Hey guys,
I figured among you should be at least 3-4 people who have decent experience with home recording. I'm not talking about equipment, but about how to arrange tracks to make for a decent demo recording.
For example, do I have to record the same guitar track twice in order to create a stereo effect? Or are there other tricks to create a full and warm demo recording?
What are the essentials of home recording apart from hardware?
Any help is appreciated! And, of course, rewarded with donuts: :donut :donut2 :donut :donut2 :coffee :donut :donut2
Hi Ben,
I just came across this, and remembered your post.
Check this out: Evolution of an Acoustic Guitar Recording
http://www.dougyoungguitar.com/WSSDemo
Thank you very much! Doug Young is always a helpful source. :thumbsup
Quote from: BenHermanski on January 07, 2012, 09:20:47 AM
For example, do I have to record the same guitar track twice in order to create a stereo effect? Or are there other tricks to create a full and warm demo recording?
What are the essentials of home recording apart from hardware?
Any help is appreciated! And, of course, rewarded with donuts: :donut :donut2 :donut :donut2 :coffee :donut :donut2
I kinda like a double tracked guitar, panned left and right it makes for an interesting effect. But you can do the same thing with software by copying your single track and delaying the second copy just the smallest amount, pan them far right and far left and you'll like the result.
I'm far from an expert, but I find that it helps to use some kind of graphic EQ where you can see the live signal distribution across frequencies. This gives you an idea where you might tweak your frequencies a bit to take out any low end muddiness or shrill high end. My understanding is that recording engineers seek to even out the main frequencies of multiple tracks or frequencies to keep from overlapping too much in one part of the sound spectrum. The only other thing I can add is the obvious, don't just use headphones to check how your recordings sound, it's likely your intended audience will be listening on speakers. Took me a while to figure that one out. . .
Thank you, very much JP! :donut2 :donut
I will also try to do the "car test" after mastering, to see if it still sounds good on crappy car speakers...
Do you use an external hardware graphic eq, or is there a graphic eq included in your recording software?
Quote from: jpmist on January 08, 2012, 03:44:26 PM
I kinda like a double tracked guitar, panned left and right it makes for an interesting effect. But you can do the same thing with software by copying your single track and delaying the second copy just the smallest amount, pan them far right and far left and you'll like the result.
While this is a sort of doubling, it does not have the same effect as an actual twice-played doubled track. Experiment with this yourself and you will find that a true double-tracked acoustic guitar track is:
1. Much harder to accomplish as it has a tendency to highlight any differences in playing, clams, etc.
2. Sounds much more 'organic', rich, full, fill in the positive adjective here ______.
This has been true in my experience at least.
Both strummed as well as fingerpicked acoustic tracks can sound quite delicious and BIG if you actually double-track. Same is true for vocals. The couple of mS delay trick sounds more like just that, a trick.
Here's a short 2 minute cover I did of Beck's "The Golden Age", where I tried double-tracking the strummed rhythm guitar. There's a sort of indescribable expanse to the rhythm tracks that is just not possible using a single track with any kind of processing:
http://rockstarnot.rekkerd.org/songs/newer/rockstar_not%20-%20The%20Golden%20Age%202%20minute%20cover.mp3
You'll note that the mis-steps in strumming between the two tracks is highly evident. So try this technique with the caution that you must really be able to play the part very very close on the two different tracks.
-Scott
Quote from: BenHermanski on January 09, 2012, 03:44:21 AM
Thank you, very much JP! :donut2 :donut
I will also try to do the "car test" after mastering, to see if it still sounds good on crappy car speakers...
Do you use an external hardware graphic eq, or is there a graphic eq included in your recording software?
I have a Mac that came with GarageBand and that has a basic graphic eq. The audio program Logic has a more advanced one.
Dunno what program you use but there are probably free EQ plugin's out there that augment your software if it doesn't have it.
To rockstar_not, I probably shouldn't have implied that doubling by copying a track gives the same effect as two separate takes. The effect of the subtle differences between two separate tracks is pretty interesting. Like your track, btw, nicely done, wish I had your voice.
