Simple multitracking solution... why didn't anyone else think of this?

[Aus_rock_god]

Hey guys,

This is a handy little solution to multi-tracking (layering) guitars.

I invented this little gem (and successfully tried it) when I tried to layer some guitars for my metal band.

We found ourselves spending hours madly layering guitars and found it to be a complete waste of time, because the music was too fast to layer the guitars correctly.

But a single guitar track didn't sound big enough.

Simple solution: Hook the guitars up to three amps (by splitting the signal), sit all the amps in one room, mic each amp up with a dynamic mic and sit two condencer mics in the room for extra thickness and volia! Five tracks of different guitar tones, all perfectly syncrhonised!

I'll post the tracks up in a few weeks after they're mixed and mastered properly.

I'm not going to say how I split the signal though, I think I'll keep that as a trade secret. If you're smart enough to figure out how to split a signal into three and keep each amplifier at the same volume, you're smart enough to use this trick.

But it makes me feel sorry for poor gits that have to play the same thing three times perfectly when doing it this way means you only have to play it once. This solution is so simple, it suprises me that I havn't heard of anyone else doing it (except for Tool).

[Aaron]

Wow, if that works, potentially it's an awesome technique. I'm shaking my head in wonderment.

[Seafroggys]

I'm sure you are not the first to use that technique, but it definitly works. An SM57 right on a speaker cone usually doesn't cut it like many think.

You can also do similar things with reamping. Record a dry DI signal, then constantly reamp it to different amps. You can only record one at a time but you get results that are somewhat similar.

[Iskandar]

Hey guys,

This is a handy little solution to multi-tracking (layering) guitars.

I invented this little gem (and successfully tried it) when I tried to layer some guitars for my metal band.

We found ourselves spending hours madly layering guitars and found it to be a complete waste of time, because the music was too fast to layer the guitars correctly.

But a single guitar track didn't sound big enough.

Simple solution: Hook the guitars up to three amps (by splitting the signal), sit all the amps in one room, mic each amp up with a dynamic mic and sit two condencer mics in the room for extra thickness and volia! Five tracks of different guitar tones, all perfectly syncrhonised!

I'll post the tracks up in a few weeks after they're mixed and mastered properly.

I'm not going to say how I split the signal though, I think I'll keep that as a trade secret. If you're smart enough to figure out how to split a signal into three and keep each amplifier at the same volume, you're smart enough to use this trick.

But it makes me feel sorry for poor gits that have to play the same thing three times perfectly when doing it this way means you only have to play it once. This solution is so simple, it suprises me that I havn't heard of anyone else doing it (except for Tool).

[Tripp_chaos]

Because besides you me and Tool nobody else has probably been able to find a way to split the signal without actually losing any quality...

[Moseph]

Hey guys,

This is a handy little solution to multi-tracking (layering) guitars.

I invented this little gem (and successfully tried it) when I tried to layer some guitars for my metal band.

We found ourselves spending hours madly layering guitars and found it to be a complete waste of time, because the music was too fast to layer the guitars correctly.

But a single guitar track didn't sound big enough.

Simple solution: Hook the guitars up to three amps (by splitting the signal), sit all the amps in one room, mic each amp up with a dynamic mic and sit two condencer mics in the room for extra thickness and volia! Five tracks of different guitar tones, all perfectly syncrhonised!

I'll post the tracks up in a few weeks after they're mixed and mastered properly.

I'm not going to say how I split the signal though, I think I'll keep that as a trade secret. If you're smart enough to figure out how to split a signal into three and keep each amplifier at the same volume, you're smart enough to use this trick.

But it makes me feel sorry for poor gits that have to play the same thing three times perfectly when doing it this way means you only have to play it once. This solution is so simple, it suprises me that I havn't heard of anyone else doing it (except for Tool).

Because besides you me and Tool nobody else has probably been able to find a way to split the signal without actually losing any quality...

Oh man, inventions and trade secrets! What an exciting time we live in.

By the way, for those novices out there, here are a few ideas that might get you similar, if not identical, results to this "trade secret"...

(01) Using the aux sends outputs on a mixer. 1 Cable into the board, 3 cables out of the board into the amps.

(02) Using sub-groups or other bus direct outputs on a mixer. 1 Cable into the board, 3 cables out of the board into the amps.

(03) A lot of DI's will have concurrent AMP/LO-Z outputs. Chain two together and you have 3 outputs to work with.

(04) You can buy a proprietary pedal for routing, like the George Lynch Tripler pedal (Morley makes a bunch of other good routing pedals). That's right, nobody previously thought of this so much that Morley manufactured and sold pedals to do it!

