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

  • Ahh... thank you, Will. I'm so sorry I didn't realise you were joking, mate! X/


    What you're saying, if you'll forgive the pun, strikes a chord with me, 'cause I've often wondered about the fact that conventional panning simply employs volume differences and lacks the "true" time-arrival differences one's brain would normally use to determine directionality. Hard-left-and-right panning is the obvious exception. Great to hear it from the horse's mouth, so to speak.


    Also, I've banged on here many times (too many, really) about how the brain "fills in gaps" such as in the case of adding fundamentals to harmonics, allowing the perception of bass through bandwidth-restricted, "tiny" speakers and "plays" with audio (and visual) data "for fun", so the filling-in-the-gaps thing makes perfect sense to me too. Talk about a powerhouse CPU.


    Again, thank you so much, man. I've been on a very-long, "forced" break from recording and mixing, and I'm stoked to be able to take this stuff onboard before the resumption of proceedings; I can only hope that this tidbit helps to elevate my lowly efforts to something a little-less lowly. 8o

  • I’ve many times listened to some of those extreme placement Beatles records on earbuds or headphones and still had to actually remove one ear and CHECK to be sure that the backing vocals (for example) are entirely on the left. The balances and perspectives are so well done (mostly because they were designed to all work in mono) that you really don’t feel that the widely spread elements are disconnected. They just have that clarity, but it still feels like a unified whole.


    I mixed this with the guitar entirely on one side and the Vox organ entirely on the other but I don’t think most people PERCEIVE it that way unless they are only hearing one channel.


    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.

  • I’ve many times listened to some of those extreme placement Beatles records on earbuds or headphones and still had to actually remove one ear and CHECK to be sure that the backing vocals (for example) are entirely on the left. The balances and perspectives are so well done (mostly because they were designed to all work in mono) that you really don’t feel that the widely spread elements are disconnected. They just have that clarity, but it still feels like a unified whole.


    I mixed this with the guitar entirely on one side and the Vox organ entirely on the other but I don’t think most people PERCEIVE it that way unless they are only hearing one channel.


    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.


    You mixed this? Wow! A classic!

  • It is a real treasure having you on this forum wwittman. Your perspective on panning makes an awful lot of sense to me, I will definitely be trying that approach going forward for a while.


    You have mixed some truly great, classic songs. I look forward to any post by you, but especially production oriented ones.


    Thanks again.


    I’ve many times listened to some of those extreme placement Beatles records on earbuds or headphones and still had to actually remove one ear and CHECK to be sure that the backing vocals (for example) are entirely on the left. The balances and perspectives are so well done (mostly because they were designed to all work in mono) that you really don’t feel that the widely spread elements are disconnected. They just have that clarity, but it still feels like a unified whole.


    I mixed this with the guitar entirely on one side and the Vox organ entirely on the other but I don’t think most people PERCEIVE it that way unless they are only hearing one channel.


    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.



    That's very cool! I listened to it, panning back and forth to hear what you're talking about. And you of course absolutely right, I have never ever noticed that before. And even now knowing it, I don't really "hear" it unless I pan to one side or the other.

    Disclaimer: When I post demo clips for profiles, there will be some minimal post-processing, unless stated otherwise. I normally double-track hard L/R, and add to the main buss a small amount of EQ and a limiter/comp set pretty light as well. Sometimes I get test profiles in advance of release, though 90% of my clips will be from packs I have purchased.

    Edited once, last by Locrain ().

  • Thank you for sharing that, Michael.


    He said, "I will certainly use internal pan positions on occasion, particularly on dense productions."


    This is the bit that has me a little confused, and I didn't say anything to Will 'cause I figured I'd work it out eventually. Whilst I intend to dumb down my arrangements and mixes compared to what they were in the '90s (for commercial reasons), even the "simplest" of them were pretty-damned complex by "conventional" standards.


    Percussion, brass sections and solo lines, strings, complex BV's and so on, in addition of course to guitars, bass, synths and drums...

  • Really great advice !! BUT what about high/low gain advice ..is there any ? all good if not thanks for posting all this :)


    Ash

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


  • It's a little confusing to me too, it's just very different from how I "thought" it should work. But even though the author says he will sometimes still use internal positions, it certainly seems to be the exception, not the rule. So normally he's panning hard, even on dense productions, at least that's how it reads to me.


    What I have always been told is that you need to give everything it's own "space" in the stereo field, and to pan things somewhat as they would be on stage. But it was never something I was very good at. So I am excited to try panning everything hard or leaving it in the center. I can already tell it's going to be a hard habit to break, I am so used to using internal positions on things like lead guitar parts, or vocal harmonies.