I have this instrumental with two tracks panned far right and left, with headphones, it's pretty cool. . . http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_songInfo.cfm?bandID=1036948&songID=10116357
As Scott pointed out, true double-tracking can sound great (if that's the sound you're after) but is difficult to pull off. It's much easier to create a true stereo track using a stereo mic setup during recording. There are several ways to do this - just use Google and you'll find tons of info. I find X-Y easiest to set up and get right - it gives a nice centered, focused, 3D image.
It is also possible to create a pseudo-stereo track with a single mono mic by using software features. For simple stuff, I do this in Cubase by recording with one mic into a stereo track (both channels of the track are from the same mic input) and applying a VST effect to do stereo expansion and/or room simulation. This gives a subtle stereo image which is not true stereo but does add three-dimensionality to the recording which can be further enhanced with other stereo effects if you wish (e.g. chorus).
Simplest of all is to just add a good lush stereo reverb to any of these recording techniques.
When you get to mixing, eq and compression are things you will need to get good at, as well as setting and varying your track levels.
Most important is to have fun!!
Thanks Gord & Scott!
I kinda lost the fun in the past when trying to double my tracks. I have to practice a lot more to play accurate in recording situations (excitement kicks in and leaves me playing faster than intended), because I know that I can play tight live! I am used to play with drummers, not with click tracks :winkin:
However, I will experiment with doubling the tracks, as well as copying one track and fumble a little with it to make it sound the way I want it.
Recording with two mics also sounds like a decent option!
Quote from: BenHermanski on January 09, 2012, 12:04:50 PMI am used to play with drummers, not with click tracks
Yup - I struggle with click tracks too. I found it helped me quite a bit when I replaced the clicks/beeps with actual drum samples. I use a snare for the downbeat and a kick for the quarter notes. However, I expect not all software will let you do this. It's still not the same as playing live though. I am thinking about trying Blinker from here (http://www.xoxos.net/vst/vst.html#utilities) - any body have any experience with this or something similar?
Quote from: BenHermanski on January 09, 2012, 12:04:50 PM
Thanks Gord & Scott!
I kinda lost the fun in the past when trying to double my tracks. I have to practice a lot more to play accurate in recording situations (excitement kicks in and leaves me playing faster than intended), because I know that I can play tight live! I am used to play with drummers, not with click tracks :winkin:
However, I will experiment with doubling the tracks, as well as copying one track and fumble a little with it to make it sound the way I want it.
Recording with two mics also sounds like a decent option!
What do you have for mics at present?
Many different options, and a cautionary word that you'll get opinions far and wide as to what kind of microphones to buy. I believe it's more important to be concerned about the microphone pre-amp being used. Here's an adage I've heard in the past and I would say from experience that it's true:
You can make a crappy mic sound good with a good mic pre-amp.
You can make a very expensive mic sound crappy with a crappy pre-amp.
rockstar_not, none actually. I will try to borrow what I can from fellow musicians... I only recorded directly from my K&K pure western mini in the past. The sound, however, was very usable! The K&K records very well.
Budget is also a problem here. I just don't have the budget to afford more professional gear. On the other hand, if I had more money I would most likely visit a record studio for better recordings. Just trying to get the best out of what I have, to present the audience something to listen to for the times I'm not on stage. :smile:
Quote from: BenHermanski on January 10, 2012, 01:38:25 AM
rockstar_not, none actually. I will try to borrow what I can from fellow musicians... I only recorded directly from my K&K pure western mini in the past. The sound, however, was very usable! The K&K records very well.
Budget is also a problem here. I just don't have the budget to afford more professional gear. On the other hand, if I had more money I would most likely visit a record studio for better recordings. Just trying to get the best out of what I have, to present the audience something to listen to for the times I'm not on stage. :smile:
How did you record the K+K, into an audio interface or a standalone recorder?
Most people here will chime in to state that some type of condenser microphone is what you are wanting. Condenser microphones all require what is known as phantom power, supplied by the pre-amp in the audio interface (if so equipped) or in the standalone recorder, or with a standalone pre-amp.
Lot's of very decent condenser microphones available in the $70-$200 range (not stereo, though there are a few in that range).
Plenty of audio interfaces that supply phantom power to at least two mic inputs in the $150-$300 range (and up from there)
Standalone recorders with phantom power in them to run external mics will run you at minimum about $240 (TASCAM DP-008 is the cheapest one I can find new).
