Sick of stereo guitars

[David Polich]

I've recently gotten to the point where I am starting to get sick of having to double guitar tracks and put everything in wide stereo. I'm talking rock and pop production - it seems every rock record out these days has doubled and stereo-ized guitars, and with everything in stereo, it's like nothing is in stereo.

I actually forced myself yesterday to leave a rhythm guitar track in mono and pan it left - wow, it was refreshing! Put the keyboards on the right, damn, it sounded like a band in a room. What a concept.

Going back and listening to Van Halen's first album, it reminded me that you don't have to double every guitar part. There are no double-tracked guitars on that record, and it still sounds punchy and full. That album is a masterpiece of economics.

Anyone else getting tired of doubling everything and putting it "all" in stereo?

[builder]

I think it is like every other aspect of music..... too much, to many times and you start to dislike it all together. Use moderation. I like leads doubled but not necesarily wide stereo. I alway like rhythm tracks mono, and maybe and acoustic slightly panned the other direction.....

[BradLyons]

David,

Hmmmm are you aware of the old trick from years ago in power rock? Hard pan one direction, send to an Aux with a slight delay panned equal distance the other direction. This gives the illusion of stereo and a WIDE sound without double-tracking. In addition, run a GOOD quality harmonizer or some sort of de-tuning processor/plugin. This thickens up the tracks as well and does a world of difference.

[chrispick]

I've recently gotten to the point where I am starting to get sick of having to double guitar tracks and put everything in wide stereo. I'm talking rock and pop production - it seems every rock record out these days has doubled and stereo-ized guitars, and with everything in stereo, it's like nothing is in stereo.

I know what you mean, David. This hard left-right doubling has become the de facto technique for pop/rock guitars. Sure, it can sound cool, but it can also sound overwrought and like a mix crutch. And yeah, sometimes it actually diminishes the guitar's punch -- the opposite of its intention, I think.

I think this left-right thing is particularly prevalent these days where the trend is to give every sound in a mix "presence." To paraphrase your complaint, if everything's in-your-face, nothing is.

Fortunately, there are mix engineers and producers bucking this trend. You just have to shift away from the mainstream a little to find them.

[zara_drummer]

I double all my guitar tracks...but out of habit I never really hard pan anything...Maybe the leads here and there. I usually do a 50/50 split...

recently we added a second guitar...he plays a a stereo setup so I DO hard pan him...but he plays mostly leads, so its cool to capture the imaging effects that he uses...

I like the sound of the double for some applications. Having them hard panned sometimes takes away from the overall mix especially if your EGT player is inconsistant.

[Obscure Object]

Interesting .... most of the records I like DO NOT have doubled track guitars (isn't that called the british sound?) ... a lot of cool british rock bands dun use doubled guitar tracks (blur, pulp, ... ect.) .... they just play a part on an acoustic n then may be double with an electric ... u know, texture .... it's important.

I've noticed that stereo micing an amp (or may be DI + mic. on amp) gives u the possibility to manipulate the sound later while mixing ... u can just go with one track or use both if u like. also micing an electric guitar while strumming (meaning micing the strings of the E. guitar) is very usable IMHO. I dunno if that's called doubling or stereo micing or whatever .... It's just cool to experiment with these stuff. I like the results better than just playing the same part again.

[David Polich]

Thanks for the replies and insights. Brad, I forgot about the aux send/delay trick..thanks for the reminder.

[Resonant Alien]

I hear ya David - when you have two identical guitar parts on both sides of the stereo spectrum, it is quite frankly boring. The exception is if you use that as an "effect" - bring in the doubled part only during the second chorus, or only during the outro, and only have one part during verses, etc. But if it's all the way through, it kills the dynamics of the song IMO.

There are mixes I find interesting that DO have "stereo" guitar tracks, but these are when there are two DIFFERENT guitar parts being played, panned left/right. Actually Guns-N-Roses Use Your Illusion is one of the best examples of this. You have Slash on one side playing his part and Izzy on the other playing a different, but complementary part. I think this is very effective because it gives you that "wall-o-guitars" sound, but you still have stereo depth and texture because different things are going on with the two parts.

[monkey man]

To paraphrase your complaint, if everything's in-your-face, nothing is..

You're a genius.

Fortunately, there are mix engineers and producers bucking this trend. You just have to shift away from the mainstream a little to find them.

Thank God.

You have Slash on one side playing his part and Izzy on the other playing a different, but complementary part. I think this is very effective because it gives you that "wall-o-guitars" sound, but you still have stereo depth and texture because different things are going on with the two parts.

Good call.

Yet another "give me more... of... everything" compromise "we've" made that we can all be proud of.
She's apples, 'though, 'cause we Unicorn trend-setters will er, buck the trend!

[mhschmieder]

Hmm, I've known about the aux/delay trick for a year or so now (I come from an acoustic music background so only recently have been delving into the "production" side of music), but have been afraid to try it since every guitarist I work with uses delay as part of their "sound".

