Double tracking-effect on live guitar?

APOGEE123 said:
Great post but I'm hoping they do
Click to expand...

I hope they do as well. It would be great as a "type" option within the enhancer block, and the enhancer block had an X/Y ability, so you could switch between classic/modern or 3 dubs. That way you can have a clean guitar wide spread with classic/modern, but also a crunch rhythm that really sounds like real 4 guitars double-tracked. It would be awesome! Best of both worlds.
 
I even would be happy with just 1 (!!!!) additional track. Until now every trial to create an ADT-like preset failed. I'm waiting for some kind of "randomizer-preset", that changes the values of compression, pick attack, micro-timing, pitch and minimal eq-movements in a very small range. Just enough, to get the "feel" of a second guitarist. The rest should work by using different IRs or/and different amps panned.
 
funkstation777 said:
I even would be happy with just 1 (!!!!) additional track. Until now every trial to create an ADT-like preset failed. I'm waiting for some kind of "randomizer-preset", that changes the values of compression, pick attack, micro-timing, pitch and minimal eq-movements in a very small range. Just enough, to get the "feel" of a second guitarist. The rest should work by using different IRs or/and different amps panned.
Click to expand...
This exists. You have everything you need already in the box: http://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/the-pseudo-random-controller.119702/#post-1424121
 
The Abbey Road and Waves plugins don't do much, if anything, that the Axe can't do (I have all three). As others have stated, you can delay the 'dry' signal and modulate the 'copy' signal before and after the 'dry' in time. But all this really does is give you a 'thru-zero' modulation that has all of the same comb filter problems of a standard chorus, flanger, detuner, or ADT algorithm. IMO, thru-zero can make the objectionable artifacts even more noticeable.

So long as the ADT effect is based on a single source waveform, I can't see how it can ever be truly convincing. A looper is as close as it gets.


austinbuddy said:
Let me add something important for true ADT sound. REAL ADT means the track was already laid down on tape BEFORE any ADT process.

The Engineers were playing it back through multi-head tape machines, and the second copy (modulated) was laid out from the original, to emulate a second performance.

As I understand it, that also meant a second track (because of multiple tape heads and sources you could tap) could in theory also be varied to play slightly AHEAD of the original track laid down, not just behind it. If you ever get the WAVES plug-in you can see what I mean - visually, the tape heads move both left and right over the original source track, by milliseconds.

For us live players, that is impossible to do! Because we are playing our track live, the ADT second track effect can ONLY be a delayed sound, behind our original playing.

Once we lay down a recorded track into a DAW though, in processing it is theoretically possible that the second track can be sometimes be shifted ahead and sometimes behind our original track with modulation, which is why plug-ins like REEL ADT can do this.

Now -- you truly CAN get some amazing wide doubling effects with experimentation and great guitar thickening in the AXE FX, it's killer. Ian has it right!

But to get the real "Abbey Road" Beatles type of ADT sound, that is very hard to do because of this issue (the AXE FX is amazing BUT it can't anticipate what you will play before you play it to generate that second copy modulating both before and after the notes you play!).

As I understand it, engineers look at 24ms and 28ms as magic numbers in terms of setting delay for double track. (Try it, pan dry one side, then 100% wet delay with 24 or 28ms to the other, see what you think -- hear that Beatles-esque guitar bathroom reverb sound?)

But when I look at WAVES Reel ADT plug-in, it is varying by up to 15 ms BEFORE original source track (left of original tape source head, so tapped from a tea placed before the main playback head) all the way to 15 MS AFTER track (right of tape head) -- which is basically a 28-30 ms total span...

Overall, that's why I love the WAVES REEL ADT plugin - it really emulates the Abbey Road process. (BTW I have no affiliation with WAVES).

Perhaps I''m not technically right, that's not my forte, but I wanted to lay out why this is such a challenge to nail it dead-on in AXE FX.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I just got the TC Mimiq pedal, and here are my initial thoughts about the pedal and incorporating it into the Axefx rig: (I'm using it patched into the effect loop block, in stereo, after two amps and cabs)

It seems to do a good job. I'm still experimenting, but I'm noticing that I get even better results using it in conjunction with the Axefx's own enhancer block. Let me explain. Even with the 'dry' knob cranked all the way, I notice a level drop with the pedal. Adding the enhancer block in parallel with the effects loop block seems to add back level, and also really makes the double-tracked "fullness" (if you will) come out.

When comparing the Mimiq pedal to the enhancer block alone, (with the Mimiq set to 2 or 3 dubs) the Mimiq does add more "fullness" and "thickness" (or what ever you want to call it) then the enhancer block. The Mimiq is doing more than just a wide stereo spread like the enhancer block.

I'm thinking for heavier music, this pedal seems to be a keeper!
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the review. In another youtube-review the testee told, that only using two different amps would create a big difference, by using the mimig-pedal. As I am "only" an AX8-User (I sold my MK1 AxfX and bought the AX8) I'm not sure, if the pedal would create a big difference to my sound. With the AxeII I experienced only phase problems by using two different amps. Maybe, when using two different amps, that don't sound similar at all, it would have worked. But why should I use an amp, that I don't like, just for the "spread"....

I'm just asking about doubling the heavy-rhythm track for live purposes.
 
I'm not sure what to say, but the Axefx frequently requires time and work in order to get a lot of specialized sounds that sound engineers will do. You'll get there with the Axe 2 and help from people on the forum. I have faith!
 
funkstation777 said:
In another youtube-review the testee told, that only using two different amps would create a big difference, by using the mimig-pedal. As I am "only" an AX8-User (I sold my MK1 AxfX and bought the AX8) I'm not sure, if the pedal would create a big difference to my sound.
Click to expand...
So in the clip I posted I personally felt that two different CAB blocks (so a stereo CAB, panned hard left and right) was just as interesting as two different AMP blocks. Unfortunately, the AMP block collapses the input to mono, so you're going to be out of luck trying to do this with the AX8. You can try running the changes post-AMP block, but I don't think it's going to be nearly as effective.

With the AxeII I experienced only phase problems by using two different amps. Maybe, when using two different amps, that don't sound similar at all, it would have worked. But why should I use an amp, that I don't like, just for the "spread"....
Click to expand...
Gotta pan them hard otherwise you get comb filter effects. Even in the Mimiq demos, the amps are hard-panned.
 
For those of us that don't use the Quantum FW's. Can you explain what it is you did in better detail? Do you need two pitch blocks on the right side?
 
claxor said:
For those of us that don't use the Quantum FW's. Can you explain what it is you did in better detail? Do you need two pitch blocks on the right side?
Click to expand...
There's only one pitch block.

It's a little too complicated to post screen shots. Why not disassemble it with FracTool? The blocks should work just fine in non-Quantum firmware.

Though, why you're not using Quantum is crazy. So Quantum. Much good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom