Minor differences between two recorded guitarsPanning distorted guitars (get the attack sound)Are there any practical differences between Humbuckers and Mini Humbuckers?Quantization for recorded audio tracksIs today's (popular) music recorded or synthesized?Differences between caposRecorded acoustic guitar with Focusrite Scarlett 6i6 and Pro Tools | First but getting noiseBPM matching pre-recorded vocals in GarageBandLogic (or possibly general production) terminology - what does 'recorded box' mean?Has Debussy really recorded his own works?Recorded Vocal tempo is lessWhat are the differences between live and separate instrument recording in a studio?
How to check the quality of an audio sample?
Using ”as” after dialogue tags
Can I use "candidate" as a verb?
<schwitz>, <zwinker> etc. Does German always use 2nd Person Singular Imperative verbs for emoticons? If so, why?
Is Trump personally blocking people on Twitter?
Is an acid a salt or not?
As a DM, how to avoid unconscious metagaming when dealing with a high AC character?
Is killing off one of my queer characters homophobic?
How the name "craqueuhhe" is read
What's the minimum number of sensors for a hobby GPS waypoint-following UAV?
Why does the autopilot disengage even when it does not receive pilot input?
I have a ruthless DM and I'm considering leaving the party. What are my options to minimize the negative impact to the rest of the group?
Referring to different instances of the same character in time travel
How do Windows version numbers work?
What's the fastest way to get Hard To Borrow (HTB) stocks?
How can one write good dialogue in a story without sounding wooden?
If a specific mass of air is polluted, will the pollution stick with it?
Robbers: The Hidden OEIS Substring
Cops: The Hidden OEIS Substring
Why would guns not work in the dungeon?
Replacements for swear words
What would the EU do if an EU member declared war on another EU member?
What does NAT64 do which can't be done by deploying IPv6 + NAT44?
Redirect https to fqdn
Minor differences between two recorded guitars
Panning distorted guitars (get the attack sound)Are there any practical differences between Humbuckers and Mini Humbuckers?Quantization for recorded audio tracksIs today's (popular) music recorded or synthesized?Differences between caposRecorded acoustic guitar with Focusrite Scarlett 6i6 and Pro Tools | First but getting noiseBPM matching pre-recorded vocals in GarageBandLogic (or possibly general production) terminology - what does 'recorded box' mean?Has Debussy really recorded his own works?Recorded Vocal tempo is lessWhat are the differences between live and separate instrument recording in a studio?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
According to my previous question Panning distorted guitars (get the attack sound) to get the desired effect you need to record two identical guitar parts (talking about guitar part of course because it's impossible to record identical byte code). So I did. But there are minor differences like this:
You can see that it's kinda whacky in terms of timing, but timing can be fixed using flex time/nudge/anything else. If you look at the third chord of the riff, you can see that they have slightly different duration (top track is left channel and bottom is right). Is it criminally problematic while doing post production or you can hide these differences by applying distortion (I'll use it anyways though), reverb, stereo delay (to match the differences between channels)?
guitar recording logic-pro
asked Jul 4 at 10:19
Eugen ErayEugen Eray
19911 bronze badges
add a comment |
According to my previous question Panning distorted guitars (get the attack sound) to get the desired effect you need to record two identical guitar parts (talking about guitar part of course because it's impossible to record identical byte code). So I did. But there are minor differences like this:
You can see that it's kinda whacky in terms of timing, but timing can be fixed using flex time/nudge/anything else. If you look at the third chord of the riff, you can see that they have slightly different duration (top track is left channel and bottom is right). Is it criminally problematic while doing post production or you can hide these differences by applying distortion (I'll use it anyways though), reverb, stereo delay (to match the differences between channels)?
guitar recording logic-pro
asked Jul 4 at 10:19
Eugen ErayEugen Eray
19911 bronze badges
1
If you were working on tape you'd have to rely completely on your ears. It's usually the best idea.
– PeterJ
Jul 4 at 13:09
add a comment |
According to my previous question Panning distorted guitars (get the attack sound) to get the desired effect you need to record two identical guitar parts (talking about guitar part of course because it's impossible to record identical byte code). So I did. But there are minor differences like this:
You can see that it's kinda whacky in terms of timing, but timing can be fixed using flex time/nudge/anything else. If you look at the third chord of the riff, you can see that they have slightly different duration (top track is left channel and bottom is right). Is it criminally problematic while doing post production or you can hide these differences by applying distortion (I'll use it anyways though), reverb, stereo delay (to match the differences between channels)?