    I would have the exact same concerns you do about your more dense productions. The idea of having all those tracks and not using the full stereo field through internal panning is like nails on a chalkboard, haha. But from that article, and from Will's posts, it really looks like the way to go. I'm excited to remove one more variable from my mixing at least. :D

    Really great advice !! BUT what about high/low gain advice ..is there any ? all good if not thanks for posting all this :)


    Ash


    Exactly what I was wondering. I usually pan lower-gain guitars a little softer, but I'm going to guess that won't be recommended here...


    Super interesting thread!

    Disclaimer: When I post demo clips for profiles, there will be some minimal post-processing, unless stated otherwise. I normally double-track hard L/R, and add to the main buss a small amount of EQ and a limiter/comp set pretty light as well. Sometimes I get test profiles in advance of release, though 90% of my clips will be from packs I have purchased.

  • What I have always been told is that you need to give everything it's own "space" in the stereo field, and to pan things somewhat as they would be on stage.

    While I'm only a mere scholar in mixing (compared to true masters like @wwittman) I've always practiced LCR panning since I learned about it years ago. It works, period. 'Space' in a stereo field is not so important in itself, it’s the space an instrument occupies in the frequency range that's much more important.
    That's why the Beatles in mono sound awesome and powerful.
    Concerning filling the gaps: Listening on headphones I find pseudo stereo recordings of the Beatles with the backing on one side and voices etc. on the other a bit annoying when listening to it for a longer period of time.
    That’s why when EMI re-released the Beatles material on CD in 2009, I bought the stereo edition, but then I put the stereo files into Studio One and narrowed the stereo field by 20%. It's still stereo but not with 100% separation, and it’s certainly more glorious than mono.
    I wonder to this day why Sir George Martin didn’t come up with that before.

  • While I'm only a mere scholar in mixing (compared to true masters like @wwittman) I've always practiced LCR panning since I learned about it years ago. It works, period. 'Space' in a stereo field is not so important in itself, it’s the space an instrument occupies in the frequency range that's much more important.That's why the Beatles in mono sound awesome and powerful.
    Concerning filling the gaps: Listening on headphones I find pseudo stereo recordings of the Beatles with the backing on one side and voices etc. on the other a bit annoying when listening to it for a longer period of time.
    That’s why when EMI re-released the Beatles material on CD in 2009, I bought the stereo edition, but then I put the stereo files into Studio One and narrowed the stereo field by 20%. It's still stereo but not with 100% separation, and it’s certainly more glorious than mono.
    I wonder to this day why Sir George Martin didn’t come up with that before.

    Thank you for your input. I'm convinced, and excited to try it. It makes so much sense to focus on the frequency "space" instead of the stereo image "space". I knew that carving out EQ was more important than panning, but EQ makes sense to me in a mechanical sense (not that I have it mastered at all, but I think I 'get' the concept fairly well), whereas panning was always confusing and nebulous, it never really "clicked" while recording. Makes sense that I was going about things the wrong way.


    Honestly, this is kind of a relief. As long as I get my gain staging right, track well and LCR pan, it'll make it so much easier to focus on EQ/compression/etc. Because something that was always in the back of my head was that maybe my mixes didn't sound as good as they could because I wasn't getting the panning right. Beyond a few basics (rhythm guitar hard l+r, bass/kick/vox/ down the middle), I really didn't know what to do, and I wasn't getting anywhere with making tweaks and listening. So now I'm told I don't even have to sweat it...I'm good with that. :D


    I get what you guys are saying about headphones, the Beatles in stereo vs mono, and all that. Headphone listening is not that important to me. I have a pair of HD650s that I switch to to check levels, and as a reference, since my monitors (KRK) are pretty hyped. But I don't plan on mixing on them much. And as I think about it, LCR panning might make it easier to mix on 'phones...?


    I was listening to a Big Wreck (who's production I really admire) song the other day on headphones, and the extremeness of the panning did mess with me a little, until the band came in. I was wondering why they didn't spread it out a little more. Now I guess I know. :)

    Disclaimer: When I post demo clips for profiles, there will be some minimal post-processing, unless stated otherwise. I normally double-track hard L/R, and add to the main buss a small amount of EQ and a limiter/comp set pretty light as well. Sometimes I get test profiles in advance of release, though 90% of my clips will be from packs I have purchased.

  • It's a little confusing to me too, it's just very different from how I "thought" it should work. But even though the author says he will sometimes still use internal positions, it certainly seems to be the exception, not the rule. So normally he's panning hard, even on dense productions, at least that's how it reads to me.


