Ok I'm no expert on this...well I know all the theory.  Danny is right, no rules! If you want to learn about doubling guitars research the masters...Brian May is a good place to start, Jimmy Page, Hendrix won't see you wrong. 
 
Acoustic is another matter...try Marc Bolan and his early Tyrannosaurus Rex stuff, Wind Quartet, Dwarven Trumpet Blues...yep that's the title of the song.  Life's an Elevator off his (T-Rex) Futuristic Dragon album is fantastic...makes me cry...1976 so he's in his cocaine blues and failed in America stage...and his wife is about to kill him by driving into a tree-funny for a man who wrote songs about cars and he could not drive.
 
Also try doubler effects, I'm using Waves Doubler at the moment...love this for strings, and I'm about to experiment with voice.  There is also the ADT Abbey Road emulator, which I must get.
 
Experiment...I suppose is the key.
 
Ben 

I recently found Melodyne useful for doubling guitars. Its ultra fast, go for it when you don't have time, your guitar goes out of tune quickly, you want to use inspiration for something else or any other reason.
 
Clone track --> make melodyne region --> quantize c.70-80% --> hard pan original and melodynized track --> done.

Afrodrum
I recently found Melodyne useful for doubling guitars. Its ultra fast, go for it when you don't have time, your guitar goes out of tune quickly, you want to use inspiration for something else or any other reason.
 
Clone track --> make melodyne region --> quantize c.70-80% --> hard pan original and melodynized track --> done.

I've FINALLY gotten around to trying out the included Melodyne and have had similar ideas for single note lead parts.
 
However to extend it to other stuff (I love doing big crazy rich chordal work to the point I consider my rhythms to be almost lead parts) I think I'd have to do the upgrade to Melodyne Editor... and that's a pricey ticket even with the Sonar discount.
 
The new Vocal Align tool in Sonar Platinum looks promising for various guitar shenanigans in theory (because it it has the variable alignment control so you could not just align separate tracks but UN-align a clone track) but based on a few reports around here it isn't honed all that great for guitar.
 
There has been some alluding by the Baker's in regards to how they might tweak the algorithms to dial in to thing sother than just vocals. So maybe we'll end up with some guitar/bass presets and or new dedicated align tools.
 
Of course I can even try out V-Align yet because again I can drop the coin yet however I will at some point and I'm gonna twist that bugger up. lol

That is actually very interesting, Danny. As I read and read and read and read I keep seeing people say how compression should be used as little as possible but now I think I might be understanding where that is coming from. That is being said (perhaps) because people are experiencing that unwanted compression because the track is hitting it the wrong way (like getting whomped by the low end making it useless on the mids and highs where it is actually needed).
 
This I think is exactly the issue for my stuff and I've been dialing back my compression so that things are barely being touched... and really now that I'm getting better signals and I'm a little better at EQing/setting up my virtual signal chain in the DAW/setting my levels right/using better sim tones/etc things have been getting a lot better sounding... BUT it ain't quite where I want it.
 
I guess this is the next level. Completely micromanaging what frequencies are hitting what, when, where and how. I'm actually reviewing a lot of my notes and the various instructional material I've acquired over the past few years to make sense of it all. It's soooo much stuff and I knew so very little when I started even though I got the general gist of it all the finer (and even medium) details and nuances slipped past.
 
And I guess I did know what you are referring to on some level and it makes total sense (of course) but that is somewhat of a paradigm shifting statement for me. I will now start making even more of a pointed effort to sift and sort frequencies which I've mostly been doing only in context of what was hitting the busses. I was not REALLY considering what was hitting the various processors and effects in my virtual track strips.
 
So yeah... gonna keep a better eye on where my EQ is in the chain and what it is feeding and how.
 
Thanks.

Beeps: yeah once you get a tone that works within the mix, the black clouds leave. See, when we layer, we have a load of sounds pushing the envelope. Though we want them powerful and heard, the compression needs to be a bit more active. When you hear someone talk about subtle compression, they are either:
 
a) not using a high gain tone (light gain and blues type tones don't need as much compression because they aren't as sonic. The more sonic a tone is, the harder it is to control it. Sonic meaning loads of distortion to the point of insanity)
 
b) are a really good player who plays dynamically
 
c) not completely understanding compression at all.
 
7 out of 10 home recordists under 5 years experience do NOT know how to use a compressor correctly nor can they tell one is even being used until it gets used to the extreme. Most of my students in this situation answer with "I THINK that compressor sounds right."
 
If we took a poll on this forum asking who really doesn't know exactly how to use compression or what to listen for, if people were truly being honest, you'd be astonished at how high the numbers would be. That said, it's nothing for anyone to be ashamed of. I'd be right there raising my hand along with them back in my 1-5 years. I had to literally be shown compression examples before I "got it". That's really all people need. It's amazing what you learn when someome actually shows you examples. That's one of the coolest lessons I teach....observing and learning compression as well as choosing the right compressor.
 
Funny story real fast. Years ago, I decided to pay for that Metal Method that Doug Marx put out. Though he knew some basic theory, had the metal look and a decent tone, he wasn't a very good player. Sorry to say that about a person, but unfortunately, like some of the stuff in the 80's (as hard as it is for me to admit to this being an 80's lover lol) it looked better than it sounded.
 
That said, one of the cool things he went into, was effects as well as how to use them, where to place them and he really went in depth on this. It took up an entire VCR or 2 if I'm not mistaken. He didn't just give on/off examples, he really dove into each effect. When he got to compression, that all by itself was worth everything I paid for that entire group of video's. Yep, Doug Marx helped me learn how to use a compressor. His teaching methods were awesome in this area.
 
The before and after compression teaching was so well done, I actually borrowed from it and made up my own lesson plan. He literally went through the compressor he used showing you how to use it as well as how everything works, when there is too much, when there is not enough, what to listen for...it was just awesome for the time. The problem with his method of teaching was it only covered guitar....which isn't really a problem, that's what the vid was geared towards....guitar.
 
For me and what I teach, I have a wider scale to cover as well as a wider compression spectrum with numerous uses. But he definitely helped me immensely back then...and then my mentor improved on it even more showing me compression examples on my own material. To me, that's how we learn. As I've said a million times....all the books and videos in the world will not show you how to process your material. What good is learning how it's done on sounds you can't achieve or can't achieve yet due to not having the means? Whatever the case.....hopefully some of the stuff I've covered in this thread will help people. If not, throw up an example and we'll totally rip it apart if need be and fix it. :)
 
-Danny

I guess it's up to me to ask a dumb question then...For guitar would it be better to Eq out more of the low end freqs (I'm not talking about the high pass filter) or use a comp that can bypass the lowend? Pro-C for example can be set to let the lowend pass through and helps with the typical pumping effect that I don't care for often.

clintmartin
I guess it's up to me to ask a dumb question then...For guitar would it be better to Eq out more of the low end freqs (I'm not talking about the high pass filter) or use a comp that can bypass the lowend? Pro-C for example can be set to let the lowend pass through and helps with the typical pumping effect that I don't care for often.

The only dumb question is the one you never ask. :)
 
You could use a multi-band compressor that would handle the low end. But to me, it would be more of a surgical compressor for problem areas. We have to remember....there are good low end freqs in a guitar and offensive ones that degrade the sound and mask it with other instruments. You have to determine if you have them first and foremost. You just don't start high passing like crazy if you don't need to. If you DO have nasty low end, it's a good rule of thumb to remove it before you even record.
 
The pro c example you asked about is perfect. However, you don't want to over-do it either because then you could be left with a tone that is missing that extra girth it may need. Thick tones have good, controlled low end as well as good mids that shape the tone. Removing lows or whatever else is the right idea, but only if you have a problem with this stuff in excess.
 
Like....for example, I've seen people post "high pass at <insert freq here>" all the time. That does the guy no good that may not even have that frequency in his tone. We can't "just do" anything. It all has a cause, effect and of course a purpose. One of the most important things to learn here is instrument/tone identification. A lot of this comes from your experience as well as how accurate your monitors are. If you can't hear the right things, you can't tweak the right things.
 
Here's the other thing. Say you are using the pro c and are using the analyzer inside of it. Just because you see something ramp up doesn't mean it's a problem area all the time. We may have one section of a song that makes our LED or our eq graph ramp up. It's not always a bad thing, but it's also nice to know why it may happen.
 
As I mentioned before in one of the other posts in this thread, certain chords bring on volume/LED boosts. Sometimes it's due to the chord that is played, other times it's due to the low end PLUS the chord that is played. In this particular situation, you can either automate an eq to handle the area where this happens, or you can run a multi-band compressor to police that frequency. Stuff like this is where a compressor of that nature can be helpful in moderation.
 
You have to first identify what the tone needs before you start removing low end. In the last 15 years of me recording, I have never had to lower the bass in any of my guitar tones. High passing was enough. As a matter of fact, I rarely touch any of my tones to disc other than a little compression (or a lot if I'm layering) a high pass, a low pass and maybe a mid range carving to compliment the song. Sometimes a thick tone works, other times a thinner tone works and you need less mids or low mids. If you can determine what may be going on with your tone, it will help you to fix it faster in the mix. Once you know what issues you may have, if you see them often, that tells you it may be a good idea to alter them from the creation stage so you get an even better recording. :)
 
-Danny

Thanks Beep, your too kind...or I got lucky! Hahaha! The song your talking about doesn't have a lot going on, so it doesn't really apply to layering several high gain guitars. I asked the question I did because I will typically do some Eq work but I don't use comps much. (wonder why I own so many?) Lately I've been using some light leveling compression on tracks, or a tape sim for the light compression they provide. Any insight I can get from Danny is always worth asking the question...and I appreciate his thoughts and time as always.

Hi Danny.
You're quite right. Until recently, I tended to avoid compression because I didn't really get it.
My latest project, I don't care, features four guitars, bass, and two drummers. I had the panning pretty much where I wanted it, but I wasn't quite getting the definition I wanted.
So I asked myself, "What would Danny do?". (really)
I brought in some compressors, put a limiter in the master bus, and manipulated the parameters and EQ until everything popped into place. It took some fiddling, but I have a better feel for compression now, and it turns out I used a lot of what you mention here.
If you wouldn't mind, give it a listen:
http://forum.cakewalk.com/I-dont-careMix-5New-m3141972.aspx
I'd like to hear your thoughts.
This has been a really informative thread. It's this kind of stuff that makes the techniques forum a great resource.
Good questions, great answers.

Thanks for looking at that. Yeah, I might have to learn how to use Melodyne.
And thanks for the additional comments on acoustic vs dirty electric tracks.
I can attest to the note on midrange congestion, and the earlier version of this sounded kind of boxy.
And maintaining the dynamics did take a different touch.
Good info, as always.

mic positioning, proximity effect, and proper gain staging takes care of low end issues with mics.
mostly.
not always.
 
 

the problem here,
is half the people are referring to copying a guitar track, and panning it (or more trickery) and calling this 'doubling'.....
 
and the other half are talking about two discrete performances of the same thing, and blending those, and calling THAT 'doubling'
 
 
two completely different things here.
somehow, you have to differentiate.