Now, you could go extra simple if you are willing to sacrifice flexibility and go for one of the portable 2 channel recorders with a built in x-y pair of condenser microphones. Many of these available in the under $400 range.
If you decide to buy new, I highly recommend www.sweetwater.com In fact, I recommend calling them and asking to speak with someone to help you decide through all of the options. The salesman I have used there since 1993 is Michael Eads. I think it speaks something about the company when there's a 19+ year veteran still working the phones now and then in a world of quick turnover phone jockeys. He now has at least one or two folks that work with him on consulting on phone calls. No, I do not work for them, but I was offered a job there about 10 years ago.
Back to your original post:
One thing that home recordists seem to not know about that can really make your recordings sound muddy is to leave too much low frequency content in the recording. Many of the microphones that will be available to you have a low-cut, or hi-pass switch. This will effectively eliminate much of the boominess that is an immediate identifier (hey that's a home recording). Look for a mic with a low-cut or hi-pass switch on it. Then look for the ability in whatever recorder or software you use to mix with.
Home recorded acoustic guitar tracks almost always need some low-cut to clarify the sound of the recording. In the recording / editing software, usually one accomplishes this with a hi-pass filter; There aren't many adjustments to a high pass filter except the 'cutoff frequency'. Start at about 80 Hz for the cutoff, then move it ever so slowly up until the sound of the recording gets too thin for your ears. Then back it back down perhaps 10 Hz. This can make a muffly sounded track instantly become clear.
Finally, one other way to get a stereo effect, full and lush, is to utilize your K+K simultaneously with a single mic recording. Put the mic about 12" away from the 12th fret, capsule aimed at the soundhole, high-pass filter it, pan it perhaps 30% to one side; and also simultaneously record the K+K signal, make sure you hi-pass it as well, and pan it 30% the other way. You can get a big fat acoustic guitar sound that way.
The K+K and other bridge and UST pickups don't do a good job of capturing string noise, but a condenser set where I stated will. There will be enough differences in the two signals and panned the way I suggest, to create for a wide image in your brain as you listen to them simultaneously.
You will have to play with the levels of the two tracks to get an even sound and not biased to left or right.
Gotta get to work. PM me if you have more questions. I have a K+K as well.
Quote from: BenHermanski on January 10, 2012, 01:38:25 AMJust trying to get the best out of what I have, to present the audience something to listen to for the times I'm not on stage. :smile:
Then I wouldn't worry too much about gear right now - the K&K will be perfectly fine for playback at a live venue. Focus your efforts on developing your recording/mixing/mastering skills. Once you get to some level of comfort and satisfaction with what you are doing, then it is time to start looking for better gear like good mics and preamp/interface.
What software/hardware are you using to record? If you have recording software that supports VST plugins, find a stereo expander or room simulator - there are a huge number of free VST plugins available on the net. KVR Audio (http://www.kvraudio.com/) is a great site to find VST stuff - try Voxengo Stereo Touch as a stereo simulator with your K&K then add some reverb.
Thanks for the many tipps, guys! Will have to take some time at the weekend to give it all a closer reading and may come up with more questions.
As for my recording gear:
Larrivee with K&K pwm
either through an M-Audio 2 channel interface or Peavey PV 8 mixer (have not tried the Peavey, yet, but found that an external mixer gives me more knobs to eq the sound before it is recorded.)
recording software is either Audacity (freeware, but not that bad when it comes to being user friendly - and hey, I am an amateur!) or a demo version of Pro-Tools that came with the interface, but did not satisfy me, yet. No option of extracting a final version as an mp3, for example. Might consider buying Cubase or add-ons to Pro-Tools that give me a full version. Nevertheless, I am an amateur and have the feeling that Audacity is plenty sufficient for my skills, at the moment.
As a mic, I only have an AKG P3 mic available, that I use as a live backup. Since this is a primarily a dynamic vocal mic, I wouldn't know how good it records my guitar.
Audacity is quite decent and supports VST plugins (if you also install the VST enabler). You might want to check out Reaper (http://www.reaper.fm/). I've not tried it but it looks very promising. It's only $60 and there is an unlimited/uncrippled trial available. I'd recommend that you record via the M-Audio and not through the Peavey - not that there's anything wrong with the Peavey - it's just that in general with a DAW you want to do your eq-ing in software after the track is recorded so that you don't limit yourself with what you have recorded. The P3 might be quite good - give it a try. It could be a good compliment to the K&K for getting a stereo recording. If you need to make MP3s from WAV files, you can use LAME which is free - it's quality is extremely high and easy.
