Rethinking quad-tracking. A different approach?

[Mattayus]

For my last few productions I've favoured double-tracking, and reserved quad-tracking for larger parts (heavier, slower parts, and choruses mainly). I used to be an avid quad-tracker 100% of the time, and I just went off it, largely in the interest of tightness and definition, especially for faster music.

I was using the usual format of 2 tracks 100% L/R, + another 2 tracks 80% L/R (and the 80% tracks being -3db lower in the mix).

This sounds great for that 'spread'. It creates the illusion of girth and depth, but sometimes at the detriment of clarity, and can be quite problematic when engineering your tones.

I'm currently mixing a really layered album, quite Devin Townsend-like in its instrument density. The client has chosen to quad-track (home-recorded) and after re-amping today I took a slightly different approach to the panning arrangement.

By putting all 4 guitars at 100%, and all at the same volume, there was this real power about it that still had clarity and definition.

I always avoided this in the past thinking it just wouldn't work, but after hearing a few producers talk about it and hearing the results I thought I'd try it. Definitely pleased with the results, and when the track is finished I'll post up a clip!

Anybody else found this method preferable?

 

[006]

Quad-tracking guitars on a project right now, first time in ages since the last time. It's sounding good all 100% L/R and same volume, but I have been editing the guitars so they are really tight with each other, sort of a must IMO to avoid cloudiness.

 

[Trevoire520]

To be honest this is how I've been doing my stuff lately aswell. Sometimes I'll have tracks 3/4 a different level if I've used a different amp. But if it's all 4 through the same setup I'll just do them 100% L/R and all the same level. The only issue I do find is that the guitars end up practically non existent in mono.

 

[SoundsLikeFog]

It always amazes me how people just do the 100%/80%-thing when quad-tracking and then wonder why it's hurting their mixes clarity.. I can't think of a single good reason to pan something 80 as opposed to 100.

Essentially you have 1/2 guitars L&R all fine an' dandy but considering the 3/4..You have a guitar that's so far on the left that it might aswell be on the left, and then you have some almost non-audible shit blurring your right channel, what you wouldn't have if you would have just panned the damn thing 100%, and vice versa on the right..

I've got no idea from where this '100&80'-thing was born, but to me it's always seemed like a retarded idea that people just do, because 'that's how it's done' without any reasoning behind it.. What does 80% contribute that 100% doesn't with better stereo image and clarity..?

 

[Mattayus]

I assume it's in the interest of letting the 100% guitar have its own little pocket all to itself, so the 80% is ever so slightly out of its way. But you're right, it's not optimal, and if the performances are tight enough the guitars just support each other at 100% anyway, rather than get in the way of one another.

 

[~BURNY~]

I've got no idea from where this '100&80'-thing was born, but to me it's always seemed like a retarded idea that people just do, because 'that's how it's done' without any reasoning behind it.. What does 80% contribute that 100% doesn't with better stereo image and clarity..?

Well Andy Sneap isn't retarded as far as I know. Nice first post. Duh.

On of the main advantage is that it gives a much better mono compatibility (when summing both channels).

 

[Heabow]

When quad-tracking, I always panned 100% the four guitars at the first place then adjust them if needed (100%-90% sometimes 100%-80%). On a very few projects I panned the main guitars at 100% and the two others at around 60%. Depends on the music and what you want to achieve of course. The most difficult part for me is to get a good tone with different guitar sounds. By the way, do you know guys if Townsend usually record 4 rhythm guitars? (I've never been a fan of his guitar tone tho but that's a different story)

 

[Igor Samurovic]

If you want mono compatibility without quad tracking to hard pan (100%) and 80% (or simply, without quad tracking at all, with only one guitar left and right) you should make a master reverb channel. What I do is basically gating kick and snare to it, adding toms, adding cymbals at a very low level (usually -18db) and mixing guitars into it as well (as well as distorted bass). Reverb (I use RVerb's Hall 2 for this purpose) will make any signal stereo - and this way it will glue your mix even better. The catch? You will have to automate guitar/bass dist feed into it so you don't get weird soinding stuff when only one instrument is playing. Also, you'd best experiment with the volume of your guitar/bass feed. Since reverb channel is fairly loud in my mix, I send guitars and bass dist to it with -12db in order to have them there just for gluing, and not actually hear the effect of reverbation aside from the benefit of mono playability.

 

[Mattayus]

In reference to the blending of tones - I can't see why all guitars at 100% wouldn't work for that either. FWIW, when I'm working with different tones, the blend is between left and right, i.e. the guitars on one side will be the same rig. I think this gives a better spread of tones and feels less stiff than when the tones are mirrored.

So for example both guitar on the left will be one set up, and both on the right will be another. For the most part they will be 80% the same rig anyway, but that tiny change makes the world of difference (e.g. same cab + mic position but different head either side, or same head but different cab, or same head and cab but different mic position, etc etc...)

 

[Igor Samurovic]

If you were to do that, it would sound a bit weird and imbalanced on headphones, as you wouldn't really be able to match loudness 100%, so one who listens to the mix on headphones will perceive guitar as coming from only one side, and this is a major setback in this technique, so if you are going to do this, make sure you equate loudness on headphones. That being said, I really like when this technique is utilized properly, it really does give a fuller sound when blasting through speakers, and especially sounds better in mono since phase cancellations do less damage on different tones. On headphones it creates a distinguishable sound that's pretty rare nowadays, and whether or not this is a good thing is entirely up to the listener.

 

[jipchen]

Yeah I also think the 50-80% makes no sense. Because you don't really get rid of the hole in the middle, the only thing that happens is fuck the phase up (=the mono compatibility really doesn't get any better, it actually gets worse often) and make everything muddy. But that's just me and I don't use quad-tracking anymore because it doesn't work for me.
Most engineers in interviews I've read also state the old "if you're going to pan, have a good reason to do it - and if you do it, do a 100% or don't do it at all" saying. Actually I haven't once heard or read anything different, especially most "older" AEs pan either L / C / R, panning 25/50/80/whatever is rather rare.

