Stacking guitar tracks

[andrenighthound]

Can someone please explain to me how stacking rhythm guitar tracks works? Is it one track recorded then copied a few times and slightly lined off timing, or is it real actual recordings of the same riff or progression done multiple times? Thanks for any help.

[woodman]

In my limited experience, copying tracks and nudging them on the timeline can introduce phase issues ... don't know much about the theoretical details, but you can recognize the sound when you hear it. Parallel compression is an option, but recording a nearly identical track with the same compression and EQ seems to work for me.

[jjfatz42]

IF you have the capability, record in stereo. Acoustic = 2 mic's or 1 mic & soundhole pickup. Electric = 2 mic's one close mic'd & one back 2 or 3 feet. Put them in seperate tracks & pan each off center in the opposite direction.

If you will have bass guitar on the track, highpass all guits at 200K
If you have vocals notch the guits back at around 3-4K

Makes for a BIG guitar sound with room for vox & bass & only takes one "take" to get.

This is what I do at least. YMMV etc etc

[Martin R]

Not sure if this is what you're talking about, but you can also double the tracks using different guitars or pickups. I'm starting to experiment with that idea and like the results.

And remember that in the mix they don't have to have equal volumes. It's okay for one to be barely there.

[fezz parka]

Originally Posted by andrenighthound

Can someone please explain to me how stacking rhythm guitar tracks works? Is it one track recorded then copied a few times and slightly lined off timing, or is it real actual recordings of the same riff or progression done multiple times? Thanks for any help.

Stacking or doubling always sounds best when they're actually played. Experiment with using different guitars and amps. Extra cool when panned opposite of each other, and even cooler when effects are then panned opposite again.

[klasaine]

Originally Posted by fezz parka

Stacking or doubling always sounds best when they're actually played. Experiment with using different guitars and amps. Extra cool when panned opposite of each other, and even cooler when effects are then panned opposite again.

+1
The beauty of actually playing it twice (or more even - ?) is that you naturally get the little time offsets - except that it's not consistent or predictable which gives your double some life.

Hint: if you actually play the double, in a perfect world switch guitars and amp. Or, just the guitar or amp. Barring that, (which is definitely time consuming), tweak a tone control/switch pickups/change the overdrive settings/use a different delay or reverb time/etc.

*I have engineers double parts all the time electronically. I don't know if they sprinkle any fairy dust (fx/tone tweaks/etc - I suspect they probably do?) on the double or maybe slide it a few milliseconds one direction or the other - ? I'm usually not around when that stuff happens.

[peteycaster]

All of the above work, you just need to experiment. Also you can try playing the second (or third?) rythm guitar using different chord voicings ie, higher up the fretboard or with a capo.

[Geoff738]

Or you do the same part with the same guitar and settings a bazillion times. You need to be tight rhythmically or it's just a mess. It kinda smears the chord and gives the illusion of big - or perhaps more accurately, loud. Particularly when compressed within an inch of its life. Often all panned to the same place. Chug, chug, chug, chug, chug. Ugh.

I personally prefer playing it once and giving that part it's proper space. To me those kind of guitar parts sound bigger, louder, better (think Pete Townshend etc.). But, that approach ain't exactly the modern, current way to get in yer face guitar sounds.

Another approach which isn't exactly stacking, is to split the guitar's signal and run it through multiple amps. You might have a Vox for some jangle, Marshall for low-mid grunt, Mesa for whatever people like Mesa's for. You get the idea.

Personally, if there's more than one guitar playing the same chords in the same inversions, I like them to at least be a mix of guitars and amps. Give me some tonal separation and pan them differently. If that works best for the track in question.

So, yeah, there's a few valid answers to your question.

Cheers,
Geoff

[GigsbyBoyUK]

Yep - the capo is your friend here. I sometimes play two very simple parts at different places on the neck, eg in E one would be open chords with no capo and one would be capoed at the 7th fret and played as if in A. If I get the second part locked in tight with the first, when played back they create a single sound that's very rich and full.

[vjf1968]

There is also something to be said about laying an acoustic track underneath to give some "air" to the mix.

[andrenighthound]

Thanks guys!!! Great ideas all around!

[jjfatz42]

Originally Posted by Geoff738

Or you do the same part with the same guitar and settings a bazillion times. You need to be tight rhythmically or it's just a mess. It kinda smears the chord and gives the illusion of big - or perhaps more accurately, loud. Particularly when compressed within an inch of its life. Often all panned to the same place. Chug, chug, chug, chug, chug. Ugh.

I personally prefer playing it once and giving that part it's proper space. To me those kind of guitar parts sound bigger, louder, better (think Pete Townshend etc.). But, that approach ain't exactly the modern, current way to get in yer face guitar sounds.

Another approach which isn't exactly stacking, is to split the guitar's signal and run it through multiple amps. You might have a Vox for some jangle, Marshall for low-mid grunt, Mesa for whatever people like Mesa's for. You get the idea.

Personally, if there's more than one guitar playing the same chords in the same inversions, I like them to at least be a mix of guitars and amps. Give me some tonal separation and pan them differently. If that works best for the track in question.

So, yeah, there's a few valid answers to your question.

Cheers,
Geoff

I'm def gonna be experimenting with the "less is more" concept on my next project.