Quote from: BenHermanski on January 10, 2012, 12:44:10 PM
Thanks for the many tipps, guys! Will have to take some time at the weekend to give it all a closer reading and may come up with more questions.
As for my recording gear:
Larrivee with K&K pwm
either through an M-Audio 2 channel interface or Peavey PV 8 mixer (have not tried the Peavey, yet, but found that an external mixer gives me more knobs to eq the sound before it is recorded.)
recording software is either Audacity (freeware, but not that bad when it comes to being user friendly - and hey, I am an amateur!) or a demo version of Pro-Tools that came with the interface, but did not satisfy me, yet. No option of extracting a final version as an mp3, for example. Might consider buying Cubase or add-ons to Pro-Tools that give me a full version. Nevertheless, I am an amateur and have the feeling that Audacity is plenty sufficient for my skills, at the moment.
As a mic, I only have an AKG P3 mic available, that I use as a live backup. Since this is a primarily a dynamic vocal mic, I wouldn't know how good it records my guitar.
First of all, you don't need your DAW software to save to .mp3. There are plenty of other freeware ways to go about that. For example, wavsqueezer is a nice one; has a version of the LAME codec bundled with it, etc.
Please let us know what M-Audio interface you have. This is pretty important, as it might have all the pre-amp stuff needed.
IMO, Audacity is a hassle to use in comparison to Pro-Tools, even the relatively limited version you have. Primarily, if you want to get into any multi-tracking, there is no latency handling with Audacity. You will fiddle around with trying to line up timing of subsequently recorded tracks for the same song till the cows come home.
What else do you feel is missing from the version of ProTools that you have right now? Regarding EQ of the signal before recording - it's probably the K+K that's giving you fits; without the right impedance matching to the K+K, you'll probably have way too much low end in the signal - I do with mine and you'll find countless threads here at this forum to back up that if you are looking for it.
I think my version of Pro-Tools will not let me save files in any other format than .ptf (which is their own) - is there also a way to format these to .wav or .mp3?
In comparison to Audacity, Pro-Tools has many features that I cannot yet use properly, because I wouldn't know where to find them. Moreover, Pro-Tools comes only in English, and since I am not a native speaker, it is sometimes had for me to understand all the technical terms. Audacity comes in my mother tongue, German.
Scott, it is an M-Audio Fast Track MK II - not very expensive, line input, mic input, headphone out and one knob for each channel's gain and overall output gain. It has switchable phantom power, though, as well as USB output (the same one that printers have) and cinch output.
And you are right about the latency with Audacity. If I don't record a mono track of the two inputs together, there's always something to fix with the vocal track being not in time with the guitar track. Guess I have to give Pro-Tools another try at the weekend!
Seriously - check out Reaper.
I don't know Pro Tools nor whether or not you have a crippled version, but I think most DAW software generates WAV files not through a "Save as" kind of feature but as an export or mix down/master type of feature. Same thing for MP3, but that will probably be disabled unless you buy a license to enable the feature.
The Fast Track will be perfectly fine for recording from both the mic and the K&K as it has dedicated mic and high-impedance (1M-ohm) guitar inputs which you can use simultaneously for either a stereo recording or separate mono tracks. You shouldn't need anything between the K&K and the Fast Track guitar input according to their specs.
Ben, PM sent.
Guys, I would appreciate your opinions on how a Zoom would make for representable demo recordings.
I am asking this, since I like the feeling and sound of both my playing and my singing when performed at the same time. Feels and sound just more natural to me.
Last night I played for a couple of friends in their dining room and the acoustic in there was stunning. Very loud, but at the same time very clear. In brief, excellent conditions to play unplugged. Since I would like to capture both the sound and the feeling of such a performance, I thought that maybe a recording device like a Zoom could come in handy. What do you think?
Again, I just need demo recordings to give the people some sugar til I have both the time and money for some professional studio recordings :bgrin:
Ben,
Portable recorders with built-in mics range in quality from crummy to very very nice. Most of the Zoom line works well for folks for your latest stated purpose. If you want to simply grab a live performance with all of the room acoustics thrown in - there's nothing simpler these days than a Zoom H4n or H2. The H4n has added flexibility than you can use it as an audio interface for your computer software should you choose to do so - as it has proper XLR connectors for other microphones, etc.