    What I have always been told is that you need to give everything it's own "space" in the stereo field, and to pan things somewhat as they would be on stage. But it was never something I was very good at. So I am excited to try panning everything hard or leaving it in the center. I can already tell it's going to be a hard habit to break, I am so used to using internal positions on things like lead guitar parts, or vocal harmonies.


    I would have the exact same concerns you do about your more dense productions. The idea of having all those tracks and not using the full stereo field through internal panning is like nails on a chalkboard, haha. But from that article, and from Will's posts, it really looks like the way to go. I'm excited to remove one more variable from my mixing at least. :D
    Exactly what I was wondering. I usually pan lower-gain guitars a little softer, but I'm going to guess that won't be recommended here...

    100% with you, bud. It's sure going to feel weird, but I'll make it my M.O. when I resume recording, and who knows, after such a long break it mightn't be as tricky as it might've been to change otherwise.


    A sticking point for me is how would I spread the BV's, brass section, conga set and piano, as examples. Normally I'd collapse the piano to a "range", pan the individual brass elements within a range and same with the conga set and so on. All "mini" ranges, and in the cases of the instruments mentioned, they'd be placed somewhere between 9 and 3 o'clock mostly. Don't think I could live without my toms at 10, 12, 2 and 4 (roughly), but that's probably OK in this context; they should "pop" even more if I'm reading this correctly. I can't imagine panning them L, C & R; it's just too-extreme a movement for tom fills in "normal" commercial music IMHO. There'll be exceptions, of course, but I just can't see it.


    Anyway, I guess I'm just saying that it's fingernails-on-the-blackboard stuff for me too, man. Sure is gonna be interesting!

  • Eric (Mixerman) and I of course shared moderating a forum for a long time... and I still share one with Terry Manning who is as strong a proponent of left-right mixing as I am.
    Eric might be slightly less "all in" but still tends to mix the "correct" way <g>


    you'd be surprised how many top mixers mix with very little if any "panning" between positions... it's just that you don't necessarily NOTICE it.

  • I think that Outfield track I posted is a perfect example...


    in that, there are probably 20-30 guitars and 90 some odd voices going at some points in that record, and, except for the panned close tom mics (which I also rarely do anymore,but did there), NOTHING is anywhere but left or right or centre, and I certainly don't think that sounds like there's a 'hole in the middle' or a "w".


    But I equally don't think that the wide placement is obvious if you're not analyzing it.

  • there are probably 20-30 guitars and 90 some odd voices going at some points in that record

    I enjoyed listening and learning from this, Bill! Thanks for doing it! :thumbup:


    External Content www.youtube.com
    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.

  • I'm more a metal mixer, and there quad tracking reigns supreme for anything beyond demos :) There are a couple of approaches to quad tracking:


    1. Record two times with Amp 1 and pan both tracks eg. L100 and L75 - L90, then record another two times with Amp 2 and pan both eg. R100 and R75 - R90


    This will give you a very wide sound, as the two different amps will result in a different enough tone that you can really "feel" the width. It takes some effort to get the stereo balance correct though.


    2. Record two times with Amp 1 and pan them L100 and R100, and then record Amp 2 two times and pan it eg. L75 and R75.


    This will give you a thicker sound with better balance between left and right. However, the stereo image can be far more narrow-sounding compared to first approach.


    3. Record four times with the same amp, and pan eg. L100, L80, R80, R100.


    This makes the sound bigger and tighter, but needs some extra effort to get a well-rounded tone, as you cannot rely on Amp 2 to fill in the blanks, so to speak.

    Vortech - Finnish Industrial Death Metal since 2000

  • This is actually exactly what I've been doing...not really happy with my results (there could be many reasons). I am going to switch to Will's method until I hear or read something credible disproving LCR...I've been reading a lot of articles/blogs last few days and I am so far convinced. But I'm a noob and don't really know much.


    Not trying to bash your approach at all, I just thought it was cool that it was the same thing I came up with. When you say "t takes some effort to get the stereo balance correct though.", what seems to affect that? Does it change from amp to amp for you, or from song/song type? I always never had any indication that I was getting it "right", just seemed like I was fumbling in the dark when panning. I did use the 75-90 range though.

    Disclaimer: When I post demo clips for profiles, there will be some minimal post-processing, unless stated otherwise. I normally double-track hard L/R, and add to the main buss a small amount of EQ and a limiter/comp set pretty light as well. Sometimes I get test profiles in advance of release, though 90% of my clips will be from packs I have purchased.