Rhythm guitar doubling--same guitar or different guitars?

[Inflames626]

Hi all,
Just curious--for those of you with the luxury of multiple guitars, do you prefer recording rhythms with multiple guitars with different pickups or the same guitar tweaked slightly because it's possibly faster to dial in?

My experience in metal is that darker/rhythm guitars are panned more left, while brighter/melodic guitars are panned right. They offset each other in a stereo mix and produce a more pleasing sound. According to Kohle Audio Kult that may be an old school way of doing it but it's still the one I use.

Of course we have triple (one center about -6db) and quadruple tracked rhythms now, but I usually stick with two since more than that loses a bit of tightness to my ear by producing a chorus effect from so many guitars (I also tend to put in about 1/64-1/32 digital delay as a thickener). It's also just easier to mix with fewer guitars and leaves more room for bass. Sometimes it's cool when the number of rhythm guitars is indeterminate to the ear (wall of guitars). Sometimes it's just too much for the song.

Working with multiple/different guitars seems to produce more of a live feel because of more frequency oscillation and tone/timing variance, but tracking with the same guitar tweaked slightly (darker tone on left, brighter tone on right) produces a tighter, more cohesive "wall of sound" effect.

I would think tracking with the same guitar multiple times and EQ'ed to taste slightly differently on each side of the mix wins out.

The reason is back in the day most of the thrash guys doubled or tripled their own rhythms, most likely using the same guitar, instead of tracking the lead guitarist also playing rhythm as would be heard in a live situation. I really didn't hear about quad tracking rhythms until the 90s, and even then that was to produce a widening effect with some tracks louder/panned more widely than others.

Some people may even do 6 guitars now, but that seems really time consuming and would crowd things out of the mix once melodies and vocals are added in.

Thanks for your insights.

[Inflames626]

I would like to experiment quad tracking rhythm guitars specifically for 5.1 sound system listening, but I'm not sure if this would be garbage on a typical 2.1 setup.

It would be nice if there was a way for the system to detect 5.1 vs. 2.1 setups and then alter the panning on the fly so you don't lose 2 tracks on a 2.1 setup for something recorded with 5.1 in mind.

[El Dunco]

I’m a fan of doing it this way. I make sure the intonation is absolutely spot on for both if it’s different guitars, that’s very important. Some songs benefit from the bigger stereo image of different guitars, if you’re boosting an amp with an overdrive you can use different overdrives. If you’re blending amps, you can have slightly different levels of each on either side.

I have noticed I way prefer the left and right guitars to sound a little different from each other, emphasising different frequencies. It makes everything sound wider and more exciting than recording another track with completely identical settings.

[GuitarStv]

I have an open back 1x12 combo with a C. Rex and a closed back 1x12 extension cab with a V30. Typically when recording any guitar part I like to mic each cab and then pan one hard right and one hard left. It gives a slightly bigger sound and (to my ears) gets closer to the sound in the room when I'm playing. That's not what I'd consider 'doubling' though - it's more like two slightly different EQs being recorded at the same time.

I kinda consider it 'doubling' only when you're playing the same part two times. The minor differences in pitch and timing can really thicken up a part when done well. For this I like to use different pickups (like a mid heavy humbucker and a mid-scooped single coil) and/or very different amp settings or amps. Then these get panned pretty hard left and right. It seems to fill out the frequencies more and enhance the thickening that I'm looking for. Usually I don't do more than two guitars like this - things become more difficult to mix and tend to get too thick for my tastes.

[Mincer]

I think all of this would depend on the kind of music. I generally don't switch guitars because I can tweak them to sound different later on, or in the Fractal, using different amp models. Also, laziness.

[Seashore]

I use the same guitar with the same settings for both sides. There are some parts that get played in unison and if there's a lead I will double the rhythm so one side doesn't drop out, but a lot of the time my left and right guitars are playing different things. I experimented with using different mics, cabs, amp settings, etc for each side but I didn't find any real benefit to it for my own stuff. Typically I'll pan the main guitars out to around 80% left and right, have any clean parts closer to 60% l/r, leads between 10-20% l/r, always depending on what sounds good. I keep my drums within 50% from the center, bass and main vocals dead center. Sometimes I hard pan guitars, but the mix sounds a little tighter when it's brought in and I like leaving room for reverbs out to the sides.

[Rex_Rocker]

Yeah, I've read people do that to spread the stereo field. Make each side of guitars different-sounding than the others.

