Stereo Electric Guitars

[vvv]

Aiight, my latest trick is recording stereo electric guitars.

Lately, I have been setting a cheap ribbon up about 9" from the speaker, and using an AT4040 about 6' away.

When I do the second guitar, the chain that was on the left is switched to the right, and the right side changed to the left, i.e., I reverse the sides.

On mixdown, I have not even separated the stereo tracks to twin mono; I just play with the panning. It can be cool using the room mic as the dominant with the close mic as the lesser far-side of the stereo track.

Anybody else doing anything similar? Any other tips or tricks for stereo guitars?

(You can hear it on the guitars here.)

[Randy]

I like to do that with acoustic guitars too. If I had only one close mic working I pull in a little delayed reverb to the other channel to give the spaciousness.

[cgarges]

That's been my primary method for recording electric guitars for years, except that I almost never double-track them that way. I do think that recording electric guitars (or almost any instrument) in stereo with some kind of locational cue better represents the binaural listening experience, so those methods make for a more realistic recorded sound. Sometimes, you might not want a realistic recorded sound, and other methods become useful.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

[vvv]

Cool; I mean it sounds good, so I know I'm not doing it "wrong", but I rarely hear anyone talk about spreading the mic's.

It seems that folks combine 'em - hence all of the concern about "phase" - but I thought maybe I was doing it the hard way or something.

cgarges: when you say "double-track", are you referring to having each guitar on locked-together stereo tracks, or just that I have two similarly-played guitars?

[mjau]

I like to do this as well...usually a cardioid dynamic tight on the speaker (sm57 or beyer m69), and something in omni or figure 8 a few feet away. I'll almost always define one of them as dominant and use the other one panned away and less prominent.

[Vogon]

Cool; I mean it sounds good, so I know I'm not doing it "wrong", but I rarely hear anyone talk about spreading the mic's.

It seems that folks combine 'em - hence all of the concern about "phase" - but I thought maybe I was doing it the hard way or something.

cgarges: when you say "double-track", are you referring to having each guitar on locked-together stereo tracks, or just that I have two similarly-played guitars?

Double-tracking *normally* refers to a second performance.
ADT or Automatic Double Tracking often refers to using a modulated delay etc.
Phase is still an issue if you spread the panning: mono-compatibility or whatever IS in the centre would be a concern, with anything less than hard-pan. There's not much point in *not* making the recordings phase coherant.
I believe "whole lotta love" used the hard panned dry/ambient technique - not quite the same, but the basic idea has been around a long time.

[cgarges]

cgarges: when you say "double-track", are you referring to having each guitar on locked-together stereo tracks, or just that I have two similarly-played guitars?

I never record with locked together stereo tracks. Even if I could, I wouldn't do it. Too much of a confusing hassle. I'm talking about the same part recorded twice.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

[vvv]

Cool.

And just in case I'm not being clear, the "locked-together" stereo tracks are of the single performance, with one recording chain on the left, the other on the right.

As far as the goofy tune I linked, the parts aren't "double-tracked" in the classic sense; they are both improv'd leads, hence my question.

Eh, maybe a graffic? Here is a similar tune (because I have the *.jpg handy); the guitars are tracks 4 & 5...

[cgarges]

And just in case I'm not being clear, the "locked-together" stereo tracks are of the single performance, with one recoding chain on the left, the other on the right.

Gotcha. That I do all the time. One mic on one track, another mic on another track, both recording the same performance. Sometimes I'll use a couple of mics summed to one track, but I like the stereo aspect of recording the basic guitar parts. I'll do anything with less-supportive overdubs, but I usually get the basic take with a stereo setup of some kind. not always, but usually.

I thought you meant that horribly-confusing option some computer programs give you for recording with "stereo tracks" where you might have 24 different instruments assigned to tracks 1-24, but if you export wav files of those tracks and four of them were recorded to "stereo tracks," you get 28 wav files. See, it's confusing just trying to explain it. The team of consultants who thought that was a good idea should be flogged.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

[vvv]

So I guess my next experiment is going to be to render those stereo tracks to mono, to give more control over panning and level, and especially effects.

[JGriffin]

I thought you meant that horribly-confusing option some computer programs give you for recording with "stereo tracks" where you might have 24 different instruments assigned to tracks 1-24, but if you export wav files of those tracks and four of them were recorded to "stereo tracks," you get 28 wav files. See, it's confusing just trying to explain it. The team of consultants who thought that was a good idea should be flogged.

Not to derail, but in other areas of audio production aside from music recording, stereo tracks are very useful.

[cgarges]

I'm sure it can be useful, but it's confusing as hell. If someone tells me that they've got a 24-track recording they want me to mix and I open up the files and there are really 37 tracks, that's a giant headache for which I was not prepared and it's got nothing to do with anything other than terminology. If you tell Jack Joseph Puig that you're sending him a 64-track project and he gets 109 tracks, he gets pissed-off.

It's fine if the manufacturers want to make this stuff linkable or whatever, but making a stereo track as opposed to a stereo pair of tracks is just complicating things way more than is necessary. But, it's done already and it's just one more thing that sucks about the world.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

[JGriffin]

I don't want this to turn into a huge argument, but from my point of view trying to use stereo source files in pairs of individual mono tracks where I have to take the additional step to link tracks up, add identical processing, eat up twice as much memory for said processing etc. complicates things more than is necessary. But as we both know, I'm doing different stuff. In your universe it's a pain, in mine it's a benefit. To each his own I guess.

[vvv]

add identical processing .

I, eh, hear you.

That said, my next experiment is going to be with different processing, ex., maybe a delay on the dominant close-mic'd side only, or perhaps just different pass-filters, or maybe an auto-panner on just the room side for that ever-useful motion.

The possibilities are endless, endless I say!

[LeedyGuy]

I'm sure it can be useful, but it's confusing as hell. If someone tells me that they've got a 24-track recording they want me to mix and I open up the files and there are really 37 tracks, that's a giant headache for which I was not prepared and it's got nothing to do with anything other than terminology.
Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

I was in that situation...I never really understood what I was even doing with a "stereo track" that was labeled "guitar." When you pan that left, are you only hearing the left side of it or is there some summing algorithm at play or what?

-Ken