There's folks here that regularly use the Zoom H series for capturing live performances. Search the forums and you'll find recordings.
Thank you, Scott! :donut :donut2
Anything nice/terrible about the H1 that you would have experienced?
I only found statements that it is not that robust but the sound quality is comparable to that of the H4 and puts other recorders in the same prica range in their place...
Lots of used H2 s in the bay, however. Will keep an eye on them!
Quote from: rockstar_not on January 15, 2012, 09:58:16 AM
Ben,
Portable recorders with built-in mics range in quality from crummy to very very nice. Most of the Zoom line works well for folks for your latest stated purpose. If you want to simply grab a live performance with all of the room acoustics thrown in - there's nothing simpler these days than a Zoom H4n or H2 or H1. The H4n has added flexibility than you can use it as an audio interface for your computer software should you choose to do so - as it has proper XLR connectors for other microphones, etc.
There's folks here that regularly use the Zoom H series for capturing live performances. Search the forums and you'll find recordings.
Well, I can't find any recordings here - however I know some of the regular posters in this forum use zoom pocket recorders. I swear I've seen the posts and heard the recordings.
I just went shopping for these after posting in our local Craigslist - don't know if you have something like that in Europe. Should be able to pick up the H1 for under 100 Euro.
-Scott
Quote from: BenHermanski on January 15, 2012, 10:03:59 AM
Thank you, Scott! :donut :donut2
Anything nice/terrible about the H1 that you would have experienced?
I only found statements that it is not that robust but the sound quality is comparable to that of the H4 and puts other recorders in the same prica range in their place...
Lots of used H2 s in the bay, however. Will keep an eye on them!
I have not used any of these except for the H4 (before the re-do of the LCD panel) and that was a few years ago. I have not met anyone that has purchased either the H4 series or the H2 that doesn't like their purchase. The H1 is newer and I don't know anyone that has used one of them. However, I'm seriously thinking of buying one for my piano tuning side business.
I've hauled my laptop and recording interface to some piano tuning jobs to record a before/after performance and burn to CD. I charge an extra 35$ for this and some folks really like the confirmation that yes, I made an improvement to their piano tuning.
The H1 would pay for itself in a couple of jobs. Very tempted to buy right now.
-Scott
I went thru these posts pretty quickly so sorry if I missed something but on the double track subject....
I put at least the fundemental acoustic rythm on 2 tracks but I only play once. Just 2 mics in different places. The expanse comes from the slight delay or just phase differences of the 2 tracks.
Pan them out and you can just hear sound swell. They can even be 180 degrees out of phase if you pan them out. Used to have just one tube preamp which flopped its signal 180.
If you put both in the center, signal would pretty much go away being 180 out. But when you spread them..vrooom.BIG. That's pretty much what 2 mics are doing placed differently. Also certain notes may come out stronger on 1 mic so there's this shimmer that happens with that side to side as well. Sometimes if I have enough tracks I'll used pick-up in the center and mics left and right. Finger pickin really gets a shimmer to it, I think, with any of these options because these individual notes being plucked are more likely to have the different notes being stronger that I was talking about.
I'm curious about recording the same instrument doing the same part twice, if that is what was meant. What is advantage that would make it worth doing that as compared to just using different mics to different tracks...one time.
Quote from: flatlander on January 15, 2012, 07:52:28 PM
I'm curious about recording the same instrument doing the same part twice, if that is what was meant. What is advantage that would make it worth doing that as compared to just using different mics to different tracks...one time.
It gives some interesting spatial effects, makes the sound feel like it's has expanded if that makes any sense. If you like you can check out my doubletracked instrumental (http://www.soundclick.com/player/single_player.cfm?songid=10116357&q=hi&newref=1). Since notes can't possibly be played with the exact same attack two takes in a row, the spatial effect is such that a melody line can jump right to left or left to right. Better with headphones. . .
@flatlander: Thank you! That will also be an option that I might try in the near future.
@jpmist: That ist the desired effect!! And therefore, unfortunately, requires playing to a click track... :crying:
I will try to record some demos with a Zoom handy recorder, soon, and will see how that works for the desired effect of just a decent demo recording.
