Post by: pg666 on March 09, 2006, 04:40:40 PM
what do you do when you're working on a band/song/verse with only 1 guitar? 2 mics on a cabinet and panned? mono and up the middle? 1 mic on a cab and a stereo room configuration? i'm looking for ideas, so thanks in advance!
Post by: Fabricoh35 on March 09, 2006, 05:29:57 PM
If it just a part you might try changing from hard pan to about between 2 and 3 if right or 10 and 11 if left during that part. That way you dont possibly step on the bass and the kick and it might keep it from sounding disjointed from the other parts where it is hard panned by still favoring one side or the other a little bit.
As for tracking it you could do a dynamic up close and a LDC a bit back and pan them both the same to each other throughout the song.
Post by: pg666 on March 09, 2006, 06:48:45 PM
| Quote: |
Is there only one guitar part in the whole song or is this just a section of the song? |
for the sake of this thread, it can be completely hypothetical. i really just want to get some ideas flowin' because it's something i have trouble with.
i have tried the 'close up mic + room mic (delayed a bit) panned to the opposite of each other' thing before and it is cool, but can be lopsided if there's nothing to fill the space on the room mic side. plus, roomy guitar isn't always desirable..
Post by: NelsonL on March 09, 2006, 06:59:53 PM
Comes back hard panned.
Post by: Fabricoh35 on March 09, 2006, 11:20:48 PM
| pg666 wrote on Thu, 09 March 2006 18:48 | ||
for the sake of this thread, it can be completely hypothetical. i really just want to get some ideas flowin' because it's something i have trouble with. i have tried the 'close up mic + room mic (delayed a bit) panned to the opposite of each other' thing before and it is cool, but can be lopsided if there's nothing to fill the space on the room mic side. plus, roomy guitar isn't always desirable.. |
What I was trying to say is that I have in the past panned the room mic and the close mic both to the same side. Make the room hard panned left lets say and the close mic somewhere between 7 and 11 o'clock. But again I would think this works best for only part of a song. Like you said it can feel lopsided if it was an entire song.
Although with only one guitar part for the entire song it could feel real open with guitar on one side bass on the other (neither one hard panned but panned opposite). It would really give room for the kick and snare to live in. I would think it could sound awesome given the right song.
Post by: scott volthause on March 09, 2006, 11:33:01 PM
If it's weedly wee it can be panned.
It's funny, because I've recently done some of the same questioning of hard-panned double guitars. It's not always needed or beneficial.
In order for things to be big and wide, there needs to be a "small" and "narrow".
Post by: pg666 on March 10, 2006, 09:52:26 AM
| Quote: |
It's not always needed or beneficial. |
exactly. it's one thing if you have 2 distinct parts that play off each other, but for me it can be a default habit; a habit that mostly stems from covering up bad tones.
one technique i did a lot back in my 4-track days was to put 2 mics on a cabinet at very different angles and hard pan them. of course, i eventually learned that they were very out of phase with each other.. probably why it sounded so wide.
if anyone here listens to Burning Airlines, i'd be curious how that guitar sound is acheived. it's not quite mono, not quite stereo. it sits just right. (http://www.desotorecords.com/sounds/mp3/ch_chivaree.mp3this is by Channels, which is almost the same band. listen to the guitar in the verses)
Post by: starscream2010 on March 10, 2006, 09:55:33 AM
| pg666 wrote on Fri, 10 March 2006 08:52 |
if anyone here listens to Burning Airlines, i'd be curious how that guitar sound is acheived. |
As would I... Misson Control! is one of my favortice records.
Post by: j.hall on March 10, 2006, 11:26:35 AM
the only thing that ever gets panned up the middle on a j.hall mix is the lead vocal, kick drum and snare drum....maybe a background vocal or guitar solo, but i can't remeber the last guitar solo i mixed.
i mix most all clean channel guitars in mono and distortion doubled.
sure it might be a cliche, but it's one that sounds great and makes the mix huge and full. that cliche is one i'll use every time.
too bad mike harbin didn't play bass on mission control, i could get your answer if he did.
Post by: xonlocust on March 10, 2006, 11:35:08 AM
| j.hall wrote on Fri, 10 March 2006 10:26 |
JCM 800 with a shecter guitar. the only thing that ever gets panned up the middle on a j.hall mix is the lead vocal, kick drum and snare drum....maybe a background vocal or guitar solo, but i can't remeber the last guitar solo i mixed. i mix most all clean channel guitars in mono and distortion doubled. sure it might be a cliche, but it's one that sounds great and makes the mix huge and full. that cliche is one i'll use every time. too bad mike harbin didn't play bass on mission control, i could get your answer if he did. |
where do you usually put your bass guitar?
Post by: j.hall on March 10, 2006, 11:41:16 AM
bass goes up the center as well, right into nick kraska's face!
one of the best mixers (and an incredible tracking engineer and producer as well) once said. "double EVERYTHING, you can always hit mute in the mix, but you can never get "that sound" if you didn't double it to begin with"
Post by: xonlocust on March 10, 2006, 12:38:16 PM
OR, i keep experimenting but haven't yet got it to work right for me, but i love the old van halen records (fair warning - see mean street) with what sounds like gtr hard panned on one side, and a short delay/reverb of the source on the other. i keep trying though.
i haven't doubled gtrs in ages. i need to start doing that more.
