how to eq two guitars in a mix to differentiate them?

[fendorst]

I know there are no hard, fast rules. I'm not looking for a secret formula to apply in all situations. There will be no exact "correct" answer that will apply in all situations. I just want some general direction, a starting point from which to experiment and learn.

When a recording has two guitars, one playing rhythm and another playing repeating lead licks or a counter rhythm, I understand that eq'ing them differently can help differentiate and clarify them in the mix. The suggestion I've seen is to cut a frequency range in guitar one and boost that same range in guitar two.

I know I can experiment and do what sounds good to my ears. That's how I do it all the time. Still, I'd like to know of any generally accepted common practices in this regard.

I generally begin by rolling off the lows on guitars to eliminate muddiness. which improves clarity overall. Then, to distinguish the two guitar sounds from one another:

What are some reasonable frequency ranges to cut and boost?

What's a reasonable amount of db to cut and boost?

How tight a range of frequencies should be cut/boosted (the Q factor)?

Thanks for your suggestions.

[woodman]

sounds like you've got the right approach, and you're right, the ears have to be the final arbiter. a lot depends on the type of music and what you're looking for as a producer.

i'm far from an expert, but i've gotten good results in two-guitar mixes from using contrasting tones, like bridge pickup for one and neck or middle position for the other. i try to get tracks that don't require boosts, only cuts ... a gentle boost here and there can work, but over 3dB seems to give it an artificial sound.

again depending on the material, i'll cut the bridge-oriented sound with a broad Q in the 500-800 range, and cut the mellower tone (usually the rhythm unless the tune requires a skritchy funk rhythm part) in the 2-3K range with a narrower Q. then sweeten to taste.

of course, this is only one simplified way to do it, but it's as close to a broad rule of thumb as i've found. hopefully some of the more astute guys will chime in with their views.

[Skully]

As Woody suggests, I think the key is in the recording -- using different guitars, pick-ups, amps, effects and chord voicings (get out the capo!).

[NewGuy410]

Originally Posted by Skully

As Woody suggests, I think the key is in the recording -- using different guitars, pick-ups, amps, effects and chord voicings (get out the capo!).

Agreed.

You can also pan one guitar to the left a little and the other to the right.

[mudbean]

Agreed, varying the source tone is best. Now, let's assume for the moment that you already have tracks recorded and need to mix them ...

Physical separation helps, too: pan them to opposite sides a bit - doesn't need to be all the way hard left/right, even 11 to 1 or 10 to 2 as seen on a clock helps plenty.

Be careful with EQ boosts! Try to achieve your tonal contrast with subtractive EQ, it sounds nicer.

Edit: Oops, I'm typin slow! Sorry, Newguy.

mud

[fendorst]

Woodman has replied to a couple of my posts lately, and always from a sensible, practical, reality-oriented point of view. Thanks for the input.

Agree with both of you. Yes, use different guitar and amp rather than same guitar twice. If same guitar, at least use different pickups.

In general I don't boost anything, preferring to cut instead. Hence my question about complementary eq, cutting eq in one guitar and boosting the same frequency on the other guitar. I'm just not a fan of boosing eq anywhere.

Woodman, I also understand your approach to eq'ing bridge vs neck pickup: Cut lows off the bridge pickup to highlight the treble nature of the pickup in the treble position, cut highs off the neck pickup to highlight the bass nature of the pickup in the bass position.

My second guitar is a Les Paul Melody Maker with single P-90. I can get any sound I want out of it, from a snarling mess of mids and upper mids, to a snotty hellbroth of mids and upper mids. It isn't always easy to find room in the mix for another guitar, especially a traishy Tele. But that's what makes it fun recording them together.

[rand z]

personally i like an acoustic guitar along with an electric; one panned slightly left, one slightly right... really sounds good to me.

it gives some depth to the recording, especially if you attenuate some of the bottom and mids off of the acoustic, leaving the highs for a nice "brushy" sound. you still get the 2 guitar sound with some really nice distinction between them.

lots of recordings made this way.

rand z

[fendorst]

Who said anything about a stereo mix?

Just kidding. Know about panning, also about reverb and near/far or up/down perception. The original question about complementary eq remains on the table, however. Thanks for all input so far.

[mudbean]

Well, there are no specific frequency points - it all depends on your sources' natures ... solo each track and focus on the midrange - turn the mid EQ gain way up and sweep through the frequencies - find the area(s) of power, the freqs that leap out at you as you sweep around with the EQ gain cranked. Chances are, it'll be a slightly different place on the dial for each guitar track. You know what to do then: highlight those areas of power by pulling some of the same freqs away from the other track.

mud

[fendorst]

Yup, using an electric and acoustic works for many songs.

Heck, one could consider replacing one of the guitar parts with an organ or other keyboard.

Or the whole song could be rearranged for orchestra and entirely avoid having to mix two guitars in the first place.

What I'm looking for, however, are suggestions regarding complementary eq of two electric guitars in a mix.

Not panning advice, not other effects advice, not brand of guitar or amp or settings, not alternate instrumentation, etc. Looking for suggestions regarding complementary eq of two electric guitars in a mix.

[fendorst]

Mudbean... love it. Find the sweetspot of each guitar, then pull those frequencies out of the other guitar. Sounds especially appealing because it doesn't rely on remembering numbers or favorite settings or any other one-size-fits-all approach. Rather it's totally dependent on each individual situation and provides a customized solution to that specific situation. I love you man, never change.

Who else wants to be a genius?

[mtjo62]

It's just as mudbean explained it. You under emphasize a narrow freq range on one guitar and emphasize the same freq range on the other. The waveform would show a football shaped area where this occurs.

[tonewoods]

Originally Posted by fendorst

I know there are no hard, fast rules.

Well, one rule around my studio is to try and use no EQ whatsoever...

And, most of the time, I'm successful in doing this.
(Drums can be problematic, however).

The last project I did I could have mixed with just volume and panning...

So-ooo, preparation is essential, and choosing your instrumentation (and mics) so that one instrument does not sonically step on another--or a vocal--is what it's all about...

[Old Cane]

Originally Posted by tonewoods

Well, one rule around my studio is to try and use no EQ whatsoever...

And, most of the time, I'm successful in doing this.
(Drums can be problematic, however).

The last project I did I could have mixed with just volume and panning...

So-ooo, preparation is essential, and choosing your instrumentation (and mics) so that one instrument does not sonically step on another--or a vocal--is what it's all about...

I try to do this all I can if I have 2 guitars going. I may roll some lows off of the electric guitars. I may not. I pan the guitars and also pan any effects used in the DAW to get some separation but mostly I just use a strat and a telecaster to get different sounds. Usually though I use one or the other so I just have one guitar to mess with. I will have a close mic and a room mic so there's a whole 'nuther can o' worms.

[T Prior]

Woodman( Woody) has been at this a long time and his experience and comments are of great value. He is spot on with the tonal contrast thing,it always wise to not have both guitar tracks identical in tone, similar , sure , but not the same. Certainly as mentioned, two different guitars will open up the track to different "tonality" before you even start with the EQ settings. I have found myself lately using either a Les Paul or a Strat underneath the solo guitar tracks and that has offered a nice contrast . Panning the 2nd guitar in the mix also offers an opportunity to prevent EQ clashing with the main guitar or other Instruments as well. By the way, Woody is quite an accomplished player as well, every now and then I have a chance to see him play around town.


t

[Ben Harmless]

My favorite technique is the above mentioned "the best EQ is no EQ" method. Even in situations where one has two similar sounding guitars, volume and panning are tools that are so simple that we forget how powerful they are. I mix a lot of live music as well, and in that scenario, even panning can get a little iffy. The other audio person on those gigs is always shocked at how little EQ I use. Remember, your mix exists in fourth dimension as well, and guitar tracks don't have to spend a whole song at the same level. Sometimes the best mix is one where the guitars have a lot of movement. Current trendy guitar tones (even some of the "clean" ones) have virtually no dynamics of their own, so you may have to create some. With modern DAWs, this has become almost too easy. With volume and pan envelopes, one doesn't have to "ride the fader" anymore - though it can still be a good method.

That being said, if you do indeed need to apply some EQ, you've got some good tips above. I'll add what I consider to the one of the most important mixing tips there is, and one that I employ whenever I'm pushing faders:

Whenever you make a change to anything, stop the playback, take your hands off the gear, close your eyes, take a deep breath, and then listen again. Our brain has a way of minimizing subtle changes. When all we're hearing is that one weird harmonic overtone of an acoustic guitar that's really trampling on the vocal, that's what our brain has focused on. When we reduce it by whatever means, our brain is still focused on it, and we may not have a good picture of what the overall effect of our change was. Reset your brain as often as possible, and as much as possible. When you think your mix is done, wait a day and then listen again.

