperfections of a human playing the instrument will still build up that thick chorus effect.


    Also, his screenshots only show two DIs.

    It IS 12 unique different takes.


    Reason that it's only two DI tracks, is because I just added more tracks to an existing "preprod template" I got.
    I didn't need to add tracks for DIs for every take, you know.


    And yeah, I can very tight rhythm guitar.
    Actually, a couple of years ago I spent several weeks just practicing on getting the DI TRACKS line up with the metronome, not just going by what I heard.
    So yeah, I really wanted to get mechanically tight, and I certainly could play so tight that just about every transient was SPOT ON with the metronome.


    These days I'm happy if it's audiable tight, and I'm still pretty damn tight 8)

    Mostly joking.


    If your playing is tight enough that I can't tell the difference between two takes and twelve... you're way tighter than Hetfield or Schaffer. They're tight, but "human" enough that the overall sound still gets bigger when they layer tracks. In THAT sense you're too tight, and thus could "learn to play worse". Listen to Grave Digger and Running Wild, particularly live recordings - they're tight enough for non-prog metal, but they're not nailing the metronome by any means.


    Depends on your preferred genre/style, of course. Metal these days is edited down to milliseconds anyway.


    Listening to those tracks, I'd say the 12-tracked ones are decidedly darker. The double tracked ones are more open sounding, which would work better for some styles, but the quad tracked would work better for other metal styles.


    Definitely not an either/or situation when it comes to tracking, especially if you feel that a song or album might benefit.


    Listening on my mac's inbuilt speaker, I'm sure there's more difference over monitors!


    And yes, that is some very tight palm muting. Why do all the DI clips say "copy of Kemper_x" though? What DAW are you using, mine usually says Take 1, Take 2, etc. That's Cubase, right?

    Well on my quad track mimiq pedal...soon as i turn the tightness down its magic..that way you can re amp not play sloppy and use the tightness knob..its a fun toy...its a massive wall of sound 2 stereo cabs with the mimiq..just my 2 cents if you had a mimiq pedal you can put it in your daw BTW


    Bah one day ill make a useful post :rolleyes:
    okay we all know thats never gonna happen :D


    Ash

    Have a beer and don't sneer. -CJ. Two non powered Kempers -Two mission stereo FRFR Cabs - Ditto X4 -TC electronic Mimiq.

    Like 4

    Just a few thoughts - maybe some "some" tricks do work for you too? If you multitrack, play the riffs that you pan left in another position of fretboard then the riffs on the right. And maybe don't play EXACTLY the same riff on each side. Sometimes adding takes with only single notes, "octave chords" or just pedal tones builds up to a wall of sound. Also adding a looser guitar tone (on both sides, but with reduced volume) to some tight takes will often work to thicken it up - you have to find the right place for this, not hard panned left / right, but more 50-70%.

    Everything ‘hard’ left, right, and centre.


    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    Everything except the close tom mics (which were panned across two tracks to being with, and then those tracks are assigned hard left and right in the mix):


    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Quote from Monkey_Man

    Are you talking only about guitar, Will?


    If not, you'd be in danger of creating a "W" mix panning-wise, as I'm sure you'd know - two massive holes in the stereo field.

    This MIGHT be a problem in some mixes when listening on headphones. On loudspeakers I don't think it would be a problem.


    I imagine, though, that reverbs and delays would often be stereo, as would some instruments. For drums, you have room and overheads, which will "fill out the holes". Bass will help glue the guitars together.


    With a mono piano on one side and a mono acoustic on the other - and no reverb etc - it might indeed sound funny in headphones :)

    Quote from wwittman

    I’ll give the Grammy back then.<g>

    I neither detect, nor did I intend, any disrespect warranting sarcasm, Will. This is why I made sure to say, "as I'm sure you'd know..." following the question. I asked because I've been taught in official courses and elsewhere to be wary of the W phenomenon.


    Had I not respected your knowledge and experience, I'd not have bothered to ask. Instead I'd hoped to glean some insight as to how leaving the two holes in the stereo field might be of benefit. I'm still interested to hear any thoughts you have on the matter. I'm guessing that maybe it helps define components of the mix better and / or serves to create an impression of more space / less clutter?


    Anything you're willing to share will be very much appreciated, mate. Thank you!

    I was joking. Not insulted.
    Believe me, I don’t take this OR the Grammy all that seriously!


    I just don’t buy the ‘w’ idea and I’d question anyone who ‘teaches’ that it’s a problem.


    If things are well balanced (which is always the key and really the whole story) then the listener doesn’t perceive each channel as a separate entity. Your ears and brain fill in the ‘gaps’ and I think you end up with much better clarity AND mono compatibility when you position everything left or right or both


    And anyway those imaginary ‘in between’ positions are a moving target at best. Move around a little while listening and the apparent ‘position’ changes anyway.
    In truth we don’t hear position or directionality in ‘‘real life’ based solely (or even largely) on just volume differences between left and right. It’s much more about time differences and phase between ears. And although there have been some attempts and experiments to assign stereo positions with time or phase manipulation, it’s rare. 99% of the time people are just assigning standard ‘pan pots’ or their digital equivalent which is just a volume difference.


    I’d much rather RECORD some elements in actual stereo of some sort; with all of that complex left-right phase interaction. And then just position those tracks left and right.


    Mostly I think those “70%” type positions are a wank.