The problem that I have with that approach... or well, rather, problems, are two.

I find it hard to find the right balance between both sides' volume so that the stereo field doesn't shift to one size. Usually, the brightest side should be turned down so that it doesn't overwpower the dark side, but if you're not careful, that may mean you end up thinning out the brighter tone too much. It's a super fine balance that I find it hard to work with, hence why I've avoided it for the most part.

Second, for me, I always like one of the tones better. And that's exactly the reason why I don't like mixing different speakers inside cabs. I always like one better than the other, so I always feel like I'm watering down the one I like the best with the one I like the least.

Not to say it cannot be made to work. But that's just my approach. Then again, I have always tried to mix my own stuff, and I only have one identity. I bet if you're mixing two different guitarists with different tones and different tastes, you would almost be forced to make it work. Then again, it's usually easier to get the guitars to sound tight and balanced (especially if you're quadtracking, which I really like the sound of) if only one guy tracks rhythms.

[Rex_Rocker]

Oh, wait... that's me assuming both tones are like more different than just "subtly different". Which one do you mean?

Also, I hate tri-tracking. Honestly, I feel that is actually detrimental to a wider stereo image.

Also, if you're getting a "chorus" effect, that means one of the guitars you're quad-tracking is slightly out of tune. Sometimes it's a drag, but I usually check tuning between each take to make sure everything is as spot-on as it can be. At least if I'm doing something serious, not on a "tone test" clip, at least. On a well-functioning guitar, it shouldn't be an issue. But hence the reason why studio guys think the Evertune thing is such a Godsend. Quad-tracked guitars do sound slightly "washy", but more in an almost "phase" or "slight delay" sense rather than pitch. If pitch (chorus) is the biggest issue, then that means the guitars' tuning isn't spot on.

[beaubrummels]

I use different guitars, and amps, for left and right. If I'm double-tracking, I'm trying to get a wide stereo image, though I do match up gear that is complimentary. If I just want one guitar thicker, I'll split the signal and run it through different amps and pan them.

[Inflames626]

Oh, wait... that's me assuming both tones are like more different than just "subtly different". Which one do you mean?

Also, I hate tri-tracking. Honestly, I feel that is actually detrimental to a wider stereo image.

Also, if you're getting a "chorus" effect, that means one of the guitars you're quad-tracking is slightly out of tune. Sometimes it's a drag, but I usually check tuning between each take to make sure everything is as spot-on as it can be. At least if I'm doing something serious, not on a "tone test" clip, at least. On a well-functioning guitar, it shouldn't be an issue. But hence the reason why studio guys think the Evertune thing is such a Godsend. Quad-tracked guitars do sound slightly "washy", but more in an almost "phase" or "slight delay" sense rather than pitch. If pitch (chorus) is the biggest issue, then that means the guitars' tuning isn't spot on.

By doubling I do mean performing the same part twice or more.

By subtly different I mean a tone that is mostly the same but EQ'ed slightly differently so the tones are distinct but mesh well.

By chorus effect I mean very slight--as if you were playing the same note in two different places on the guitar neck. This could be attributable to something as slight as a warm vs. bright guitar. It's assumed everything is in tune. Intonation will never be perfect but should be within a few cents on a strobe tuner. I find shorter scale lengths are more problematic.

Adding in lots of mic locations to each guitar and then multiple guitars--yeah. It gets to be a bit much. Then dial those amps in. Then mix all those. Run all those to a bus. A lot going on.

Wideness I feel can weaken a mix if hard left or right. I also don't like slightly left or right center instruments like bass or snare. I'm usually at 75%/25% L or R. Anything wider is usually for effect (usually a guitar playing a riff alone for the first repetition) or for trading solos if I take the each solo has a side approach.

I suppose if you really wanted to make it complicated you could have L guitar on axis on L side but the off axis mic going R and vice versa so you get aspects of one guitar's signal on both sides.

Glad I thought of this topic. It seems to have brought up a lot of good answers.

[JOLLY]

I used to use different guitars and different amp settings, but now I just use the same guitar and settings.

[Rex_Rocker]

I dunno, I do like my mixes wide.

Guitars are what I spread the widest (One pair 100% R/L, the other pair 3dB lower 85% R/L). I don't find them thin this way. If anything, I find wider stereo image sounds bigger.

The chorus-y effect is innevitable as guitar is such an imperfect instrument, and we don't play like machines, but playing tight and consistently enough minimizes it to the point where it's subtle and just a texture thing. Honestly, the pitch thing I note it VERY slightly, and I notice it more when playing like power chords or actual chords than single notes, so I try not to pick the chord parts as hard as I usually do to keep the pitch drift more in check.

Honestly, I think that's part of the reason why tracking with one single guitar might be a good idea. At least per riff.

Then again, if you like the Thrash Metal aesthetic better than the Death Meatl wall of sound better, dual tracking might work better. More defined attack with dual-tracking. But even then, I've never heard of any mix that pans any pair of rhythm guitars narrower than like... what... 80%?

I do think MOP was six rhythm tracks, tho? Something ridiculous like that. James Hetfield was a machine before he became a washed out pop rocker.

[Inflames626]

I dunno, I do like my mixes wide.

Guitars are what I spread the widest (One pair 100% R/L, the other pair 3dB lower 85% R/L). I don't find them thin this way. If anything, I find wider stereo image sounds bigger.

The chorus-y effect is innevitable as guitar is such an imperfect instrument, and we don't play like machines, but playing tight and consistently enough minimizes it to the point where it's subtle and just a texture thing. Honestly, the pitch thing I note it VERY slightly, and I notice it more when playing like power chords or actual chords than single notes, so I try not to pick the chord parts as hard as I usually do to keep the pitch drift more in check.

Honestly, I think that's part of the reason why tracking with one single guitar might be a good idea. At least per riff.

Then again, if you like the Thrash Metal aesthetic better than the Death Meatl wall of sound better, dual tracking might work better. More defined attack with dual-tracking. But even then, I've never heard of any mix that pans any pair of rhythm guitars narrower than like... what... 80%?

I do think MOP was six rhythm tracks, tho? Something ridiculous like that. James Hetfield was a machine before he became a washed out pop rocker.

Pretty sure Fricker said it was two and a center at -6 db. I hear more guitars on Justice than Puppets--to the point where the number of rhythm guitars on Justice is kind of indeterminate to my ear. Just lots of them.

Meanwhile on Load and Reload you can definitely hear James and Kirk both doing rhythm and it's probably just two tracks. It has a very live, loose, and textured feel--like Southern rock. You can hear more imperfections in playing on each side.

Then again those albums tend to have different rhythm parts instead of just being doubled. Until It Sleeps was the first song I learned at 15 or 16. On the chorus James is playing the more audible part with a descending E minor dyad going down to D major and then C major with an A being pedaled in the bass (all detuned to Eb). Kirk plays more like an Asus2 figure that is really buried in the mix but fills it out. I couldn't even hear these parts until I had the Cherry Lane tab books (what we had before the Internet).

I kind of feel like a slight delay has more of a thickening effect without resorting to all the imperfections of more parts (and time taken to track 4-6 times). That said if you do it too wet it sounds like 80s Judas Priest or Dokken or Ratt or something--conspicuously wet and reverby.

When I do this Dyer's Eve cover (it will take me ages) I may try to set it up for 5.1 and have four rhythm guitars just to see what happens. Maybe I can fade some of the front LR to the back LR and some of the back LR to front LR so if there's just 2 speakers and a center you still get part of all guitars in there.

My hesitancy in panning guitars too hard is this. I listened to The Jester Race one time on a buddy's stereo system that, for whatever reason, only had one side working. Suddenly I could hear parts and imperfections I had never heard before. I didn't know the guitars could be isolated that well and that they were that intricate.

If you go back and listen to The Jester Race song or something like December Flower and just have one side of the mix it really drops out. So I kind of like having some bleed over between speakers so you don't lose everything in a less than perfect listening environment.

Plus if I'm listening to my stuff on a 5.1 system in a mid sized room like my computer/recording room here, it's going to sound more spread out than it would in the car maybe or on headphones. The sound is coming from little cubes far apart all around a room--not a sound bar like a lot of people use now.

[El Dunco]

Oh, wait... that's me assuming both tones are like more different than just "subtly different". Which one do you mean?

Also, I hate tri-tracking. Honestly, I feel that is actually detrimental to a wider stereo image.

Also, if you're getting a "chorus" effect, that means one of the guitars you're quad-tracking is slightly out of tune. Sometimes it's a drag, but I usually check tuning between each take to make sure everything is as spot-on as it can be. At least if I'm doing something serious, not on a "tone test" clip, at least. On a well-functioning guitar, it shouldn't be an issue. But hence the reason why studio guys think the Evertune thing is such a Godsend. Quad-tracked guitars do sound slightly "washy", but more in an almost "phase" or "slight delay" sense rather than pitch. If pitch (chorus) is the biggest issue, then that means the guitars' tuning isn't spot on.

Who me? Subtly different. People compliment the “tone,” singular but it’s a smokescreen. I tricked you!

If you separate them to mono tracks, one will have for example, a little more low mids and a little less gain. Everyone’s stereo system already has speakers that don’t and can’t sound identical so you’d never know but it adds that depth I’m after with the performances spot on tight with each other.

I’ve tracked bands with two separate guitarists recording rhythm with their own unique sound. It’s not difficult to balance. Forget about watching your meters. Just listen in mono and toggle between each guitar in the mix alone. There’s an exhaustive number of ways big metal producers/bands handle the two guitarist deal.

Mustaine does one left, one right and the second guy in the middle. Almost every Morrisound production has both guitarists stack a left and right rhythm channel on top of each other (Beneath the Remains, Human.). There’s no rules. Strict rules rather than general suggestions for desired results are an anathema to good, original music.

Hell, someone might invent a crazy new tracking method that sounds super thick yet definited with mid-side mic blend.

[Rex_Rocker]

Pretty sure Fricker said it was two and a center at -6 db. I hear more guitars on Justice than Puppets--to the point where the number of rhythm guitars on Justice is kind of indeterminate to my ear. Just lots of them.

Meanwhile on Load and Reload you can definitely hear James and Kirk both doing rhythm and it's probably just two tracks. It has a very live, loose, and textured feel--like Southern rock. You can hear more imperfections in playing on each side.

Then again those albums tend to have different rhythm parts instead of just being doubled. Until It Sleeps was the first song I learned at 15 or 16. On the chorus James is playing the more audible part with a descending E minor dyad going down to D major and then C major with an A being pedaled in the bass (all detuned to Eb). Kirk plays more like an Asus2 figure that is really buried in the mix but fills it out. I couldn't even hear these parts until I had the Cherry Lane tab books (what we had before the Internet).

I kind of feel like a slight delay has more of a thickening effect without resorting to all the imperfections of more parts (and time taken to track 4-6 times). That said if you do it too wet it sounds like 80s Judas Priest or Dokken or Ratt or something--conspicuously wet and reverby.

When I do this Dyer's Eve cover (it will take me ages) I may try to set it up for 5.1 and have four rhythm guitars just to see what happens. Maybe I can fade some of the front LR to the back LR and some of the back LR to front LR so if there's just 2 speakers and a center you still get part of all guitars in there.

My hesitancy in panning guitars too hard is this. I listened to The Jester Race one time on a buddy's stereo system that, for whatever reason, only had one side working. Suddenly I could hear parts and imperfections I had never heard before. I didn't know the guitars could be isolated that well and that they were that intricate.

If you go back and listen to The Jester Race song or something like December Flower and just have one side of the mix it really drops out. So I kind of like having some bleed over between speakers so you don't lose everything in a less than perfect listening environment.

Plus if I'm listening to my stuff on a 5.1 system in a mid sized room like my computer/recording room here, it's going to sound more spread out than it would in the car maybe or on headphones. The sound is coming from little cubes far apart all around a room--not a sound bar like a lot of people use now.

I hate Fricker, LOL. As much as some of his tips are usefull and insightful, he comes off as such a radical that you'd expect his mixes to be fantastic. While they're not some random dude's with a Focusrite in his bedroom, they're certainly (to me) nothing to write home about. JMO. As far as YouTubers go, I much prefer Kohle's work (even if some of his approaches are not my favorite) or Ermin Hamidovic's (much much much prefer what that guy does).

I like the Load/Reload tones, but they kinda fit those records and that's it. I remember James Hetfield from around that era where he had the combed back hair playing Master of Puppets with his at-the-time tone, and it sounded like ****, LOL. Honestly, after St. Anger, all of their tones went down the drain. And while on Load/Reload, their tones were very well-produced for those pop-rock records (which I actually don't dislike), they would certainly sound super odd for their prime stuff.

The thing about (for me) about prime In Flames is that the music was incredible, but the production was kinda noticeably low-budget. I'm not sure why ATG made it work for them on Slaugter of the Soul (maybe because, as Fredrik has said, they played so good). I guess it's because ATG always had "uglier" music than IF, hence why the ugly, edgy mix fit them better.

JMO.