"guitarhacker"...

Sorry I'm late for class, again! Whew! Time's a-flyin' and my wings are being dry-cleaned at the laundromat. When's my tuition payment due, teach'?! smile

I ain't done, yet. How on God's green earth, may I ask, do you find time to produce songs when you apparently spend so much time helping out know-nothings like me, huh??? Know what I think? I think there's two of you -- "guitarslacker" and "guitarhacker" -- most likely a twin brother, and while one of you produces songs, the other one mans the forums, and then both of you do a neat switch-a-roonie. Ah-HAH! Got'cha. cool

"There's 5 tracks.... one up front as the lead and the other 4 hanging back. If I used just the one lead it would sound OK. However, if I have 2 more tracks exactly like the lead.... phrase for phrase or mighty close, and if I pan them opposite to the extreme, and if I keep them so low you really can't hear them clearly, here's what happens. The stereo spread is there, and they add a fullness with out any obvious doubling or comb filtering being obvious."

The concept is so simple, I'm sorry I asked the question. "Comb-filtering"? That's when I clean all the hair strands out of it, right ?? Jes' kiddin', smidgen! whistle

"In the chorus, I add 2 more tracks which are harmony and that also adds to the fullness and fatness of the vocal..."

Again, simplicity itself, of a degree that makes it seem like common sense. But then, my daddy told me that if "common sense" was so "common", everybody would have it...which they don't! frown

"The result is that it's a very subtle but slightly fuller sound...Think of it a(s) viewing a pyramid from the side.... The lead is at the top, and the low leads are spread wide at the bottom, down further, with the harmonies up the sides a bit and maybe not spread quite as wide."

The visual analogy concerning the pyramid works for me.

"The guitars are similar.... they are layered. Same basic principle and idea and result. There's a fatness without the obvious presence that one would have to deal with having and trying to mix 6 guitars and have them all audible and distinct. In this way, 2 guitars are primary and distinct, while the others are simply layering a bed that is underlying the music."

To sum everything up, I think the term/word you use -- "layering" -- answers my question fully as to why you include multiple, identical audio tracks in your mix.

Question: How much of what you know about audio engineering is the result of consulting technical information, and/or "hands-on", trial-and-error experience, percentage-wise?

Last thing before the bell rings, teach': I believe that a lot of what disappoints me in my mixes has to do with the fact I use virtual instruments to render MIDI tracks that I perform on my piano. So, when I listen to music performed and produced by true musicians who play actual musical instruments, my virtually-produced music pales hugely by comparison. If it wasn't for BIAB's Real Tracks, I wouldn't have the nerve to post anything, anywhere on this site.

All hail the great and wunnerful Mr. Peter Gannon, rescuer of armchair "musicians" whose cheesy MIDI wasn't soundin' so pretty! smile

So long, "guitarhacker" (and, "guitarslacker", you sly rascal, you!). I got some audio engineerin' to do...

You know how I feel, partner!

LOREN (a.k.a. "bluage")

"Music is what feelings sound like."-- borrowed from a Cakewalk Music Creator forum member, "Mamabear".