Anyone successfully emulate a double tracked guitar?

Any way to thicken up the guitar in a live/mono setting by using these techniques? Or is it all pretty much done with a stereo setup?
 
Rexx said:
A lot of us record and have used the technique of recording two guitar parts ~exactly panned L / R, anyone come close to that sound on their AxeFxII?
Click to expand...
Personally, I love the Enhanacer block (classic) but, before I got an AxeFX….
I have successfully setup a split harmonizer in both Apple Logic Studio9, and ProTools 10.
This will give you an idea of how it can be done in many different DAW's.

Apple Logic Studio 9 - Split Harmonizer Effect - YouTube
 
The Haas Effect has it's place, but it will never replace actual double tracking. You can use it to thicken up a solo or add an interesting effect to a mono guitar, but it's going to sound like the Haas Effect, not a double tracked guitar.

Whenever somebody starts talking about the enhancer block, or small delays panned every which way, they are talking about the Haas Effect. It can make a thin thing sound a lot bigger, and when done properly can be really cool. It can also add a whole bunch of "problems" to solve for a mix, so if you're going to use it, read up, buddy.
 
I've tried just about all these techniques simply to give myself a beefier tone when playing solo and practicing. I'd never use them if actually tracking. Nothing beats or substitutes for real multi-tracking.
 
Der JD said:
I've tried just about all these techniques simply to give myself a beefier tone when playing solo and practicing. I'd never use them if actually tracking. Nothing beats or substitutes for real multi-tracking.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I have a faux stereo setup for that. Sounds more pleasing to my ear having a different amp/cab hard panned left/right for jamming/writing purposes.

Ultimately double tracking simply can't be substituted for final tracks.
Its literally impossible to emulate true double tracking without it sounding phasey and weird. I've tried and A/B'd several methods.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:
I would like to hear what it would sound like if a "pick attack" detector could be used to trigger the random delay/pitch/volume modifications. If you consider two guys playing a single note line, one player hits a note and the other guy plays it slightly out of time, pitch, and volume from the first guy... the delay and pitch variation are going to be pretty constant until the next note. Algorithms that use random delays will sound like a chorus, but one correlated to pick strike and keeping the difference constant in between might sound closer. I'd love to try it in the Axe, but I can't think of a way to use modifiers to do it. If this type of algorithm is successful, I think it'd be best as it's own effect block.

I agree with everyone that a simulation isn't going to replace real thing, but for mono live use, this might be pretty good.
 
Fabio KTG said:
Yeah, I double or quad like everybody else. There's no point in trying to emulate a double tracked guitar track. If you copy a guitar track into another channel strip, you get phase cancellation and it sounds identical to the original track. The only way to get a huge sound from having a double tracked guitar tone is to do precisely that. Also, don't pan your guitars hard left and right, it makes them sound thin in the mix.
Click to expand...

Go the Metallica route on the Black Album, one to the left and right and the "thickener" in the middle!
 
Etudica said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be possible to automate the delay between L/R amps using an LFO somehow to give it a more human feel? Maybe could be done with a filter block in front? I thought I remembered reading a thread a while back that touched on this idea. Maybe I'm crazy.
Click to expand...

It's hard to emulate double tracking but here's something I've tried with fair results:

- First you'll need 2 amp blocks. They could just be a copy of each other or EQed differently for better results.
- Put a null filter in front of one of the amps.
- Assign a modifier to the level control - select a RANDOM LFO with some damping.
- Adjust the min-max settings to fine tune it, i.e. you most likely don't want a -20dB to 20dB random swing - keep it to a couple of 2dB's or less.
- The null filter block now is simulating input amplitude differences.

- Put a micro delay before one of the amps as well (the same path were you put the null filter) - I like to use the flanger block for such a purpose
- Set the type to mono, feedback to 0% and mix to 100% - now the flanger block is pretty much a micro-delay block.
- Set the LFO type to random
- Adjust the LFO Hi-cut to smooth out the LFO (less abrupt changes in delay time).
- Turn auto-depth off.
- Fine tune by adjusting time, rate and depth
- This block is now simulating time differences
 
Last edited:
LostInSpace said:
I would like to hear what it would sound like if a "pick attack" detector could be used to trigger the random delay/pitch/volume modifications. If you consider two guys playing a single note line, one player hits a note and the other guy plays it slightly out of time, pitch, and volume from the first guy... the delay and pitch variation are going to be pretty constant until the next note. Algorithms that use random delays will sound like a chorus, but one correlated to pick strike and keeping the difference constant in between might sound closer. I'd love to try it in the Axe, but I can't think of a way to use modifiers to do it. If this type of algorithm is successful, I think it'd be best as it's own effect block.
Click to expand...
Try it and see. You'd use either the envelope follower or the ADSR as the modifier. I'm guessing it'll sound like slapping your whammy bar (insert joke here): a quick frequency shift at the attack. You never know until you try, though.
 
