Can you double track guitars when recording live?

[DiabloS]

It'll work fine and it's very common. You'll probably want to do vocals after the fact too. If you have good isolation you can even re-record instruments if say the drummer nails the take and someone else screws up.

Cool thanks! Yeah we'd definitely re-do vocals afterwards... just seeing what we can do to capture the interaction between drums/bass/guitar but still have the guitars sound big!

[Borderline Productions]

I have two other suggestions.

1. Use two amps and an ABY pedal. One mic to each amp. Pan them far apart. You get more character to the tone and a very full sound.

2. Take the original track and pan to one side, bus the track to a second track with a short delay 11 to 30 ms (some people insist on using odd or prime numbers for the length of the delay in milliseconds) and pan to the other side. Check a mono mix to see if there are any phase issues. If there are change the length of the delay. This technique is used pretty commonly with vocals.

Have fun!!

[a.hun]

You could split the guitar output and record a straight DI'd signal as well as your amp'd guitar part. Then you can do whatever you want with it, reamp it, delay it, any type of effects or stereo panning you fancy. And while the treatments will all be after the event your guitar part will have been recorded entirely live!

Splitting bass between amped up and DI signals is a pretty standard thing in the studio, and very often live too. Of course a raw DI'd bass signal is useful as is, not so with guitar. Even so I've always wondered why this isn't done more often. Probably it is but not so many admit to it. 'Cheating' or something like that. IMO though there is no such thing as 'cheating' in the recording studio as it is all artificial. Live recordings can be a grey area that way but if you want the best possible sounds for the recording then that is the sort of 'cheating' I'd go for myself...

Of course you can split the signal between 2 or more amps live, and many do that. But as soon as you do you are largely locked into the individual track sounds. With a raw DI'd guitar part you can do anything to it, from subtle to totally OTT. All it needs is a DI and a spare track. The rest can wait 'till the studio.


Andy.

[everdrone]

lots of recordings have two rhythym guitar tracks doing the same thing, and panned hard right and hard left. so a different guitar track is going to your right and left speakers.

you can either record the rhythym guitar twice to do this, or you could use a splitter and put two guitar amps/cabs in separate rooms and record each of them for massive tones!

[a.hun]

lots of recordings have two rhythym guitar tracks doing the same thing, and panned hard right and hard left. so a different guitar track is going to your right and left speakers.

you can either record the rhythym guitar twice to do this, or you could use a splitter and put two guitar amps/cabs in separate rooms and record each of them for massive tones!

My favourite is to actually pan them just slightly left and right of centre (or L/R of a panned stereo position). You'd be surprised just how much that lifts and grows the sound. Really doesn't have to be hard left/ right to get a big sound.

Works especially well with a double mic'd acoustic. Just gorgeous!


Andy.

[BrianFantana]

Damn. "Live" albums sure have changed.

Why not just do it all in studio with the occasional beer bottle "clink" and crowd noise?

[Randy Bass]

Damn. "Live" albums sure have changed.

Why not just do it all in studio with the occasional beer bottle "clink" and crowd noise?

This reminded me of "Badfish" by Sublime for some reason. Those guys didn't waste much time polishing their "studio" recordings .

[Audiofan]

I think it would not be a problem to add studio tracks to the live ones after. The imprecision and different energies will give a fatter sound. Feel free to check out some more tips for doubling guitars here: http://en.audiofanzine.com/guitar/edito ... sound.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tarfungo]

Damn. "Live" albums sure have changed.

Why not just do it all in studio with the occasional beer bottle "clink" and crowd noise?

Not sure anything has actually changed about 'live' recordings - at least in modern times... (post 1950's - maybe?)

Any live album that comes out on a major label is likely 'fixed', 'altered' or 'augmented' in one way or another. That's not to say that pristine, unmolested examples of 'live' shows have never been released, it's just WAY less common than most people think.

Frampton has admitted that on at least one of the tracks on his 'Frampton Comes Alive' double live album, a kick drum mic was either damaged or failed to properly record. The kick drum track was 'fixed' after the fact in a studio.

Kiss and others admit to embellishing their 'live' albums with added 'audience' noise (screaming, yelling, applause, etc..) Their defense is that they only added to what was already there - for excitement purposes, so it's not really taking anything away from the 'live' show.

In the end, I guess it comes down to how one defines 'live'?

[bclaire]

Well, here's a question for you: what's the "last real" live album by a major recording artist that hasn't been 'fixed' in the studio? I'm thinking The Who: Live At Leeds. I know Aerosmith's Live Bootleg album had a lot of fixin' done in the studio...

[a.hun]

Well, here's a question for you: what's the "last real" live album by a major recording artist that hasn't been 'fixed' in the studio? I'm thinking The Who: Live At Leeds. I know Aerosmith's Live Bootleg album had a lot of fixin' done in the studio...

No idea.

King Crimson "B'Boom: Live in Argentina" (1995) was taken straight from a stereo DAT of the FOH mix. Songs were from several different nights though so I guess that maybe doesn't count.


Andy.