 

[Mattayus]

If you were to do that, it would sound a bit weird and imbalanced on headphones, as you wouldn't really be able to match loudness 100%, so one who listens to the mix on headphones will perceive guitar as coming from only one side, and this is a major setback in this technique, so if you are going to do this, make sure you equate loudness on headphones.

... What?

It's really not that hard to match volumes using two different heads. And since the rest of the signal chain is exactly the same, it sounds almost the same anyway. It's only when you solo each guitar track and flick back and forth that you notice some slight EQ differences. I'm not saying use a 5150 and Mesa 4x12 one side, and a Roland Cube on the other. Just use a different head/cab/mic/mic position/something (one side boosted, one side un-boosted is also a good one) to get a good separation.

If every rhythm guitar has the same signal chain, and is played by the same player, MAN it sounds sterile and amateur. There's just something a little stiff about it that's quite noticeable, IMO.

 

[SoundsLikeFog]

Well Andy Sneap isn't retarded as far as I know. Nice first post. Duh.

On of the main advantage is that it gives a much better mono compatibility (when summing both channels).

As far as I know, he isn't either.. And if he sees fit to pan his guitars that way, jolly for him.. I'm shure his more than capable of making INFORMED decisions considering his methods.

I was referring to the mentality that '1/2 100% LR, 3/4 80% LR -3 db' is a basic thing to do, as retarded.. To do that without questioning why and then wondering 'where did my clarity go?'.

As for making space for guitars, I call 'bullshit'.. For me atleast, it's a DAW-thing, a visual self dillusion.. On a analog board, that would be few mm of turning a pan pot.. And I'd call it grade-A-wankin' if I saw someone trying to find that few millimetre sweet spot where the guitars have their "own space".

As for layering, why not just track gtrs that have power and separation without that '20% of own space'. Even if you are not the one traking, I'd wager that eq and compression would yield better results considering separation than 20% pan.. + The down sides mentioned earlier.

As for mono compatibility, yes, I can see that aspect.. I haven't had problems with disapearing guitars in mono, so I haven't seen any reason to sacrifise clarity for that reason.. And as an ideal, I don't like the idea of mixing according the lowest common denominator.

Of course, everyone is entitled to do just what the hell they want considering mixing. I myself am a strong believer that mixing is about making informed decisions. And accepting before mentioned quad tracking method as a norm of how to do things, is anything but informed.. and as I said before, just retarded.

 

[Mattayus]

As for layering, why not just track gtrs that have power and separation without that '20% of own space'. Even if you are not the one traking, I'd wager that eq and compression would yield better results considering separation than 20% pan.. + The down sides mentioned earlier.

That was entirely conjecture, as you asked where the hell that idea came from, and so I had a crack at guessing what people see in it.

FWIW, the 100 and 80 % method was something I tried a few years ago, and liked. I didn't use it simply because it was meant to be any kind of standard, and I dare say that's what it boils down to for most others. But now, down to nothing other than experience and informed opinion, I'm discovering more optimal methods.

 

[SoundsLikeFog]

That was entirely conjecture, as you asked where the hell that idea came from, and so I had a crack at guessing what people see in it.

FWIW, the 100 and 80 % method was something I tried a few years ago, and liked. I didn't use it simply because it was meant to be any kind of standard, and I dare say that's what it boils down to for most others. But now, down to nothing other than experience and informed opinion, I'm discovering more optimal methods.

I should have propably made more clear that I was in no way referring to you in my post or assuming that you make uninformed decisions mixing.

Now that I read my post again, one can easily make that misinterpretation.

 

[Igor Samurovic]

... What?

It's really not that hard to match volumes using two different heads.

Oh, I misinterpreted it, I thought you were going to make it much more radical.

If every rhythm guitar has the same signal chain, and is played by the same player, MAN it sounds sterile and amateur. There's just something a little stiff about it that's quite noticeable, IMO.

Frequency buildup. The same way you don't want to boost all instruments in one range to make them cut, you don't want all guitars sounding the same, because resonant frequencies of cabs/amps/pickup/etc will make weird buildups that will be impossible to get rid of through processing. I think it also has to do with pick attack that goes through the head differently on different amps - we all know pick attacks on a rectifier and a 5150 sound completely different. After pick attack, there's this voicing on rectifier that makes it sound scooped, but has more (and more loose) low end than a 5150.

 

[JeffTD]

I've been doing 100% panned guitars for years now. In fact, everything in my productions that's not an intermittent or lead part gets panned L/C/R. Toms, random lead guitars, maybe the odd string/synth part if it's not in stereo, one-off vocal fx type layers, etc can be panned between, but all guitars, bass, kick, snare, vocals, overheads, rooms, etc get L, R, or C every time.

 

[Igor Samurovic]

However, always remember that many people listen to music on headphones nowadays, so complete 100% R/L is not completely advised. If ou put guitars 90% L/R it won't have a huge impact on the stereo picture when listening on speakers, but it is a world of difference on headphones.

 

[drew_drummer]

I'd rather just do two different amp+cab+mic configs instead of a proper quad-track. Then keep the darkest pair about -8dB lower than the main pair. -3dB doesn't sound enough to me, and yeah, it's a clarity thing for me.

 

[JeffTD]

However, always remember that many people listen to music on headphones nowadays, so complete 100% R/L is not completely advised. If ou put guitars 90% L/R it won't have a huge impact on the stereo picture when listening on speakers, but it is a world of difference on headphones.

I have to say that I disagree with this entirely.