(05) Companies like Whirlwind and ART make devices that are specifically designed to fan-out input signals. Whirlwind's is even called something like "1x3 SPLITTER"

(06) Half-normalled/mult patchbay modules. Take the output of the guitar into the half-normal input of the first module. Take the normal output and feed the next module, send the half-normal output to the amp. Repeat as necessary.

(07) Most cable testers will split low-voltage signals between their connections without causing too much fuss.

(08) Similarly, "adapter panels" are sometimes made/bought that allow multiple input connections on a single channel. The result is that they're also all tied to each other and can be used with other adapters to feed a guitar amp.

(09) Completely passive y-cables. This one I think is fairly self-explanatory. Generally you should be cautious about noise problems, but if you use an inline transformer, you can work in the balanced domain until you hit the amp input, then you should drop back down to unbalanced/mono connections.

(10) Specifically designed multiplexer using transformers do exist, though they're expensive and generally intended for long-range transmission sigals.

(11) Record the DI cleanly, and then use outputs on an audio interface to feed the amps consecutively, rather than concurrently (Seafroggys mentioned this already).

(12) Record the DI cleanly and using multiple virtual amp sims (for example, 3 instances of FreeAmp 3) or multiple outputs to the physical amps (for example, 3 of the outputs from a Presonus Firestudio) concurrently. You can also mix/match the physical with the virtual and it's still principally the same idea.

(13) Tapping the multiple outputs of a DSP-based amp sim processor. For instance, the Digitech RP250 has both a headphone out and a stereo amp out. If you set all the settings to neutral/clean and mono, you can then use passive y-cables and adapters to feed as many as 4 amps without hassle.

(14) Feeding the input of a headphone amp, then sending the feeds intended for headphones to the amps. This works best if the feeds to the headphones are mono.

(15) Using any of the above methods to split the signal into unbalanced mic pres on a mixer, then tapping the inserts of that mixer. Similarly, you could tap the direct outputs of each channel if your mixer has them (like for instance, a Mackie 1604).

(16) Daisy-chainging pedals or amps that have a "direct out" or "line out" or "tuner" output.

(17) Taking advantage of multiple "control room outputs" on some mixers. Set up the guitar to feed one channel, center the panning, and then take the outputs of the control room/mains directly to the amps.

(18) Taking advantage of mixers that have both main outs and "tape outs." Set up the guitar to feed one channel, center the panning, and then take the outputs of both the "tape out" and the mains directly to the amps.

(19) Taking advantage of mixers that have both main outs and headphone outs. Set up the guitar to feed one channel, center the panning, and then take the outputs of both the headphone out and the mains directly to the amps.


In case anyone's curious, solutions 3-6, 13, and 17-19 above will pretty much guarantee identical signal gain on each amp input if that's your goal. Solutions 1-2, 10-12 and 14-15 above will go one step further and give you discrete control over the input gain of each amp.

Man, it's a good thing nobody ever thought of that before! Now we can all have a trade secret that nobody will ever be able to figure out how to reproduce!

[Obelisk]

Can I play too?

(20) Record the guitar track once, copy and paste it into new tracks, offset it by a frame or 2, add different effects/eq to each of the tracks.

[Aaron]

^ Yeah digital double-tracking is a pretty good technique. Especially with organic drum sounds you want to add body to.

You can mic a monitor and just hit play too and rerecord as well.

[TriggerNYC]

Can I play too?

(20) Record the guitar track once, copy and paste it into new tracks, offset it by a frame or 2, add different effects/eq to each of the tracks.

this doesnt work out as well as you think. works even worse on vocals.

[Obelisk]

this doesnt work out as well as you think. works even worse on vocals.

imo, it works pretty awesome (as a simple solution) when you don't have 3 guitar amps. op didn't ask about vocals, but I'll agree - part of the goodness of double tracking vocals is the slight variances between takes.

[Moseph]

Can I play too?

(20) Record the guitar track once, copy and paste it into new tracks, offset it by a frame or 2, add different effects/eq to each of the tracks.

I'd say half credit on this one, since it's an extension of (12).

[Seafroggys]

this doesnt work out as well as you think. works even worse on vocals.

I'll disagree on vocals. ADT did The Beatles wonders, and all that was was a single delay.

[Tripp_chaos]

it depends on how good of a singer you are too because if you have bad tuning and you offset it then you have really bad tuning...

[Motleyguy]

That is awesome... Moseph just owned this thread. anyways, you can always just use a delay unit to create an automatic double track, then return it to a separate track, maybe change the EQ settings a bit or something.