Rex said:
Try it and see. You'd use either the envelope follower or the ADSR as the modifier. I'm guessing it'll sound like slapping your whammy bar (insert joke here): a quick frequency shift at the attack. You never know until you try, though.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean, and I did try playing with both those types of modifiers but I couldn't figure it out (I'm certainly no modifier wizard). In effect I was trying to slice the input signal into chunks that each last until the next pick strike, and each chunk is delayed, pitch shifted and volume modulated by a small, random, constant amount. A good implementation would also handle the transients (maybe a windowing technique?). I suspect that this type of special logic would have to be coded and tested to give it a fair shot. For example, I'm not sure if an amplitude envelope by itself is a suitable "pick attack" detector. Thomas Edison was correct when he said that realizing such things are 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. I'm a little short in the perspiration department :).
 
LostInSpace said:
I know what you mean, and I did try playing with both those types of modifiers but I couldn't figure it out (I'm certainly no modifier wizard). In effect I was trying to slice the input signal into chunks that each last until the next pick strike, and each chunk is delayed, pitch shifted and volume modulated by a small, random, constant amount. A good implementation would also handle the transients (maybe a windowing technique?). I suspect that this type of special logic would have to be coded and tested to give it a fair shot. For example, I'm not sure if an amplitude envelope by itself is a suitable "pick attack" detector. Thomas Edison was correct when he said that realizing such things are 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. I'm a little short in the perspiration department :).
Click to expand...

Then again Tesla supposedly said this about Edison:

"If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search... I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor."
 
^ Actually the Beatles and G Martin did quite a bit of fake vocal doubling that sounded very thick in the 60's but yeah, best way with guitar is to record actual seperate tracks which sound huger due to non-symetrical variances in pitch, for one.
 
AlbertA said:
It's hard to emulate double tracking but here's something I've tried with fair results:

- First you'll need 2 amp blocks. They could just be a copy of each other or EQed differently for better results.
- Put a null filter in front of one of the amps.
- Assign a modifier to the level control - select a RANDOM LFO with some damping.
- Adjust the min-max settings to fine tune it, i.e. you most likely don't want a -20dB to 20dB random swing - keep it to a couple of 2dB's or less.
- The null filter block now is simulating input amplitude differences.

- Put a micro delay before one of the amps as well (the same path were you put the null filter) - I like to use the flanger block for such a purpose
- Set the type to mono, feedback to 0% and mix to 100% - now the flanger block is pretty much a micro-delay block.
- Set the LFO type to random
- Adjust the LFO Hi-cut to smooth out the LFO (less abrupt changes in delay time).
- Turn auto-depth off.
- Fine tune by adjusting time, rate and depth
- This block is now simulating time differences
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing that info...any chance we could hear a clip demonstrating it, and without it?
 
Tone Collector said:
Thanks for sharing that info...any chance we could hear a clip demonstrating it, and without it?
Click to expand...

The first part is just the double amp block base sound.
Second is the double track sim (Don't expect miracles :) still sounds like you are running an effect)
Third part is actually double tracking for comparison

 
Last edited:
AlbertA said:
The first part is just the double amp block base sound.
Second is the double track sim (Don't expect miracles :) still sounds like you are running an effect)
Third part is actually double tracking for comparison

Click to expand...


hey that was pretty good. The double track sim clip L and R channels sounded a little off-centre though (left was more dominant - listening through headphones). Would you suggest also adjusting the amp level param to even it out
 
AlbertA,

That second recording sounds like you have double tracking on one side (left), whereas the third recording sounds like you have double tracking on both sides.

If you could do what you did in the second recording to both sides, left and right, it would sound pretty much just like the third recording! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom