What's the trick to recording multiple clean guitar tracks?

doc-phil · 2009-08-04T15:47:48+00:00

I often shy away from recording accoustic/clean stuff that I've written because I can't achieve good tone when playing clean tracks on top of each other. At...

What's the trick to recording multiple clean guitar tracks?

andrewjbryson

1) Try getting a good input level - this is trial and error, you need to sit down and get the highest signal level without noise... (on the meter it would be just before it hits yellow / and make sure it Never hits red.

2) Im assuming you use humbuckers - I find I get a better clean tone if play softly/ gently and high up (closer to the bridge)
This is because Humbuckers give a "hot" signal so the dynamics / complexity is a bit lacking (compared to single coils) and if i play closer
to the bridge I achieve more treble. This is by no means the "correct" approach , but this something that works for me.

3) Double up tracks / Lets say youve got a riff (in the low register) , then double it up ,
Sounds cool ? but for more "depth" or "character" I like to record another 2 tracks on top of that (this time in the higher register)
It doesn't have to be the same riff, in fact for the higher register stuff , the simpler it is the better...

4) Delay and reverbs (Never underestimate the power of these)
Delay as inserts
And Reverb as Sends

doc-phil

Thanks for the pointers.. one n00b question though, what do you mean under point 4 'delay as inserts and reverb as sends'?

Neps

doc-phil wrote: Thanks for the pointers.. one n00b question though, what do you mean under point 4 'delay as inserts and reverb as sends'?

Well.. Inserts will be the position in your DAW where you'd normally place EQ's and Compressors. You can add your delays on there as well, but I prefer to use sends for those as well.

Sends are more commonly known as Aux channels. So you'd create an aux channel and then send the guitar signal out via the send to that aux, and then place your reverb on that channel. You can create for example 2 reverb sends. A short decay with a short pre-delay and one with a longer decay (maybe 'darker' EQ) and a bit of a longer pre-delay. Then you just change the amount of signal from the guitars send to those two to make a fuller tone.

I do the same with delays, one with quite a quick delay (time stamped if possible (according to the tempo)), and one with a longer delay. Normally I'd do a stereo delay with the Left (as an example) being the shorter dealy and the Right the longer.

However make sure that the delay doesn't compete with the reverb. They can start fighting with each other for space.

A neat trick is to record a track, Pan it hard right (eg.) and then a mono delay panned hard left with a delay of 2-3ms, then send the guitar to that delay. This causes a weird phasing, but also widens the stereo image and also adds body to the signal.

doc-phil

eish it sounds so complicated! All I do for reverb and delay is select it on the patch I'm using in Gearbox (I didn't buy vst functionality for Gearbox so I'm using it as a standalone). I've never used vst's/effects in my DAW.

I have a lot to learn. I'll give your suggestions a crack and see if I can figure it out, thanks ?

AlanRatcliffe

Inserts are in the individual tracks and are in series, processing the entire signal of that single track. They are usually pre-fade.

Aux sends are a separate, parallel track that you set up with an effect inserted. To add effect, you set the level of the send from the track. They do not affect the original signal of the track, but just add the effect sound. Aux sends are mostly used to effect multiple tracks with one instance of an effect, as you can send multiple tracks to one Aux for effects like reverb - and each track has it's own separate send level, so you can mix how much effect each track gets (very handy. You can have a tight, dry kick drum mixed with a cavernous snare - and anywhere in between for each instrument). Aux sends are usually post fade, so if you adjust the level of a track in the mix, the level of the effect is also adjusted.

As Neps pointed out, dynamic effects (compressors, limiters, noise gates, expanders) and track EQ will usually be via insert, as will anything you want to only affect the sound of one track (chorus, overdrive, filters, you name it). Reverbs will usually be on an Aux, unless you want a completely separate and different reverb for just one track (less common, but still done). IMO, delays are special, they go either way, although I usually use them on inserts rather than Aux sends (I don't usually use them as a mix effect).

As to the original question:
Layering tracks is an art - for clean or dirty guitars. I'll post a few things in another post after this...

Gearhead

Neps wrote: You can create for example 2 reverb sends. A short decay with a short pre-delay and one with a longer decay (maybe 'darker' EQ) and a bit of a longer pre-delay.

Alan Ratcliffe wrote: Reverbs will usually be on an Aux, unless you want a completely separate and different reverb for just one track (less common, but still done).

I was very confused about the use of reverb until I read this: The amount of reverb tells our ears something about the distance of the sound source. If you're in a hall and something sounds not so loud but has reverb, your brain interprets this as 'it's far away but louder than I hear it'. This means that if you need more depth in a recording you can play with fader, pan AND reverb to 'place' the source. In combination with the tonal 'place' as mentioned by Andrew or some fine EQ you can spread out the tracks more.
The "wall of sound' as invented by the late Phil Spector uses this effect to achieve the opposite: by putting the combined sound of a string quartet and a couple of guitarists through an echo chamber (the best reverb plugin they had at the time) he put all the backing tracks in the same spot in the background but you still percieve them as being very 'there'. Duffy recently has had some success copying that formula.

AlanRatcliffe

Layering tracks is an art - for clean or dirty guitars.

First understand the concept of "masking". Masking is when two sounds blend together to become one sound to the listener. This can be a good thing - like when a kick drum and bass track are so tight it sounds as if they are one big tuned percussive instrument that pushes the music forwards. Other times you don't want masking - you want each thing to stand out and be heard. So first step is deciding which you want for which part - it's all part of the arrangement.

For things to mask completely they must have the same timing, similar frequency response and similar placement in the stereo "soundstage", to get things to stand out from each other (or "unmask" as I like to call it) as many of these things as possible must be different.

Timing - tha's an easy one. Play parts that weave together rather than play the same thing. Listen to Baroque counterpoint for the best examples of this. Even for unison parts, slightly different phrasing and expressive touches like vibrato, bending one guitar to a note while you slide to it with another can make all the difference.

Frequency response (tone!) - This can be simple or complex, depending on how far you want to take it. Simplest would be a different pickup setting on the same guitar or just playing in a different register. You'll be surprised just how well simply changing the octave of one part can make it jump out of the mix.

To take the unmasking up a notch, use a different guitar, different amp, different mic. You'll be surprised how well using different amp patches can work - amps you might not usually use by themselves - just because they have different frequency responses (e.g. a Vox's midrangey voice blends really well with the mid-scooped tone of a Blackface Fender).

Lastly and most complex, there is EQing the mix to get rid of frequencies that are shared by both parts - clear the bass a bit on one sound and boost it on the other and do the reverse for the treble, etc.).

Stereo - Another simple one. Just put each guitar in it's own place in the stereo soundfield. A general rule is bassier sounds towards the middle, more treble-oriented ones towards the sides. Bass is non-directional, so those sounds tend to appear if they are coming from the middle anyway, and it's good to have both speakers carry the load of the power sapping bass frequencies.

Another stereo tip is unless you really know what you are doing or have something where stereo is integral to the sound, record all your parts in mono - makes them far easier to mix.

Also, if you are using effects like stereo reverb, be careful not to mush everything together by using too much (and more reverb will make a part sound further away, making it difficult to get it to stand out), and pan your reverb sends (if your DAW allows it) - bouncing from the opposite side of the soundfield from where the guitar is panned is more natural sounding, but panning it to the same place keeps the sound tighter and more discrete from the other parts.

[EDIT: Gearhead beat me on some of the reverb stuff, but I'll leave mine intact anyway...]

Gearhead

Gearhead's not going to beat you any day soon and you know it ?

AlanRatcliffe

Gearhead wrote: Gearhead's not going to beat you any day soon and you know it ?

Even if I like that sort of thing? ?

DonovanB

I normalise all clean guitar.

AlanRatcliffe

DonovanB wrote: I normalise all clean guitar.

I normalise everything. It's a habit from 16bit days when you couldn't afford to lose quieter stuff to low res. That's not such an issue now with 20 and 24bit recording, but it's still nice to know that a track is normalised so that I can use my preset compressor settings and know exactly what I'm going to get without having to adjust the threshold.

doc-phil

I think I'm seeing the error of my ways now ? I very rarely write anything with more than one clean track so I could get away with setting a 'Cavernous' reverb effect on to the clean track in my amp sim. This worked fine when I was playing a distorted lead on top of the clean track but as I have found out, having numerous tracks with copious amounts of reverb or delay makes things messy.

I'm gonna give another crack at recording my song... in the mean time I have attached the Guitar Pro file of the composition I wrote just to give you a sense of what I want my final result to sound like.

http://www.box.net/shared/by0yxfbjq1

Edit: What exactly is normalisation? Is it recording all tracks at the same level, regardless of any distortion and/or effects that have been added?

DonovanB

Audio normalization is the process of increasing (or decreasing) the amplitude of an entire audio signal so that the resulting peak amplitude matches a desired target

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_normalization

AlanRatcliffe

What exactly is normalisation?

It's boosting the level of a recorded track to a maximum level before clipping. The process looks at the loudest sound peak and then raises the level of everything in the track until that peak is at the maximum level. Everything is raised by the same amount, so it doesn't compress the dynamic range. If you apply it to all your tracks, it brings them all to a even peak level.

doc-phil

Oh ok, makes sense. So when you say you 'normalise' all tracks do you mean you set each track manually by looking at your levels when you're playing and adjusting it accordingly or is there a setting or something that can do it for you?

DonovanB

There should be a plugin that does it for you.

AlanRatcliffe

It's usually included in the DAW software as a part of the program.

Neps

I don't like to use the Normilise option. I'd rather try and record all the signals as hot as possible without having to resort to using a plugin to make it louder.. 2 reasons.. 1. noise also comes up with the normilizing of a track, and there can be longterm dithering issues. But I have been known to use it when all else fails (on TV shows you can get away with it), but in musc I'll rather just ride the faders more, or automate the plugins. It's tedious, but it's just a fear of mine using the Normalize plugin.

*start rant*
That wikipedia article is wrong in some places.. No audio engineer whilst mastering (ok, one that gets paid $$$) will normalize a track. The problem with it always has been noise. The statement regarding the S/N ratio is wrong in the way I read it.
If you transfer tracks from a Tape to CD, then you'll record it as hot as possible onto your DAW. You'll have noise as we all know due to tapes being the dreaded carrier of hiss. BUT, if you use good heads, good AD converters and at least tape that has not been played too much, you'll get a clean signal. Then all you'll have to do is actually raise the master volume (the fader) so that the peaks dont go into the red.. Yes it's the same as normilizing, but it's not a plugin that can cause sampling errors, clicks and crackles.
*rant over*

AlanRatcliffe

+1 on that wikipedia article. Badly written and explained anyway, would likely confuse someone more.

Recording as hot as possible is always good to keep the s/n of any outboard stuff down, but IMO, you don't gain anything from it on the digital side (no internal noise floor to raise) and you gain the risk of digital overs. With modern hi-res, quantisation errors are not a problem - even with quieter sounds - and who records at -80dB anyway? ? Normalising the track also reduces the quantisation errors you get from plugins - especially lower res ones - as they are also seeing a better level.

In any case, whether you raise the level with normalising or with the fader, you are still applying gain to the track and any noise captured in the recording will be boosted anyway.

You mention "riding the faders" instead of normalising - aren't you confusing normalising with maximising? Normalisation isn't a plugin either.

Neps

Alan Ratcliffe wrote: +1 on that wikipedia article. Badly written and explained anyway, would likely confuse someone more.

Recording as hot as possible is always good to keep the s/n of any outboard stuff down, but IMO, you don't gain anything from it on the digital side (no internal noise floor to raise) and you gain the risk of digital overs. With modern hi-res, quantisation errors are not a problem - even with quieter sounds - and who records at -80dB anyway? ? Normalising the track also reduces the quantisation errors you get from plugins - especially lower res ones - as they are also seeing a better level.

In any case, whether you raise the level with normalising or with the fader, you are still applying gain to the track and any noise captured in the recording will be boosted anyway.

You mention "riding the faders" instead of normalising - aren't you confusing normalising with maximising? Normalisation isn't a plugin either.

There is actually a 'Normalize' plugin in ProTools.. I like to record as hot as possible for the following reasons.. Sure, digital doesn't have the same noise floor as analog but, unless you are using high end pre amps and DA converters, you're still exposed to a bit of noise (yes high end stuff also has noise, but it does tend to be faaarrr less). And I've noticed that even if I use my Strat straight into a GraceDesign preamp http://www.gracedesign.com/products/m101/m101.htm into my Digi002 I get quite a bit of 'noise' as compared to my 192i/o. But if I do crank it into the 002, I get it to sound a lot better. Sure, I'm nitpicking but I found it good practice to go hot.

Another thing to remember about the digital age is that nasty thing called clocking. My 'pro' rig has a digidesign Sync that handles my clocking, however when I had the Apogee Big Ben my work just kicked up a beat. And yes, it was small, but it was a difference that got me to get one for a studio I'm helping to setup (I'm sticking with my SYNC cause it looks pretty :? ) My 002 isn't clocked (runs on internal), and there is a huge difference when I record straight into the 002 unclocked vs. a clocked 002. (sorry, yet again nitpicking)

As with regard to me 'riding' the faders.. Jip, it does the same thing as the Normilize and Gain plugins do, but I much more prefer doing that than having to rely on a plugin to do it for me.. I still have issues with some plugins that after offline processing them, it still doesn't do the job for me. It's a quicker way for me in any case to rather ride faders to the correct level, than normalizing. But I also mix much lower than the digital 0 point. My peaks in mixes never go over -5dB's. It just gives me the added headroom when I want stuff mastered or when I want to master it myself. Also recording hotter has an advantage at the compressor stage. You can bang something harder with the compressor without having to worry about getting the hiss and low rumbles to the point where it is audible.

At the end of the day, digital has made life MUCH easier, and sure, recording at 24bit is awesome, and having access to gear that runs 192kHz like a breeze is fun. And yes, it's made the noise of analog a thing of the past, but it's still only 'code' and your plugins will only sound as good as the codewriter.

Normalising the track also reduces the quantisation errors you get from plugins - especially lower res ones - as they are also seeing a better level.

True, so true..

It does seem that this argument for and against recording hot into digital can go round-and-round-and-round, and all comes down to what your aim is with what you're recording. Because this is my 'income' source I'd rather be safe than sorry, and it also keeps me from slagging off, cause I might rel soon again work on tape, and then you have to make that tape machine squeal. ?