[pikester]

To be fair, in general, Re-amping > ADT.

[Moseph]

Regarding ADT, that's a separate concept from what's being touted here.

ADT involves asynchronous playback of simultaneous signals.

What's involved here is synchronous playback of a simultaneous input signal, and then effectively simultaneous playback through multiple output devices, each with a different timbral effect.

[Tripp_chaos]

Thank you for clearing that up I just couldn't think of how to word that (prop)erly...
so

[Aus_rock_god]

Can I play too?

(20) Record the guitar track once, copy and paste it into new tracks, offset it by a frame or 2, add different effects/eq to each of the tracks.

You can make some pretty cool phase effects doing that, but that's all I've been able to do with it.

(01) Using the aux sends outputs on a mixer. 1 Cable into the board, 3 cables out of the board into the amps.

Yeah man, you knocked HALF the solution over in one. BUT in order for it to work properly, all the amps have to be at exactly the same volume (because we were also using room mics). Keep in mind that the three amps involved (a Marshall, a Laney and a, don't laugh, Behringer) are completely different, so even if the volume knobs are set the same, the volume will be different.

Hint: with the exception of room mics, all mics were sm 57s.




The only issue I found was that the aux sends/main out/ any send that had a phono, were at line level, making the amps a bit buzzy.

I had to had the gain (on the mixer) set real low, and keep the signal strength at about -15 db ish, to keep the humming to a minimum. Wasn't really that much of an issue, considering that all our music is pretty much "bah badda bah bah bah buddabudda" all the time, with no really big gaps, but any little thing like that stands out like dog's balls after mastering if it's not knocked on the head in the studio.

Re-amping frigging OWNS over everything else, especcially with metal. Actual double tracking (ie: play it once, change the amp/amp tone, play it again) always makes any little bends or accents you do sound funny, so you can't really be as expressive as getting everything done in one take.

Another issue was getting 3 amps to complement eachother, without sounding the same, then using the same 3 amps for the other guitar and trying to get the tones to complement eachother without sounding exactly the same. This just took patience, experimentation and coffee.

We also used 2 room mics to get the amps to blend better in the mix. When we did the 2nd guitar it was also a case of moving the room mics to subtly change the tone.

We kept the heads in the control room and the cabs in the treated room to kill any pick attack and so we could control the tone from our seats (nothing new here, but it's suprising the number of bands that don't do this).

So, in the end we had 10 tracks for of guitar, 9 tracks of drumming, 4 tracks for vocals (double miced), 3 bass tracks (sub, treble, DI) plus 2 lead tracks (one amp, double miced), and a partrige in a pair tree.

The end result for the guitars anyway is pretty similar to the guitar sound on Death Magnetic (which makes me wonder is Metallica did this too).

Recordings will be up in Febuary (earlier if the mixing/mastering goes as smoothly as the recording).

[Motleyguy]

You can make some pretty cool phase effects doing that, but that's all I've been able to do with it.



Yeah man, you knocked HALF the solution over in one. BUT in order for it to work properly, all the amps have to be at exactly the same volume (because we were also using room mics). Keep in mind that the three amps involved (a Marshall, a Laney and a, don't laugh, Behringer) are completely different, so even if the volume knobs are set the same, the volume will be different.

Hint: with the exception of room mics, all mics were sm 57s.




The only issue I found was that the aux sends/main out/ any send that had a phono, were at line level, making the amps a bit buzzy.

I had to had the gain (on the mixer) set real low, and keep the signal strength at about -15 db ish, to keep the humming to a minimum. Wasn't really that much of an issue, considering that all our music is pretty much "bah badda bah bah bah buddabudda" all the time, with no really big gaps, but any little thing like that stands out like dog's balls after mastering if it's not knocked on the head in the studio.


Sounds like a possible ground loop problem.

[Aus_rock_god]

Yeah, except the mixer only had a two pin plug (ie: no earth) and I really didn't want to snap the earth pin off any of the amps. Particularly the marshall combo, which had the amplifier removed from the cab, and a wooden board protecting anyone who might accidently fall on it from electrocution.

These things happen when you get equiptment to do things that it's not designed to do.

The raw recording sounds really clear though, any hiss is a quick eq job.

[TriggerNYC]

Re-amping frigging OWNS over everything else,


word

[Motleyguy]

Yeah, except the mixer only had a two pin plug (ie: no earth) and I really didn't want to snap the earth pin off any of the amps. Particularly the marshall combo, which had the amplifier removed from the cab, and a wooden board protecting anyone who might accidently fall on it from electrocution.

