Recording guitars: What's your preferred method

Recording guitar

  • Total voters
    63
Depends on the track, the part and the genre.

I never double track jazz or traditional blues. I do double track rock, fusion, and prog sometimes. But no matter the genre some arrangements are just better lean & clean.

I always grab a DI because if you have plenty of storage who cares? Then it's there if you need or want it later.

I'm in the "almost all rhythm parts are mono camp", unless they are atmospheric then they definitely benefit from stereo effects. Leads on the other hand are almost always tracked in stereo unless I'm going for old school jazz or blues.

Side note: I never record with any "room reverb" - only reverb that gets recorded during tracking is the kind that is out front and part of the guitar tone (like a spring or a plate). I do it this way to leave space for a nice mastering reverb shared by all tracks to glue everything together.
 
Last edited:
I like to use two amps. I record stereo with one amp on one side and one amp on the other. I blend these for mixing. For lead guitars I usually record stereo and print effects. I have actually made a conscious effort to get everything right going in, just like the old days. Print effects ect. If I need to reamp I will, but I usually try and get the source right now, and run stereo for dual amps/cabs.
 
jamesmarshall said:
I use Presonus Ampire. I really like it for little touches like what I mentioned, like fills or a little texture or adding in some missing parts in another guitar tone. Luckily it came with the pro version of Studio One so I did not have to get it separately. There are also a few nice free ones out there as well.
Click to expand...
I just delved into Presonus Ampire for a second time as the first time I wasn't sure. But I managed to dial it in right and in my opinion this Ampire kills all other light and easy software plugin amp sims in my opinion (as does their daw studio one in the quick and light daw department for home studios). All others I try have whey more latency and amplitude is a joke that it doesn't matter what they modeled if it can't play instantly. But I was NOT expecting this from Presonus, it's very surreal that they have exceeded standards through the roof in this department. Ampire has to me the best trade-off of quality to latency.
Ampire works like a dream on studio one 6.5 and to me is the best trade off between latency and sound realism in the entire plugin software amp modeling world. It sounds very close in realism to an Axe FX3 and Kemper. It just doesnt have enough stock cabs but you can import any and I strongly recommend to use it that way as it won't have absolutely everyone's favorite mic placements although some are great.
But compared to the other amp Sims out there it is surprisingly so amazing sounding for how light it runs on your system resources. It sounds very tight. Just have to dial in the amps and Pedals right. They respond and sound very realistically, with pro instantaneousness and the cleans are what surprised me in addition to he high gain amps, ultra high gain and crunch ones. And very little noise compared to the rest of plugins out there that just have engineers that can't seem to get it right. The low noise is comparable to an axe fx 3.
On studio one it's an absolute no-brainer for the home studio with presonus all the way. That company doesn't stop blowing me away with everything they release. It's such a great firm.
And not to mention their new drum view which is finally something fluid for punching in midi drums in a very custom layed out way. There is simply no need for any other pre-production daw after trying it. And can well substitute in place of fully professional duties as well.
If I would I have one word for whatever presonus does it would be "TIGHT".
 
Last edited:
Mono double tracked guitars sound tighter and feel better to me.

Track different takes for repeating sections. There might be a little nuance between the takes, such as accents or attack that make hearing same passage less monotonous.

Always add stereo delay/time based fx to whatever needs it in post.

Track sections or the whole song in one take if you’re capable. Sometimes a piece of music is too difficult or insignificant and can be done in chunks.

Most importantly, I try not to overthink it, after all it should be fun!
 
I use my tube amps through a Torpedo Caotor x and have 3 cabs I love but always make sure I use the best source possible, and
learned that less is more its just mostly bringing the best tone in the first place for me, doing modern rock/Metal
 
Today I got my new condenser microphone AUSTRALIANAUDIO OC16
What a nice microphone and excellent sound.
Very good microphone to record acoustic guitar and also nice to use with your
acoustic preset together.
 
wesleyamltd said:
Mono double tracked guitars sound tighter and feel better to me.
Click to expand...
Definetly ideal for sure. In rhythm guitar One take for left, one for right. In lead, one take for center with stereo fx, (or one for left and one for right each with their own mono effect. If there's harmony then that's the overdubs but many people confuse a lot of these terms, or they twist them entirely.

Quad tracking a chorus section for rhythm guitar can increase the liveliness a bit for effect but I never do it I just ad a small touch of chorus on the rhythm.

But double track with one left and one right rhythm if tone is best because it's focused. And should be sufficient and I have never seen a point for doing repeat take layers aside from just the other mics on the cab when recorded to separate tracks. And technically that can be considered quad tracking or more for more mics being recorded. But no need for that anymore with all this realistic technology now in modeling where you can blend the IRs and then eq the blend.
Simplicity prolly wins here.

A vocal I can see benefiting from this for chorusing themselves. But a guitar? Nah.. Just add a tape chorus or enhancer - literally. Because quad tracking to me is complete audio gibberish.

The Metallica black album was a bit mushy. It would have been better if we'd have heard the definition of the tone more focused. But instead they made it a bit mushy.