I know this will seem like a naive question, but are you talking in the context of an uneffected "dry" sound when you mention this trick for stereo widening, or is it just a matter of finding a delay that works in the context of whatever delay is applied within the original signal.

I haven't yet gotten to the point of recording lead guitarists "naked" and applying effects later as "production values", since I have a hard enough time as it is convincing them that a particular EQ is "appropriate" (vs. their "live sound") due to the needs of the mix (why do so many guitarists tend to insist on hogging the bottom end?).

[Resonant Alien]

Hmm, I've known about the aux/delay trick for a year or so now (I come from an acoustic music background so only recently have been delving into the "production" side of music), but have been afraid to try it since every guitarist I work with uses delay as part of their "sound".

I know this will seem like a naive question, but are you talking in the context of an uneffected "dry" sound when you mention this trick for stereo widening, or is it just a matter of finding a delay that works in the context of whatever delay is applied within the original signal.

I haven't yet gotten to the point of recording lead guitarists "naked" and applying effects later as "production values", since I have a hard enough time as it is convincing them that a particular EQ is "appropriate" (vs. their "live sound") due to the needs of the mix (why do so many guitarists tend to insist on hogging the bottom end?).

It's not a delay like the delay effect used on guitars and vocals - i.e. repeats or echoes - it means you are delaying the entire doubled track by a few milliseconds and panning hard left/right.

[chrispick]

Hmm, I've known about the aux/delay trick for a year or so now (I come from an acoustic music background so only recently have been delving into the "production" side of music), but have been afraid to try it since every guitarist I work with uses delay as part of their "sound".

I know this will seem like a naive question, but are you talking in the context of an uneffected "dry" sound when you mention this trick for stereo widening, or is it just a matter of finding a delay that works in the context of whatever delay is applied within the original signal.

I haven't yet gotten to the point of recording lead guitarists "naked" and applying effects later as "production values", since I have a hard enough time as it is convincing them that a particular EQ is "appropriate" (vs. their "live sound") due to the needs of the mix (why do so many guitarists tend to insist on hogging the bottom end?).

It's not a delay like the delay effect used on guitars and vocals - i.e. repeats or echoes - it means you are delaying the entire doubled track by a few milliseconds and panning hard left/right.

Exactly.

I'd like to say this is kind of a poor man's technique, as it were. It doesn't sound nearly as good as actually double-tracking unison parts with different guitars and amp (or amp settings).

Running duped parts through a harmonizer can help, but it's not the same. You usually don't want one part copied, then subtly detuned; you want two unison parts, both in tune, that have different harmonic content so they stand out from each other and avoid phase cancellation issues.

Personally, I prefer the two tracks to be from different guitar, amp sound and chord phrasing if you're going for that chunky barre chord sound.

[monkey man]

I'd like to say this is kind of a poor man's technique, as it were. It doesn't sound nearly as good as acutally double-tracking unison parts with different guitars and amp (or amp settings).

Running duped parts through a harmonizer can help, but it's not the same. You usually don't want one part copied, then subtly detuned; you want two unison parts, both in tune, that have different harmonic content so they stand out from each other and avoid phase cancellation issues.

Personally, I prefer the two tracks to be from different guitar, amp sound and chord phrasing if you're going for that chunky barre chord sound.

Good point well made, chrispick.

Of course, what we're talking about here is a poor-man's technique, for when you don't have that extra amp, cab, guitar or microphone.

[kelldammit]

right, the delay they're talking about is pretty small. the trick works because of how your ear locates sound. a large part of it is due to the differences in time that a sound arrives at one ear, vs the other.
how it works is that if you hear an identical sound in both ears within 20ms or so, your ears can't tell that they're separate sounds, so it decides that they're in fact the same sound, and so it "locates" it as being in the middle of your stereo image (assuming their levels are the same, etc).
so what you do, is add just enough delay to one side that it tricks your ear into thinking that they're different sounds, so it then locates them as hard left and hard right (assuming that's how you panned them).
the easiest way is to just copy the audio track to another channel, and move that file backward in time till you start to hear separation.
you can also do it with single repeat, 100% wet digital delay, as described above.
i'd suggest recording splitting your lead guitarists' chain into 3 channels...one dry for each side of the stereo image(one of which you'd shift back later, or you could even put a 20-30ms delay inline here, and use 100% wet), and the third his 100% wet long delay effect signal. it'd give you more flexibility@ mix, and hopefully you could make him happy by preserving "his sound" whilst recording.

another cool trick would be to record a DI'd clean guitar signal, and mix it in with the amped signal. it can help give more clarity and punch to very distorted parts. i don't know if i'd pan them opposite or anything, but there are lots of ways to punch up/double a guitar sound without going the stereo route.


kell

[monkey man]

Dammit, Kell!

I wanted to offer something here, but had forgotten some of the theory!
Bedroom producers world-wide thank you.