[Old Cane]

"Remember, your mix exists in fourth dimension as well"

Nice way to put it. As for the subtle changes, that's so true it ought to be a law. The way you do it on the fly/live it's got to be ingrained into your method or things can get out of hand in a hurry, can't they? You can't really take a Camel break to let your ears rest when it's going out in real-time.

[mudbean]

Originally Posted by Old Cane

...The way you do it on the fly/live it's got to be ingrained into your method or things can get out of hand in a hurry, can't they?

Hee hee, ooooh yeah!

mud

[Ben Harmless]

Originally Posted by Old Cane

The way you do it on the fly/live it's got to be ingrained into your method or things can get out of hand in a hurry, can't they? You can't really take a Camel break to let your ears rest when it's going out in real-time.

Nah. I just make the band stop for a few seconds every time I make a change.

Luckily, the recordings of the shows that I work on are multitrack and taken from a split with a separate board, so unless my live mix is so bad that it renders the room mics useless, everything can be worked out before the performance airs.

I guess I just try to mentally reset. I get up and walk around a lot during tough live mixes to find a little perspective.

[klasaine]

Not too much to add to the above.
I too especially try to go for the no EQ is the best EQ, or EQ at the source.
I've found that for me to accomplish that in the shortest amount of time (read: not wasting a producers budget), besides my favorite axes I always bring a guitar thats not a Strat or LP or Tele style such as a Danelectro, a Kay, a Jazzmaster, etc. All with vintage spec pickups and parts so that they sound like they were meant to - which is definitely not LP or Strat tone. If there's time permitting I will absolutely use a different amp or go direct.
The Kay I mentioned above is, truth be told, a total P.O.S. It's difficult to play, the intonation is impossible to fix, it's noisy ... and it sounds really cheap in a great way, especially when doubling something or as another part.
A couple of the best tools I have for sessions are a few 'cheap and junky' guitars.

[slowpinky]

Originally Posted by klasaine

The Kay I mentioned above is, truth be told, a total P.O.S. It's difficult to play, the intonation is impossible to fix, it's noisy ... and it sounds really cheap in a great way, especially when doubling something or as another part.
A couple of the best tools I have for sessions are a few 'cheap and junky' guitars.

Craptastic!

[klasaine]

Originally Posted by slowpinky

Craptastic!

Abso-crap-olutely ... and 8 out of 10 times the engineer or studio owner asks me if I'll sell it.
You gotta have a cheap guitar. Not an inexpensive guitar that plays good and sounds good - a cheap P.O.S. that plays almost to the point of 'horrible' and is always just a little funky in the intonation. Kent, Teisco, one of those wacky Italian jobs ... And unfortunately the new Dano's don't count - they play too good and sound like good guitars.

*Same goes for acoustic guitars.
There's nothing quite like a late 60's or early 70's 3/4 size nylon string that hasn't had a string change since Jimmy Carter's presidency. Really! There's a beautifully cheap innocence that comes out when played confidently and earnestly.

[wcap]

This talk about cheap guitars hits home with me (something I mentioned a few weeks ago in a different thread).....

I've been referring to my old all laminated wood Sears Silvertone from the early 70's as a GSO (guitar shaped object) that had no value, was not worth playing, and that I should get rid of. But I got it out recently and played it for the first time in years. It was a lot more fun to play than I had imagined it would be. It certainly doesn't produce the lovely chorus of harmonics with every note and chord that my Martin does, but the Silvertone's simple clear trebles and thumpy bass notes are really quite pleasant and perfect for some sorts of playing. I haven't tried recording it yet, and it is not usually going to be the guitar I reach for when I sit down to play, but I definitely think it is worth hanging on to.

And I agree with the post above that part of the key here is to play "confidently and earnestly". I'm a much better guitar player than when I had last had this guitar out quite a few years ago, and I think part of what is going on is that I'm getting much better sounds out of this cheap guitar than I did before.

(I apologize for contributing to taking this thread astray from the original question - I'm really interested in what the answers are to the original question too).