Post by: scott volthause on March 10, 2006, 12:45:28 PM
Honestly, the guitar straight up the center is something that I've been experimenting with since picking up System's Hypnotize, mixed by Mr. Wallace.
Several songs have a single guitar panned straight up in portions. His use of a seemingly vertical soundstage is baffling and amazing all at the same time.
Post by: pg666 on March 10, 2006, 12:53:16 PM
| Quote: |
OR, i keep experimenting but haven't yet got it to work right for me, but i love the old van halen records (fair warning - see mean street) with what sounds like gtr hard panned on one side, and a short delay/reverb of the source on the other. i keep trying though. |
yeah, this is one i try out a lot (based on Joy Division 'unknown pleasures'). i just can't get over the asymetry. if there was a piano or something i could pan to the delay/reverb/room mic side, it would be perfect.
Post by: pg666 on March 10, 2006, 12:56:02 PM
| Quote: |
Several songs have a single guitar panned straight up in portions. His use of a seemingly vertical soundstage is baffling and amazing all at the same time. |
yeah. not to completely worship at the alter of J. Robbins' bands, but listen to a few of the songs (including the first) on 'for your own special sweetheart'... TWO guitars panned up the middle. that's brave.
Post by: scottoliphant on March 11, 2006, 12:18:26 AM
Post by: Version on March 11, 2006, 03:00:28 AM
If It's one piece of the Arrangement.
If it's good (and the tone is good) and you aren't going for linkin park then let it sit by itself. (pan it somewhere). Let the room or your reverb give it depth.
Have you heard the first few Van Halen Albums? Led Zep? Wait, I'm in the Hall right now... Both gtr Snapcase players used identical setups...err...ok...um.
Are you going for a layered sound? If you are, I recommend a second performance through a different signal chain. This will yield tasteful results most of the time. Kind of like having a blonde and brunette in bed at the same time.
Wa da ta. Sa Da Tay
Post by: wwittman on March 12, 2006, 02:33:39 PM
But if the guitar has a lot of its own nuance in the performance, then doubling inevitably smooths out and obscures that nuance.
no matter HOW well the player doubles.
so it often comes down to that for me.
If the performance is something I really want to hear clearly, rather than just the PART, then I don't double track.
Post by: mitgong on March 13, 2006, 01:18:20 PM
Post by: chris haines on March 13, 2006, 03:41:15 PM
I always vote for doing something different on the other side of the guitar...like keys or a clean guitar part, or if it's a heavy thing that you would really like to double, I try for octave and/or different rig on the other side for riff stuff and single note octave or not against power chords on the other side for chunky 5ths... or ringing chords...i think the soundscape is more interesting with different parts...more layers, less sludge...
I HATE Smashing Pumpkins' death of tone wall of big guitar sound...does anybody like it? Makes me uninterested in hearing what he's trying to say...
Post by: TheViking on March 13, 2006, 04:09:06 PM
But I also like Alanis Morissette and ADAT's so... take it for what it's worth.
Post by: scottoliphant on March 13, 2006, 04:12:45 PM
Post by: pg666 on March 13, 2006, 04:25:49 PM
i think wwittman nailed it; if there's any subtlety (not to mention improvisation) to the playing it probably shouldn't be doubled up. if it's powerchord chugging, you might as well get that big wall of sound we're all accustomed to.
Post by: wwittman on March 13, 2006, 11:58:59 PM
Post by: Podgorny on March 14, 2006, 12:39:47 AM
| scottoliphant wrote on Mon, 13 March 2006 15:12 |
and i was just reading that the new darkness record has some songs with 160 guitars overdubbued. |
I love how much stuff gets made up for magazines.
Post by: scott volthause on March 14, 2006, 06:38:23 PM
| Version wrote on Sat, 11 March 2006 03:00 |
I don't understand the need to take one guitar part and try to make it "huge" with 2 seperate amps and what-not. |
Just for clarification (and I'm not entirely sure you aimed your comment at me anyhow) my recommendation with one performance into 2 signal chains wasn't to reproduce *huge*. The effect is more of a single performance that's wider than mono, but at a lower extreme than double tracking.
If I'm doing huge, it's 2 wide, possibly along with one up the middle, and occationally a fake mid-side.
Post by: kellyd on March 18, 2006, 08:49:58 PM
I auditioned for Ozzie 2 times for the bass gig at Joe's garage in '91. We were playing those songs for the audition. Miracle Man, Crazy Babies etc.. Zak had 2 Marshall half stacks, his wah and maybe a dist pedal. It sounded surprisingly close to the record. He was smoking. Oh yeah and it was really freakin loud.
Post by: ahuimanu on March 20, 2006, 01:38:24 PM
| j.hall wrote on Fri, 10 March 2006 11:26 |
too bad mike harbin didn't play bass on mission control, i could get your answer if he did. |
If you are referring to Mike Harbin of Virginia, then I'm having a "Small world" moment. I worked with that guy in the 1990s.
Post by: j.hall on March 20, 2006, 04:29:17 PM
he lives in virginia at the moment, and is a really great guy.
Post by: ahuimanu on March 20, 2006, 05:32:59 PM
| j.hall wrote on Mon, 20 March 2006 16:29 |
Mike Harbin was the bass player for burning airlines. he toured for mission control and recorded and toured for identikit. he lives in virginia at the moment, and is a really great guy. |
No doubt on the great guy part. Is the the Mike that played in Shiner and now plays in Soft Complex?
Post by: j.hall on March 21, 2006, 11:37:07 AM