guitar recording logic-pro
asked Jul 4 at 10:19
Eugen ErayEugen Eray
19911 bronze badges
According to my previous question Panning distorted guitars (get the attack sound) to get the desired effect you need to record two identical guitar parts (talking about guitar part of course because it's impossible to record identical byte code). So I did. But there are minor differences like this:
You can see that it's kinda whacky in terms of timing, but timing can be fixed using flex time/nudge/anything else. If you look at the third chord of the riff, you can see that they have slightly different duration (top track is left channel and bottom is right). Is it criminally problematic while doing post production or you can hide these differences by applying distortion (I'll use it anyways though), reverb, stereo delay (to match the differences between channels)?
guitar recording logic-pro
guitar recording logic-pro
asked Jul 4 at 10:19
Eugen ErayEugen Eray
19911 bronze badges
asked Jul 4 at 10:19
Eugen ErayEugen Eray
19911 bronze badges
asked Jul 4 at 10:19
Eugen ErayEugen Eray
19911 bronze badges
asked Jul 4 at 10:19
Eugen ErayEugen Eray
19911 bronze badges
asked Jul 4 at 10:19
Eugen ErayEugen Eray
19911 bronze badges
19911 bronze badges
1
If you were working on tape you'd have to rely completely on your ears. It's usually the best idea.
– PeterJ
Jul 4 at 13:09
add a comment |
1
If you were working on tape you'd have to rely completely on your ears. It's usually the best idea.
– PeterJ
Jul 4 at 13:09
1
1
If you were working on tape you'd have to rely completely on your ears. It's usually the best idea.
– PeterJ
Jul 4 at 13:09
If you were working on tape you'd have to rely completely on your ears. It's usually the best idea.
– PeterJ
Jul 4 at 13:09
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
It's hard to tell from the images what it actually sounds like, as there's no time-scale, but that's the criterion I'd use - what it sounds like.
Sometimes, a good groove is based on the average beat-centre provided only by the whole band, it doesn't rely on any single part. Listen to some early Stevie Wonder for a perfect example of this - try Superstition.
If you can very clearly hear the timing difference; if it sounds 'poor', then by all means shift & stretch one until it doesn't. Small time-stretches will not be heard anyway, assuming your DAW has a decent algorithm to do it.
A good way to do this type of edit is cut early, before the next transient [always cut at zero-crossings anyway, but cutting early helps this too].
You can then slide your transient into place, time-stretch then apply a short cross-fade to the part before it.
Cutting early means you don't hit the transient with your cross-fade, it's done in the tail of the preceding note, so you'll never hear it.
What you don't want to do is end up actually quantising both takes so hard that all aspects of feel disappear & you have a perfect but completely sterile guitar part.
There's a lot to be said for interplay between almost identical parts spread left & right. If you sterilise them completely, the 'magic' will disappear.
Some DAWs can do this automatically, stretch & quantise [or iteratively quantise] to a grid. You can try this but be prepared to Undo, as it's not always the 'magic fix' they promise.
answered Jul 4 at 10:35
TetsujinTetsujin
9,3092 gold badges20 silver badges40 bronze badges
Actually automatic quantization usually makes the sound worse. In Polyphonic mode it makes the riff sound stretched and "wet", in monophonic it sometimes makes it sound "clicky" and in rhythmic it makes it sound punchy.
– Eugen Eray
Jul 4 at 16:06
I have to say I've used it on drum tracks & all kinds of things, in Cubase, with reasonable success. Because of the 'iterative Q' that it can do it doesn't haul everything kicking & screaming to exactly on the beat - but it's not something I would rely on to be 'best every time'. I've never really used Logic for audio - I just don't like it, though I've had it since Mac V1, when it was Midi only.
– Tetsujin
Jul 4 at 16:08
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "240"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmusic.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f86500%2fminor-differences-between-two-recorded-guitars%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It's hard to tell from the images what it actually sounds like, as there's no time-scale, but that's the criterion I'd use - what it sounds like.
Sometimes, a good groove is based on the average beat-centre provided only by the whole band, it doesn't rely on any single part. Listen to some early Stevie Wonder for a perfect example of this - try Superstition.
If you can very clearly hear the timing difference; if it sounds 'poor', then by all means shift & stretch one until it doesn't. Small time-stretches will not be heard anyway, assuming your DAW has a decent algorithm to do it.
A good way to do this type of edit is cut early, before the next transient [always cut at zero-crossings anyway, but cutting early helps this too].
You can then slide your transient into place, time-stretch then apply a short cross-fade to the part before it.
Cutting early means you don't hit the transient with your cross-fade, it's done in the tail of the preceding note, so you'll never hear it.
What you don't want to do is end up actually quantising both takes so hard that all aspects of feel disappear & you have a perfect but completely sterile guitar part.
There's a lot to be said for interplay between almost identical parts spread left & right. If you sterilise them completely, the 'magic' will disappear.
Some DAWs can do this automatically, stretch & quantise [or iteratively quantise] to a grid. You can try this but be prepared to Undo, as it's not always the 'magic fix' they promise.
answered Jul 4 at 10:35
TetsujinTetsujin
9,3092 gold badges20 silver badges40 bronze badges
Actually automatic quantization usually makes the sound worse. In Polyphonic mode it makes the riff sound stretched and "wet", in monophonic it sometimes makes it sound "clicky" and in rhythmic it makes it sound punchy.
– Eugen Eray
Jul 4 at 16:06
I have to say I've used it on drum tracks & all kinds of things, in Cubase, with reasonable success. Because of the 'iterative Q' that it can do it doesn't haul everything kicking & screaming to exactly on the beat - but it's not something I would rely on to be 'best every time'. I've never really used Logic for audio - I just don't like it, though I've had it since Mac V1, when it was Midi only.
– Tetsujin
Jul 4 at 16:08
add a comment |
It's hard to tell from the images what it actually sounds like, as there's no time-scale, but that's the criterion I'd use - what it sounds like.
Sometimes, a good groove is based on the average beat-centre provided only by the whole band, it doesn't rely on any single part. Listen to some early Stevie Wonder for a perfect example of this - try Superstition.
If you can very clearly hear the timing difference; if it sounds 'poor', then by all means shift & stretch one until it doesn't. Small time-stretches will not be heard anyway, assuming your DAW has a decent algorithm to do it.
A good way to do this type of edit is cut early, before the next transient [always cut at zero-crossings anyway, but cutting early helps this too].
You can then slide your transient into place, time-stretch then apply a short cross-fade to the part before it.
Cutting early means you don't hit the transient with your cross-fade, it's done in the tail of the preceding note, so you'll never hear it.
What you don't want to do is end up actually quantising both takes so hard that all aspects of feel disappear & you have a perfect but completely sterile guitar part.
There's a lot to be said for interplay between almost identical parts spread left & right. If you sterilise them completely, the 'magic' will disappear.
Some DAWs can do this automatically, stretch & quantise [or iteratively quantise] to a grid. You can try this but be prepared to Undo, as it's not always the 'magic fix' they promise.
answered Jul 4 at 10:35
TetsujinTetsujin
9,3092 gold badges20 silver badges40 bronze badges
Actually automatic quantization usually makes the sound worse. In Polyphonic mode it makes the riff sound stretched and "wet", in monophonic it sometimes makes it sound "clicky" and in rhythmic it makes it sound punchy.
– Eugen Eray
Jul 4 at 16:06
I have to say I've used it on drum tracks & all kinds of things, in Cubase, with reasonable success. Because of the 'iterative Q' that it can do it doesn't haul everything kicking & screaming to exactly on the beat - but it's not something I would rely on to be 'best every time'. I've never really used Logic for audio - I just don't like it, though I've had it since Mac V1, when it was Midi only.
– Tetsujin
Jul 4 at 16:08
add a comment |
It's hard to tell from the images what it actually sounds like, as there's no time-scale, but that's the criterion I'd use - what it sounds like.
Sometimes, a good groove is based on the average beat-centre provided only by the whole band, it doesn't rely on any single part. Listen to some early Stevie Wonder for a perfect example of this - try Superstition.
If you can very clearly hear the timing difference; if it sounds 'poor', then by all means shift & stretch one until it doesn't. Small time-stretches will not be heard anyway, assuming your DAW has a decent algorithm to do it.
A good way to do this type of edit is cut early, before the next transient [always cut at zero-crossings anyway, but cutting early helps this too].
You can then slide your transient into place, time-stretch then apply a short cross-fade to the part before it.
Cutting early means you don't hit the transient with your cross-fade, it's done in the tail of the preceding note, so you'll never hear it.
What you don't want to do is end up actually quantising both takes so hard that all aspects of feel disappear & you have a perfect but completely sterile guitar part.
There's a lot to be said for interplay between almost identical parts spread left & right. If you sterilise them completely, the 'magic' will disappear.
Some DAWs can do this automatically, stretch & quantise [or iteratively quantise] to a grid. You can try this but be prepared to Undo, as it's not always the 'magic fix' they promise.
answered Jul 4 at 10:35
TetsujinTetsujin
9,3092 gold badges20 silver badges40 bronze badges
It's hard to tell from the images what it actually sounds like, as there's no time-scale, but that's the criterion I'd use - what it sounds like.
Sometimes, a good groove is based on the average beat-centre provided only by the whole band, it doesn't rely on any single part. Listen to some early Stevie Wonder for a perfect example of this - try Superstition.
If you can very clearly hear the timing difference; if it sounds 'poor', then by all means shift & stretch one until it doesn't. Small time-stretches will not be heard anyway, assuming your DAW has a decent algorithm to do it.
A good way to do this type of edit is cut early, before the next transient [always cut at zero-crossings anyway, but cutting early helps this too].
You can then slide your transient into place, time-stretch then apply a short cross-fade to the part before it.
Cutting early means you don't hit the transient with your cross-fade, it's done in the tail of the preceding note, so you'll never hear it.
What you don't want to do is end up actually quantising both takes so hard that all aspects of feel disappear & you have a perfect but completely sterile guitar part.
There's a lot to be said for interplay between almost identical parts spread left & right. If you sterilise them completely, the 'magic' will disappear.
Some DAWs can do this automatically, stretch & quantise [or iteratively quantise] to a grid. You can try this but be prepared to Undo, as it's not always the 'magic fix' they promise.
answered Jul 4 at 10:35
TetsujinTetsujin
9,3092 gold badges20 silver badges40 bronze badges
edited Jul 4 at 10:45
answered Jul 4 at 10:35
TetsujinTetsujin
9,3092 gold badges20 silver badges40 bronze badges
answered Jul 4 at 10:35
TetsujinTetsujin
9,3092 gold badges20 silver badges40 bronze badges
answered Jul 4 at 10:35
TetsujinTetsujin
9,3092 gold badges20 silver badges40 bronze badges
9,3092 gold badges20 silver badges40 bronze badges
Actually automatic quantization usually makes the sound worse. In Polyphonic mode it makes the riff sound stretched and "wet", in monophonic it sometimes makes it sound "clicky" and in rhythmic it makes it sound punchy.
– Eugen Eray
Jul 4 at 16:06
I have to say I've used it on drum tracks & all kinds of things, in Cubase, with reasonable success. Because of the 'iterative Q' that it can do it doesn't haul everything kicking & screaming to exactly on the beat - but it's not something I would rely on to be 'best every time'. I've never really used Logic for audio - I just don't like it, though I've had it since Mac V1, when it was Midi only.
– Tetsujin
Jul 4 at 16:08
add a comment |
Actually automatic quantization usually makes the sound worse. In Polyphonic mode it makes the riff sound stretched and "wet", in monophonic it sometimes makes it sound "clicky" and in rhythmic it makes it sound punchy.
– Eugen Eray
Jul 4 at 16:06
I have to say I've used it on drum tracks & all kinds of things, in Cubase, with reasonable success. Because of the 'iterative Q' that it can do it doesn't haul everything kicking & screaming to exactly on the beat - but it's not something I would rely on to be 'best every time'. I've never really used Logic for audio - I just don't like it, though I've had it since Mac V1, when it was Midi only.
– Tetsujin
Jul 4 at 16:08
Actually automatic quantization usually makes the sound worse. In Polyphonic mode it makes the riff sound stretched and "wet", in monophonic it sometimes makes it sound "clicky" and in rhythmic it makes it sound punchy.
– Eugen Eray
Jul 4 at 16:06
Actually automatic quantization usually makes the sound worse. In Polyphonic mode it makes the riff sound stretched and "wet", in monophonic it sometimes makes it sound "clicky" and in rhythmic it makes it sound punchy.
– Eugen Eray
Jul 4 at 16:06
I have to say I've used it on drum tracks & all kinds of things, in Cubase, with reasonable success. Because of the 'iterative Q' that it can do it doesn't haul everything kicking & screaming to exactly on the beat - but it's not something I would rely on to be 'best every time'. I've never really used Logic for audio - I just don't like it, though I've had it since Mac V1, when it was Midi only.
– Tetsujin
Jul 4 at 16:08
I have to say I've used it on drum tracks & all kinds of things, in Cubase, with reasonable success. Because of the 'iterative Q' that it can do it doesn't haul everything kicking & screaming to exactly on the beat - but it's not something I would rely on to be 'best every time'. I've never really used Logic for audio - I just don't like it, though I've had it since Mac V1, when it was Midi only.
– Tetsujin
Jul 4 at 16:08
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Music: Practice & Theory Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmusic.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f86500%2fminor-differences-between-two-recorded-guitars%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
If you were working on tape you'd have to rely completely on your ears. It's usually the best idea.
– PeterJ
Jul 4 at 13:09