Doubling Guitar Tracks

Read some articles specific to recording guitar tracks.

Learn something new everyday. Most of my experience is near the end of the analog era. It was understood, and sometimes formalized to print, that guitars should not be freshly strung (i was changing strings almost on a daily basis then) for studio sessions. It didn't matter how adept one was at assuring strings were sufficiently stretched to hold 440 for 5 or 6 minutes, or how tight the intonation was. Some engineers preferred a pure 440 to a tempered sound. I didn't want to blemish my pre CBS strat with bridge micro tuners. Older strats with proper heads are easy to tune-up tight.

Read an article yesterday that said just the opposite. New strings were best.

The article also discussed doubling tracks. Another art on the same topic suggested that the doubled tracks, even for solos, should be recorded separately, instead of simply duplicating the track. That makes sense for back tracks, but doubling solo / fill tracks sure seems like it would give a re tentative ear fits.

Was wondering how others serviced double tracking guitar tracks. We're getting a 1/2 inch 8 track R2R. Is the approach different with analog than it is digital recording?

Thanks

i have been recording since about 1980, and have never copied tracks, only performed each overdub properly from scratch.

in my opinion, that is the only way it should be done.

it's way more organic that way.

depending on the sound you are going for, you can use the same exact setup, play it dead accurate twice, pan it left and right, and run with it..

or, you can approach it more like the stones, with each part standing all on it's own merit, and it's own sound, but working together in synchronicity, and how well the parts meld at the right time (the rock and roll trifecta of performance, vibe AND arrangement)


or somewhere in between.


lots of classic stuff out there, where the electric is doubled with an ACOUSTIC, and blended...


there's just an endless list of ways to do it, the artistic question is, how do you plan to do it?

and make it stand out and apart from everything else?!

or, just fall in line, and copy the latest flavor......

Cadavre said:

Read some articles specific to recording guitar tracks.

Learn something new everyday. Most of my experience is near the end of the analog era. It was understood, and sometimes formalized to print, that guitars should not be freshly strung (i was changing strings almost on a daily basis then) for studio sessions. It didn't matter how adept one was at assuring strings were sufficiently stretched to hold 440 for 5 or 6 minutes, or how tight the intonation was. Some engineers preferred a pure 440 to a tempered sound. I didn't want to blemish my pre CBS strat with bridge micro tuners. Older strats with proper heads are easy to tune-up tight.

Read an article yesterday that said just the opposite. New strings were best.

The article also discussed doubling tracks. Another art on the same topic suggested that the doubled tracks, even for solos, should be recorded separately, instead of simply duplicating the track. That makes sense for back tracks, but doubling solo / fill tracks sure seems like it would give a re tentative ear fits.

Was wondering how others serviced double tracking guitar tracks. We're getting a 1/2 inch 8 track R2R. Is the approach different with analog than it is digital recording?

Thanks

Click to expand...

I will always double the rhythm guitar (not copy paste, but seperate recordings). I will double lead parts some of the time, depending on the part. As far as changing strings, I put new strings on each guitar I will use in the session at the beginning, and usually they will last until i'm finished . No need to restring every day.

One really good way of doing it particularly for metal is to record two takes directly into the DAW and then reamp them. That way you can run each take through multiple rigs and get a really complex tone.

Re: older vs newer strings. First of all, "older" could mean 2 days, 2 weeks, or 2 months so it depends on what we're talking about. I don't feel like one is "better," yes one could be better suited for what you're trying to achieve but not in a blanket-statement sense. Best bet is to get familiar with both and decide what works for your music.

One really effective way to get a great sound with one take on guitar is to pan the signal hard left and then take that same track and delay it 15-20 ms sending it hard right. I had this set up ready to go with a flip of a button for years at my recording studio and it never let me down. As soon as I pushed the button down to engage the delayed signal I would see the look of approval and get the "that's me, wow wee," comment most of the time. Some people, some people, prefer double tracked guitars while I for one prefer the delayed approach when recording. It saves some sanity when working for less than professional musician, (forty takes/4 hr.s is not uncommon) and isn't difficult to do saving bands big $$$. Dimebag Darrell in Pantera loved to double his leads while having no rhythm guitar in the background after the CFH album which really gave the leads the in your face feel he projected live. I don't think the delayed approach would've worked as effectively as playing the lead twice for a total pro like dime, but when time and/or money are tight, the delayed approached should at least be considered. Da'ddario strings = 32.99 @ GC for a 10 pack, change your strings often if tone means anything to you, especially you acoustic players. Tubes, mic placement and good cords are huge factors also, trust me!