These things happen when you get equiptment to do things that it's not designed to do.

The raw recording sounds really clear though, any hiss is a quick eq job.

Another solution, to not break electrical ground, would be to use a DI box to break audio ground (they often have "ground" switches on them)

[Aus_rock_god]

That would work like a dream. I'll do that next time.

[Chop Suey!]

sounds sick, but most people don't three high end amps/cabs to do this with.

I think it sounds awesome laying many guitar tracks over one another, because you can add little things here and there that you cant do if you were just to copy and paste digitally.

[fishbulb]

Can I play too?

(20) Record the guitar track once, copy and paste it into new tracks, offset it by a frame or 2, add different effects/eq to each of the tracks.

I've always thought of doing this but i always thought it was an extremely cheap means of doing something and would be laughed upon by "professionals".

And just so i'm clear, by a frame or two do you mean a few milliseconds?

[EADGCF]

Why not just record one track and re-amp it?

[EADGCF]

this doesnt work out as well as you think. works even worse on vocals.

I rather like it used on drums.

[Aus_rock_god]

Why not just record one track and re-amp it?

Because it takes longer and costs studio time. And doing it this way ment we could use room mics to make the tone even phatter.

We're still mixing the thing, but even the rough mixes sound good.

Wait till you hear this sh!t. :thumb:

[EADGCF]

Setting all of that equipment up and leveling it also takes time. Just sayin

[TriggerNYC]

+1 for re-amping.

btw aus rock god. throw something up so we can hear this.

[Motleyguy]

Setting all of that equipment up and leveling it also takes time. Just sayin

"... just sayin' " that is like my favourite phrase ever. You would get rep for this if it still existed lol.

[pikester]

Cha.

[Ceminon]

I've always thought of doing this but i always thought it was an extremely cheap means of doing something and would be laughed upon by "professionals".

And just so i'm clear, by a frame or two do you mean a few milliseconds?

I tried that technique once. I couldn't get it to sound very natural though.

And the only amp I have other than my Marshall is waaay worse than even a Behringer amp.

[Aus_rock_god]

+1 for re-amping.

btw aus rock god. throw something up so we can hear this.

On its way. Still mixing the bloody thing. Our drummer's doing the mixing on his computer, and it's struggling with all the tracks (28 in total, plus ambiant keyboards and **** in some songs), lol.

It has to be ready by the 1st of March at the latest.

Setting all of that equipment up and leveling it also takes time. Just sayin

...

Yeah but

...

This is way cooler :cool:

[Aus_rock_god]

Finally mixed and mastered.

Posted in new thread:

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=572752

[joshmay]

from my limited experience, room mics are KEY to getting a good full sound with your recording

[Seafroggys]

from my limited experience, room mics are KEY to getting a good full sound with your recording

depends on song arrangement too.

[Hobbes]

Why not just track one guitar, copy it to another track and offset it 15-30ms? If you set it right it won't give you phase troubles and makes a good stereo sound. If coupled with a slightly different effect/eq on one guitar it sounds pretty natural. It works especially good with acoustic guitars.

I'm sure lots of people do it, but I didn't see it mentioned here.

[Seafroggys]

Its not the same as double tracking. Besides, why not just use a delay instead, set to 1:1 wetness?

[Hobbes]

Its not the same as double tracking. Besides, why not just use a delay instead, set to 1:1 wetness?

I could see that working decently.

Of course I still love proper double-tracking, so long as the guitarist is good enough to play accurately at both tracks. I love the 100% left and right guitar sound.

[Raayl]

I could see that working decently.

Of course I still love proper double-tracking, so long as the guitarist is good enough to play accurately at both tracks. I love the 100% left and right guitar sound.

70% imo 100% sounds too unbalanced especially if people listen on surround systems =/

[Hobbes]

70% imo 100% sounds too unbalanced especially if people listen on surround systems =/

nahh, you just mix 80's guitar tones. ;)

[Raayl]

nahh, you just mix 80's guitar tones. ;)

hey man it was a good era

queensryche cough cough

[Aus_rock_god]

from my limited experience, room mics are KEY to getting a good full sound with your recording

Oooooooo yeaaaahhhhhhhhhhh

[DrummerJonny]

i like the sound of this idea...

my interesting way of doing this would, however, involve a 48 channel mixing desk, 24 channels flipped to behave as outputs, eqing each a bit differently and a venue full of pa equipment, then placing mics in random positions around the room and playing the track.

god thatd sound beefy.