Quote from: jpmist on January 15, 2012, 10:54:15 PM
It gives some interesting spatial effects, makes the sound feel like it's has expanded if that makes any sense. If you like you can check out my doubletracked instrumental (http://www.soundclick.com/player/single_player.cfm?songid=10116357&q=hi&newref=1). Since notes can't possibly be played with the exact same attack two takes in a row, the spatial effect is such that a melody line can jump right to left or left to right. Better with headphones. . .
I hear ya but in my mind two out of phase mics do the same thing, same principal. Like put on directly in front of soundhole straight at it and one, one top of neck at, well it couldn't be 90, but quite an angle. Then you have 2 different sounds from different places and waves clashing a little. But that's for acoustic. On electric you don't have that option unless you artificially delay one track in processing. I need to read that link though and maybe check out that way but I can tell you I get a whole lot of that effect just by using two different mics. If you have a DI or something with a phase switch try that. I would have though 180 out would kill it, but if they are spread out ..SWELL CITY................
Quote from: flatlander on January 16, 2012, 07:49:32 AM
I hear ya but in my mind two out of phase mics do the same thing, same principal. Like put on directly in front of soundhole straight at it and one, one top of neck at, well it couldn't be 90, but quite an angle. Then you have 2 different sounds from different places and waves clashing a little. But that's for acoustic. On electric you don't have that option unless you artificially delay one track in processing. I need to read that link though and maybe check out that way but I can tell you I get a whole lot of that effect just by using two different mics. If you have a DI or something with a phase switch try that. I would have though 180 out would kill it, but if they are spread out ..SWELL CITY................
Flatlander - these are not the same effect. What you are referring to is a spaced mic stereo recording. This is an entirely different effect than double-tracking and panning. You should try it to convince yourself. Once you try it, you'll hear the differences. While both offer a stereo spread, the effects in the brain are rather different.
Did you listen to the track I posted in the first page? That's a true double-tracked rhythm acoustic example. Note that I did not use chorus, even though the effect has quite a bit of what sounds like chorus processing on it. That's because of the double tracking. I have the capability to record all different kinds of mics simultaneously (I can even do a mid-side recording since I have a figure-8 pattern ribbon mic and the signal routing in my DAW software to accomplish it), and yet I choose to do double tracking often simply because the effect is more along what I like to hear.
Here is a great article at SAE recording institute about different methods to record acoustic guitar and talks about all 3 methods mentioned in this thread, and mic position tips. Ben, if you buy the Zoom, place it at position A, as that is the type of recording the Zooms offer, a stereo x-y pair.
http://www.sae.edu/reference_material/audio/pages/Guitars%20acc.htm
-Scott
Also, here is another great article on recording acoustic guitar with interviews of 4 different recording engineers. Most seem to prefer mono miking, then multi-tracking. They explain their reasons.
http://emusician.com/tutorials/emusic_sixstring_strategies/
Again, try it out - you'll like it, but you will have to be more precise in your playing for the effect to be present. Ben, you can still do this with the stereo X-Y that the zoom has, but you'll have to do in a post process, where you will mute one side of the X-Y pair on each of the takes.
-Scott
(I don't have access to my 'studio' right now - guests from out of town) but I can do this very simply out in the living room. I'll see if I can knock out a demo for you later tonight or some time this week).
Thanks, Scott, the A position was what I had in mind for the Zoom, as well.
Regarding the height in which I will place the Zoom:
Since I play and sing simultaneously, do I place the Zoom at a height relatively in the middle between my mouth and the soundhole, or closer to either one? Does it matter?
As far as distance is concerned, I have read that about 7 feet away from me would be an appropriate place to capture every detail of the sound...
Quote from: BenHermanski on January 16, 2012, 10:10:53 AM
Thanks, Scott, the A position was what I had in mind for the Zoom, as well.
Regarding the height in which I will place the Zoom:
Since I play and sing simultaneously, do I place the Zoom at a height relatively in the middle between my mouth and the soundhole, or closer to either one? Does it matter?
As far as distance is concerned, I have read that about 7 feet away from me would be an appropriate place to capture every detail of the sound...
This all depends on the room in which you record. Best thing to do is some experimentation using what you have indicated as a starting point. There is not exact/right answer.
