# Mixing multiple guitar tracks - panning help



## hartvix (Jul 21, 2009)

I'm sure there are more threads about this but this forum is so huge and full of information that I haven't found what I'm specifically looking for, so here goes:

Okay, so I've started a new recording session and I'm running into the dilemma of multiple guitar tracks. I've decided to track 4 rythm guitars, each with dual tones from my POD X3 Live, leaving me with 8 guitar tracks (plus dry tracks of course so it's really 12).

Now, I need some help figuring out how to pan these 8 tracks. First I tried spreading all 8 tracks out, like:
Guitar 1 -100 and -70
Guitar 2 100 and 70
Guitar 3 -80 and -50
Guitar 4 80 and 50

The problem is, it sounded... cloudy. That's the best word for it. So then I tried to keep the two tones from each guitar together and pan it like this:

Guitar 1 Both tones at -70
Guitar 2 Both tones at 70
Guitar 3 Both tones at -55
Guitar 4 Both tones at 55

That sounded a lot more focused but still not razor-sharp. I realise the riffing itself needs to be supertight  for 4 guitars to work together but I'm wondering how you guys are panning muliple layers of guitars to get a rich, but also focused, sound.

The music style is Progressive Black/Death Metal, like something in between Opeth and Dimmu Borgir if that's even possible 

Another thing I'm wondering about is whether to pan the lowest frequency guitar tracks far to the edges and the brightest tracks closer to the center or the other way round. To me it makes sense to put the low-freq tracks closest to the center but then they get in the way of the kick and the bass.


----------



## GigantoRobotico (Jul 21, 2009)

Is it possible for us to hear examples of your problem?


----------



## Shaman (Jul 21, 2009)

The industry standard for panning 4 rhythm tracks is usually:

Two tracks: 100 L 100 R
Two tracks: 80 L 80 R

Remember to go very easy on your gain, because when you have 4 tracks with a lot of gain on their own, you will have a cloudy, mushy tone.

Hope this helps a bit!


----------



## eventhetrees (Jul 21, 2009)

Shaman said:


> The industry standard for panning 4 rhythm tracks is usually:
> 
> Two tracks: 100 L 100 R
> Two tracks: 80 L 80 R
> ...



What he said!

and, get a stereo widener. You can get the waves silver bundle (plug in with EQ's, Compressors etc, amazing stuff!), use the S1 Imager from that. This "Widens your stereo"

Basically the way I have it set. Setting it to 80 or -80, is like setting it too 100 or -100. When I actually set it to 100, it's as if I went to 120 or so. So it bleeds into the other pan a little bit (not through the front but around the back of the mix, gotta see this visually haha). 

Like if you listen to any recording, when there's like ONE guitar playing through the left, take out the left headphone, you'll hear it faintly in the right. Just make it roomier I think.

Also yeah, if you're layering so many guitars, use LESS GAIN! Cause they all pile up on each other creating more gain so you don't need a lot of gain to start with.


----------



## TMM (Jul 21, 2009)

Specifically with the X3, I'd also be careful of the cab/mic models that you are mixing together. I know with mine I've found that, although certain amp/cab/mic model combinations may sound great on their own, they don't necessarily mesh well with another amp/cab/mic model.

For example, I like mixing the Uberschall and Triple Rec models together, using the Greenback 25w 412 and Treadplate 412 models, respectively. I have the Triple Rec going into the Treadplate 412 with the SM57 off-axis, and this sounds huge. To my ears, the Uberschall into the 25w Greenback 412 sounds best with the SM57 on-axis, but when I run that up against the Triple Rec / Treadplate 412 / SM57 off-axis, the frequencies collide, and I end up with a really messy, flubby sounding tone. Switching the 25w Greenback 412 to the SM57 off-axis sits perfectly with the Triple Rec / Treadplate 412 / SM57 off-axis, and just builds on the tone, like puzzle pieces fitting together, rather than cancelling out the characteristics.

Does that make sense?

Re: panning, do what sounds best to you. There are a number of ways to get it to sound good. The above -100/-80/80/100 is pretty common, as it lets the guitars sit apart from the other tracks in the center of the mix, and as such, is easiest to get to sound good. -50/50 can work too, though you'll need to pay more attention to how the guitars/drums/vocals sit together. Even up the center, or just slightly off-center can work, so long as you a) emphasize the right frequencies within the guitars/vocals/drums/bass so that they mesh well, and b) still have the reverb for the guitars in stereo.


----------



## Mattayus (Jul 21, 2009)

Shaman said:


> The industry standard for panning 4 rhythm tracks is usually:
> 
> Two tracks: 100 L 100 R
> Two tracks: 80 L 80 R
> ...



This.

Also, what people often overlook is the _volume_ of each track.
If you've got 2 tracks nearly ontop of eachother (i.e. 80% and 100%) then the 80% track is closer to the center, where it's going to begin to conflict with other instruments. Generally speaking, the lower/higher you have that track in volume, the clearer/muddier the guitar mix is going to sound.

If both the 80% and 100% guitars are at the same volume, you're just going to get this thick as fuck wall of sound, which is sometimes needed if the tones are thin in the first place. But if each track has its own individual beef, you dont want the tracks at the same volume, otherwise they become woofy.

So, generally speaking (although it's all subjective of course, depending on what each individual tone is like) as the tracks are panned nearer to center, they should get a touch quieter. Think of the 100% guitars as the main ones, and everything else as a thickener. 

So pan the track, play with its volume, then mute it so you can hear what effect it's having on the other guitars, then take it from there.


----------



## hartvix (Jul 21, 2009)

Thanks for all the advice! This forum is really great 

Less gain when recording... yes I know that's the way to go Shaman but I never actually do it!  One problem I have with the X3 is that I hate the tones when the gain gets low. But after reading your post I forced myself to do a test recording with 15-20% less gain on all tones and it helped! The overall sound didn't change much but became slightly less cloudy and more focused. The only downside is that everything sounded slightly duller as well, less bright. Sometimes I don't understand this X3... But the most important thing for me right now is to get a _defined_ tone when the tracks are dry and panned. It's getting closer 



> The industry standard for panning 4 rhythm tracks is usually:
> 
> Two tracks: 100 L 100 R
> Two tracks: 80 L 80 R


That much? Wow. Sounds to me like there's a big hole in the middle when I do this, but it does makes sense with all the stuff that is going in there later (bass, drums, vocals, keyboards, etc). The tones got more defined as well and sounds more like two big guitars rather than a "blanket" of mushy distortion.

I realise that using 4 rythm guitars and 8 tracks requires tons more work than what I'm used to. But I can see the potential in it. On my previous albums I always ended up with left-right-center guitars (Emperor style), one track each, and used tons of automation on the center to let other instruments in. I'm hoping to get one step further production-wise on the next album.

Last time I used Guitar Rig 2 on all guitars. There's a track from that album here: Emancer - Official website (The one on the top, Cunning Vital Guardian). What's everyone's verdict of Guitar Rig (2 or 3) vs. the X3? I've had the X3 for a year and I'm still struggling to find tones that I'm really, REALLY, happy with.


----------



## Lozek (Jul 22, 2009)

eventhetrees said:


> What he said!
> 
> and, get a stereo widener. You can get the waves silver bundle (plug in with EQ's, Compressors etc, amazing stuff!), use the S1 Imager from that. This "Widens your stereo"
> 
> ...



Where are you placing that mate? On the overall stereo master of the mix? Or just on the guitars as a sub-group?


----------

