Sorry for the weird thread-titel, but i really dont know the proper english translation for the second method, where you just record 1 guitar-track, but record with a few different microphones, and then just "correct" the phases, so you have (f.e.) 4 tracks, which in the end (imho) are not REALLY different.
We are discussing this at the moment, as recording starts, and f.e. our second gutiarists opinion is, that we should (as last time) just record one track each person, and multi-mic/phase-correct it. I, having done both already, said, that i reallyreally would prefer - altough a shitload more work - double-tracking (if not even quad-tracking), as it just sounds "better" to my ears. Fuller, fatter...the human imperfections provides the "wall of sound".
Sure, on the other hand - how many people of the listeners are going to hear the difference? And is the "wall of sound" really usefull for some parts, which are extremely technical and filigrane? But you could still reduce the tracks on these parts...
I would be interested in your opinons/experiences!
The difference in sound between the two methods isn't about the number of mics so much as the number of performances. Two performances recorded with one mic each will sound different from one performance recorded with the same two mics. The very slight variations in the different performances make it sound bigger, because it's two guitars instead of one. Imagine a choir compared to a solo vocal. It's the same basic idea (though there's probably a better analogy). Double tracking is pretty standard in modern metal recordings.