-Scott
OK, I did some living room couch demos tonight.
Here's the setup: My Larrivee L-03, me playing a simple chord progression.
Recording setup: Tascam US800 interface, Electro-Voice PL80a microphone placed at 12th fret, about 4-5 inches away from fretboard, aimed down toward soundhole, Samson Q2U microphone about even with sound hole, aimed at upper waist location.
Two takes involved.
Take 1, stereo recording with EV hard panned left, Samson hard panned right.
Take 2 same thing.
Listened to take 1 while recording take 2
4 files exported from my DAW software. Stereo recordings 1 and 2 from the 2 takes.
Then the magic of double tracking comes with the other two files which are the individual unique mics, with take 1 in left, take 2 in right.
I have photos of this if you want to see them. I'll upload them to imageshack later on if there are any takers.
Stereo recording take 1 - Scott Lake (http://rockstarnot.rekkerd.org/misc/demos/StereovsDoubleTrackAcousticDemo/Acoustic%20Guitar%20Stereo%20track%20take%201.mp3)
Stereo recording take 2 - Scott Lake (http://rockstarnot.rekkerd.org/misc/demos/StereovsDoubleTrackAcousticDemo/Acoustic%20Guitar%20Stereo%20track%20take%202.mp3)
Double Track export using EV mic from both previous takes -Scott Lake (http://rockstarnot.rekkerd.org/misc/demos/StereovsDoubleTrackAcousticDemo/Acoustic%20Guitar%20Double%20Track%20take%201%20EV%20mic%20in%20left%20ear%20take%202%20EV%20mic%20in%20right%20ear.mp3)
Double track export using Samson mic from both takes - Scott Lake (http://rockstarnot.rekkerd.org/misc/demos/StereovsDoubleTrackAcousticDemo/Acoustic%20Guitar%20Double%20Track%20take%201%20Samson%20mic%20in%20left%20ear%20take%202%20Samson%20mic%20in%20right%20ear.mp3)
I will start a new discussion thread on this topic because I think it's one that people have interest in.
Quote from: BenHermanski on January 09, 2012, 12:04:50 PM
Thanks Gord & Scott!
I kinda lost the fun in the past when trying to double my tracks. I have to practice a lot more to play accurate in recording situations (excitement kicks in and leaves me playing faster than intended), because I know that I can play tight live! I am used to play with drummers, not with click tracks :winkin:
However, I will experiment with doubling the tracks, as well as copying one track and fumble a little with it to make it sound the way I want it.
Recording with two mics also sounds like a decent option!
I'm not sure what system you're using but....When you double track guitars
in Pro Tools you can use Elastic Audio to alter the timing and feel of your
tracks. This also enables you to fix most strumming errors regarding
timing. But over time the more you record; your timing and feel should
get better so that you don't need to make major alterations to your takes.
You may just want to lay your takes back a bit to sit nicely with a drum
track. Elastic Audio makes it so simple.....
Good articles, thank for posting!
Quote from: rockstar_not on January 16, 2012, 09:30:10 AM
http://www.sae.edu/reference_material/audio/pages/Guitars%20acc.htm
-Scott
Also, here is another great article on recording acoustic guitar with interviews of 4 different recording engineers. Most seem to prefer mono miking, then multi-tracking. They explain their reasons.
http://emusician.com/tutorials/emusic_sixstring_strategies/
Quote from: Legolas on January 17, 2012, 03:52:07 PM
I'm not sure what system you're using but....When you double track guitars
in Pro Tools you can use Elastic Audio to alter the timing and feel of your
tracks. This also enables you to fix most strumming errors regarding
timing. But over time the more you record; your timing and feel should
get better so that you don't need to make major alterations to your takes.
You may just want to lay your takes back a bit to sit nicely with a drum
track. Elastic Audio makes it so simple.....
That's cool! I don't have that option in my DAW. I have time and pitch manipulation, but nothing to line up dynamic peaks in recordings while leaving pitch alone.
I like simple. This is a blue yeti mic on stereo setting into audacity with zero processing. I think it sounds pretty decent for what my setup cost. Let me know what you think!
http://www.box.com/files#/files/0/f/64402215/1/f_845017353
I've been busy as heck and haven't had time to read all the links. But I will! Thanks everyone. This info is great.