If someone can't get thick tone without quad tracking then the problem is their tone not the single layer of it. But prove me wrong.
 
RackAddict said:
Definetly ideal for sure. In rhythm guitar One take for left, one for right. In lead, one take for center with stereo fx, (or one for left and one for right each with their own mono effect. If there's harmony then that's the overdubs but many people confuse a lot of these terms, or they twist them entirely.

Quad tracking a chorus section for rhythm guitar can increase the liveliness a bit for effect but I never do it I just ad a small touch of chorus on the rhythm.

But double track with one left and one right rhythm if tone is best because it's focused. And should be sufficient and I have never seen a point for doing repeat take layers aside from just the other mics on the cab when recorded to separate tracks. And technically that can be considered quad tracking or more for more mics being recorded. But no need for that anymore with all this realistic technology now in modeling where you can blend the IRs and then eq the blend.
Simplicity prolly wins here.

A vocal I can see benefiting from this for chorusing themselves. But a guitar? Nah.. Just add a tape chorus or enhancer - literally. Because quad tracking to me is complete audio gibberish.

The Metallica black album was a bit mushy. It would have been better if we'd have heard the definition of the tone more focused. But instead they made it a bit mushy.

If someone can't get thick tone without quad tracking then the problem is their tone not the single layer of it. But prove me wrong.
Click to expand...
Warning, Echo Chamber!

Quad guitar tracking is just more work for both the engineer and the performer. I don’t subscribe to the practice of quad tracking.

When I started recording I would quad track everything, I also tried the Hass effect on harmony and everything but wasn’t worth the time and effort.

Some amazing bands live and die using quad tracking and it works great for them but that’s not my bag.
 
Last edited:
wesleyamltd said:
Warning, Echo Chamber!

Quad guitar tracking is just more work for both the engineer and the performer. I don’t subscribe to the practice of quad tracking.

When o started recording I would quad track everything, I also tried the Hass effect on harmony and everything but wasn’t worth the time and effort.

Some amazing bands live and die using quad tracking and it works great for them but that’s not my bag.
Click to expand...

Exactly! And when it comes to the topic of multi-tracking such as quad tracking (terribly misnomer'ed term which is better termed "repeat overdub tracking") versus multiple channels (multiple mics aka - a more true definition of quad or higher form of multi-tracking) that leaves me to the topic of blending cabs and IRs. Because that is the true form of multiple tracking if recorded to separate tracks then blended that way. But people tend to over do that too with even mixing more than one cabinet in the take or separate takes and they muddy up definition by so doing, under the illusion of 'thickness'. Mixing flavors and characters of different cabs is the common response. YUCK.

I can appreciate that each cab is a unique instrument with it's own character but why dilute the character of a cab for one isolated part in the performance? I will NEVER blend more than one speaker cab per recorded part and anybody who would do that in my studio would be fired right away. I would even have the rule written on the wall somewhere.

Using varied mics however on the same cab or varied-mic IRs of the same cab is very awesome and is another matter altogether. That's the true multi tracking term and concept. It still allows the flavor of the cab to come through distinct while being able to adjust captured frequency from it with Mic variations. But unique speaker behavior and dynamics of the original cabinet source remain intact. If one is a purist then there is no other way. And there is other ways of getting thickness.

It's very simple, blending different cabs starts to muddy things up with the illusion of making things thicker. And you lose definition. So if a cab can't stand big and thick on its own and one has to blend in other completely different cabs or speakers, then theres something wrong with the cab that can't hold its own.

Different mics however is a proper form of thicker magic and the purist way of achieving that.

But any guitar player who has the tenacity to think they can come into the studio and blend different cabs will be sent home. They can however have up to 3 mics max on the cab. If that can't make the cab sound any good then the person will be advised very accurate directions as to where the dumpster is at the back of the building.

On cabs that have mixed speakers inside the same cab i am like so on the fence but more to the Nay. It may be the exception cus of being in the same enclosure and won't cancel out certain low mid frequencies too noticeably. But I'd multi-mic the same speaker or the repeat speaker to get only a small residual of the other one at most. Others may disagree and have a point to Mic the other speaker.

But 2 or more different cabs like literal enclosures on the same take? That is major trouble if someone were in the same room with me if they spewed that idea.

Maybe for leads a different cab to give the parts unique places in the arrangement.
 
Last edited:
Double tracking for sure for metal. One side pick a cab and a couple mics (or IRs) of that same cab. Then other side can vary up one or more of the mics to vary the frequency of stereo left and right a bit.

Then on lead tracks use a different mic mix or can use a different cab/IR even so it stands out from the rhythm guitars.

For chorus sections in rhythm and/or lead: I still wouldn't quad track for chorus, I would (rarely) just add subtle chorus or tape chorus effect. A bit of chorus effect for sure for leads if in a chorus.

Or can possibly record in another speaker only if it's in an X speaker formation cab, or same cab enclosure model with different speakers. Otherwise things will start to sound a bit confusing and unfocused in the low mids if combining different cab enclosures.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom