Do you really need that many tracks ??

For the type of music I record and the quality level it requires? Definitely yes. Not even a question.
 
I can record 36 discreet tracks before I have to go "virtual. That being said, I firmly believe that if you can't get it done with 24 tracks or less, you can't get it done.
 
Most of my projects exceed 12 tracks........with an average of say 15 or so. Working on one now that's probably gonna end up being 16-18 tracks. And no......there is nothing I can take out that would make the project better. As jimmys69 said above......for the type of music I compose and the quality and detail that I prefer........I usually need way more than 8 tracks. I've had projects that have gone to 32 tracks. Had an 8 track many years ago. Never got it done......for me.
 
I'm hoping 8. One for Main vocal . Stereo pair for acoustic guitar . Pair for string progression / arrangenent coming out of kawai es8. Not sure about drum patterns yet might just use as a guide track for guitar .maybe a vocal harmony part in chorus parts . Possibly a mono piano/ vintage ep part track here and there . Can't really think beyond that .
 
Last edited:
I sometimes work on projects that have gone over 24 tracks. It's usually an arrangement thing on a song with complex development, parts coming in and going out. But I've also worked on songs that had all the tracks going at once, like double drummer rock tracks where it's 17 for drums alone, plus lead and several harmony parts, DI and miced bass, two or three guitars and stereo piano, and then separately tracked solos.
 
It's a good question . I won't say too much at this stage . I'm bound to get slated for it ....

i use multiple tracks as a way to do certain arrangements, and have different sounds.

there may be active, say, ONE rhythm guitar track ever playing in the mix at once, but i may have six tracks of rhythm guitar....
all different rigs, different guitars, playing different voices and phrasings.

i can bring them in and out of the mix at will.

i can eq and compress them separately so they work independently in the mix.

but i don't have to use any of them.... but i often do.

so the number of tracks is tied to how complicated or intricate or interesting you decide you want your mix to be.

no rules.

i've mixed songs with 60 tracks...
and i've mixed songs with 8.
all depends.
 
Last edited:
What Gonzo says is what I am finding too. Extra tracks makes life easier. Breaking guitars and vocals out to different tracks for different parts of the song means less automation and more options. In Reaper I use additional tracks to serve as folders to contain other tracks, which let you create submixes easily. It adds up to a lot of tracks but is simpler to work with because of it.

The song I have up at the clinic now has a bunch of tracks: 2 kick mics plus another track to serve as a folder for those two--that is 3. Same for the snare--that makes 6. Same for the overheads--9. Three tom tracks and a folder track to house them--13. A separate track for the hats and another to contain the drum reverb. That makes 15 for the drums. Another for bass. A left and a right track for the keys, plus a midi track to store the performance data and a folder track to contain them all: 15 + 1 + 4 = 20. Guitars plus folders another 9 tracks. Lead and harmony vox plus folders: 9 more. Another track to house the main reverb. That makes 39. And I am sure my setup is way simpler to work with than if I were trying to do the same thing with fewer tracks.
 
When I had a 4-track...I dreamed of an 8 track, but then jumped all the way to a 16-track tape deck, which was like heaven at the time.
However, I soon found mysled wishing I had a 24-track deck.
FFW to the arrival of DAW availability for most anyone...and of course, the track count possibilities tripled and quadrupled quickly.
I tend to stick with most of my productions in the 24-36 count range...starting on the 24-track deck, and then moving to the DAW...but just because the DAW has endless possibilities, I've never had a reason to churn out 50-80-100 tracks, though for some types of music production that capability is important.
If you are doing sound design stuff...you're not dealing with non-stop live recorded tracks...you're dealing with countless small pieces of sound, so you end up with a lot of tracks, though many of the tracks have only one or two bits of audio on them. The large tracks availability makes for easier organizations and visualization.

That's really what it is about...your production perspective, what you hear in your head and how you got about getting there...and generally, more options make creativity more flexible, but you have to always hold on to reality, like I mentioned in the closed thread.
If your production mentality can't/won't see/look past 4 tracks, then you won't use/need more than 4 tracks...though IMHO, unless you are specifically looking to do 2-track stereo recording of "live" performances where there is no editing or little mixing after the fact...most people who are seriously into recording are not missing the fact that more tracks offer greater production options, and therefore more creativity.

Some guys want to stick to the "lo-fi" thing, and intentionally limit themselves to 4-8 tracks...but that's a specific mentality, very raw and often with little processing/mixing options. Which can sound good in some cases, for some music styles.

That said...I think for some folks, there is also a comfort zone that comes with having only a few tracks to deal with....and often, it's like that when folks are new to recording, though most will eventually broaden their views as the reality of creative options kicks in, and then more tracks starts to make more sense.
I mean...if you can't hear anything past an acoustic guitar and vocal...then you're never going to see the point for 20-30 or more tracks.
I often think back to the classical composers...and imagine how a Mozart would have reacted to someone telling him he had "too many notes". ;)
 
Funny you should say that I always thought Mozarts motifs somewhat facile. The chromatic textures found in the 19th and 20th century romantic movement as championed by such genius as rachmaninov I think culminated in the high point of the classical genre in general . Yes I think he may have benefitted from less notes .I doubt he'd benefit from many more
 
See...that's the point...how one hears the production (or composition) in their head. So suggesting that it's wrong and overkill to use many tracks (or many notes) and that everyone should adopt some minimalist approach as a better way to be creative...well, that just doesn't hold water.
If we all did that...we would all be recording an acoustic guitar & vocal with one mic. :)
 
Latest project has 11 input tracks of drum mics alone. For recording of the scratch tracks there was an additional 2 tracks for guitars, one for bass, and a vocal. That is 15 just to capture the performance.

Subsequent tracking of all stringed instruments, vocal layers, synth and production things, add up to 99 actual audio tracks. Another 35 for effects/group busing.

Do I need all of them? Absofuckinglutely.
 
For Rock and Roll, in analog recording I get by just fine with 16 tracks. Some stuff doesn't exceed twelve.
But if you figure 2 stereo effects buss at mixdown that would bring the final mix to 20 tracks. But the original source tracks usually run 12 to 16.
Now, with incorporating the daw in a hybrid manner, that track count generally doubles. I'm still way below what some do in a daw.
The beauty of digital is you can have one track for stuff that previously you'd squeeze into a blank spot on tape. No more finding what tape track has room for that 3 seconds of tambourine. :)

Personally, I think there is no great virtue in going minimalist. Use whatever you need. Nowadays it's available.
 
Lets not confuse actual recording tracks with the added tracks in DAW that are necessary for me to get to the end result. There are 5 tracks just for toms that give me the ability to accent the original mic recording with samples. Those are not recorded tracks but copied tracks in DAW.

I usually record a band in under 16 tracks live, but that number increases with need for overdubs and whatever the song needs.

I surely would not limit the amount of tracks just to keep things minimal. A project that needs the tracks - need the tracks.

If you like the minimal approach, then do that if it makes you happy and it works for you. To judge others is as insane as one of us judging you. To each their own.

Now please STFU before I ban you as a troll... You stated your point maxman65 over and over. Please either quit arguing and be a part of this community or realize that you do not not have the experience to judge others that are giving you good advice.

Cheers!

Jimmy
 
Let's see, typical for me: snare, hi hat, kick, 3 toms, 2 overheads; bass; rhythm guitar (like others above, might have multiple for different parts of the song); piano or organ; lead guitar; lead vocal (might have 3 or 4 tracks, for comping or double tracking - that's at least 13. Song I recently did had 2 double bass, 2 cello, 2 viola, 3 violin VSTi tracks; backing vocals - I often have 3-part harmony, and each one will have 2 separate tracks, so that's 6 more, I will often use separate backing vocal tracks for bridges and/or choruses, that can add up to another 6 tracks. Then I've got 3 reverb buss tracks, 1 each for drums, instruments and vocals, lead vocal may be on its own reverb bus. That's as many as 50 tracks (I don't think I've exceeded 46, though).
Yet, I have another song on my upcoming album that is 3 tracks - 2 vocal, 1 guitar - plus 2 reverb bus tracks. The point is, you have what you need, no less, no more.
I remember bouncing tracks down for mixing on my Boss BR600, because you could only use 4 mono + 2 stereo tracks at one time. Plenty of compromise when you have to do that.
 
I started from the 4 track days of bouncing tracks. Those days were cool but with current technology, well fuck those limitations... :
 
I did my first multi-track recording in the mid-90s with a 4 track cassette portastudio, suspect I'm not alone there. It was electronic-based music, with synth bass and drums, so it was possible to save tracks and sub-mix the electronic instruments in MIDI, then pipe them all in as a stereo pair at mixdown. It took one cassette track for a click to sync with the sequencer (no DAW yet) that drove the external sound modules. That left the other three for guitars and lead vocal. If I needed more tracks after that, then I had to bounce or do a live overdub at mixdown.

Those were fun times. It was thrilling to be recording full arrangements in my bedroom. Would I ever go back....? :eek:

Before the portastudio, I was bouncing back and forth between two tape recorders.
 
Latest project has 11 input tracks of drum mics alone.

See...a purist would have done it with 2 mics, ala Glyn Johns. :laughings:

Yeah...try doing it that with a Metal band drum kit, and they will probably beat you over the head with those two mics. :p
 
Back
Top